In Australia, Federal MP Russell Broadbent has released a video on the No Jab No Pay legislation. He apologizes for being part of a government that brought in No Jab, No Pay. He states: “I’ve received hundreds of emails from distressed parents who’ve been financially punished for not having their child’s immunizations up-to-date. I will read each email and raise their issues with the PM.”
Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg said that Facebook was pressured by the federal government to censor COVID-19 content and that he now regrets bowing to those demands. In an Aug. 26 letter sent to Jim Jordan, the chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, Zuckerberg wrote that senior officials from the Biden administration pressured his social media company to censor COVID-19 information. He stated:
“In 2021, senior officials from the Biden Administration, including the White House, repeatedly pressured our teams for months to censor certain COVID-19 content, including humor and satire, and expressed a lot of frustration with our teams when we didn’t agree.”
According to Zuckerberg, with the benefit of hindsight and new information, he doubts the same decisions would be made today. He claimed the platform was ready to push back if the government tried to interfere again. “I believe the government pressure was wrong, and I regret that we were not more outspoken about it,” he said. – More info
Former President Donald Trump’s campaign confirmed Tuesday that Robert F. Kennedy Jr. and Tulsi Gabbard are on his presidential transition team. Kennedy said during an interview with Tucker Carlson – “I’ve been asked to go on to the transition team to help pick the people who will be running the government, and I’m looking forward to that.” – More info
An upcoming by-election in Montreal will have the longest ballot in the history of Canadian federal elections. At least 91 candidates will be on the ballot for the Sept. 16 by-election in Montreal. Seventy-nine of them are linked to the Longest Ballot Committee, a group protesting Canada’s first-past-the-post voting system. The group wants a citizens’ assembly to be in charge of electoral reform, because they say political parties are too reluctant to make the government more representative of the diverse views of the electorate. – More info
Alberta Premier Danielle Smith has announced she will consider introducing legislation to prohibit regulatory colleges from imposing penalties on individuals for their political beliefs. Smith says the move would prevent people like Jordan Peterson from being reprimanded for speaking out on sensitive issues. “Free speech seems to be constantly under attack in this country,” Smith said. “As Premier, I will continue to fight for free speech here in Alberta, including for the right for people like Dr. Jordan Peterson to say what is on their mind.” “We have to find a way to get the professional colleges, focusing on the real harms that are being caused, as opposed to trying to dictate to members what their thinking should be on any issue.” – More info
Robert Kennedy Jr’s Speech to end his election campaign made strong and clear statements about the need to end the pandemic of chronic illness in children, war, and the censorship and attacks on free speech.
Telling It Like It Is
Canadian female athletes are now expressing their upset with sports organizations for allowing men in women’s competitions. Canadian athletes Julianne Cragg and Maria Barwig spoke to the National Post to voice their concerns with men being allowed to compete against them in women’s weightlifting events. “The status quo (of mixed competition) is unsustainable,” Cragg, an Edmonton-based powerlifter stated. Barwig declared that there must be a universal policy to keep women’s sports fair. – More info
Canadian pastor Henry Hildebrandt, who kept his church open during COVID despite mandates, finished paying off the $339,005 in fines recently, but said the sum was a “small price to pay” to validate his church’s commitment to the principles on which “Canada and the USA were founded.” “We refused to live a lie and the truth is now becoming common knowledge.” Hildebrandt, who is the lead pastor of the Church of God in Aylmer, Ontario, included a video in his announcement, reiterating that his refusal to go along with provincial COVID mandates was merely his way of doing what “the bible commands us to do, not to forsake the assembling of ourselves.” “It is important in times like these that we stand,” Hildebrandt said. “You know we inspired the truckers, the truckers inspired us, the truckers inspired the farmers, the farmers inspired us, we inspired the farmers. The human family came together, stood together, and the governments, as corrupt as they are, they recognized, they had to see what happens when the human comes together and stands together.” “We were fined for that. But I’ve said often before and I’ll say again this morning, if my faith is not worth dying for, it is not worth living for,” he said. – More info | Church of God in Aylmer Ontario
Legal
On Monday, Kansas Attorney General Kris Kobach announced a lawsuit against pharmaceutical giant Pfizer over “multiple misleading statements” about the health risks and ineffectiveness of its Covid mRNA shots. According to the 179-page lawsuit Pzizer marketed the shot as “safe” despite knowing the injections could cause serious illness and death. “Pfizer made multiple misleading statements to deceive the public about its vaccine at a time when Americans needed the truth.” – More info
On August 26, 2024, the Ontario Superior Court of Justice dismissed the Crown’s appeal against the acquittal of Christine Decaire, who had been charged with mischief during the Freedom Convoy protests in Ottawa. The Crown argued that Decaire’s proximity to vehicles obstructing Nicholas Street was sufficient to establish her guilt as either a principal or a party to mischief. However, the original trial judge, Boxall J., found no evidence that Decaire had engaged in any direct acts of mischief or that she had intended to participate in obstructive activities. As a result, Decaire was acquitted. The Crown appealed the acquittal. In reviewing the appeal, Justice Somji upheld the original acquittal. The court noted that there was no evidence connecting Decaire to any specific acts of mischief or showing that she was involved with the vehicles obstructing the street. Justice Somji emphasized that individuals have the right to assemble and protest peacefully. Justice Somji determined that the Crown’s interpretation of her presence as criminal intent was not adequately supported by the evidence.
Citizen Action
In a video this week, Canadian activist, Alex the Comic is in Edenborough raising funds for Pfizer to assist with all their law suits and reduced stock prices.
Vaccine Choice Canada sent letters to all Federal and Provincial Ministers of Health, Colleges of Physicians and Surgeons, and Nurses Associations informing them of the recent admission by Stanley Plotkin that the science to conclude vaccine safety is inadequate. Also the updated 2023 report from Informed Consent Action Network that “none of the vaccine doses the CDC recommends for routine injection into children were licensed by the FDA based on a long-term placebo-controlled trial.” The letter states that With these critical disclosures, it is no longer responsible or ethical for public health to claim that “vaccines have been proven to be safe and effective”. – Read here
Medicine
Jordan Peterson’s latest ordeal of having to undergo mandatory training by his regulatory college in order to keep his psychologist’s licence after the country’s highest court refused to hear his appeal has once again brought him and Canada into the international spotlight. Peterson has thrown down the gauntlet. He is not willing to back down. He will go through the mandatory re-education process but has no intention of giving the regulatory college an easy ride. This is a battle for the very soul of free speech in Canada. – More info
Sarah B. Kotler, acting as Director, Division of Freedom of Information, US Food and Drug Administration officially confessed that the people running the FDA have no records authored by anyone, anywhere:
that scientifically prove/provide evidence of the existence of any alleged “monkeypox virus“, or
that even describe the purification of particles that are alleged to be “monkeypox virus” directly from bodily fluid/tissue/excrement of so-called “hosts”, or
that describe thepurported “genome” of any alleged “monkeypox virus” being found intact in the bodily fluid/tissue/excrement of a so-called “host” (as opposed to fabricated in silico, aka a computer model), or
that scientifically demonstrate contagion of the illness / symptoms that are allegedly caused by purported “monkeypoxviruses“.
Christine Massey has also filed Freedom of Information requests with more than 200 state agencies with the following request:
A FOIA order was filed with the U.S. Department of Agriculture for:
All studies in the possession/custody/control of the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, Department of Agriculture, authored by anyone, anywhere:
1. that scientifically prove/provide evidence of the existence of any alleged “avian influenza virus”(showing that the alleged particles exist, invade and replicate in “host” cells and cause the illness/symptoms that they are alleged to cause), or
2. that describe the purification of particles that are alleged to be “avian influenza virus” directly from bodily fluid/tissue/excrement of so-called “hosts”, with purification confirmed via EM imaging, or
3. wherein the purported “genome” of any alleged “avian influenza virus” was found intact in the bodily fluid/tissue/excrement of a “host” (as opposed to fabricated in silico, aka a computer model), or
4. that scientifically demonstrate contagion of the illness / symptoms that are allegedly caused by purported “avian influenza viruses”.
As usual, the order stipulated that if any records match the above description and are currently available elsewhere, I be provided citations so that I may identify and access them. So far crickets.
The National Toxicology Program published a report this week linking fluoride exposure to neurotoxic effects in children, after public health officials tried for years to block its publication and water down its conclusions. The report, which analyzed published studies on fluoride’s neurotoxicity, concluded that higher levels of fluoride exposure in drinking water are consistently linked to lower IQs in kids. It’s the first government publication to concede what fluoride researchers have long reported: that the chemical added to the drinking water of hundreds of millions of people in the U.S. and celebrated as one of the 10 greatest health achievements of the 20th century carries a serious risk of neurological damage, particularly for pregnant women and young children. “The NTP monograph provides more than sufficient evidence against the deliberate exposure of humans to fluoride through intentional fluoridation of drinking water,” said Kathleen Thiessen, Ph.D., who co-authored the 2006 National Resource Council study on fluoride toxicity. Thiessen told The Defender:
“A conclusion of ‘moderate confidence’ of neurotoxic effects, especially on unborn and newborn children, ought to mean an immediate elimination of water fluoridation and minimization of fluoride exposure to the population.”
Authors Dr. Edward Geehr and Dr. Jeffrey Barke have just published a new book entitled Fix this link to include the first word “Unavoidably” also please Unavoidably Unsafe: Childhood Vaccines Reconsidered. Drawing on decades of clinical experience and exhaustive research, the authors challenge conventional wisdom by addressing critical issues. Unavoidably Unsafe is a call to arms for informed decision-making and transparency in healthcare. Geehr and Barke aim to empower parents, guardians, and healthcare providers with the knowledge needed to navigate the complex landscape of childhood immunization responsibly. – More info
*
Click the share button below to email/forward this article to your friends and colleagues. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.
You never see the dehumanization of Palestinians in western society exhibited so clearly as when something bad happens to Israelis during the genocidal assault on Gaza.
Today western officials are publicly weeping about six dead Israeli hostages, including one Israeli-American, who the IDF says were recently killed by Hamas.
Whoever’s been writing Joe Biden’s press releases for him published a statement about how “devastated and outraged” the president is about the death of the American hostage, Hersh Goldberg-Polin.
The statement says the president knows Goldberg-Polin’s parents, saying “I admire them and grieve with them more deeply than words can express” and that “Hamas leaders will pay for these crimes.”
“I have worked tirelessly to bring their beloved Hersh safely to them and am heartbroken by the news of his death,” the statement reads, which for the record is a lie — the Biden administration has been collaborating with Benjamin Netanyahu to sabotage a hostage deal at every turn.
🚨 Scoop from @jeremyscahill: Internal ceasefire documents show the talks ought to have effectively revolved on July 2, when Hamas accepted the ceasefire-hostage framework put forward by Israel and the US on June 24.
All of these statements frame the deaths of these six Israeli hostages as an earth-shakingly horrific tragedy, and all frame Hamas as a band of evil villains who must be brought to justice for their crimes.
No similar statements have ever been made by any of these officials about the far, far greater number of innocent Palestinians who have been killed in Gaza by the state of Israel with their assistance. No similar expressions of condolence have ever been uttered by these leaders for the millions of Palestinians who’ve had their lives completely ruined by Israel’s atrocities in Gaza and the West Bank over the last eleven months, or for the untold thousands of parents who’ve had to bury children who were exterminated in Israel’s genocidal onslaught.
Western government officials are making it clear that they do not see Palestinians as human in the same way they see Israelis as human, as are the mass media propaganda institutions who’ve been covering the deaths of these hostages with an intensity never seen regarding the IDF’s daily massacres of civilians in Gaza. Israeli strikes killed 47 Palestinians in Gaza in one 24-hour period between Saturday and Sunday, receiving not the tiniest fraction of the attention as those six Israeli hostages.
The message is clear: Israelis dying is a terrible tragedy, while Palestinians dying is just the normal way for things to be. An Israeli dying should matter as much to you as your own family or friends dying, while a Palestinian dying should be regarded as a routine and natural event like a drop of rain falling from the sky.
And that’s an important message for westerners to be indoctrinated with. Can you imagine if we all started caring about western bombs being dropped in the middle east as much as we would care if they were being dropped on our own country, or on a country we’ve been conditioned to sympathize with? All their carefully manufactured consent would crumble, and people would cease allowing the western empire to do what it needs to do to dominate the planet.
These people are actively working to subvert our basic sense of human empathy. To twist our psyches into being unable to recognize the same level of humanity among empire-targeted populations as empire-supported ones. To see authorized populations as worthy of care and sympathy, and to see unauthorized populations as vermin in need of extermination.
Yes, our rulers really are that evil, and so are the propagandists who run the mass media.
So today I would like to extend my deepest condolences to the millions of Palestinians who’ve lost loved ones and had their lives thrown to the winds of chaos by Israel’s western-backed campaign of extermination, ethnic cleansing, and terrorism.
And I would like to remind my readers that Israel has exponentially more hostages than Hamas has, and murders them routinely, and rapes and tortures them constantly.
And it is right that we should care deeply about that. Even if the people who rule over us do not.
*
Click the share button below to email/forward this article to your friends and colleagues. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.
On Labor Day this writer has summed up the condition of the American working class over the past year. This national election year it is perhaps useful to review not only the past year but what has happened since the last election in 2020. How has the American worker fared the past four years—in terms of wages, benefits, inflation and jobs? How have their unions, now a mere 10% of the labor force, also fared during the period of recovery since the deep Covid era recession of 2020, the uneven recovery of 2020-21 that followed, and the past thirty months of what has been a modest economic growth.
A salient feature of the past 30 months after the US economy finally fully reopened after Covid in 2022 is that the growth in US GDP has not been all that impressive given the massive fiscal and monetary stimulus of 2020-22.
That stimulus in fiscal terms included about $4 trillion in government spending programs and tax cuts from the April 2020 ‘Cares Act’ through the early 2021 ‘American Relief Act’. In addition to that $4 Trillion fiscal stimulus, the US central bank, the Federal Reserve, provided an additional $4 Trillion of monetary stimulus to banks, investors, and businesses small and large from March 2020 until March 2022. Theoretically, this monetary stimulus in the form of Fed direct purchase of bonds from investors and virtually zero interest rates during that two year period should have provided a massive boost to real investment, production and employment. Another almost $1 trillion was provided by the Fed (and FDIC) to prevent a crash in the regional banking system from March 2023 to the present. That’s a total of around $9 to $10 trillion in fiscal-monetary stimulus.
On top of that amount the Biden administration pushed through Congress in 2022 another approximately $1.7 trillion in mostly subsidies and tax cuts to corporations in the form of the Infrastructure Act, the Chip & Modernization Act, and the (misnamed) Inflation Reduction Act.
In total that’s all more than $10 trillion in economic stimulus during and immediately after the Covid recession in 2020. The economy began recovering slowly in late 2020 as it reopened in stages, sometimes with false starts and stops. It wasn’t until 2020 that the US economy had fully reopened. Only then can the $10 trillion plus fiscal-monetary stimulus be considered for its effects on growing (not reopening) the US economy. But the 2022-24 economic recovery record, even when measured in GDP terms, has not been all that impressive given the magnitude of the $10 trillion stimulus of 2020-22.
Throughout all of 2022, that is the first full year of recovery (i.e. not counting reopening from the shutdown period that ended in 4th quarter 2021), US GDP adjusted for inflation rose year on year in 2022 by an annual average of only 1.9%. In 2023 it rose by another 2.5%. And so far in the first half of 2024 by an annual average of 2.2%. (These stats source: Bureau of National Affairs ‘National Income and Product Accounts’, Table 1.1.1, revised 8-29-24)
That’s hardly an impressive performance of US economic growth given the more than $10 trillion in fiscal and monetary stimulus injected into the economy by Congress and the Federal Reserve bank since 2020!
So how did American workers fare during this roughly four year period in the wake of what has been the most massive fiscal and monetary stimulus effort in US economic history? And how have American unions done during the recovery from recession period, during which historically union membership, union jobs and union wages have tended to recover as well?
Wages
The US government defines wages in a number of ways. So it’s important to be clear on the definition. There’s Hourly Wages that are actually wages and salaries of all the roughly 167 million employed in the US labor force. Then there’s Weekly Earnings, which are hourly wages or salaries times the hours worked in a week. A subset of both hourly wages and weekly earnings is estimated for the roughly 110 million or so private sector Production and Non-Supervisory Workers (add about another 20m employed as teachers, state & local and federal government).
It is further important that their hourly wages or weekly earnings are adjusted for inflation, i.e. are real hourly and weekly, keeping in mind that the inflation adjustment using the Consumer Price Index (or Fed’s Personal Consumption Price Index) does not account for price rises associated with interest rates at all (which is just the price of money). Nor does it adjust for taxes and government fees. Or increases in their contributions to their benefit and pension plans. In addition, the two main US inflation indexes contain a host of assumptions and methodologies that can be shown to result in an under-statement of actual inflation. But that’s another story for another article. We’ll assume ‘real’ wages or earnings is adjusted using the government’s CPI or PCE inflation indexes. But the point is these points mean the wage gains noted below are actually less than reported in government stats.
Nevertheless, the wage data show American workers have not fared very well since 2020 and even over the past year. Which means that $10 trillion plus stimulus went into the bank accounts of others, not American workers as a whole.
So what have been their real wage gains since 2020? As well as during the past year, July 2023 thru July 2024?
The best indicator is Real Median Weekly Earnings. That is adjusted for inflation using government inflation indexes and uses the midpoint of those employed, not the average. Averages skew the number to the to—i.e. those with high earnings get higher wage increases compared to those at the middle or below.
Real Median Weekly Earnings in the 4th quarter of 2020 were $376 per week. As of end of 2nd quarter 2024 last month, they were $368. (Table 1, Median Weekly Earnings of Full Time Workers, Usual Weekly Earnings of Wage & Salary Workers, Bureau of Labor Statistics, July 2024). Remember, that’s for Full Time Workers only, which is about 120 million private sector workers in the US civilian labor force of 168 million. So it doesn’t count the 38 million who are part time or independent unincorporated contractors.
Also, that $368 is, as noted, under-adjusted for inflation per the government’s indexes. It’s also not take home pay which means it’s before workers pay for a higher share of benefits costs, higher taxes, and government fees (auto registrations, etc.).
What about the past year, not just the past four years?
Before adjusting for inflation (called nominal wages), Average Weekly Earnings for Full Time Workers rose July 2023 thru July 2024 from $1,160/week to $1,199/week for a gain of only $39 which is about 3.3%. (Source: US Weekly Earnings for Wage & Salary Workers 2nd Quarter 2024, Bureau of Labor Statistics, July 2024).
But that’s not adjusted yet for inflation. Plus it’s also an average for all 168 million in the labor force so those with higher pay got more than the Median. Adjust for inflation and Median and it wipes out any gain in weekly earnings over the past year as Table 1 noted in the paragraph above shows: inflation adjusted Median Weekly Earnings for Full Time Workers was $365/week in July 2023 and in July 2024 was still $365/week. Make a further adjustment to include the 38 million part time and contract workers and you get numbers for Weekly Earnings still less.
What about Weekly Earnings for the subset of the 168 million US labor force—i.e. the approximately 119 million US private sector Production and Non-Supervisory Workers. No higher paid managers and higher salaried tech, finance and other professionals in this group. Their real average weekly earnings rose from $972 in July 2023 to only $980 in July 2024. Again, however that’s an ‘average’ and for full time employed not part time or contract. At the Median and below, including part time, it’s less than $8/week gain over the past 12 months.
In summary with regard to wages, the American worker has not benefited at all from the $10 million plus fiscal-monetary stimulus. Real Weekly Earnings are flat to contracting. And take home pay’s even less.
One can’t say the same for shareholders of corporations. Since 2020, the Fortune 500 corporations alone distributed more than $5 trillion in stock buybacks and dividends to their shareholders, according to annual reports in the Wall St. Journal. This year 2024 should be a record of more than $1.5 trillion.
Jobs
What about the jobs picture? The Biden administration likes to brag it created 15 million jobs. That fiction is perpetrated by most of the mainstream media as well as mainstream economists who should know better (and likely do).
During 2020 about 35 million Americans were unemployed at some point during that year. The economy reopened haltingly in late 2020 and again in 2021. As it did the 12 million who were still jobless at the end of 2021 steadily returned to their jobs in 2022 and beyond. These 12 million jobs were not ‘created’. They existed in February 2020 and most were still there by end 2021. Workers simply returned to jobs that were there, not to net new jobs that were ‘created’.
According to the St. Louis Fed’s FRED database, there were 106.5 million Production & Non-Supervisory Workers in the labor force in February 2020. That 106.5 was not reached again until July 2022.
If one looks at the July 2022 Employment Situation Report of the Bureau of Labor Statistics there were 158.2 million workers employed in July 2022, compared to 161.2 employed in the US economy in July 2024. So roughly only 3 million have been actually ‘created’.
It is important to also note that the vast majority of the net new jobs created have been part time, temp, gig and contractor jobs. In the past 12 months full time jobs in the labor force has fallen by 458,000 while part time jobs have risen by 514,000. (Source: Table A-9 Employment Situation Reports, Bureau of Labor Statistics, July 2023 and July 2024)
Ever since the end of the Covid recession the US economy has been churning out full time jobs and replacing them with part time, temp, gig and independent contractor jobs.
The jobs reports over the past year are revealing as well. They continually reported monthly job gains of around 240,000. But the Labor Department just did its annual revisions and found that for the period March 2023 thru March 2024 it over-estimated no fewer than 818,000 jobs! The Wall St. Journal further reported that up to a million workers have left the labor force due to disability from Covid and long Covid related illnesses. Neither of those statistics are factored into the government’s unemployment rate figures.
Which brings us to another convenient mis-reporting of jobs data. The government has two jobs surveys. One is for large establishments (and not really a survey but a partial census of sorts). Another is a true survey. The first is called the Current Establishment Survey (CES). The second The Current Population Survey (CPS).
The media typically picks up the total monthly employment gain figures from the CES; the second CPS is the source of the monthly unemployment rate statistic. The first is an estimate of total employment gains; the second the unemployment rate.
The problem is there are more than just one unemployment rate in the monthly CPS. There’s the rate for full time workers only. Last month that rate called the U-3 was 4.3%. But the unemployment rate that includes involuntary part time workers and workers discouraged from working and haven’t looked in four weeks or a year, called the U-6 rate was 7.8%. Moreover, neither reflect the recently adjusted 818,000 jobs over-reported. Or the millions who were so discouraged they left the labor force altogether. They’re still presumably without a job, at least most. But for purposes of calculating either unemployment rate by the government they don’t exist and their numbers are excluded from the calculation of unemployment. Those numbers are about 5 million since Covid. If they were included, the unemployment rate would be easily more than 10% today.
Last month the government estimated the CES employment number was 114,000. That compares with an average of 240,000 each month over the past year. It shocked even the myopic mainstream economists and the media. It was their favorite cherry picked jobs number and it came in well below healthy levels. There are at least 100,000 new entrants to the labor force every month looking for work, due to population growth, immigration, and elderly returnees to work. The fastest growing age segment of the labor force is those over 65 years old who can’t make it on social security or meager pensions any more.
It will therefore be interesting to see if on September 5 the monthly jobs report for August continues to reflect a weakness in the favored CES employment report. But if one were considering the other CPS jobs report which better catches small business employment trends, it would be clear for some months now that the labor market is quite weak. It’s just that that weakness is now spilling over from small businesses in the CPS to the larger caught by the CES.
Working Class Debt in America
Another indicator of the state of the working class in America is the level of debt load it is now carrying. The last quarter century of poor wage increases has been offset to a degree by the availability of cheap credit with which to make consumer purchases in lieu of wage gains and decently paying jobs. Actually, that trend goes back even further to the early 1980s at least.
Household US debt is at a record level. Mortgage debt is about $13 trillion. Total household debt is more than $18 trillion, of which credit card debt is now about $1 trillion, auto debt $1.5 trillion, student debt $1.7 trillion (or more if private loans are counted), medical debt about $.2 trillion, and the rest installment type debt of various kind.
American households carry probably the highest load of any advanced economy, estimated at 54% of median family household disposable income. And that’s rising.
Debt and interest payments have implications for workers’ actual disposable income and purchasing power. For one thing, interest is not considered in the CPI or PCE inflation indexes and thus their adjustment to real wages. As just one example: median family mortgage costs since 2020 have risen 114%. However, again, that’s not included in the price indexes. Home prices have risen 47% and rents have followed. But workers pay a mortgage to the bank, not an amortized monthly payment to the house builder.
One should perhaps think of workers’ household debt as business claims on future wages not yet paid. Debt payments continue into the future for purchases made in the present, and thus subtract from future wages paid.
The State of Unions in America
In periods of recovery from recessions, as jobs are restored or created, union membership typically rises some. But not in the 21st century and not since the end of the Covid recession.
Since 2020 union membership has declined. There were 10.8% of the labor force in unions in 2020. There are 10.0% at end of 2023 which is about half of what it was in the early 1980s. Unions have not participated in the recovery since Covid, in other words, at least in terms of membership. Still only 6% or 7.4 million workers of the private sector labor force is unionized, even when polls and surveys in the past four years show a rise from 48% to 70% today in the non-organized who want a union.
In the past year in absolute numbers union membership has risen by just under 200,000 in private industry which has allowed union membership to remain at 6% of total employment in that sector. In the public sector union membership over the past year has declined by about 50,000.
Some private sector unions have reversed in recent years the decades long dark years of concession bargaining. Recently the Teamsters union under new leadership made significant gains in restoring union contract language, especially in terms of limits on temp work and two tier wage and benefit structures. The Auto workers made some gains as well. But most of the private sector unionization has languished. And over the past year it has not changed much.
About half of all Union members today are in public sector unions. There is has been difficult for Capital and corporations to offshore jobs, displace workers with technology, destroy traditional defined benefit pension plans, or otherwise weaken or get rid of workers’ unions. The same might be said for Transport workers whose employment is also not easily offshored, but is subject to displacement by technology nonetheless. But overall union membership has clearly continued to stagnate over the past year as it has since 2020.
The Artificial Intelligence Threat to Workers and Unions
Union membership as a percent of the total labor force will likely start to decline once again, at least in the private sector, as the Artificial Intelligence technology revolution takes hold. Recently Goldman Sachs bank research has estimated 300 million jobs world wide will be lost due to AI. These are mostly simple decision making jobs, in service as well as manufacturing. AI will displace these jobs and probably soon. So available jobs as well as union membership will be severely impacted.
The early trend is already observable for union membership and jobs in the recent Writers and TV-Movie sector union contract negotiations. The unions did not fare well. Workers job in general will be severely impacted by this latest tech trend. Several hundred billion dollars a year is being invested in AI, which is mostly about raising productivity by getting rid of workers. That investment is estimated to rise to nearly $1 trillion before the end of the decade.
Summary
The foregoing accumulation of data and statistics on wages, jobs, debt and unionization in America this Labor Day 2024 contradicts much of the hype, happy talk, and selective cherry picking of data by mainstream media and economists. That hype is picked up and peddled by politicians and pollsters alike.
But the fact is those selectively chosen statistics are often contradicted by other government stats that are left unmentioned. US statistics are like the bible in a sense. One can find whatever data in it one wants.
But selective referencing—while ignoring other data—is a form of lying. And there’s a lot of it going around this Labor Day 2024 by politicians of both parties, with their media complicit, and their crew of mainstream economists in tow.
*
Click the share button below to email/forward this article to your friends and colleagues. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.
Dr. Rasmus is author of the books, ‘Central Bankers at the End of Their Ropes’, Clarity Press, 2017 and ‘Alexander Hamilton and the Origins of the Fed’, Lexington Books, 2020. Follow his commentary on the emerging banking crisis on his blog, https://jackrasmus.com; on twitter daily @drjackrasmus; and his weekly radio show, Alternative Visions on the Progressive Radio Network every Friday at 2pm eastern and at https://alternativevisions.podbean.com.
He is a regular contributor to Global Research.
Featured image: Copyright: Shawn T. Moore / Licensed under Creative Commons
Alexander Hamilton and the Origins of the Fed
By Jack Rasmus
Publisher: Lexington Books (February 28, 2019)
Hardcover: 146 pages
ISBN-10: 1498582842
ISBN-13: 978-1498582841
Alexander Hamilton and the Origins of the Fed describes how US federal governments, often in cooperation with the largest US private banks, introduced and expanded central banking functions from 1781 through the creation of the Federal Reserve Act of 1913. Based on an analysis of the evolution of the US banking system – from pre-1781, through the 1787 US Constitutional Convention, Congressional debates on Hamilton’s reports to Congress, the rise and fall of the 1st and 2nd Banks of the United States, and through the long period of the National Banking System form 1862-1913, the book shows how central banking in the US evolved out of the private banking system, and how following the financial crash of 1907 big New York banks pushed through Congress the Federal Reserve Act of 1913, creating a central bank which they then managed for their interests.
It is interesting to hear President Joe Biden claim that democracy is at stake in the upcoming national election when he and his Democratic Party colleagues have done so much to hinder the free discussion of issues that should be considered important by the electorate.
Joe has operated by fiat in his opening of America’s southern border to mass invasion by illegal immigrants and has committed the US to participation in two wars without any declaration of war or credible justification for entering the conflicts in terms of the security of the United States. More to the point, in terms of how it affects every American, Biden and company have run electoral campaigns based on the premise that his opponents were being assisted by the interference of unfriendly governments in the process. In reality, if outside interference in one’s election is a real problem, it is a crime that is more true of Joe’s best friend Israel rather than anything coming from Russia, China or Iran.
But the one subject that is part and parcel of electoral corruption that is not being discussed sufficiently is the cooption of the national police and intelligence agencies to make them de facto operatives of the party in power, most recently the Democrats. After the 2016 election, the use of the so-called deep state to blacken Donald Trump through allegations that surfaced from federal law enforcement acting in collusion with the Hillary Clinton campaign and some in the media was exposed. Due to that revelation, the concept of a deep state that operates independently of elections or elected officials began to take shape in the minds of many observers of the Washington scene.
The Biden administration has taken the incestuous relationship with its law enforcement and intelligence agencies even farther. It sought to establish a “Disinformation_Governance_Board” at the Department of Homeland Security which would have been empowered to denounce the credibility of citizens who were complaining about what the government was doing based on the fiction that what was taking place was deliberate disruption of the government using false information. This even applied to the increasingly heavy hand employed by the Bidens over education, where parents who expressed disagreement with Critical Race Theory and other woke content taught in the schools as well as the aggressive gender bending, were conveniently labeled “domestic terrorists.” In short, anyone who disagrees with government policy has become a “domestic” problem and will be confronted with the full employment of government resources to criminalize or create disincentives to such behavior which some might recall used to be referred to as “free speech.”
Image: Julian Assange was secretly recorded while living at the Ecuadorean embassy in London. (Source: EPV)
Fortunately, people are beginning to take notice of what is going on to create a world where governments actively conspire to eliminate criticism of what they do. It is all reminiscent of the torment of top journalist Julian Assange by the British and US governments over the course of over 12 years, five of which were in a top security prison, for the crime of having revealed details of questionable or even illegal official behavior by US soldiers in Iraq.
Two interesting uses of federal police resources to silence dissenters have occurred recently in the United States, involving politically prominent individuals who are being surveilled and harassed for little more than their expressed contrary views on America’s wars. They are Scott Ritter, a former Marine and weapons inspector, and Tulsi Gabbard, a former congressman from Hawaii and a reserve lieutenant colonel in that state’s National Guard. What has been done to them by the Biden Administration using as its tool of choice the nation’s security services is bizarre and almost unimaginable for those who still believe that the United States is a functioning democracy whose citizens’ rights are protected by a written constitution and a judicial system that enforces the laws without regard for who is in power or the pleading of special interests.
Ritter has had two recent encounters with the FBI. On June 3rd he attempted to fly to Russia to speak at an international conference when he was stopped at the airport and had his passport taken under orders of the State Department. No explanation was given for the action and he was not given either a receipt or a warrant explaining the grounds for the seizure of the document. It has not since been returned. On August 7th, 41 FBI agents arrived unannounced and proceeded to search Ritter’s New York state home. They confiscated documents and electronic communications devices. Interestingly, they had in their possession a thick file that contained copies of many of his email and phone messages, indicating that he had been under surveillance for quite some time. It is independently known that the FBI, NSA and CIA have global surveillance capabilities that enable them to monitor phones and emails for anyone, or, indeed, for everyone, in real time, so one might assume that Ritter was only one of their many victims.
The Gabbard case is even more bewildering because, though an active critic of the Ukraine war, Tulsi is a former Democratic Party congressman and army officer who was and is eminently respectable. She is reportedly being stalked by Transportation Security Administration’s air marshals, part of the agency’s Quiet Skies covert operation targeting suspected threats to aircraft and airports. Those who are under Quiet Skies surveillance have a printed SSSS on their airline boarding tickets, required to be taken aside before boarding for additional screening. Gabbard believes that placing her on the TSA Quiet Skies target list was “clearly an act of political retaliation. It’s no accident that I was placed on the Quiet Skies list the day after I did a prime-time interview warning the American people about… why Kamala Harris would be bad for our country if elected as President.” Gabbard observed that, despite her having served in the US Army for 21 years, “now my government is surveilling me as a potential domestic terrorist… forcing me to be forever looking over my shoulder, wondering if and how I am being watched, what secret terror watch list I’m on, and having no transparency or due process.” A commenter on Twitter noted that “The only thing Tulsi Gabbard blew up was Kamala’s earlier presidential run. That’s why she’s on a list.”
Image: Posted by Congressman Tulsi Gabbard on Facebook
A former TSA agent explained that because of being listed on Quiet Skies Gabbard would have multiple air marshals on “every flight, every leg,” and canine teams will “maneuver over to the [boarding] gate area… floating around to try to pick up a scent of something… When she travels by air there is one or more sky marshals traveling with her. In some cases, she is met by a team of agents with sniffer dogs when she deplanes.” Tulsi believes that she might be targeted by the White House due to her antiwar position but she has also now endorsed Donald Trump for president and the government is therefore using law enforcement as its weapon to intimidate and discredit her.
Europe is also on board the death to free speech bandwagon.
Another recent arrest is that of Pavel Durov in France on charges of permitting the use of his internet service to carry out illegal actions like collusion with organized crime, drug dealing, fraud and distribution of child pornography. He was temporarily released on a 5 million Euro bail on August 28th but cannot leave France. Durov is the Russian-born founder of Telegram, the world’s largest encrypted messenger service with over one billion users. He is a multi-billionaire with a flamboyant lifestyle and also holds the citizenship of France and the United Arab Emirates. And there is inevitably an Israeli angle relating to Telegram’s airing of graphic videos of Israeli atrocities taking place in Gaza. The French prosecutors will no doubt say it is about allowing “hate speech,” but Durov’s has had French citizenship and has been traveling in and out of the country for years. The arrest, which can mean twenty years in prison, has only taken place after Israel complained.
For what it’s worth the Chief Rabbi of France Haim Korsia has justified Israeli killing of Palestinians in Gaza during a French television interview and then urged the Israeli government to “finish the job”. He was not arrested for endorsing a war crime nor was he even rebuked by Prime Minister Emmanuel Macron.
Likewise, the United States’ moves to ban Chinese owned TikTok is in large part because it also allows videos from Gaza and Israel’s complaints have aroused a normally dormant US Congress to ban the site. It is all about creating an internet that does not harbor content that Jews dislike, and that rule also applies to individual journalists. On August 14th British independent journalist Richard Medhurst was detained by police at London’s Heathrow Airport and questioned while in solitary confinement for 24 hours. He also had his phone and laptop confiscated over possible violation of section 12 of the UK’s Terrorism Act, which allows a person to be convicted and jailed for up to 14 years for what is a thought crime—“express[ing] an opinion or belief that is supportive of a proscribed [terrorist] organization.”
Medhurst was guilty only of being a regular and outspoken critic of Israel’s slaughter of the Palestinians. Also in the UK, on August 29th, independent journalist Sarah Wilkinson had her home searched by 12 policemen from the counter-terrorism force who took her papers and electronic devices. They told her she was under arrest due to “content that she had posted online” that was highly critical of Israel genocide of the Gazans.
The moves against internet providers have no doubt alerted billionaire Elon Musk and others to the possibility that they might be under attack soon, in the case of Musk over his X (Twitter) site. Referring to Durov’s arrest, Musk has described the current attacks on information sites as “dangerous times.” Retired US Army Lieutenant Colonel Alexander Vindman, a Ukrainian Jew by birth, who made waves as a key witness supporting the impeachment of former President Donald Trump, issued a thinly veiled warning after Durov’s arrest, praising the move to require censorship on internet information sources. Vindman attributed the development to “…a growing intolerance for platforming disinfo & malign influence & a growing appetite for accountability. Musk should be nervous.”
Judge Andrew Napolitano, has also been a recent victim of a possible attempt to silence him and the war critics appearing on his interview program by having an internet platform that he has used for years temporarily suspended. YouTube claimed the move was due to misinformation that surfaced in a session with internationally respected journalist Pepe Escobar, who takes a decisively antiwar stance.
But nothing in the interview suggests that there was anything worthy of censure as deliberate disinformation. In reality, Napolitano’s willingness to provide a platform for many experts whose views are unwelcome in mainstream media outlets has led more such individuals to join his roster of guests, which the Biden administration appears to see as a threat.
The media broadly speaking have been the principal targets of illegal government pushback, but the effort to permit only acceptable speech is also advancing in other areas. Schools and colleges are hurrying to create protest-proof campuses for the upcoming academic year, but that all too often has only meant ending demonstrations critical of Israel and its policies. Pro-Israel demonstrators who openly support the genocide against the Palestinians will not be disturbed.
New York University has, for example, declared that students and faculty who discriminate against or harass “Zionists” may be violating New York University’s hate speech policies and could be suspended or expelled. Groups supportive of Israel believe that use of the very word “Zionist” in a derogatory fashion serves as a cover for attacks on Jews or Israelis. Now, NYU, which like many universities became paralyzed by pro-Palestinian unrest during the last school year, appears to be the first college to take a position on the term’s use. “Using code words, like ‘Zionist,’ does not eliminate the possibility that your speech violates the NDAH [Nondiscrimination and Anti-Harassment] Policy” reads NYU’s new student community standards. In other words, if you call someone a “Zionist” you are still likely to be an antisemite! The NYU chapter of Jewish on Campus explained how the new policy “makes it abundantly clear: Zionism is a core component of Jewish identity.” Pro-Palestinian groups on campus, objected, observing how the new code of conduct “criminalizes Palestine solidarity.”
In another move to “protect” vulnerable Zionist students from the alleged surging college antisemitism, Hillel Foundation, the Jewish student support group that is active on numerous American campuses, has launched a campaign called “Operation Secure Our Campuses” at more than 50 US universities. Meetings have been arranged to coordinate with local college administrators, police and FBI to come up with at least ten steps that should be taken to eliminate pro-Palestinian demonstrations in the upcoming academic year. Pro-Israel manifestations will apparently not be affected by the new regulations.
And there’s more, coming this time from the Republicans. Five Senators, Joni Ernst, Kevin Cramer, John Thune, Roger Marshall and Marsha Blackburn signed off on a letter to Daniel Werfe, commissioner of the IRS, about an “insufficient and insulting” response to an “inquiry to review the legal compliance of nonprofit charities that support demonstrations opposing the Jewish state.” Two groups the senators noted as involved with anti-Israel protests were Students for Justice in Palestine and Alliance for Global Justice. “An entity’s tax-exempt status is a privilege, and it is your responsibility to ensure only those who abide by tax laws are granted this privilege,” the senators wrote. The letter concluded with the lawmakers requesting information on the number of post- October 7th organizations involved in pro-Palestinian protests and the identities of the groups that have actually lost their nonprofit status as a consequence. The senators are demanding that the IRS no longer offer special tax breaks to groups or organizations that are critical of Israel.
The fact is that IRS exemptions are usually granted after careful review of the credentials of organizations that fit into various definitions as being religious, educational, or charitable. One such status is called 501(c)(3) and it enables the organization to solicit donations that are in most cases tax deductible, a major incentive when seeking funding. Again, Jewish “charitable” foundations supporting the Israeli army, or the creation of illegal settlements, or even the genocide of Palestinians, will not be subjected to such scrutiny or loss of IRS special status. Groups critical of US foreign policy will, however, be increasingly targeted by the IRS and punished for staking out a political position that differs from that of the White House and Congress, particularly if it relates to Israel. It is just one more step in the death of free speech in America!
*
Click the share button below to email/forward this article to your friends and colleagues. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.
This article was originally published on The Unz Review.
Philip M. Giraldi, Ph.D., is Executive Director of the Council for the National Interest, a 501(c)3 tax deductible educational foundation (Federal ID Number #52-1739023) that seeks a more interests-based U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East. Website is councilforthenationalinterest.org, address is P.O. Box 2157, Purcellville VA 20134 and its email is [email protected].
In the agrifood sector, we are seeing the rollout of data-driven or precision approaches to agriculture by the likes of Microsoft, Syngenta, Bayer and Amazon centred on cloud-based data information services. Data-driven agriculture mines data to be exploited by the agribusiness/big tech giants to instruct farmers what and how much to produce and what type of proprietary inputs they must purchase and from whom.
When Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., a presidential aspirant, folded his cards and conceded the current pot to Donald Trump – what he euphemistically called suspending his campaign for the presidency – he let his justifiable hatred of the Democratic Party, their undermining of his campaign, and their pro-war and genocidal agenda get the best of him. His trust in Trump is naïve in the extreme.
If we are to survive we need to put an end to the US forever wars. Defensive wars have reasons but the US wars of aggression benefit business, the US military and its contractors, think tanks, even universities.
For almost 11 months the world has been seeing documented evidence from Gaza—in the form of videos or ground-based reports—of the most horrible killings of innocent persons including a large number of women and children.
NHS England has confirmed plans to open six new gender clinics and to begin puberty blocker trials on children. The alarming clinical trial will be launched in January 2025 and will see thousands of children mutilated and experimented on for the sake of pushing a trans agenda.
The alleged new virus was actively debated at the World Economic Forum (WEF), meeting in Davos Switzerland (January 22, 2020). Proposed by the Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations (CEPI) an entity financed by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, a 2019-nCoV vaccine program was put forth. Announced at Davos, Seattle-based Moderna (with the support of CEPI) was to manufacture an mRNA vaccine to build immunity against 2019-nCoV.
Despite much grandstanding in the Biden administration about halting specific arms shipments to Israel over feigned concerns about how they might be used (inflicting death is the expected form), US military supplies have been restored with barely a murmur. In a report in Haaretz on August 29, a rush of weapons to Israel has been noticed since the end of July.
If we are to survive we need to put an end to the US forever wars. Defensive wars have reasons but the US wars of aggression benefit business, the US military and its contractors, think tanks, even universities.
US wars involve the federal government and other governmental institutions in nurturing wars within a war economy that enriches death merchants and costs destruction and millions of lives all over the world. A dominant US war economy limits possibilities for any economy of peace, and brings decadence and impoverishment to US citizens while favoring societal decay. Worse, the US forever wars are expanding to include the biggest investment groups so they make money out of destruction/reconstruction that includes the privatization of entire countries.
Professor Joseph H. Chung, in America’s Perpetual War published by Global Research reminds us what President Carter said in 2018: the US has been at war for most of its existence. Since WWII US wars of aggression are organized by and for the benefit of specific groups and have strong negative impacts on US society.
Chung argues that wars will continue unless the US is stopped.
Since WWII the US has been involved in 23 invasions, 7 “civil wars” and 2 multi-target wars.
The invasions include:
the Korean War (1950-1953),
the Vietnam War (1955- 1975),
the Cuban Bay of Pigs (1961),
Lebanon (1982-1984),
Grenada (1983),
the bombing of Libya (1984) and
the wars against Libya (2011, 2015-2019),
the Tanker War-Persian Gulf (1984-1987),
Panama (1989-1990),
the Gulf War (1989-1991),
the Iraq Wars (1991-1993, 2003-2011, 2014-2021),
Bosnia (1992-1995),
Haiti (1994-1999),
Kosovo (1998-1999),
Afghanistan (2001-2021),
Yemen (2022-now),
Pakistan (2004-2018),
Somalia (since 2007),
Niger (since 2013),
Syria (since 2014).
The seven civil wars include:
Indo-China (1959-1975),
Indonesia (1958-1961),
Lebanon (1958),
Dominican Republic (1966-1968),
Korea DMZ (1966-1969),
Cambodia (1967-1975), and
Somalia (since 1991).
And the two multi-target wars are
Operation Ocean Shield, in the Indian- Ocean (2008-2016) and
Operation Observant Compass in Uganda and Central Africa (2011-2017). (1)
US wars, organized by the American Pro-War Community (APWC) includes at its core US war corporations (Lockheed Martin, Raytheon, Boeing, Northrop Grumman, General Dynamics) selling 75% of the weapons used, but also the US federal government (Pentagon, Congress, Senate and other government agencies) and known US universities.
The Boston College works with the Air Force, the University of Massachusetts Lowell with the Army, while Tufts University improves soldiers cognitive and physical performance, MIT is itself a war corporation, and Columbia and Brown develop the DARPA engineering system.
Princeton produces hardware, Dartmouth sells machine learning, Pennsylvania works in artificial intelligence and Stanford develops technology for chemical warfare. Harvard does educational materials and human resources for war industries but also produced the napalm bomb used in Korea, Vietnam and other wars while John Hopkins makes tools to evaluate offensive capability for battles.
American universities are dependent on war money and have lost their mission. (1)
Under the nazis, Germany grew through a war economy requiring enemies to kill and places to invade. While in a peace economy demand generates supply in a war economy is supply what generates demand. The US war economy makes possible for war corporations to dictate demand by increasing supply and when supply growths it needs to be used. Enemies need to be found or created to use the supply against them. US ideologues work hard at this and come together within the so called “think tanks” that are funded by war corporations. A self-sustaining cycle emerges where think tanks identify/generate enemies and wars, among them the Centre for Strategic and International Studies, the Centre for a New American Security, the Hudson Institute, the Atlantic Council. Amanda Yee documents funding connections between war think tanks and military contractors. (2)
Pressure groups and the pro-war Media favor the US cycle of unending wars. Well connected pressure groups (the Aerospace Industrial Association, the National Defence Industrial Association or the political Action Committee) advocate for war. The US corporate Media is unlikely to challenge government and strongly pro-war because of its focus on money-making and limited concern for human rights or collective well being. CNN, MSMBC, Fox News, CBS News, NBC, the New York Times, the Washington Post, have strongly favored most US wars. All involved benefit from war, but none more than war corporations getting research grants, tax incentives, and juicy business contracts. Collusion between war corporations and the Pentagon emerges in connection to high contractual prices involved. Worse, the privatization of war favours a culture of corruption and bribes involving politicians and decision makers; the US has well known republican and democrat “money senators” -among the top Jeanne Shaheen, Lindsey Graham, Bill Nelson and departed John McCain. (1)
Challengers to the American Pro-War Community pay price for questioning arguesCommand Master Sargent Dennis Fritz who in 2024, 20 years after the Iraq war, published “Deadly Betrayal: The Truth About Why the United States Invaded Iraq.”
His book documents how that US invaded Iraq on behalf of Israel, taking out the Iraqi government who funded Hamas and Hezbollah. Command Master Fritz decides to write his book concerned that the US is today in a situation similar to the one 20 years ago in Iraq. Israel is killing Palestinians in Gaza while Iran supports the Palestinian resistance. In 2004 the reasons adduced for the Iraq war were lies, he said, weapons of mass destruction were never found. At the time Fritz boss, Douglas Faith, was suspected of being a Israeli foreign agent at the heart of the Pentagon. He was the architect of the justification for the war against Iraq.
Fritz knows that peace and negotiation were never given a chance -even when Saddam Hussein offered whatever the US wanted. He explains that Iraq became the “message” to Syria and Libya, Iran and North Korea. But Iraq cost 4500 American military lives and a million or more death and displaced, all based on lies. The lies are proved in the documents of the George W Bush administration. Rumsfeld believed in documenting all so the lies are in paper. The main reason for the war was proving the US strong, a sole power. Faith was probably a foreign agent of Israel but it cannot be proved, still Fritz witnessed Faith daily contacts with Bibi Netanyahu and the presence at the time, in and out of the White House, of many Israeli agents. (3)
The Cost of War, a project of Brown University, documents the costs of the post 9/11 wars in money, life and future financial obligations. Over 940 000 people died from direct violence and an estimated 3.6 to 3.8 million people died indirectly in post 9/11 war zones. The total deaths, 4.5 to 4.7 million people, include 432 000 civilians.
There were 38 million war refugees and displaced persons in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iraq, Syria, Libya, Yemen, Somalia and the Philippines.The US federal price tag was U$S 8 trillion. As many as 7050 soldiers died in the wars, and at least 4 times as many active duty personnel and war veterans of post 9/11 conflicts died of suicide, not in combat. Since the wars there has been an erosion of civil liberties and human rights in the US itself and abroad. (4)
In November 2023 Chris Hedges interviews Dennis Kucinich, the 1997-2013 US Representative from Ohio, he said:
“Ingrained into our system is the funding of wars and a perpetuation of conflict because if you’re making all these arms material, you’ve got to use them…a continuous loop…of money pouring in.”
The US is close to $1 trillion in the fiscal year of 2023 for the Pentagon plus the various intelligence services and in addition to a substantial discretionary spending source. We’re spending our national treasure on war: “We’re a war machine as a nation.” The US prefers war over healthcare, housing, education and the economic welfare of its citizens. “People is starting to see, but the last seem to be members of the US Congress.” (5)
Decisions to go or not to go to war, he points, are made at the administration level but there is a
“broad network of public policy groups masquerading as independent voices, think tanks, academic organizations, and people in the media who feed into any narrative that would prompt the country to start to rattle the sabers or determine, well, we need to go here in order to defend our national interest. Once that appropriation process starts…and they have close to $1 trillion in all accounts…That money…enables the US at this very moment to send two aircraft carrier units out into the area near Israel…to send troops anywhere they want in the world or to pay for the ones that are already stationed, and they put the country at the threshold of a war the minute they do that.” (5)
Kucinich argues the US faces an ideological mindset sponsored by the neoconservatives who see the US as a force fighting against “evil” all over the world.
“The struggle they invite is one of their own making, the desire to be able to create wars and to cash in. Some of the war contractors or those who hold them in a portfolio, cite what a great thing it is for the profits resulting of what’s happening in the Middle East right now. We are in this cycle, we have a war-dependent economy and the more we spend on war the more likely we are to go to war. The more people we have in bases around the world, the more likely we are to go to war…This seemingly inexorable march of nuclear folly may pit the US militarily against China, Russia, and their allies.”
In his view, only increased citizen involvement in the US challenging and braking the war-loop could solve it. (5)
For ordinary people nothing is good about war. Once a war its over the human and economic costs of it continues for decades and some, like the financial cost of US veterans’ care will not peak until mid-century. The ripple effects of war on the US economy have been significant, including job loss and interest rate increases. Contrary to the widespread belief that war creates jobs, US federal spending on the wars would have led to at least 1.4 million more jobs if the money been invested instead in education, health care or green energy.The hundreds of billions of dollars invested in military assets —ships and aircraft— during the first decade of the wars would have led to larger capital improvements had these dollars instead been invested in core public economic infrastructure, such as roads and water systems. The wars have impacted interest rates charged to borrowers by banks and other creditors because war spending was financed entirely by debt, contributing to a higher ratio of national debt to Gross Domestic Product (GDP) and rising long-term interest rates. (6)
A peace economy would be a far better option for US citizens, but it is not favored because it is not US citizens who current politicians and power brokers represent, and for profit makers wars work. The profits of war are extending, unfortunately, beyond war corporations. Ukraine highlights the possibility that war is used to “privatize” entire countries, this is Michel Chossudovsky. He challenges the understanding that the US has “lost so many wars,” arguing that US wars were never about “winning” but about “destroying” selected enemies.From this perspective he argues that even Vietnam, a war won by the efforts of the Vietnamese people, was actually lost. Vietnam never received war reparations payments from the US for the massive loss of life and destruction; in 1993 the agreement reached in Paris forced Hanoi to recognize the debts of the Saigon regime of General Thieu; thus, in many ways, forcing Vietnam to compensate Washington for the costs of war. (7)
The neoconservative (Neo-Con) agenda embedded in America’s military and intelligence agenda is to “destroy” countries, a profit-driven goal where destruction leads to reconstruction. An engineered economic and social destruction of sovereign nation states, leaves room for creditors to pick up the pieces while appropriating for themselves of real wealth. This agenda can be pursued through “regime change,” “color revolutions,” or “war.” The goal is the demise and criminalization of the state and the imposition of strong economic medicine and soaring dollar denominated debt. (7)A predatory agenda that turns states into slaves.
Image: Euromaidan in Kyiv, December 2013. Protesters with OUN-B flag. (Licensed under CC BY 2.0)
The Euromaidan Coup d’ Etat of 2014 in Ukraine was supported by the US as first step to trigger a crisis in commodity trade and dislocation of all sectors of economic activity impoverishing Ukraine.
A broken-down nation, with an external debt of 150 billion in 2023, was “saved” by the Biden administration granting 75 billions in military aid.This increased Ukrainian debt and pushed it to war.Before Ukraine, the IMF imposed its strong economic medicine through debt conditionalities.
Since 2022 the goal is direct Ukraine privatization (a corporate takeover and appropriation of an entire country).
In Ukraine, Blackrock (the largest portfolio investment company) and JP Morgan work together, playing the “supporting role” in setting the Ukraine Reconstruction Bank -a “tremendous” opportunity for private investors, in their words.
War is good for business and the greater the destruction the greater the profits, also the hold of private investors in Ukraine. (7)
It is time for the world to open its eyes and deal with the criminal intent and predatory goals of US forever wars. The locust are upon us, their intentions are global, none of us is safe. The US unleashed gigantic predatory forces that believe themselves invincible, and are voracious in their appetite for money, power and control. Returning the evil genie to the bottle will not be an easy task, it requires unity of purpose and lots of courage. Resistance is not futile: resistance is mandatory. Be informed of empire strategies and goals and do all you can to frustrate them. It is our world not theirs.
*
Click the share button below to email/forward this article to your friends and colleagues. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.
[5] Chris Hedges, “We’re a war machine as a nation:” The truth about American politics, November 3, 2023. Interviewing Dennis Kucinich. The Real News Network
Thousands of children will be experimented on with “puberty blockers”.
NHS England has confirmed plans to open six new gender clinics and to begin puberty blocker trials on children. The alarming clinical trial will be launched in January 2025 and will see thousands of children mutilated and experimented on for the sake of pushing a trans agenda.
These drugs are designed to pause and alter the physical changes of puberty, permanently affecting the child’s development and causing irreversible harm. This is completely unjustifiable and unethical. The programme should be cancelled straight away!
This is the new wave of supposed ‘gender’ care and is supposed to find out the “potential benefits and harms of puberty suppressing hormones for children and young people”.
However, it is already well-known and proven that:
These drugs permanently damage a child’s health.
The Cass Review, published in April 2024, demonstrated that these drugs should not be distributed to children for gender care. It also revealed the devastating effects of even less invasive ‘transgender care’ such as social transitioning. The review found that these interventions in a young person’s life cause long-term damage to their mental and physical health.
Yet, now the Labour government is working on bringing puberty blockers back into the mainstream. Instead of expanding gender clinics, the NHS should focus on addressing the root causes of gender dysphoria, such as mental health issues, autism, and family-related problems. This programme is nothing but another way to use vulnerable children as political pawns.
All we need to do is look at the tragic cases of detransitioners who were treated at the Tavistock clinic to prove that a child can never understand what they are agreeing to; they are not capable of consenting to puberty blockers. In any other context, this kind of treatment would be considered mutilation and be illegal. In no other field of medicine is experimentation upon children for the purposes of research considered acceptable. Yet, gender activists have somehow managed to persuade our political leaders that this is medical care.
Now, the government is ready to use thousands of children in this puberty blocker clinical trial l. These trials will see physically healthy teenagers receive drugs that will permanently alter their development, disrupt their hormones and damage their reproductive health.
Along with irreversible physical consequences, the drugs have serious mental health implications.
A legal form of child mutilation
The dramatic changes in hormones and the unnatural changing body cause a great deal of psychological turmoil, which can be permanent.
Effectively, what we are witnessing here is a legal form of child mutilation. This is absolutely unacceptable. We have a moral obligation to stand up for these children and protect them since the NHS is willing to abuse children on taxpayer dime.
How has this happened?
With enough pressure from trans rights activists, the government has decided to bring these harmful policies back.
However, there is good news! If public pressure can bring in the policies, it can also ensure they are kicked out.
That is why I need your help! Only public pressure can stop this. We have the power to make a positive change.
If we fail, we’ll fail to protect society’s most vulnerable. These children need our advocacy against this medical abuse.
We have a duty and moral obligation to safeguard our children’s well-being and future, averting lifelong damage and preserving their childhood.
Our impact can prevent these trials and protect thousands of innocent children.
Let’s send a powerful message to the government.
Sign our petition urging Keir Starmer and Wes Streeting to stop the opening of new gender clinics and cancel the puberty blocker clinical trials on children.
Children are not lab rats to be experimented on by the NHS.
Stop NHS Gender Clinics and Puberty Blocker Trials on Kids
Dear Keir Starmer and Wes Streeting,
I urge you to reverse plans to open six new gender clinics for children and run clinical trials for puberty blockers on children.
Children are not lab rats for NHS experiments. These drugs have severe, long-term effects on their health and well-being.
The Cass Review has already proven the dangers and damage puberty blockers cause to children.
Are the detransitioners who were harmed by the Tavistock clinics not enough? Must we permanently harm more children under the guise of ‘gender care’?
Instead of expanding gender clinics, address the root causes of body dysmorphia, like mental health issues and family problems.
Don’t use children as political pawns.
This shameful program risks thousands of children’s health. It is a waste of taxpayer money, especially when the NHS is already overburdened.
Stop the reintroduction of puberty blockers. Protect our children from irreversible harm.
Kind regards,
[Your Name]
Sign our petition urging Keir Starmer and Wes Streeting to stop the opening of new gender clinics and cancel the puberty blocker clinical trials on children.
C
*
Click the share button below to email/forward this article to your friends and colleagues. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.
For almost 11 months the world has been seeing documented evidence from Gaza—in the form of videos or ground-based reports—of the most horrible killings of innocent persons including a large number of women and children. Nearly 52,000 people have been confirmed by health authorities to have been killed in this violence or are buried in rubble, over 90,000 have been injured or disabled. Most of the houses and essential infrastructure have been destroyed. Traumatized people, grieving the loss of dearest ones ad carrying the injured and the sick with them, exposed to extreme hunger, almost famine like conditions, denied water and sanitation, facing many diseases, exhausted and tired beyond words, are being ordered time and again to move from one place to another on their own, but sometimes have been killed even in shelter places or on way to them, ultimately crammed in a small place in the most difficult conditions. There is also exposure to extreme pollution from shockingly large use of huge bombs and explosives. Medical facilities have been largely destroyed.
If it is accepted that such conditions can lead to the excess mortality of at least three times compared to the people killed directly in violence, (such assumptions have been made in the past for calculating war and conflict mortality by very credible studies) then it is likely that nearly 208,000 persons have died in this genocidal operation (52,000 plus 156,000) in 11 months, a figure close to the widely quoted number of 186,000 estimated number of dead people in a Lancet report. Hence the mortality per month during the last 11 months is likely to be close to 19000 per month or 600 per day, while the number of those sustaining injuries is about half this number. All this is for a population of nearly 1.9 million. In other words, nearly one tenth of the population has perished due to the direct and indirect impacts of war and conflict in just 11 months.
In normal times if an incident happened of about 100 people, a majority consisting of women and children, getting killed or seriously injured and disabled in any part of world on any single day in very cruel and arbitrary ways by any armed forces, which also imposed very painful conditions on other remaining people such as denial of food, what would be expected is a huge world level outcry against such a massacre, but let us face it, this has been happening time and again in Gaza, has been almost routinized in the course of the actions of the armed forces of Israel, yet has failed to bring forth the kind of response that is needed—for example the world getting together to bring immediate peace , or at the very least, the main suppliers of weapons to Israel like the USA and Germany announcing an immediate stoppage of all weapons and military help to Israel.
This is what a senior journalist dealing on daily basis with the reporting of this extremely tragic and unacceptable situation has to say,
“Genocide, something the world vowed would never happen again after the Holocaust, is being normalized. And this will affect not just our future as Palestinians, but the future of the entire world.
“Every day for the last 11 months, I have been receiving pictures of dead bodies, smashed heads and parts of bodies being collected in body bags.
“As the region’s bureau chief for Middle East Eye, it is my job to sift through and examine these images. None of the pictures of barbarity appear in the Israeli media or the western world, but an Arab and Muslim audience gets them every day.
“What Israeli soldiers are doing can be done in other countries as well. We seem to sleepwalking into a new age of barbarity.”
I have read several statements from very senior officials of the UNO, including the Secretary General, rightly emphasizing the need for immediate ceasefire, but I have not yet seen these statements condemning the USA, Germany and other major weapon suppliers for continuing to supply weapons to Israel despite clear evidence of these being used for genocidal actions in Gaza.
This is in keeping with all the double talk that has enabled the so-called international community to go on making some face-saving statements, sometimes completely false ones too, while the genocidal actions in Gaza continue.
Now more recently such attitudes have resulted in Israel, its armed forces and settlers greatly expanding and accentuating their aggression in West Bank too and it is widely feared that here toointolerably high sufferings may be created as in Gaza.
This should not be acceptable in any world having some reasonable levels of commitment to peace and justice. But it appears—and let us at least accept this—that world leadership, particularly western leadership—lacks any reasonable level of commitment to peace with justice these days. They will daily make a statement of some peace efforts and of their commitment to peace, and then hasten to arm the Israeli forces further.
In these extremely difficult times it is important to re-assert that despite all the great sufferings, the future agenda must be defined not by revenge or blind violence, but only on the basis of uniting more and more people with more and more commitment for a future of peace and justice. If more and more people continue to come forward for an agenda of immediate permanent ceasefire, followed by large-scale community-based rehabilitation, followed by a strong and stable Palestinian state in which people can live peacefully and safely, then there is still hope.
*
Click the share button below to email/forward this article to your friends and colleagues. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.
Bharat Dogra is Honorary Convener, Campaign to Save Earth Now. His recent books include Planet in Peril, Protecting Earth for Children, A Day in 2071 and Man over Machine. He is a regular contributor to Global Research.
Featured image: Bearing Witness – Mr. Fish (Source)
This article was originally published in February 2023. It is based on a presentation made by GRAIN at an online panel session entitled “The New Business of Carbon Farming and Other ‘Nature Based Solutions’: Panacea or disaster?” at the Oxford Real Farming Conference, on 4 January 2023.
***
If you live in Africa and you’ve heard of or experienced a “carbon farming” project, it has likely involved a land grab for a large-scale tree plantation. Across much of the global South, an increasing number of companies are taking over large areas of land to establish tree plantations and claim carbon credits that they can sell on international carbon markets. This is the case in Niger, where the US-based company African Agriculture Inc recently acquired two 50-year leases over a total of two million hectares to plant pine trees for carbon credits. A similar experience is unfolding in the Republic of Congo, where French energy giant Total is planting 40,000 hectares of acacia trees for carbon credits, depriving local communities of their farmland for the next 20 years.
But in countries where industrial agriculture dominates, such as the US, Brazil or Australia, “carbon farming” is about tweaking entrenched practices to claim that carbon is being sequestered in the soil and to then sell carbon credits. This form of “carbon farming” is also now starting to be pushed onto smaller farmers in different parts of the global South, such as India.
A programme promoted by the global seed and pesticide giant Bayer provides a good example of how this entrenched path to “carbon farming” is being used to advance the agendas of agribusiness corporations.
About a decade ago, the notorious pesticide and seed company Monsanto made a controversial take-over of a digital agriculture company called the Climate Corporation. Through that acquisition it developed one of the first major digital agriculture platforms, which is now called Climate FieldView.
FieldView is essentially an app that collects data from satellites and from sensors in farm fields and sensors on tractors and then uses algorithms to advise farmers on their farming practices — when and what to plant, how much pesticide to spray, how much fertiliser to apply, etc. The company says FieldView is already being used on farms covering over 24 million hectares in the US, Canada, Brazil, Argentina and Europe.
In 2020, Bayer (which acquired Monsanto in 2016) launched its Carbon Program in the US. In Europe it’s called the Carbon Initiative, and in Brazil it’s Carbon+.
To be part of Bayer’s Carbon Program, farmers have to be enrolled in Bayer’s FieldView digital agriculture platform. Bayer then uses the FieldView app to instruct farmers on the implementation of just two practices that are said to sequester carbon in the soils: 1) reduced tillage or no-till farming and 2) the planting of cover crops. Through the app, the company monitors the implementation of these two practices and estimates the amount of carbon that the participating farmers have sequestered. Farmers are then supposed to be paid according to Bayer’s calculations and Bayer uses that information to claim carbon credits and sell these in carbon markets.
This past August, Bayer launched a new programme in the US, called ForGround. The main difference with its Carbon Program is that companies can also enrol in ForGround, not just farmers. Upstream companies can use the platform to advertise and offer discounts for tilling equipment, forage seeds and other inputs. But Bayer’s big target is the downstream food companies which can use the platform to claim Scope 3 emissions reductions in their supply chains.
The giant poultry company Purdue Farms was the first such company to announce a collaboration with Bayer’s ForGround in September 2022. Under the collaboration, farmers who supply feed grains to Purdue will be enrolled in ForGround so that Purdue can track their carbon footprints and market its highly polluting chicken as “sustainable”. Although this is not stated by the companies, another advantage for Purdue will be the in-depth information about its farmer suppliers that it will get access to and that it can use to maximise its profits.
It’s not clear if farmers will gain anything from this. The joint press release says only that farmers “may be compensated for tracking their carbon footprint”. On the other hand, farmers could actually be penalised for not enrolling. Those who do not enrol may find themselves unable to sell soybeans and maize to Purdue, or they may be paid less by Purdue for their crops.
Bayer is the big winner here. It gets increasing control over farmers, dictating exactly how they farm and what inputs they use. Getting more farmers to use reduced tillage or no-till is of huge benefit to Bayer. The kind of reduced tillage or no-till promoted by Bayer requires dousing fields with tonnes of its RoundUp (glyphosate) herbicide and planting seeds of its genetically-engineered Roundup resistant soybeans or hybrid maize.
Bayer also intends to profit from the promotion of cover crops. The very month that it launched ForGround, it took majority ownership of a seed company developing a gene edited cover crop, called CoverCress. Seeds of CoverCress will be sold to farmers who are enrolled in ForGround and the crop will be sold as a biofuel.
You can see in the evolution of Bayer’s programmes that, for corporations, carbon farming is all about increasing their control within the food system. It’s certainly not about sequestering carbon. Bayer’s programme has a short term focus, as it only requires a 10 year guarantee of sequestration. It also has a very low level of verifiability, as checks will be carried out mainly from a distance, through estimates based on data collected by the FieldView app, not regular soil tests. And it is not about generating a new revenue stream for farmers, either. As we can see with the move to ForGround, any benefits are going to go to Bayer and other corporations.
*
Click the share button below to email/forward this article to your friends and colleagues. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.
Aug. 5, 2024 – Hopewell, Virginia – 15-year-old football player Jayvion Taylor collapsed during football practice on August 5, 2024 and died suddenly. “The student collapsed about 10 feet from a coach. Two coaches were in the vicinity and immediately performed CPR and called 911…AED was used.”
.
.
.
Aug. 13, 2024 – Palatka, FL – 15-year-old Robert James Gillon III died suddenly at home from a suspected cardiac arrest
It was a high school gathering no one wanted to see: a memorial for 15-year-old Robert Gillon, a Florida teen who died earlier this month from possible cardiac arrest the morning after he complained of chest pain before going to football practice.
Aug. 13, 2024 New Brockton, AL – 14-year-old football player Semaj Wilkins, suffered a medical emergency early in football practice and died on Aug. 13, 2024.
Aug. 14, 2024 – Baltimore – 16-year-old Leslie Noble, football player, collapsed and died on August 14 after a medical emergency on the football field in Reisterstown.
Aug. 14, 2024 – Houston, TX – 14-year-old Landon Payton, who had done a physical recently to play football, collapsed in the school gym and died suddenly.
Aug. 16, 2024 – Shawnee, KS – 15-year-old Ovet Gomez Regalado had a medical emergency after an off-season conditioning session on Wed and died on Friday Aug. 16, 2024.
Aug. 24, 2024 – Selma, AL – Alabama star high school quarterback 16-year-old Caden Tellier died after suffering a head injury during his Friday night football game.
Aug. 24, 2024 – Hewett, WV – 13-year-old football player Cohen Craddock died after a collision during football practice Friday.
Aug. 31, 2024 – Columbia, SC – High School football player Troy Moore died suddenly on Aug.31, 2024.
My Take…
9 High school football players dropped dead in August 2024.
Are we still supposed to pretend to be baffled?
Even after thousands of kids have died after taking Pfizer or Moderna COVID-19 mRNA Vaccines? Really?
Notice in the reporting that no one even mentions the possibility of COVID-19 mRNA Vaccine Injury – which is the top suspect in each of these cases.
This is still happening in 2024 because parents are allowing it to happen.
There will be no investigations.
*
Click the share button below to email/forward this article to your friends and colleagues. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.
Dr. William Makis is a Canadian physician with expertise in Radiology, Oncology and Immunology. Governor General’s Medal, University of Toronto Scholar. Author of 100+ peer-reviewed medical publications.
Featured image is from NaturalNews.com
The Worldwide Corona Crisis, Global Coup d’Etat Against Humanity
by Michel Chossudovsky
Michel Chossudovsky reviews in detail how this insidious project “destroys people’s lives”. He provides a comprehensive analysis of everything you need to know about the “pandemic” — from the medical dimensions to the economic and social repercussions, political underpinnings, and mental and psychological impacts.
“My objective as an author is to inform people worldwide and refute the official narrative which has been used as a justification to destabilize the economic and social fabric of entire countries, followed by the imposition of the “deadly” COVID-19 “vaccine”. This crisis affects humanity in its entirety: almost 8 billion people. We stand in solidarity with our fellow human beings and our children worldwide. Truth is a powerful instrument.”
Reviews
This is an in-depth resource of great interest if it is the wider perspective you are motivated to understand a little better, the author is very knowledgeable about geopolitics and this comes out in the way Covid is contextualized. —Dr. Mike Yeadon
In this war against humanity in which we find ourselves, in this singular, irregular and massive assault against liberty and the goodness of people, Chossudovsky’s book is a rock upon which to sustain our fight. –Dr. Emanuel Garcia
In fifteen concise science-based chapters, Michel traces the false covid pandemic, explaining how a PCR test, producing up to 97% proven false positives, combined with a relentless 24/7 fear campaign, was able to create a worldwide panic-laden “plandemic”; that this plandemic would never have been possible without the infamous DNA-modifying Polymerase Chain Reaction test – which to this day is being pushed on a majority of innocent people who have no clue. His conclusions are evidenced by renown scientists. —Peter Koenig
Professor Chossudovsky exposes the truth that “there is no causal relationship between the virus and economic variables.” In other words, it was not COVID-19 but, rather, the deliberate implementation of the illogical, scientifically baseless lockdowns that caused the shutdown of the global economy. –David Skripac
A reading of Chossudovsky’s book provides a comprehensive lesson in how there is a global coup d’état under way called “The Great Reset” that if not resisted and defeated by freedom loving people everywhere will result in a dystopian future not yet imagined. Pass on this free gift from Professor Chossudovsky before it’s too late. You will not find so much valuable information and analysis in one place. –Edward Curtin
ISBN: 978-0-9879389-3-0, Year: 2022, PDF Ebook, Pages: 164, 15 Chapters
“Individuals – all individuals – must stand up and continue to use their rights to free speech and disempower those who would enslave all of our minds.”
Free speech faces unprecedented challenges in an increasingly digital world. Governments across the globe are ramping up efforts to control, suppress, or outright ban speech that contradicts their narratives or threatens their authority. Recent incidents in Brazil, Germany, France, and the United Kingdom, alongside established censorship practices in China, Russia, India, and Turkey, reveal a disturbing trend: the battle for free expression is intensifying, and the digital realm is the new front line.
Recent Crackdowns and Government Overreach
In August 2024, several alarming incidents underscored the vulnerability of free speech:
Image: Pavel Durov at the TechCrunch conference in Berlin, 2013 (Licensed under CC BY 2.0)
French authorities have intensified their crackdown on digital speech by arresting Pavel Durov, founder of Telegram, for refusing to censor user content. While we condemn any child pornography or its sharing on any platform, Telegram is known for its strong stance on privacy and resistance to censorship, making Durov’s arrest a significant example of international pressure on digital platforms to align with government censorship demands.
UK’s Misinformation Arrest and Proposed Legislation
In the United Kingdom, a 55-year-old woman was arrested for sharing what was deemed “misinformation” online, a direct intervention by the state to control public discourse. Concurrently, the UK government is pushing for legislation to classify misogyny as a form of extremism, which could expand the scope of regulated speech and criminalize a wide array of expressions under the guise of combating hate speech and extremism. (The UK descends into dystopian levels of censorship, Washington Examiner)
EU’s Pressure on Digital Platforms
EU Commissioner Thierry Breton recently sent a letter to Elon Musk demanding compliance with European censorship laws on X. This move reflects the EU’s aggressive stance on regulating digital content and raises questions about the future of free speech in the European Union, a bloc that prides itself on democratic values.
Chris Pavlovski, CEO of Rumble, has fled Europe due to perceived threats from the French government. Rumble, which markets itself as a free-speech alternative to platforms like YouTube, has resisted regulatory pressures to moderate content, underscoring the chilling effect that government threats can have on digital platforms.
Meta and U.S. Government Collaboration
In a recent disclosure, Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg detailed how the Biden-Harris administration and the FBI pressured Meta to censor content during the COVID-19 pandemic. This revelation, part of an ongoing investigation by the House Judiciary Committee, suggests potential overreach by the U.S. government in encouraging platforms to suppress information. (AP News)
Historical Context and Global Patterns
These recent events are part of a broader, ongoing trend. Since 2020, there has been a noticeable increase in government attempts to control digital discourse using both direct and indirect methods:
U.S. Government Influence on Social Media Content Moderation
During the COVID-19 pandemic, the U.S. government was accused of exerting undue pressure on social media platforms to manage content it deemed misinformation. Critics argue that these actions constituted indirect censorship, compelling platforms to align with government directives under the threat of regulatory action or other repercussions. Ongoing legal battles, such as “Murthy v. Missouri,” have scrutinized these practices, questioning the limits of government influence over private companies and the digital public square. (SCOTUS Blog)
China’s Strict Control Over COVID-19 Information
China has maintained stringent control over COVID-19-related information, silencing whistleblowers and censoring online discussions that challenge the government’s narrative. These actions represent a clear example of direct government censorship to prevent dissent and control public perception.
India’s Use of Internet Shutdowns to Control Speech
India frequently employs internet shutdowns to control information flow and stifle dissent, particularly in politically sensitive regions like Kashmir or during large-scale protests. These shutdowns serve as a blunt instrument to cut off access to information and prevent communication among activists and protestors.
Russia’s Crackdown on Independent Media
Since 2020, Russia has intensified its crackdown on independent media, labeling outlets as “foreign agents” and imposing restrictive regulations designed to suppress dissenting voices. This hostile environment has narrowed the space for free expression and independent journalism.
Turkey’s Social Media Regulation Laws
Turkey’s recent law requiring social media companies to comply with content removal requests and appoint local representatives demonstrates another method of governmental control over digital speech. Non-compliance can result in severe penalties, effectively forcing platforms to adhere to state-imposed speech regulations.
Legislative Approaches in the EU and U.S. States
Laws like the EU’s Digital Services Act and content moderation regulations in U.S. states such as Texas and Florida reflect a growing trend of direct government regulation of digital platforms. These laws have raised concerns about potential overreach and the suppression of free expression under the guise of protecting users from harmful content.
Implications for Democratic Values and Free Expression
The escalating government encroachment on free speech has profound implications:
Chilling Effect on Free Speech
The various tactics employed—ranging from direct censorship to more subtle forms of coercion—create a chilling effect. Individuals and organizations self-censor out of fear of legal repercussions or other consequences. This self-censorship stifles innovation, debate, and the exchange of ideas, which are essential to a vibrant democratic society. Individuals – all individuals – must stand up and continue to use their rights to free speech and disempower those who would enslave all of our minds.
Erosion of Trust in Digital Platforms
As governments become more involved in content moderation, trust in digital platforms as neutral venues for discourse is eroding. When platforms are perceived as aligning too closely with government interests, their credibility and the authenticity of their content are called into question.
Normalization of Digital Authoritarianism
With more countries adopting stringent measures to control online speech, there is a growing risk of digital authoritarianism becoming normalized. The tools and techniques developed for controlling speech in one context could easily be adapted elsewhere, leading to a global environment where free expression is increasingly rare.
Strategies and Tactics of Government Censorship
Direct Censorship through Legislation
Governments employ direct legal mechanisms, such as fines, arrests, and restrictive laws, to control speech. These actions are clear examples of overt censorship efforts designed to silence dissent and control the narrative.
Indirect Censorship through Corporate Pressure
Governments often leverage private companies to enforce content moderation policies through veiled threats or regulatory pressures, creating an environment where companies are compelled to comply with state demands to avoid penalties or sanctions.
Digital and Network Controls
Tactics such as internet shutdowns, VPN bans, and social media platform regulation are increasingly used to control digital speech, demonstrating the lengths governments will go to maintain control over online discourse.
Manipulation of Legal and Social Norms
Governments also manipulate legal frameworks and social norms, using policies like “misgendering” penalties to enforce speech norms and expand the scope of regulated speech. This further blurs the lines between legal governance and state overreach.
Case Studies and Comparative Analysis
Comparing various government strategies in different countries reveals similarities and differences in their approaches to censorship. By examining these methods side-by-side, the article illustrates how different regimes, from democracies to authoritarian states, adopt increasingly aggressive tactics to control speech.
Conclusion
The surge in government efforts to control digital speech is disturbing, with potentially far-reaching consequences. From direct bans and arrests to more subtle forms of coercion and manipulation, governments worldwide are finding new ways to stifle dissent and control the narrative. As these practices continue to evolve and spread, the future of free speech hangs in the balance. The global community must remain vigilant, advocating for transparency and accountability and preserving free expression as a fundamental human right.
The battle over free speech is not just a legal or political issue but a fight for the very soul of democracy. The actions taken today will determine the landscape of public discourse for generations to come.
*
Click the share button below to email/forward this article to your friends and colleagues. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.
I had hoped to make the Summer of 2024 a memorable one—building bridges of friendship to Russia, working to develop knowledge and information as an antidote to the poison of Russophobia in America, and trying to prevent a nuclear war between my country and the Russian Federation.
The U.S. government had other plans.
Growing up in a military family, I was immersed in patriotic themes built around thenotion of service to one’s country.
On the wall of my bedroom my parents hung two framed posters. The first showed President John F. Kennedy’s face in profile, with the famous words from his inaugural address superimposed over it: “Ask not what your country can do for you. Ask what you can do for your country.”
The second was a poster showing an American prisoner of war behind barbed wire. “The Code of Conduct,” the poster’s title read.
“I am an American fighting man,” the poster read. “I serve in the forces which guard my country and our way of life. I am prepared to give my life in their defense.”
It was destined that I follow in my father’s footsteps to serve my country as a Marine, and to abide by the code of an American fighting man. When I was commissioned, I took an oath “that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter, so help me God.”
While the oath legally applies only while serving in “the office on which I am about to enter,” the adage “once a Marine, always a Marine” means that this oath was, and is, a lifetime commitment.
Service to my country. A cause I am willing to give my life in defense of. Against all enemies, foreign and domestic.
This is my creed.
This is my mission statement.
I had made trying to prevent a new arms race between Russia and the United States one of my life’s missions. This has been the case since I was selected to be part of the On-Site Inspection Agency (OSIA), a Department of Defense organization created to oversee the implementation of the landmark 1987 Intermediate Nuclear Forces (INF) treaty.
I am a historian by academic training, and as such I often look to the lessons of the past to guide future actions. Between late April 2023 and mid-January 2024, I had traveled to Russia twice, spending a little more than 50 days during which time I visited 16 cites and met hundreds of Russians in all walks of life, to get a better understanding of the Russian perspective on life.
I took my inspiration from the words of President John F. Kennedy, who in a commencement address to American University delivered on June 10, 1963, implored the American people “not to see only a distorted and desperate view of the other side, not to see conflict as inevitable, accommodation as impossible, and communication as nothing more than an exchange of threats.”
I traveled to Russia because I wanted to inject hope into the American narrative about Russia.
“No government or social system,” Kennedy said, “is so evil that its people must be considered as lacking in virtue. As Americans…we can still hail the Russian people for their many achievements–in science and space, in economic and industrial growth, in culture and in acts of courage.”
I traveled to Russia to witness firsthand the virtues of the Russian people.
“It is an ironic but accurate fact,” Kennedy noted,
“that the two strongest powers are the two in the most danger of devastation. All we have built, all we have worked for, would be destroyed in the first 24 hours. And even in the cold war, which brings burdens and dangers to so many nations, including this Nation’s closest allies–our two countries bear the heaviest burdens. For we are both devoting massive sums of money to weapons that could be better devoted to combating ignorance, poverty, and disease. We are both caught up in a vicious and dangerous cycle in which suspicion on one side breeds suspicion on the other, and new weapons beget counterweapons.”
I traveled to Russia to prevent a Third World War.
“In short,” Kennedy declared,
“both the United States and its allies, and the Soviet Union and its allies, have a mutually deep interest in a just and genuine peace and in halting the arms race. Agreements to this end are in the interests of the Soviet Union as well as ours–and even the most hostile nations can be relied upon to accept and keep those treaty obligations, and only those treaty obligations, which are in their own interest.”
I traveled to Russia to help prevent a new arms race.
So,
” Kennedy concluded, “let us not be blind to our differences–but let us also direct attention to our common interests and to the means by which those differences can be resolved. And if we cannot end now our differences, at least we can help make the world safe for diversity. For, in the final analysis, our most basic common link is that we all inhabit this small planet. We all breathe the same air. We all cherish our children’s future. And we are all mortal.”
I traveled to Russia for the sake of my children’s future.
The author (right) with Valery Yakovlev, in front of an SS-25 missile produced by the Votkinsk Factory
I returned from my second trip to Russia in mid-January 2024. Within a month, I began to strategize about how best to continue and expand my mission of overcoming Russophobia by countering it with fact-based analysis.
I drafted a paper for my journalist colleagues, where I laid out my thesis in detail. “Relations between Russia and the West have been in a state of gradual deterioration over the course of the past two decades,” I noted. “The reasons for this decline are many, rooted in economic, social, political, and security issues derived from the collapse of the Soviet Union, the chaotic situation that developed in Russia following this collapse, and the West’s negative reaction to the emergence of Vladmir Putin as a Russian leader unwilling to conform to its vision of what post-Soviet Russia should look like.”
This deterioration has led to the politicization of reporting and analysis regarding all matters pertaining to the broad spectrum of issues that, in their totality, define relations with Russia today. As a result, journalistic coverage of Russia has been haphazard at best, and lacking the kind of informed insights that are garnered through more in-depth examination of events that both consider and incorporate a Russian perspective. While there is a need for balance, that cannot be had by deliberately ignoring, downplaying, or misrepresenting the Russian point of view.
An objective review of the western media coverage of Russia since the initiation of the Special Military Operation (SMO) in February 2022, I observed, “suggests a prejudice against the Russian perspective that has clouded editorial judgements and journalistic accuracy, resulting in reporting which fails in its mission of being unfailingly accurate and timely in its predictions,” shortcomings, I concluded, which do not serve the public at large.
“2024 will be a year where Russia can be expected to dominate the global news cycle in a wide range of issues, including economic, social, political, and security, all of which are within the remit of legitimate journalism.”
My goal was to position myself to be able to provide additional journalistic capacity to cover what I called “the Summer of Russia.”
There was, I believed, a deficit of quality reporting about Russian issues that not only accurately reported on events as they occurred, but also provided accurate predictive analysis about events before they happen. This kind of quality predictive analysis is what separates intelligence from simple reporting, and given my background as an intelligence analyst, was something I believed I could accomplish by traveling to Russia and witnessing important events firsthand.
I proposed focusing on three major events—the Saint Petersburg International Economic Forum (SPIEF), held in early June, the Moscow Conference on International Security (MCIS), held in mid-August, and the BRICS summit, scheduled for October.
Unfortunately, my colleagues did not share my assessment regarding the necessity of focusing so strongly on Russia. Undeterred, I decided that I would accomplish the tasks I had set out in the paper on my own.
Well, not really on my own—by this time I had forged not just a solid friendship with the host of my first two trips to Russia—Alexander Zyrianov—but also a common vision on the importance of U.S.-Russian friendship.
I reached out to Alexander in mid-February about two concepts. The first was to capture the experiences we had shared during my two previous visits, and a future third visit, in the form of a documentary film. The second involved bringing my podcast, Ask the Inspector, to Russia, where we would interview Russian officials and citizens for the benefit of Russian and American audiences alike.
In typical fashion, Alexander enthusiastically agreed, and we began a process of collaborative brainstorming that would end up with me traveling to Russia in June along with Judge Andrew Napolitano, the host of the popular podcast Judging Freedom, the co-host of my own podcast, Jeff Norman, and a two-person documentary film team/support crew. The judge and I were scheduled to attend the Saint Petersburg International Economic Forum (SPIEF), where we were to appear on at least two panels, and conduct interviews with senior Russian government officials. The Judge would then return to the U.S., and Jeff and his crew would arrive to begin a 40-day journey that would take us and the Ask the Inspector podcast “from the Pacific Ocean to the Baltic Sea, and everywhere in between.”
Alexander Zyrianov (left) and the Author (right) in a Moscow restaurant, January 2024
This trip was extremely ambitious, and with such ambition came increased costs. Whereas the costs of the previous two trips had been fronted by Alexander with the goal being to reimburse at least some of the costs from the royalties from the sale of the Russian language-edition my book, Disarmament in the Time of Perestroika/Gonka Razoruzhennia (Arms Race) and other potential projects, this trip would require me and my team to pay the costs associated with this trip (airfare, hotels, food) upfront. In addition to raising funds through donations and the sale of merchandise, Jeff and I had found a donor who was prepared to underwrite the cost of the trip and documentary film. We prepared a detailed budget, and by early June were in the final stages of arranging for the transfer of funds.
Alexander and I were also coordinating on a follow-on trip I was expecting to make in mid-August. I had received an invitation from the Russian defense attaché in Washington, DC to attend the Moscow International Security Conference (MISC). Alexander and I were planning on filming a second documentary film about the battle of Mariupol once the conference was over. And finally, Alexander had secured an invitation for me to attend the BRICS Summit in Kazan in October.
In short, the plan I had outlined in February that had been rejected by my journalist colleagues had been resurrected in the form of an independent journalism project that would cover SPIEF, MISC, and BRICS, as well as a 40-day independent project combining the Waging Peace documentary project and the “ATI goes to Russia” road show.
This was literally a living, breathing manifestation of the vision set forth by John F. Kennedy in his American University commencement address: to inject hope into the American narrative about Russia, to witness firsthand the virtues of the Russian people, to prevent a Third World War, and to help prevent a new arms race, all for the sake of my children’s future.
And then the U.S. government killed it.
My passport was seized by members of the Customs and Border Protection service on June 3 as I was preparing to board a flight out of JFK airport that would take me to Saint Petersburg.
In one fell swoop, months of detailed planning and preparation were zeroed out by the actions of government officials who, apparently, feared the prospects of peace between the U.S. and Russia.
Two months later, the FBI executed a search warrant against my home under the pretext that the work I was doing with Russia required me to register as an agent of the Russian government.
There is no evidence to sustain such an allegation, because the simple fact of the matter is that I was, am, and will always be the master of my own agenda; everything I did—with Russians and in Russia—was done from a script I wrote, derived from an agenda I created, working toward goals and objectives I defined.
Yes, I worked hand in glove with my Russian host, Alexander Zyrianov. Perhaps the Department of Justice and the FBI are concerned about this aspect of my work, thinking that somehow the Russian government was using Alexander as a front to recruit me for their purposes.
The problem with this theory, besides there being no shred of fact-based truth to sustain it, is that, as I write this, Alexander Zyrianov sits in a Russian jail awaiting trial. He was arrested on June 3 (the same date my passport was seized) on charges of corruption. Since that time, these charges have been set aside as baseless. Now the Russian authorities in Novosibirsk, Alexander’s hometown, are preparing a new set of charges which revolve around his fundraising in support of our U.S.-Russian friendship project.
Alexander’s real “crime”? Trying to challenge the corrupt leadership of Novosibirsk by positioning himself to become the next mayor of Novosibirsk. Our U.S.-Russian friendship project had succeeded in raising his profile within Russia, much to the umbrage of those whom Alexander sought to supplant. In the end, Alexander’s only “crime” was, like Icarus, to dare to fly too close to the sun.
The author (right) with Alexander Zyrianov (left) in Novosibirsk, April 2023
The Regional FSB (the Russian version of the FBI), operating on the orders of the Novosibirsk leaders Alexander had challenged, clipped his wings. They tried to do this back in November 2023, when an FSB officer threatened Alexander with arrest if he didn’t resign his position as the Director of the Investment Development Agency of Novosibirsk. Alexander refused to yield to these threats and remained at his job—all the while positioning himself for a run at the mayorship of Novosibirsk.
His stubbornness and ambition proved to be his undoing—the FSB, again operating under instructions from corrupt Novosibirsk officials, arrested Alexander on the morning of June 3 as he was preparing to leave Novosibirsk for Saint Petersburg, where we were scheduled to meet the next day.
If anything, it is I who could be accused of the Russians (if they adopted the paranoid thinking that prevails in the Department of Justice and FBI) of trying to manipulate Russian elections. Alexander often said that the exposure he received through my visits enhanced his political profile. And I made it clear to Alexander that I had no problem with this. Indeed, if the FSB are half as paranoid as the FBI, there is probably a superseding indictment under seal in Russia awaiting my next visit to Russia.
I can’t wait to see how the National Security Division sleuths try to spin this reality into their “Ritter is a Russian agent” narrative.
Peace, it seems, is not a popular theme amongst the powers that be in either Russia or the U.S.
I am hopeful that justice will prevail in Russia, and that Alexander Zyrianov will be exonerated of all charges of wrongdoing and be allowed to return to his family, his livelihood, and his life’s passions.
I am confident that our friendship will endure through thick and thin.
As to whether our joint U.S.-Russian friendship project will be able to continue remains an open question. I know it remains one of my top priorities, given the critical role it plays in empowering my counter-Russophobia efforts and furthering my efforts to promote arms control and prevent a nuclear war.
But civilian diplomacy can only flourish in an environment where the involved parties—Russia and the United States—are open to the prospects of dialogue between their respective populations.
I once believed that the Russian government was so inclined. With Alexander behind bars, I am no longer confident this is the case.
I always knew that the U.S. government, infected as it is with Russophobia, looked askance at the kind of bridgebuilding I was engaged in. But I was also confident that my rights as an American citizen—freedom of speech, freedom of association, and (as a journalist) a free press—would shield me from the prejudices of those in power.
The seizure of my passport and the FBI raid on my home proved me wrong.
And now I’m left pondering my future. It is said that one’s ability to envision the future is strongly influenced by their memory of the past.
“Ask not what your country can do for you. Ask what you can do for your country.”
President Kennedy’s words, embedded in my mind since my childhood, resonate strongly today.
It is my duty as a citizen of the United States to work for the betterment of my nation.
I can best do this by drawing on the experiences in arms control and my knowledge and understanding of Russia to help better inform my fellow citizens about the critical importance of the former and the dangers associated with foregoing the latter.
I was, am, and will always be “an American fighting man.”
The Author (left) with Alexander Zyrianov (center) and Alexander Dugin (right), May 2023
My struggle today is not on some distant foreign battlefield, but rather here, at home, on the soil of the country I am charged with guarding, and in defense of which I am prepared to give my life.
My oath as a Marine still resonates. I do not serve the president, the Congress, or any branch of government—they serve me.
They serve we the people.
I am loyal to the Constitution, which I swore to uphold and defend against all enemies, foreign and domestic.
In accusing me of being an unregistered Russian agent, the FBI and the Department of Justice have turned the First Amendment of the Constitution on its head. Free speech, it seems, isn’t free if the U.S. government does not approve of the content of the speech. There appears to be a “Russian exception” in play within the Department of Justice, where First Amendment protections are swept aside when dealing with matters pertaining to Russia.
This does not make America safer. In fact, by shutting down the various projects I had been planning on accomplishing this past summer, the FBI and Department of Justice have made the world a much more dangerous place.
One can make the argument that, by flagrantly violating my First Amendment rights, the greatest domestic threat to the Constitution of the United States is the FBI and the Department of Justice.
I certainly view them in this light.
Which is why I will fight them with every ounce of my moral and physical strength to ensure that I retain my ability to pursue the U.S.-Russian friendship project as I best see fit—not as the government dictates.
Because I believe the greatest existential threat to America today is that of a nuclear war with Russia.
Because I believe that the poison of Russophobia blinds the American people to the reality of this threat and, as such, to the need for forging a new policy path when it comes to Russia.
I believe it is my duty as an American citizen to see this mission through to the end.
And I’ll be damned if the domestic enemies of the U.S. Constitution are going to stop me.
This is the battle for the soul of America.
For the survival of the American dream.
And for the survival of the constitutional republic we call home.
I will be in Kingston, New York, on September 28 with Gerald Celente, Judge Andrew Napolitano, Max Blumenthal, and Anya Parampil for the Peace Freedom Rally/Operation DAWN/Family of Podcasts event, where issues such as preventing nuclear war, free speech, the Gaza crisis, and the state of American democracy will be discussed and debated.
*
Click the share button below to email/forward this article to your friends and colleagues. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.
Featured image: The author (center) with Ilya Volkov (left) and Alexander Zyrianov (right) at Mamayev Kurgan (Volgograd) / All images in this article are from the author
All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the Translate Website button below the author’s name.
To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.
Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.
***
First posted on Global Research on December 21, 2022
Over time, it’s become clear that the globalist cabal seeking to implement a one world government repeatedly tell us what they’re about to do. Table top pandemic simulations, for example, are a form of dress rehearsal.
In 2017, Johns Hopkins Center of Health Security held a coronavirus pandemic simulation called the SPARS Pandemic 2025-2028 scenario. In October 2019, the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation in collaboration with Johns Hopkins and the World Economic Forum hosted Event 201.
As in the SPARS Pandemic scenario, Event 201 involved an outbreak of a highly infectious coronavirus, but the primary (if not sole) focus of the exercise was how to control information and keep “misinformation” in check, not how to effectively discover and share remedies.
October 23, 2022, Gates, Johns Hopkins and the World Health Organization cohosted “a global challenge exercise” dubbed “Catastrophic Contagion,” involving a novel pathogen called “severe epidemic enterovirus respiratory syndrome 2025” (SEERS-25), which primarily affects children and teens
Enterovirus D68 is typically associated with cold and flu-like illness in infants, children and teens. In rare cases, it’s also been known to cause viral meningitis and acute flaccid myelitis, a neurological condition resulting in muscle weakness and loss of reflexes. The virus they modeled in the Catastrophic Contagion simulation appears to be something similar to enterovirus D68, but worse
*
Over time, it’s become clear that the globalist cabal seeking to implement a one world government repeatedly tell us what they’re about to do. They hold dress rehearsals in the form of tabletop exercises, and they’ve revealed their plans in various reports and white papers through the years.
I have been subscribed to the channel that posted the video above for some time now. She only has 10K subscribers but really gets some amazing content. I have no idea how she was able to secure this video as it is not widely circulated. Even more surprising is that her channel is not being taken down.
COVID Dress Rehearsals
For example, in 2017, Johns Hopkins Center of Health Security held a coronavirus pandemic simulation called the SPARS Pandemic 2025-2028 scenario.1 Importantly, the exercise highlighted and stressed “communication dilemmas concerning medical countermeasures that could plausibly emerge” in a pandemic scenario.
In October 2019, less than three months before the COVID-19 outbreak, the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation in collaboration with Johns Hopkins and the World Economic Forum hosted Event 201.
As in the SPARS Pandemic scenario, this exercise involved an outbreak of a highly infectious coronavirus, but the primary (if not sole) focus of the exercise was how to control information and keep “misinformation” in check, not how to effectively discover and share remedies.
Social media censorship played prominently in the Event 201 plan, and in the real-world events of 2020 through the present, accurate information about vaccine development, production and injury has indeed been effectively suppressed around the world, thanks to social media companies and Google’s censoring of opposing viewpoints.
We now know this censorship was illegally directed by U.S. government officials, including Dr. Anthony Fauci, who was recently deposed2 about his role in the online censoring of COVID information.
Both of these simulations, SPARS and Event 201, foreshadowed what eventually occurred in real life during COVID, so, when Gates hosts yet another pandemic exercise, it’s worth paying attention to the details.
‘Catastrophic Contagion’ Exercise
October 23, 2022, Gates, Johns Hopkins and the World Health Organization cohosted “a global challenge exercise” dubbed “Catastrophic Contagion,”3,4 involving a novel (and as of now fictional) pathogen called “severe epidemic enterovirus respiratory syndrome 2025” or SEERS-25 for short.
Enterovirus D685 is typically associated with cold and flu-like illness in infants, children and teens. In rare cases, it’s also been known to cause viral meningitis and acute flaccid myelitis, a neurological condition resulting in muscle weakness and loss of reflexes in one or more extremities.
Enteroviruses A71 and A6 are known to cause hand, foot and mouth disease,6 while poliovirus, the prototypical enterovirus, causes polio (poliomyelitis), a potentially life-threatening type of paralysis that primarily affects children under age 5. So, the virus they modeled in this simulation appears to be something similar to enterovirus D68, but worse.
Training African Leaders to Go Along With the Narrative
Tellingly, the Catastrophic Contagion exercise focused on getting leadership in African countries involved and trained in following the script. Participants included 10 current and former Health Ministers and senior public health officials from Senegal, Rwanda, Nigeria, Angola, Liberia, Singapore, India and Germany, as well as Gates himself.
African nations just so happened to go “off script” more often than others during the COVID pandemic, and didn’t follow in the footsteps of developed nations when it came to pushing the jabs. As a result, vaccine makers now face the problem of having a huge control group, as the COVID jab uptake on the African continent was only 6%.7
Not surprisingly (for those in the know), Africa has fared far better than developed nations with high COVID jab rates in terms of COVID-19 infections and related deaths.8
Now, the Catastrophic Contagion exercise predicts SEERS-25 will kill 20 million people worldwide, including 15 million children, and many who survive the infection will be left with paralysis and/or brain damage. In other words, the “cue” given is that the next pandemic will likely target children rather than the elderly, as was the case with COVID-19.
This is an interesting coincidence, seeing how rates of toddlers and young children hospitalized with influenza and respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) is already spiking.
COVID Jabs Are Destroying People’s Immune Systems
Coincidentally, over the past year, researchers have been warning that the COVID jabs may be dysregulating and destroying people’s immune systems, leaving them vulnerable to all sorts of infections. According to a study9 posted on the preprint server medRxiv in May 2021, the Pfizer/BioNTech COVID jab “reprograms both adaptive and innate immune responses, causing immune depletion.”
In August 2021, a French group of pediatric infectious disease experts also warned that “immunity debt” caused by a lack of exposure to common viruses and bacteria during COVID lockdowns and school closures might predispose children to suffer more infections in the future.10
They predicted the decrease in viral and bacterial exposure that train your child’s immune system may result in a rebound of a variety of infectious diseases, including influenza and RSV) which is precisely what we’re now seeing. If a modified enterovirus gets added into the mix, it’s not difficult to see how parents might get spooked enough to start lining their kids up for more shots — including parents in African nations.
Why Manufactured Pandemics Will Continue
At this point, it’s quite clear that “biosecurity” is the chosen means by which the globalist cabal intends to seize power over the world. The WHO is working on securing sole power over pandemic response globally through its international pandemic treaty which, if implemented, will eradicate the sovereignty of all member nations.
Ultimately, the WHO intends to dictate all health care. December 13, 2022, the WHO announced Sir Jeremy Farrar, head of the Wellcome Trust — who colluded with Dr. Anthony Fauci to suppress the COVID lab-leak narrative — has been chosen as its new chief scientist.11
The WHO’s pandemic treaty is the gateway to a global, top-down totalitarian regime, a one world government. But to secure that power, they will need more pandemics. COVID-19 alone was not enough to get everyone onboard with a centralized pandemic response unit, and they probably knew that from the start.
So, the reason we can be sure there will be additional pandemics, whether manufactured using either fear and hype alone or an actual bioweapon created for this very purpose, is because the takeover plan, aka The Great Reset, is based on the premise that we need global biosecurity surveillance and centralized response.
Biosecurity, in turn, is the justification for an international vaccine passport, which the G20 just signed on to, and that passport will also be your digital identification. That digital ID, then, will be tied to your social credit score, personal carbon footprint tracker, medical records, educational records, work records, social media presence, purchase records, your bank accounts and a programmable central bank digital currency (CBDC).
Once all these pieces are fully connected, you’ll be in a digital prison, and the ruling cabal — whether officially a one world government by then or not — will have total control over your life from cradle to grave.
COVID Is a Global Propaganda Operation
In the video above,12,13 initially published in August 2021, professor Piers Robinson, Ph.D., an expert on communication, media, world politics and the role of propaganda, spoke to Asia Pacific Today about propaganda in the age of COVID.
As noted by Robinson, COVID-19 is unquestionably the largest, most sophisticated propaganda operation in history. Psychological techniques were extensively used during 2020 to incite fear in the population, while other persuasion strategies were used to get people to support and defend COVID measures such as masking, isolation, social distancing, lockdowns and jab mandates.
Indeed, propaganda is what allowed for draconian and unscientific COVID measures to be implemented. Without propaganda and simultaneous censorship of opposing views, little of what we’ve been through would have been possible.
As noted by Robinson, while the use of state propaganda could initially be justified as a necessary means to achieve a public health objective — protecting people from COVID-related illness and death — it quickly became apparent that this was not the case, and likely never was.
COVID-19 has instead been used to suspend and strip us of Constitutional rights and civil liberties, and is still being exploited to further social, political and financial restructuring objectives, entirely outside democratic processes and public scrutiny. We also know it’s not about public health since:
COVID is now nothing more than another endemic respiratory infection, much like the common cold, and
The COVID jabs don’t prevent infection or spread of the virus, which negates the entire premise for vaccine passports, yet they’re being pushed anyway
How Did Gates Become the High Priest of the COVID Narrative?
In related news, Politico recently published a special report14 detailing how Gates, who has no medical expertise whatsoever, ended up controlling the global COVID response with no oversight to speak of.
In the earliest days of the pandemic, four nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) banded together to identify vaccine makers and make “targeted investments in the development of tests, treatments and shots,” Politico explains.
These NGOs were the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, Gavi (a Gates organization that provides vaccines to developing nations), the Wellcome Trust (a British research foundation led by Farrar, now selected to be the WHO’s head scientist) and the Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations (CEPI), an international vaccine research and development group cofounded by Gates and Wellcome in 2017.
In collaboration with the WHO, these four NGOs — three of which were founded by Gates — then set out to create a global distribution plan for the tests, drugs and injections they’d invested in.
Incidentally, Gates at that time was also the largest donor to the WHO, as then-President Trump had pulled the U.S. out of the WHO and stopped funding. It’s hard to imagine a situation with greater conflicts of interest. The four groups also greased the wheels of governments.
Collectively, they spent more than $8.3 million to lobby lawmakers and officials in the U.S. and Europe. A number of U.S. and EU officials, as well as WHO representatives, have also been employed by one or more of these NGOs, which helped solidify their political connections.
A number of civil society organizations that are active in developing countries, including Doctors Without Borders, have objected to Western-dominated groups making life-and-death decisions for poorer nations.
“‘What makes Bill Gates qualified to be giving advice and advising the U.S. government on where they should be putting the tremendous resources?’ asked Kate Elder, senior vaccines policy adviser for the Doctors Without Borders’ Access Campaign,” Politico writes.15
Self-Serving Consortium Is Running Our Pandemic Response
Politico’s special report continues:16
“Now, critics are raising significant questions about the equity and effectiveness of the group’s response to the pandemic — and the serious limitations of outsourcing the pandemic response to unelected, privately-funded groups. ‘I think we should be deeply concerned,’ said Lawrence Gostin, a Georgetown University professor who specializes in public-health law.
‘Putting it in a very crass way, money buys influence. And this is the worst kind of influence. Not just because it’s money — although that’s important, because money shouldn’t dictate policy — but also, because it’s preferential access, behind closed doors.’
Gostin said that such power, even if propelled by good intentions and expertise, is ‘anti-democratic, because it’s extraordinarily non-transparent, and opaque’ and ‘leaves behind ordinary people, communities and civil society’ …
[M]any global health specialists question whether the groups are capable of performing the rigorous post-mortems necessary to build a stronger global response system for the future.
‘No one’s actually holding these actors to account,’ said Sophie Harman, professor of international politics at Queen Mary University of London. ‘And they’re the ones that are really shaping our ability to respond to pandemics’ …
Without governments stepping in to take the lead on pandemic preparedness, the four organizations, along with their partners in the global health community, are the only entities that are in a position to lead in the world’s response to a devastating outbreak — again.
‘They’re funded by their own capabilities and or endowments and trusts. But when they step into multilateral affairs, then who keeps watch over them?’ a former senior U.S. official said. ‘I don’t know the answer to that. That’s quite provocative.'”
Final Thoughts
So, in the final analysis, we already have a pseudo-one world government, in the form of Gates’ NGOs. They are making health care decisions that should be left to individual nations and/or states, and they’re making decisions that will line their own pockets, regardless of what happens to the public health-wise.
They coordinate and synchronize pandemic communication during these simulated practice runs, and then, when the real-world situation emerges that fits the bill, the preplanned script is simply played out verbatim.
African nations failed to follow the script during COVID, which is why they’re focusing on African leaders in the latest simulation. They need to get rid of the African control group by getting them onboard with mass injection and all the rest. It’s basically a recruitment effort.
Lastly, between the G20 declaration to implement an international vaccine passport under the auspice of the WHO, and the WHO’s pandemic treaty, everything is lined up to take control of the next pandemic, and in so doing, further securing the foundation for a one world government.
*
Note to readers: Please click the share buttons above. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.
The Worldwide Corona Crisis, Global Coup d’Etat Against Humanity
by Michel Chossudovsky
Michel Chossudovsky reviews in detail how this insidious project “destroys people’s lives”. He provides a comprehensive analysis of everything you need to know about the “pandemic” — from the medical dimensions to the economic and social repercussions, political underpinnings, and mental and psychological impacts.
“My objective as an author is to inform people worldwide and refute the official narrative which has been used as a justification to destabilize the economic and social fabric of entire countries, followed by the imposition of the “deadly” COVID-19 “vaccine”. This crisis affects humanity in its entirety: almost 8 billion people. We stand in solidarity with our fellow human beings and our children worldwide. Truth is a powerful instrument.”
ISBN: 978-0-9879389-3-0, Year: 2022, PDF Ebook, Pages: 164, 15 Chapters
In January of 2021, Putin gave a keynote (virtual) address before the World Economic Forum. The theme: “The Great Reset.”
Beginning his speech with a warm “dear Klaus,” Putin recalled how he first met Mr. Schwab in 1992 and since then had regularly attended events organized by the Fourth Industrial Revolution visionary.
Putin used his address to urge for “expanding the scale of [COVID] testing and vaccinations” across the globe–policies that have ushered in worldwide medical apartheid.
Echoing the sentiments of western leaders, Putin also argued that the global economy would need to be rebuilt from the ground up by central banks:
[T]he key question today is how to build a program of actions in order to not only quickly restore the global and national economies affected by the pandemic, but to ensure that this recovery is sustainable in the long run, relies on a high-quality structure and helps overcome the burden of social imbalances. Clearly, with the above restrictions and macroeconomic policy in mind, economic growth will largely rely on fiscal incentives with state budgets and central banks playing the key role.
The Russian president has repeatedly stated vaccination should be voluntary—but his personal opinion has had no impact on actual policy. All 85 regions of Russia now have decrees requiring certain segments of the population to get the shot.
On December 17, 2021, Putin voiced support for a nationwide QR code law—one of the most unpopular pieces of legislation in recent Russian history. The introduction of digital health IDs would in essence make vaccination compulsory for those who want to partake in life’s most ordinary activities.
In late November, after the health ministry approved “Sputnik-M”—Russia’s COVID shot for ages 12-17—Putin suggested authorities begin “thinking about” vaccinating children starting from the age of two.
How many two-year-olds have died from COVID in Russia? (Trick question: the Russian government doesn’t disclose COVID-linked deaths by age group. In fact, the Russian government refuses to publish lots of highly important COVID-related data, including statistics on post-vaccination side effects. Why?)
Time for a Rethink?
In October, RT.com ran a provocative op-ed describing the Great Reset as a “cartoonish fantasy that will hand the global elite even more power.”
The piece lists various world leaders–including Boris Johnson, Emmanuel Macron, and Angela Merkel–as devout followers of Schwab. No mention of Russia anywhere.
The irony, of course, is that Sputnik V is practically the official vaccine of the WEF–and the Russian government is among Schwab’s biggest fans.
ANNEX
Relevant Videos (Selected by Global Research)
President Putin on the Covid Vaccine, Address to WEF, June 2021
Address by President Putin at the World Economic Forum on the Global Economy and the Pandemic
(27 January 2024)
Transcript of President Putin’s presentation to WEF
Focussing on the World Economy and the Pandemic
Introductory comments by Klaus Schwab
January 27, 2021
Klaus Schwab
0:00
russia is an important global power and this is a long-standing
0:07
tradition of russia’s participation in the world economic forum at this moment in history whereas the
0:14
world has a unique and short window of opportunity to move from an age
0:19
of confrontation to an age of cooperation the ability to hear your voice the voice
0:26
of the president of the russian federation is essential even and especially in
0:33
times characterized by differences disputes and protests constructive on honest
0:41
dialogue to address our common challenges is better than isolation and
0:46
polarization yesterday your phone exchange with president biden
0:52
and the agreement to extend the new start nuclear arms treaty in principle
0:58
i think is a very promising sign in this direction coming 19 mr president has shown
1:06
our global vulnerability and interconnectivity and like any other country
1:13
will russia will certainly also be affected and your
1:20
economic development and prospects for international cooperation of course is
1:26
of interest to all of us mr president we are keen to hear from your
1:33
perspective and from that of russia how you see the situation developing
1:39
in the third decade of the 21st century and what should be done to ensure
1:45
that people everywhere find peace and prosperity mr president the world
many times assisting uh meetings starting from the 90s mr schwartz just mentioned that we met
2:18
each other first in back in 1992. uh in sun peace and when i worked in south
2:26
beach i visited uh this for many times i’d like to thank you uh for this opportunity today uh for me
2:33
to make my statement vis-a-vis the expert community which is participating in this or thanks
2:40
to your efforts mr schwab first of all uh ladies and gentlemen i’d like to welcome welcome all world economic forum
2:47
participants and i’d like to start with the following it’s rather gratifying in spite of the
2:56
pandemics it’s rather gratifying to see that this year despite of the restrictions caused by the coronal eraser in the
3:02
virus the forum continues its work online it has provided an opportunity for the
3:08
participants to engage in an open and free discussion and share their evaluations and
3:13
forecasts and it partially makes up for the lack of direct communication between the leaders of
3:19
states global businesses and the world community that has accumulated over the past months
3:27
all of this is important now that we are when we are facing
3:33
so many complex issues requiring solutions um this foray is the first for in the
3:41
third decade of 21st century and the majority of its topics are dedicated to
3:46
the profound changes which are taking place in our play uh in in the world it is indeed hard to ignore the
3:53
fundamental transformations in global economy politics social life and technology
4:02
the coronavirus pandemic that which you mentioned uh before has become a major
4:09
challenge to the entire mankind has just spurred or accelerated the structural changes
4:15
the preconditions for which have been already in place for many years the pandemic has
4:22
sincere weighted the problems uh and imbalances that accumulated in the world earlier we have every reason to
4:29
believe that the tensions might aggravate even further and such tendencies might emerge in
4:35
almost every area naturally there are no direct
4:40
parallels in history but some experts however and i do respect their opinion they compare
4:48
the current situation to the late uh 20s or early 30s of the last century one can may
4:55
agree or disagree with such opinion such an opinion yet one cannot but draw some parallel
5:02
in terms of many aspects the scale as well as the cross-cutting and systemic nature of challenges and
5:08
potential threats we see the crisis we’re witnessing the crisis of previous
5:13
models and tools of economic development social stratification is increasing both globally and
5:21
in individual countries we mentioned this before but today it causes a sharp polarization in
5:27
public opinions uh populism right and left-wing radicalism
5:32
and other extreme movements are on the rise domestic political processes including
5:39
in leading economies are escalating and becoming more violent all of this cannot but
5:46
impact the nature impact the nature of international relations making them less
5:51
stable and predictable international institution institutions are weakening regional conflicts conflicts are
5:58
multiplying the global security system is degrading and klaus just mentioned my yesterday’s phone uh call
6:06
uh phone talk with the u.s president and we have agreed about the uh
6:12
extending the start uh agreement it’s a correct step but anyway uh the contradictions are
6:20
multiplying and it is well known that in the 20th
6:27
century the failure and inability to essentially resolve such issues resulted in a catastrophic world war of
6:32
course nowadays such a heated conflict is not possible i hope that it’s not possible in principle
6:39
because it will mean the end of our civilization but i’d like to reach rate however that
6:44
the situation might develop unpredictably and uncontrollably if we will sit on our hands doing
6:52
nothing to avoid it and there is a possibility that we may experience an actual
6:57
collapse of global development that might result in a fight of all against all the warring parties
7:05
would attempt to tackle the escalated tensions by searching for internal and external enemies the fight would
7:12
mean the destruction of not only traditional values and we cherish these values in russia such as
7:20
family but also fundamental freedoms including the right of choice and privacy i would like to know that social crisis
7:27
and the crisis of values have already caused negative demographic consequences
7:32
as a result the humankind risks losing the entire civilizations and cultures our common responsibility today
7:41
is to avoid such a future that resembles a grim dystopic dystopia we need to
7:49
ensure development following a different path one that is positive balanced and constructive and in this regard i would
7:57
like to elaborate on the key challenges that in my opinion are facing the world
8:02
community today the first of them the first one of them is of the social
8:09
and economic nature well that’s true we took if we look at the statistics
8:15
despite the severe crisis of 2008 and 2020
8:22
the past 40 years one can call extremely successful for
8:30
the global economy starting from 1980 the global gdp
8:35
had purchasing power parity in real terms per capita has doubled
8:44
and it’s a positive sign globalization and domestic growth have resulted in a boost in developing countries
8:51
more than a billion people have been lifted out of poverty
8:57
for instance if we take an income level of 5.5 u.s dollars per person per
9:03
day at purchasing power parity according to the world bank the number
9:11
of people with lower income in china has reduced from 1.1 billion
9:18
in 1990 to less than 300 million
9:24
in recent years and it’s a success for china in russia this number has been decreased from
9:30
almost 64 million people in 1999 to about five million people as of now
9:37
and we think that uh we are moving in the right direction
9:43
and it’s the most important area but the main question the answer to which gives much insight
9:49
into the current problems is what was the nature of this global growth who benefited most from it
9:58
undoubtedly as i’ve already said developing countries gained much benefit from it
10:05
using the growing demand for their traditional and even new products
10:12
but however this embedding in the global economy resulted not only in new jobs and expert
10:19
earnings for them but also in social costs including significant income gap of the population
10:28
and what is the situation in the developed countries whose level of average well-being is much higher
10:37
paradoxically the problems of stratification here in
10:43
developed countries have proven to be even more profound according to the world bank estimates
10:50
while there were 3.6 million people living on less than 5.5 u.s dollars
10:57
a day in the u.s in the year 2000 in 2016 this figure rose
11:05
up to 5.6 million
11:10
during the same period globalization resulted in a substantial increase in the profits
11:16
of the large multinational companies primarily american and european ones
11:21
and the as to the number of rest of these people in european countries develop
11:28
european countries the tendency tendency is the same like in america but again who gets this revenues talking about
11:35
about companies the answer is obvious those who represent one percent of the
11:40
population and what has happened with the other people
11:46
for the last 30 years
11:52
the income of more than half of the citizens of a number of developed countries in real terms has not increased
12:01
while the cost of education and health services has tripled has increased
12:08
and has tripled actually that has millions of people even in rich
12:15
countries have ceased to see the prospect of increasing their income at the same time they face the
12:21
problems of how to preserve their own health and that of their parents how to provide
12:27
quality education for their children children there is also a large proportion of people who in fact
12:33
turn out to be non-demanded thus according to the international labor organization
12:38
estimates in 2019 21 of young people in the world or
12:44
267 million uh we’re neither studying or working and
12:50
even among those who have work work and it’s an interesting figure even among those who work
12:56
30 percent leave on less than 3.2 us dollars a day at purchasing power
13:03
parity such imbalances in uh global social and economic development
13:10
are the direct results of the targeted policy that has been conducted since the 80s of the last century often
13:18
blatantly and dogmatically based on this so-called
13:23
washington consensus with its unwritten rules that give priority to private
13:28
debt-driven economic growth with deregulation and loud
13:34
low taxes on the bridge and the reach and corporations as i’ve already mentioned the
13:40
coronavirus pandemic has only exacerbated the problems last year
13:46
they declined the global economy was the worst since the second world war uh labor
13:52
market losses by july were equivalent to almost 500
13:58
million jobs yes half of them have been recovered by the end of the
14:03
year but still almost 250 million jobs lost
14:09
is a very large and boring worrying figure in the first nine months of last year
14:16
alone global labor income losses totaled three and a half and a half three three and a
14:23
half trillion dollars in the world and this figure is still rising which
14:29
means social tensions are on the rise as well at the same time post-crisis recovery
14:34
is not an easy task if 20 or 30 years ago the problem could have been resolved
14:41
through stimulative stimulative macroeconomic policies that’s what we have done and we still
14:49
they’re still doing it so today such mechanisms are no longer working fact
14:55
the result is practically exhausted and it’s not my just my uh st
15:03
evaluation thus according to the imf estimates the level of aggregate public and
15:08
private sector debts is close to 200 of global gdp and in some economies
15:14
it has exceeded 300 percent of national gdp at the same time all developed countries
15:21
now have zero interest rates
15:27
and the main develop developing countries historically historical minimum ones all this leads
15:34
to practically practical impossibility of stimulating the economy with traditional tools by
15:39
increasing private credit quantitative easing the so-called quantitative easing which
15:45
only increases inflates the financial asset bubble leads to further stratification in the
15:52
society and the increasing gap between real and virtual economy
15:58
and quite often representatives of real economy
16:03
sector from many countries keep telling me this and i think that business representative today will uh
16:11
tell me tell me the same so
16:16
and the increased gap between rail and rational economy as i said represents a real threat and it is fraught with serious and
16:23
unpredictable disturbances certain hopes for resetting the previous growth model
16:28
are related to rapid technological development yes the last 20 years have laid the foundation for what is
16:35
known as the fourth industrial revolution which is based on the widespread use of artificial intelligence automated
16:43
and robotic solutions the coronavirus pandemic has greatly
16:48
accelerated such developments and their implementation however this process is also bringing is also
16:56
bringing about new structural changes in the labor market therefore without efficient efforts by
17:02
states many people are risking
17:07
their jobs and this often affects the so-called middle class which continues constitutes the core
17:15
of any modern society and let me turn to the second fundamental challenge for the forthcoming decade uh in other
17:22
words the social and political challenge increasing economic problems and
17:27
inequality are splitting the society they pave the way for social racial
17:33
national intolerance and this pressure shows through even in those countries
17:38
which seem to possess well-established civic and democratic institutions that are designed to smooth over
17:45
mitigate such events and incidents systemic social economic problems
17:54
leads to public discontent and it requires special attention
18:00
uh they should be these problems should be resolved there are dangerous illusions that we
18:08
can adjust don’t deal with it bury them deep
18:16
but in this case the public discontent uh will increase and the society will be
18:23
divided because the reasons of public discontent has to do with real problems
18:28
which affects everybody uh independently uh what political beliefs or
18:36
what political ideas there stick to real problems they lead to discontent i would point
18:44
out one more important aspect modern technology model technological uh first of all
18:51
digital giants have been playing an increasingly significant role in the life of the society
18:58
well we talked a lot about that uh taking into account what had happened in
19:04
the united states and we’re not talking about economic giants uh only in certain areas
19:11
they are compete they are competing with states and their audience include millions millions and
19:18
millions of users which using these ecosystems
19:24
they’re using ecosystems and they spend a lot of time there and the company’s monopoly position
19:31
as they can see it is best suited for running technological and business processes probably it’s
19:36
true but here is the question how well does this monopolism correlate with the public interest
19:42
where is the distinction between successful global businesses
19:48
sought after services and big data consolidation on the one hand and the efforts to rule
19:56
the society in the rude and self-servicing manner by
20:02
substituting for legitimate democratic institutions by encroaching on or restricting the
20:09
natural right of people to decide for themselves how to live and what to choose and what
20:14
you to express freely on the other hand we have seen all of this just recently in the united states
20:22
and everybody understands quite well what i’m talking about and i’m sure that the majority of people share this view
20:30
including those who are participating today at this meeting and finally the third
20:35
challenge or to be more precise the clear threat which we can face in this decade
20:42
i mean the further aggravation of the whole set of international problems
20:53
if states especially major states choose to search for internal enemies they will inevitably
20:58
need an external external enemy the one which they can blame for each and every
21:04
failure and the one to which they can redirect the temper and discontent of
21:09
their own citizens and we see it we can see it already we feel the tension in external
21:15
policy or with their friends grow we may expect practical steps to become more aggressive this might include
21:21
further pressure on countries that do not agree to become docile easy to control satellites
21:29
the use of trade barriers illegitimate sanctions restrictions restrictions in the
21:35
financial technological and information spheres such a game without rules
21:41
is dramatically increasing the risks of the universal use of military force
21:47
which is very dangerous under the under any pretexts invented pretests
21:54
as well as the odds of the emergence of new hot spots on our planets
22:01
that’s cannot but cause the preoccupation for creation among us
22:07
dear participants and dear participants despite this angle of differences and challenges
22:14
it is essential that we keep looking positively into the future and remain committed to
22:20
the constructive agenda it would be naive to offer some universal magic
22:26
solutions for the sad problems but all of us should certainly work to
22:32
develop common approaches narrow down discrepancies as much as
22:38
possible didn’t identify social global tensions i would like to reiterate my message the
22:44
fundamental reason behind the lack of sustainability in global development
22:50
is in many cases the accumulated social and economic problems that’s why the key issue for us today is
22:57
this what logic should we follow in our actions so as not only to quickly restore global and
23:03
national economies affected by the pandemic but to ensure that
23:08
the such restoration is sustainable in the long term and has a quality
23:14
structure enabling it to help overcome the burden
23:19
of social imbalances it is clear that given the above mentioned uh limitations
23:26
of the past macroeconomic policies further development of the economy will be based to a great extent on
23:32
fiscal stimulus which state budgets with state budgets and central banks
23:38
playing the key role in fact we are already witnessing such
23:43
tendencies in the developed and countries as well as as well as in certain developing
23:49
countries the increase the increasing role of the government in the social socioeconomic sphere
23:55
at the national level and not and obviously in matters of the global agenda requires
24:00
greater responsibility and closer interstate cooperation various international fora
24:05
have invariably been calling for inclusive growth for creating conditions to ensure a decent life for everyone
24:12
it is absolutely clear and that’s correct and it’s absolutely clear that
24:22
that the world cannot follow the path of building an economy uh that works for a million
24:29
people or even for the golden billion it’s a destructive type of policy such a
24:35
model is unsustainable by definition and recent developments including the migration crisis uh have once again
24:44
proved that today it is important to move from general statements to actions to putting real efforts and
24:50
resources to both reducing social inequality within individual states
24:57
and step by step to narrow the gap between the levels of economic development of
25:03
different countries and regions of the planet thus we will avoid immigration migration risks
25:09
designed to ensure sustainable harmonious development this policy has clear
25:14
purposes and priorities those include the creation of new opportunities for everybody
25:19
conditions for people to develop and realize their potential regardless of where they were born and
25:25
live and where they live um there there are four key priorities
25:30
how of how i can see them as the priorities
25:35
probably i will not be i will not say nothing new but uh i’m
25:43
expressing the power of the position the position of russia that’s what i’m doing first a person
25:48
should have a comfortable environment to live in which includes housing and accessible infrastructure transport energy and
25:55
utilities and of course ecological well-being we should keep this in mind always second a person must be confident
26:02
that he or she will have a job that provides a steadily increasing income and
26:07
therefore an adequate standard of living people should have access to effective
26:12
mechanisms for lifelong learning which is just necessary today
26:18
allowing them to keep to develop and build their career and receive a decent pension and social
26:24
package after retiring third a person must be confident
26:29
that he or she will receive high quality and effective medical care when needed
26:37
that the healthcare system in any event will guarantee them access to most uh advanced services
26:43
fourth regardless of family income children should have opportunities to
26:49
receive a decent education and fulfill their potential and this kind of potential every kid has
26:58
this is only the only way to guarantee the most effective development of a modern economy an
27:03
economy that does not view people as a mean as means as a mean but places
27:09
them at the center only those countries that can make progress in those in these four areas and
27:16
um i just mentioned uh the most important areas uh so only
27:23
those countries that can make progress here will ensure sustainable inclusive development
27:28
and it is these approaches that underlie the strategy that russia is pursuing my country is pursuing our
27:35
priorities focus on the individual and the family they center on ensuring demographic development and
27:42
safeguarding the people on improving the well-being and protecting the health of our people
27:48
we work to create conditions for decent and efficient work and successful entrepreneurship to
27:54
ensure digital transformation as a basis for a technology driven future for our
28:00
entire country rather than a small group of companies in the coming years we will concentrate
28:05
the efforts of the government business and civil society on these tasks and building a stimulating budget policy
28:14
in achieving our national development goals we’re open to a broad international
28:19
cooperation and we believe that cooperation matters on the global social and economic agenda
28:26
would have a positive impact on the general atmosphere and the world affairs and
28:32
interdependence in solving urgent problems would lead to us to stronger mutual trust
28:40
which is especially irrelevant today it is clear that an
28:46
era associated with attempts to build a centralized unipolar world order is over
28:56
it hasn’t been started even there were attempts to do this in just there
29:01
but it’s over such a monopoly was inherently contrary to the cultural
29:08
and historical diversity of our civilization
29:13
the the reality is that there are truly different studies of development in the
29:20
world with their own distinctive models political systems political models social institutions and
29:27
today it is extremely important to create mechanisms for coordinating their interests so
29:34
so that the diversity and which is natural and the natural
29:39
competition between the poles of development does not turn into anarchy and multiple
29:45
protracted conflicts and we for this we have to strengthen and
29:52
develop the universal institutions which bear special responsibility for ensuring global stability and security and
29:59
uh elaboration of rules of conduct in the world economy and trade i’ve mentioned many times that many universal
30:06
institutions are facing facing hard times today and at different summits i keep telling you
30:11
about that these institutions have been created in uh during different
30:17
uh era and they’re facing today’s challenges it’s not an easy task for them
30:22
objectively but i’d like to to stress that
30:30
we just we shall support them
30:35
they have unique uh experience when it comes to uh using a huge
30:44
potential which have not have has not been implemented it should be adapted to the realities
30:50
but we should use it we shall not make history of them we should use the
30:56
new uh forms of interaction when it comes to
31:06
certainly it can also be understood in different ways it can be seen as a way of promoting one’s own interests
31:12
and making one’s unilateral actions look legitimate while others are left with no other
31:18
choice but to not in approval or it can be an opportunity for sovereign states
31:23
to actually join their efforts to deal with specific problems for the common good in particular this
31:30
may involve the settlement of regional conflicts and creation of
31:35
technological alliances as well as many other areas including the formation of
31:40
cross-border transport and energy corridors etc
31:45
dear friends ladies and gentlemen you you understand that we have here vast opportunities
31:53
for mutual work uh such multilateral approaches actually work
31:58
and the practice the practical work shows that let me remind you that a lot
32:04
has been done by russia iran and turkey within the astana format to stabilize the situation in syria and
32:10
they are currently contributing to the establishment of a political dialogue in that country we are doing this with other countries
32:17
we are doing it together and russia engaged in active mediation efforts to
32:22
put an end to the armed conflict in the nagorni karabakh region a conflict between the nations that are
32:29
our old friends and neighbors azerbaijan and armenia these efforts were guided by the key arrangements made
32:36
by the osce means group particularly by its co-chair russia the u.s and france it’s another
32:44
good uh example of uh cooperation as it is known a trilateral
32:50
statement was signed by russia azerbaijan and armenia in november more importantly most of its provisions
32:56
are constantly put into practice there’s this has helped to end the bloodshed which is
33:02
the most important thing the ending of the bloodshed we establish a complete ceasefire and we
33:07
uh start with the stabilization process right now the task for the international community
33:13
and of course of those countries that have been involved in the resolving the crisis is to provide assistance to the affected
33:19
regions to help them overcome the humanitarian problems associated with the return of refugees
33:25
restoration of the destroyed infrastructure and protection of historical religious and cultural monuments and
33:32
their restoration you also know another
33:39
example i would like to stress the role played by russia saudi arabia and the
33:44
united states in the stabilization of the world energy market this farm it has provided a private
33:51
example of a productive interaction between countries with different and sometimes even opposite assessments of global processes
33:58
with their own views of the world at the same time there are of course issues that affect all states
34:04
without exception a good a good example is the joint work to study and combat the cavite 19
34:11
infection recently several types of this dangerous disease have emerged
34:18
as it is well known and the world community needs to create an environment that enables scientists
34:23
and as specialists to work together in order to understand why and how the chronovirus mutations
34:30
occur what is the difference between its strains and of course there is a need for worldwide coordination
34:36
of efforts and the uh general secretary you and general secretary calls upon it
34:42
we need to coordinate of efforts to distribute and facilitate the accessibility of the much needed covered 19 vaccines
34:48
vaccines help should be provided to states that need it the most including african states such
34:55
health should involve the increase should involve the increase in the
35:01
number of tests and vaccination as we can see a mass vaccination
35:07
is accessible mostly today for those who live in the developed countries at the same time there are hundreds of
35:16
millions of people uh in our world who cannot even hope to get such protection
35:21
and reality such inequality could result in a common thread because the pandemic
35:27
and it is well known the pandemic will drag on uh
35:34
and uncontrolled epicenters who will remain infection and pandemics
35:40
no no no no body that’s why we need to learn the lessons from the current situation
35:46
and to come up with measures to make the system for global monitoring of emergence of such diseases
35:52
more effective and another important area which requires the entire world
35:57
community to coordinate efforts
36:04
it has to do with the preservation of climate and nature of our planet
36:12
it’s nothing new here only together we can achieve progress uh in addressing such
36:19
serious problems as the global warming depletion of forest loss of biodiversity increasing
36:24
waste volumes and marine plastic pollution so on so forth find an optimal balance between the
36:31
interest of economic development and preservation of the environment for the current and future generations
36:38
dear foreign participants dear friends we all know that
36:44
competition rivalry between the countries has never in the world’s history stopped and they
36:51
will not stop and differences clusters of interests are
36:57
all natural for such a complex organism as the today’s of human
37:03
civilization in general however however at critical times
37:08
it was never an obstacle but rather it prompted a concerted effort in dealing
37:14
with the most vital and truly life-changing situations and i believe that now
37:20
is exactly such a period it is crucial to give an honest assessment of the
37:25
situation to focus on uh real global problems rather than perceived ones on remitting
37:33
the imbalances of imbalances which are critical for the entire world community and then i’m sure we will be able to
37:40
achieve success to give a solid response for the challenges of the third decade of the 21st century
37:48
i’d like to stop here and i’d like to thank for your patience and for your attention
37:57
mr president many of the issues erased certainly are part
38:04
also of our discussions here during the davos week we complement the
38:12
speeches also by task forces which address some of the issues you mentioned like
38:19
not leaving the developing world behind taking care of let’s say creating the skills for
38:26
tomorrow and so on so mr president i have we we prepare for
38:34
the discussion afterwards but i have one very short question um how do you see and i
38:42
it’s a question which we discussed when i visited you in saint petersburg
38:49
14 months ago how do you see the future of european russian relations
38:56
just a short answer
39:07
fundamental issues we have common culture
39:23
most important political figures in europe in the recent past mentioned
39:30
the need to keep developing the relations between europe and russia
39:37
stressing the fact that russia is part of europe geographically and what is most
39:43
important from the cultural point of view
39:49
it’s just one civilization in reality french leaders mentioned the need to uh
39:56
create a common space from lisbon to urals and i mentioned
40:03
just the same why adjust to your to your euros we shall extend it to vladivostok
40:10
me personally i had the position of the former distinguished political uh figure
40:18
uh chancellor helmut kaul who uh used to say that if uh the european culture
40:26
would like to preserve itself and to maintain its role as one of the cultural
40:31
centers in the world again taking into account all the problems and tendencies of the
40:38
world civilization development so where western europe and russia should
40:44
be together and we cannot but agree with this we share the same position and the same opinion today’s
40:52
situation is no doubt far from being normal
40:57
we have to come back to the positive agenda
41:02
this is the common interest of russia and european countries no doubt about that
41:08
well deep pandemic has played its negative role our trade to know
41:21
has been affected although uh your european union is one of our main trade partners so we have to come back
41:29
to positive tendencies and we have to
41:34
increase our interaction russia and europe from economic point of view are the
41:40
natural partners and from the point of view of first
41:48
science development technological development uh development from the space point of
41:55
view uh russia is sharing european culture
42:03
but the territory of russia is a little bit bigger than the entire
42:08
europe we have a huge human resources um and
42:13
i will not enumerate all we have but it could be
42:21
used beneficially for russia and europe what is important here is the following we should we should
42:28
approach an honest manner to our dialogue we should get rid of our
42:33
past phobias we shall not use in our internal political processes
42:41
problems which we inherited from the previous centuries
42:48
we shall look into the future to the to the future and if we are able to get rid of this
42:54
phobias and old problems then
43:00
we will create a positive stage of our uh relations we are ready for this we
43:06
would like to get this and we will do our best to get to achieve this but it should not be a uniratal approach
43:16
it should be a common approach
43:31
you
Click the share button below to email/forward this article to your friends and colleagues. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.
He also reportedly participated in the negotiations with the United States on the transfer of F-16 fighter jets to the Kiev government.
Mes served in the 204th Tactical Aviation Brigade, stationed at the Lutsk Air Base, northwestern Ukraine. The 204th uses the Soviet-era MiG-29s (specifically the MU1 variant) and was slated to switch to F-16s once the training was done.
During the recent mass strikes on targets across the territory occupied by the Kiev regime, the Russian military used a plethora of missiles and drones. There are reports that the Kiev regime was forced to keep some of the F-16s in air to avoid their destruction on the ground.
However, this would also expose these jets to air defenses, interceptors and air superiority fighters. As of this writing, the hypothesis is yet to be confirmed, but numerous Russian sources are already reporting on it. Another possibility is that an F-16 was destroyed on the ground, as on August 26, oblasts (regions) with major tactical aviation bases, including Khmelnytsky, Volyn and Ivano-Frankivsk, were targeted by Russian long-range precision strikes.
According to military sources, the Kremlin also targeted the Starokonstantinov Air Base, home of the 7th Tactical Aviation Brigade, known for operating the Su-24M/MR tactical strike jets (converted to carry various NATO-sourced weapons, including the stealthy “Storm Shadow”/SCALP-EG air-launched, long-range cruise missiles). Immediately after Russian missiles and drones were detected entering the Kiev regime’s airspace, fighter jets (including F-16s) took off and loitered above the area at low altitude, reportedly for two to three hours. Moscow’s forces then waited for these jets to return to the airbase and then immediately launched another strike, the result of which was the possible destruction of at least one F-16. Although this information is yet to be verified, there are many indicators that it could be true, including the possible triangulation of F-16s through Russian space-based ISR (intelligence, surveillance, reconnaissance) assets such as satellites.
Thus, even if the reports about the possible destruction of the first NATO-sourced F-16 turn out to be mere rumors, the very loss of pilots capable of flying these overhyped US-made jets is a major setback. It takes years to properly train fighter pilots, particularly if there’s a doctrinal and technological barrier (or even a linguistic one), as is the case between Ukrainian and NATO pilots, as well as their Soviet-era and Western-made fighter jets. The former are far more robust and cost-effective, while also being reliable and easy to maintain. On the other hand, NATO ones are a lot more sensitive.
*
Click the share button below to email/forward this article to your friends and colleagues. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.
This article was originally published on InfoBrics.
Drago Bosnic is an independent geopolitical and military analyst. He is a regular contributor to Global Research.
Featured image: An Air Force F-16 Viper parked just a few hundred feet from the wall of fire at the Fort Worth Alliance Air Show, Oct. 28, 2017 at Fort Worth, Texas. (Courtesy photo by Air Force Viper Demo Team)
In line with Global Research’s 23rd anniversary on September 9, we will be giving away a free PDF copy of Prof. Michel Chossudovsky’s book, “Towards a World War III Scenario: The Dangers of Nuclear War”.
This special giveaway constitutes our campaign against nuclear armament, thus nuclear war.
According to Prof. Chossudovsky,
“Having carefully reviewed US military doctrine for more than 20 years, I can confirm that under the Biden Administration, preemptive nuclear war against Russia, China, Iran and North Korea is “on the table”.
Truth is a powerful and peaceful weapon, which is the object of Google and Facebook censorship.
Nuclear war threatens the future of humanity.
Say No to Joe Biden’s $1.3 trillion nuclear weapons program.
The US has embarked on a military adventure, “a long war”, which threatens the future of humanity. US-NATO weapons of mass destruction are portrayed as instruments of peace. Mini-nukes are said to be “harmless to the surrounding civilian population”. Pre-emptive nuclear war is portrayed as a “humanitarian undertaking”.
While one can conceptualize the loss of life and destruction resulting from present-day wars including Iraq and Afghanistan, it is impossible to fully comprehend the devastation which might result from a Third World War, using “new technologies” and advanced weapons, until it occurs and becomes a reality. The international community has endorsed nuclear war in the name of world peace. “Making the world safer” is the justification for launching a military operation which could potentially result in a nuclear holocaust.
Nuclear war has become a multibillion dollar undertaking, which fills the pockets of US defense contractors. What is at stake is the outright “privatization of nuclear war”.
The Pentagon’s global military design is one of world conquest. The military deployment of US-NATO forces is occurring in several regions of the world simultaneously.
Central to an understanding of war, is the media campaign which grants it legitimacy in the eyes of public opinion. A good versus evil dichotomy prevails. The perpetrators of war are presented as the victims. Public opinion is misled.
Breaking the “big lie”, which upholds war as a humanitarian undertaking, means breaking a criminal project of global destruction, in which the quest for profit is the overriding force. This profit-driven military agenda destroys human values and transforms people into unconscious zombies.
The object of this book is to forcefully reverse the tide of war, challenge the war criminals in high office and the powerful corporate lobby groups which support them.
Reviews
Professor Chossudovsky’s hard-hitting and compelling book explains why and how we must immediately undertake a concerted and committed campaign to head off this impending cataclysmic demise of the human race and planet Earth. This book is required reading for everyone in the peace movement around the world. —Francis A. Boyle, Professor of International Law at the University of Illinois College of Law
Michel Chossudovsky exposes the insanity of our privatized war machine. Iran is being targeted with nuclear weapons as part of a war agenda built on distortions and lies for the purpose of private profit. The real aims are oil, financial hegemony and global control. The price could be nuclear holocaust. When weapons become the hottest export of the world’s only superpower, and diplomats work as salesmen for the defense industry, the whole world is recklessly endangered. If we must have a military, it belongs entirely in the public sector. No one should profit from mass death and destruction. –Ellen Brown, author of ‘Web of Debt’ and president of the Public Banking Institute
Towards a World War III Scenario: The Dangers of Nuclear War is one of the most important books currently available. The information it contains is heart rending, scary and absolutely accurate. —Helen Caldicott, Co-founder of Physicians for Social Responsibility and award-winning author.
The global anti-war movement must use this book as a counter-propaganda tool against the Military Industrial Complex’s war agenda. It should be everyone’s No. 1 priority “Must Read”. —Matthias Chang, distinguished Malaysian lawyer and author of Future Fast Forward
In a world where engineered, pre-emptive, or more fashionably “humanitarian” wars of aggression have become the norm, this challenging book may be our final wake-up call. —Denis Halliday, Former Assistant Secretary General of the United Nations
This book is a ‘must’ resource – a richly documented and systematic diagnosis of the supremely pathological geo-strategic planning of U.S. wars since 9-11 against non-nuclear countries to seize their oil fields and resources under cover of “freedom and democracy”. —John McMurtry, Professor of Philosophy, Guelph University
The tiltrotor V-22 Osprey has a plagued, bloodied history. But blighted as it is, the aircraft remains a cherished feature of the US Marines, regarded as vital in supporting combat assault, logistics and transport, not to mention playing a role in search-and-rescue missions and delivering equipment for the Navy carrier air wings.
In March this year, V-22 flights were again permitted after a three-month pause following a fatal crash on November 29 of an Air Force CV-22B off Yakushima Island, Japan and the grounding of all V-22S aircraft in early December. Col. Brian Taylor, program manager for the V-22 Joint Program Office, told a media roundtable two days prior to rescinding the grounding order that a “meticulous and data-driven approach” had been used in investigations.
The approach, however, may well have been less meticulous and data-driven than a matter of desperation and self-interest, not to mention the role the aircraft is intended to play in the lighter, more agile forms of conflict envisaged by the “Force Design 2030” strategy. A feature of that strategy is EABO, known to the military wonks as Expeditionary Advanced Base Operations.
Bryan Clark, senior fellow and director of the Hudson Institute’s Center for Defense Concepts and Technology, offers a blunt assessment. “There’s not a clear backup for the Marines, there’s not a clear backup for the Air Force, and soon there won’t be a backup for the Navy’s [carrier onboard delivery] mission.”
The Osprey’s failures have also left their spatter in Australia. On August 27, 2023 a V-22B Osprey with 23 US marines crashed to the north of Darwin on Melville Island, leading to three fatalities. Darwin, having become a vital springboard in projecting US power in the Indo-Pacific, hosts an annual Marine Rotational Force, so-called to avoid suspicions of a permanent garrisoning of the city.
The crash also stirred unwanted memories of a previous Osprey crash in Australia, when a Marine Medium Tiltrotor Squadron 265 failed to safely land on the flight deck of USS Green Bay on August 5, 2017. That lethal occasion saw three deaths and 23 injuries.
The Osprey has pride of place in a military force that specialises in lethal aviation mishaps during training and routine operations. Join the US Armed Forces, and you might just get yourself killed by your own machinery and practices. The investigation into the Melville Island crash was instructive to that end, showing the aircraft to be, yet again, an object of pious reverence in US defence circles.
The initial investigation into the crash was initially eclectic: the Northern Territory police, fire and emergency services, along with personnel from the Australian Defence Force and the US Marine Corps. At the time, acting assistant commissioner and incident controller, Matthew Hollamby, expressed his enthusiasm in carrying out a “thorough investigation”. “We are in the recovery phase and working closely with NT Fire and Rescue Service to assist us with a safe and respectful recovery operation of the three deceased US marines.”
Despite such utterances, it soon became clear that any investigation into the matter would ultimately be pared back. Either the servitors were not considered up to the task, or all too capable in identifying what caused the crash. In September 2023, the local press reported that territory officials were no longer needed, with NT News going so far as to claim that local agencies had been “ousted from the investigation”. The Marines had taken full reins over the matter.
The top brass accordingly got the findings they wanted from the US Marines’ official report, which involved sparing the Osprey and chastising the personnel. There had been no “material or mechanical failure of any component on the aircraft”. The crash had been “caused by a series of poor decisions and/or miscalculations.”
The squadron’s attitude to procedure had also been less than enviable, marked by a “culture that disregarded safety of flight procedures”. There had been a “lack of attention to detail and failure to comply with proper pre-flight procedures”. There had also been a “lackadaisical attitude across the squadron” towards maintenance practices. Command responsibility in not addressing that particular culture was also acknowledged, while the conduct of the Australian Defence Forces and “local nationals” in responding to the crash were deemed “admirable”.
Such reports are hardly intended as ironic, but the executive summary notes how Australian defence protocols were so developed as to enable the Marines to operate with even greater daring than they otherwise would. The ADF’s “casualty evacuation (CASEVAC) and mass casualty (MASSCAS) support structure is allowing Marine units to conduct multi-national military training events in the Northern Territories without sacrificing force requirements. Without these well-established relationships in place this mishap may have been more tragic.”
The findings should have given the then Northern Territory Chief Minister Eva Lawler pause for concern. Squadrons of personnel operating such machinery indifferent to safety would surely stir some searching questions. But NT officials, under the eagle eye of the Canberra military establishment, aim to please, and Lawler proved no different. She knew “that the US Marines will do the work that’s needed now to make sure that any recommendations out of any inquiry are implemented in full.”
In a statement of unconvincing worth, the Marines insisted that they remained “unwavering” in their “commitment to the world class training of our aircrews and ensuring their safety”. And that commitment, not to mention the type of training, is precisely what we should be afraid of.
*
Click the share button below to email/forward this article to your friends and colleagues. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.
Dr. Binoy Kampmark was a Commonwealth Scholar at Selwyn College, Cambridge. He currently lectures at RMIT University. He is a Research Associate of the Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG). Email: [email protected]
I am sitting on the beach at the National Seashore, a forty-mile long stretch of the Atlantic Ocean seashore on Outer Cape Cod, established in 1961 by President Kennedy.
The wind is whipping hard and the waves are running wildly high against the shore, and, to paraphrase Thoreau – the sand is rapidly drinking up the last wave that wets it. I am looking far out to the horizon where the sun shimmers on what seems to be the world’s watery edge, creating a strange mirage that I wonder at but find hard to describe. Earlier, I was rereading Thoreau’s Cape Cod in which he mentioned this phenomenon 150 years ago, not just the mirages across the water but those here along the great stretches of sand. Now I am confused and my mind wanders to other mirages that make me shake my head in wonderment. It is hard to grasp what one is seeing these days.
*
When Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., a presidential aspirant, folded his cards and conceded the current pot to Donald Trump – what he euphemistically called suspending his campaign for the presidency – he let his justifiable hatred of the Democratic Party, their undermining of his campaign, and their pro-war and genocidal agenda get the best of him. His trust in Trump is naïve in the extreme. With the issue that Kennedy has made central to his work in recent years – Covid and the “vaccines” – Trump is in the opposite camp.
The investigative journalist Whitney Webb has said:
“The inevitable embrace of the Trump campaign by RFK Jr. will see one of the Covid-era’s most prominent (+ promoted) skeptics embrace the man whose administration established the early Covid policies and Military-run Op Warp Speed. What a world and what a disappointment.”
Furthermore, Trump’s campaign is backed by a host of people – Elon Musk, Peter Thiel, Joe Lonsdale, and Trump’s vice-president sidekick, JD Vance, among others – who are big promoters and investors in mRNA and DNA vaccine technology. Thiel and Lonsdale are cofounders of Palantir, a company that collects American’s health data while it also works with the CIA.
Mirages?
And the independent journalist Vanessa Beeley, while being equally scathing of the Democratic Party’s masters of war, has said the following of this odd coupling:
With Trump and Kennedy you have a combination that is 100 times more likely to lead us to Armageddon and idiots are saying Trump supplied less weapons to Israel. Of course he did because he was destroying Syria through unilateral collective punishment economic sanctions, assassinating Resistance leadership and paving the way for greater Israel, Clean Break through Abraham Accords and Jerusalem, giving Golan to Zionist occupation. He didn’t NEED to start wars, he certainly didn’t end them, he increased the hybrid war strategy to pave the way for the final solution and Kennedy is fully on board, whatever his title. It’s astonishing to watch people whitewash the Trump role in the empowerment of the Zionist entity which has led to the genocide we are witnessing. There is no one or the other (Trump or Harris) they work as a tag team, oligarchs and deep dark state create the road map. We are already in WW3 and Trump will go to war with Iran, effectively with Russia and China. Why continue supporting a putrid corpse of a US political system? And, by the way, Kennedy support base is not anti-Zionist. They are generally apathetic and prepared to excuse Kennedy’s criminal genocide denial and defence of Zionist apartheid and ethnosupremacism because “America first”. Genocide is the Red line that Trump and Kennedy will erase and normalisation of genocide is a clandestine policy of this partnership. We are already in WW3. Trump will not end any wars, he never has. Iran and China are in his crosshair.
This too is true, and it runs counter to RFK, Jr.’s pledge to end all foreign wars. One may have noticed that in his speech suspending his campaign Kennedy said that he disagreed with Trump on certain matters, but he did not conveniently mention that they were in accord with each other and the Democrats in supporting the Israeli slaughter of Palestinians and its push for war with Iran and therefore Iran’s ally Russia. That sounds like one big foreign war to this observer.
While the mainstream media relish ripping Kennedy, they rarely if ever mention his unequivocal support for Israel, for to do so would bind them to him (and Biden/ Harris, and Trump/Vance) in being full-fledged supporters of Israel’s genocide of the Palestinians.
Indeed, there is one taboo that the mainstream corporate media, mouthpieces for the warfare state, assiduously maintain: it is to never report the truth about the power Israel maintains over U.S.
Mideast policy through its Israel lobby, and their own complicity in Israel propaganda. Politicians of both parties are venal reprobates who parade with American flags on their chests as they betray their country. They can only be described as traitors, as the current Biden/Harris administration’s full-fledged proud military backing for Israel’s ongoing slaughter of the Palestinians substantiates. The recent Democratic Convention was a Hollywood spectacle directed by an American version of Nazi Germany’s Leni Riefenstahl, replete with shouts for the destruction of Russia as well as the Palestinians. (The Biden-Harris administration has just approved its 100th arms shipment to Israel since October 7, 2023.) That they are pushing the world toward nuclear war didn’t disturb them in the least, as they sang and laughed and acted out for a fan base deluded by mirages and auditory delusions produced Tinseltown style.
So American voters are offered a choice of a political alliance of an odd couple in Kennedy and Trump, along with Vance, and a conventional one in Harris and Walz, based on the fallacious assumption that a choice is being offered between the war parties whose raisons d’être are to wage foreign wars for the teetering American empire.
Hovering over and behind this pathetic travesty lies the controlling power of the national security state and its corporate media propaganda for these endless wars and corrupt politicians. Only a skeptically acute mental knife, constantly sharpened, can cut through the propaganda campaign aimed, not at a foreign audience, but at the American people by its own government. Mind control is the name of its game.
*
What would Thoreau, a man who didn’t vote and refused to his pay poll tax to support war and slavery, think of these strange alliances hiding behind glittering mirages? Though written more than 150 years ago, his words are more than apropos today:
Men have an indistinct notion that if they keep up this activity of joint stocks and spades long enough all will at length ride somewhere, in next to no time, and for nothing; but a crowd rushes to the depot, and the conductor shouts ‘all aboard’ when the smoke blows away and the vapor condensed, it will be perceived that a few are riding, but the rest are run over – and it will be called, and will be, ‘a melancholy accident.’
He made it very clear that one should not lend oneself to the wrongs which one condemns, such as the Israeli genocide of Palestinians or the US/NATO war against Russia through Ukraine that is leading toward nuclear war. By voting for the so-called “lesser of two evils,” one is voting for evil and lending oneself to the wrongs one condemns. It is blatant hypocrisy and a vote for the warfare state.
*
As synchronicity would have it, down the winding road a short walk from where we are staying, sits tiny Rock Harbor in Orleans where a fleet of fishing boats are docked on Cape Cod Bay. Directly across the road rises a massive tower and huge stone basilica that is part of the compound for The Church of the Transfiguration. It describes itself simply as the Community of Jesus and across its front is a long large sign in red, white, and blue emblazoned with a star and the word JOY.
Since I first saw this anomalous place a few of years ago, it struck me as more than strange and out of place, a ritzy “religious” enclave to a capitalist God. I wondered how it was financed. Intuition told me it was something more than a community of 275 members who claim to be an ecumenical Christian community in the Benedictine monastic tradition, but I didn’t take time to investigate. From the little that I did learn, I was reminded of the American Orthodox Catholic Church in the Little Italy section of the northern Bronx. As Peter Levenda has reported in his trilogy, Sinister Forces, this church was a front for U.S. intelligence agencies in the Cold War with the U.S.S.R. He says,
As it turns out, the AOCC was a front for American intelligence, specifically anti-communist activities in the United States and abroad. It was created by a Ukrainian Orthodox priest with impeccable credentials who ran anti-communist crusades in the States in the 1940s-1960s. Suspected Kennedy assassination conspirators David Ferrie and Jack Martin were members.
It was not until earlier this year when I was contemplating and mourning the self-immolation of Adam Bushnell, the US airman who burnt himself to death outside the Israeli embassy in Washington, D.C. protesting the Israeli genocide in Gaza, that I thought again of The Church of the Transfiguration. Bushnell, who was once a member of this church, left these words:
Many of us like to ask ourselves, ‘What would I do if I was alive during slavery? Or the Jim Crow South? Or apartheid? What would I do if my country was committing genocide?’ The answer is, you’re doing it. Right now.
His powerful words and tragic death moved me deeply. I thought of Roger LaPorte, a former seminarian and a Catholic Worker who in 1965 immolated himself in front of the United Nations building in New York City protesting the U.S. war against Vietnam, while the Catholic Church, led by Cardinal Spellman of New York supported the war with the vigor of John Wayne in The Green Berets. Ruthless jingoism then and now, the lust for killing “others,” such as Vietnamese and Palestinians over the decades. Worthless people to the War Party. And two young men whose consciences drove them to extreme acts of protest.
Yesterday I remembered what I read in The New York Post and the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation investigation in February about Adam Bushnell and The Church of the Transfiguration. These reports assert that the church is a cult and that Bushnell grew up here in the Rock Harbor community where his parents still live. The reports claim that members are mind-controlled and abused, and they are raised to strictly obey and follow some secret agenda. The church says it stands with Israel, which is what Bushnell emphatically came to reject, for he stood with the Palestinians, even literally standing as he courageously took his life in flames. Like all cults, money doesn’t seem a problem for this strange community. One thinks also of Jim Jones and the People’s Temple and its strange intelligence connections. As John Judge has documented in “The Black Hole of Guyana”:
The connection of intelligence agencies to cults is nothing new. A simple but revealing example is the Unification Church, tied to both the Korean CIA (i.e., American CIA in Korea), and the international fascist network known as the World Anti-Communist League (WACL). The Moonies hosted WACL’s first international conference.[217] What distinguished Jonestown was both the level of control and the openly sinister involvement. It was imperative that they cover their tracks.[218]
*
The sky and ocean here on Cape Cod are very restless and constantly changing, even as people come here to rest, to be still for a while. The movement of the waves and clouds, the shore birds flitting and floating before and above one, the constant breaking of the waves on the shore, and the long looks far out to where the ocean seems to disappear, create dreamy minds, if one allows it. I am no exception, and this place no doubt increases my tendency to mental vagabonding. Yet I am one with Thoreau when he says, “I fear chiefly lest my expression may not be extra-vagant enough.” For I began with mirages and will drift back to them. They come in many forms, but all contain the sense of being deluded. This is the lesson of Plato’s Cave and Eastern philosophy’s idea of maya, among many ancient warnings. “Shams and delusions are esteemed for soundest truths, while reality is fabulous,” Thoreau said truly. Yet when we turn to the realm of politics in our times, as we must when vacations cease, we are forced back to contemplate the insidious nature of the scoundrel politicians and leaders of all sorts who capture so many minds with lies and mirages of false hope on the horizon.
Most people don’t like to see the summer end, but another Fall is approaching. A different reality beckons.
*
Click the share button below to email/forward this article to your friends and colleagues. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.
This article was originally published on the author’s blog site, Behind the Curtain.
Edward Curtin is a prominent author, researcher and sociologist based in Western Massachusetts. He is a Research Associate of the Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG).
Despite much grandstanding in the Biden administration about halting specific arms shipments to Israel over feigned concerns about how they might be used (inflicting death is the expected form), US military supplies have been restored with barely a murmur. In a report in Haaretz on August 29, a rush of weapons to Israel has been noticed since the end of July.
August proved to be the second busiest month for US arms deliveries to Israel’s Nevatim Airbase since the October 2023 attacks by Hamas. This has taken place alongside an increased concentration of US forces in the region since Israel’s assassinations of Hezbollah commander Fuad Shukr and Hamas political chief Ismail Haniyeh at the end of last month. Two aircraft carriers, a guided missile submarine, and deployments of advanced F-22 stealth aircraft in Qatar, have featured in a show intended to deter Tehran from any retaliatory strikes.
After examining open-source aviation data from the end of July, Haaretz concluded that the issue of delayed shipments of US weapons had “been solved.”
Dozens of flights by US military transport planes, along with civilian and military Israeli cargo planes, mostly from Qatar and the Dover Air Force Base in Delaware, had been noted. Demands by Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu in his July 24 speech to Congress that US military aid be “dramatically” expedited to “end the war in Gaza and help prevent a broader war in the Middle East”, had been heeded.
On August 26, Israel received its 500th aerial shipment of weapons and military supplies from the United States since the latest war’s commencement. The 500 flights have also been supplemented by 107 sea shipments, altogether facilitating the transfer of 50,000 tons of military equipment in an initiative between the US military, Israel’s Defence Ministry’s Directorate of Production and Procurement and Mission to the United States, the IDF’s planning Directorate and the Israeli Air Force.
During the same month, the Democratic National Convention, which saw no debate about the candidature of Kamala Harris as its choice for presidential candidate, had tepidly promised some agitation on continued arms to Israel. Ahead of the event, the Uncommitted movement’s 30 delegates, picked by voters alarmed by US support for Israel’s war machine in Gaza, were hoping to convince the 4,000 pledged delegates Harris had captured to add an arms embargo to its campaign in order to induce a ceasefire.
A petition by the group sought two outcomes: the adding of language to both the party and campaign platform “that unequivocally supports a permanent ceasefire in Gaza and a cessation of supplying weapons for Israel’s assault and occupation against Palestinians.”
These wishes proved much too salty for the apparatchiks and party managers. The Democratic Party’s 2024 national platform ironically enough begins with an effusive “land acknowledgment” to “the ancestors and descendants of Tribal Nations” but plays it safe regarding an ally very much the product of territorial seizure, violence and occupation. Despite mutterings in the party room about a split between moderate and progressive members on Israel’s conduct of the war, the topic of a ceasefire never made it to the committee hearings when the document was drafted.
In firmly insisting on continued US support for Israel in its war against Hamas, much is made in the platform about US efforts to forge a way that will see a release of the hostages, “a durable ceasefire”, the easing of “humanitarian suffering in Gaza” and the “possible normalization between Israel and key Arab states, together with meaningful progress and a political horizon for the Palestinian people.” The language is instructive: the Palestinians are objects of pitiful charity, at the mercy of Israel, the US, and various Arab states. Like toddlers, they are to be managed, steered, guided, their political choices forever mediated through the wishes of other powers.
With Israel remaining Washington’s paramount ally in the Middle East, that process of steering and managing the unruly Palestinians has been, thus far, lethal. During her first interview given after the convention (she has an aversion to them), Harris scotched any suggestions on going wobbly on Israel. “I’m unequivocal and unwavering in my commitment to Israel’s defence and its ability to defend itself, and that’s not going to change,” she told CNN’s Dana Bush. In what has become a standard refrain, Harris lamented that “far too many innocent Palestinians have been killed” while acknowledging Israel’s right to self-defence.
When asked whether she would alter President Biden’s policy on furnishing military assistance to Israel, “No” came the reply. “We have to get a deal done. The war must end, and we must get a deal that is about getting the hostages out. I’ve met with the families of the American hostages. Let’s get the hostages out. Let’s get the ceasefire done.”
This middle-management lingo says much about Harris’s worldview; in wishing to “get the ceasefire done”, she is encouraging a range of factors that will make sure nothing of the sort will be achieved. The Netanyahu formula has worked its usual black magic. Hence, the lack of an arms embargo, and the continued, generous supply to the IDF from their largest military benefactor.
*
Click the share button below to email/forward this article to your friends and colleagues. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.
Dr. Binoy Kampmark was a Commonwealth Scholar at Selwyn College, Cambridge. He currently lectures at RMIT University. He is a Research Associate of the Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG). Email: [email protected]
Featured image: A sculpture of 140 Squadron “Golden Eagle” near a parking area at Nevatim (Licensed under CC BY 2.5)
Max Weber (1864-1920) was a prominent German sociologist who developed influential theories on rationality and authority. He examined different types of rationality that underpinned systems of authority. He argued that modern Western societies were based on legal-rational authority and had moved away from systems that were based on traditional authority and charismatic authority.
Traditional authority derives its power from long-standing customs and traditions, while charismatic authority is based on the exceptional personal qualities or charisma of a leader.
According to Weber, the legal-rational authority that characterises Western capitalist industrial society is based on instrumental rationality that focuses on the most efficient means to achieve given ends. This type of rationality manifest in bureaucratic power. Weber contrasted this with another form of rationality: value rationality that is based on conscious beliefs in the inherent value of certain behaviour.
While Weber saw the benefits of instrumental rationality in terms of increased efficiency, he feared that this could lead to a stifling “iron cage” of a rule-based order and rule following (instrumental rationality) as an end in itself. The result would be humanity’s “polar night of icy darkness.”
Today, technological change is sweeping across the planet and presents many challenges. The danger is of a technological iron cage in the hands of an elite that uses technology for malevolent purposes.
“We do not — or should not — want to become a society in which things of deeper significance are appreciated only for any instrumental value. The challenge, therefore, is to delimit instrumental rationality and the technologies that embody it by protecting that which we value intrinsically, above and beyond mere utility.”
He adds that we must decide which technologies we are for, to what ends, and how they can be democratically managed, with a view to the kind of society we wish to be.
A major change that we have seen in recent years is the increasing dominance of cloud-based services and platforms. In the food and agriculture sector, we are seeing the rollout of these phenomena tied to a techno solutionist ‘data-driven’ or ‘precision’ agriculture legitimised by ‘humanitarian’ notions of ‘helping farmers’, ‘saving the planet’ and ‘feeding the world’ in the face of some kind of impending Malthusian catastrophe.
A part-fear mongering, part-self-aggrandisement narrative promoted by those who have fuelled ecological devastation, corporate dependency, land dispossession, food insecurity and farmer indebtedness as a result of the global food regime that they helped to create and profited from. Now, with a highly profitable but flawed carbon credit trading scheme and a greenwashed technology-driven eco-modernism, they are going to save humanity from itself.
The World According to Bayer
In the agrifood sector, we are seeing the rollout of data-driven or precision approaches to agriculture by the likes of Microsoft, Syngenta, Bayer and Amazon centred on cloud-based data information services. Data-driven agriculture mines data to be exploited by the agribusiness/big tech giants to instruct farmers what and how much to produce and what type of proprietary inputs they must purchase and from whom.
Data owners (Microsoft, Amazon, Alphabet etc.), input suppliers (Bayer, Corteva, Syngenta, Cargill etc.) and retail concerns (Amazon, Walmart etc) aim to secure the commanding heights of the global agrifood economy through their monopolistic platforms.
But what does this model of agriculture look like in practice?
Let us use Bayer’s digital platform Climate FieldView as an example. It collects data from satellites and sensors in fields and on tractors and then uses algorithms to advise farmers on their farming practices: when and what to plant, how much pesticide to spray, how much fertiliser to apply etc.
To be part of Bayer’s Carbon Program, farmers have to be enrolled in FieldView. Bayer then uses the FieldView app to instruct farmers on the implementation of just two practices that are said to sequester carbon in the soils: reduced tillage or no-till farming and the planting of cover crops.
Through the app, the company monitors these two practices and estimates the amount of carbon that the participating farmers have sequestered. Farmers are then supposed to be paid according to Bayer’s calculations, and Bayer uses that information to claim carbon credits and sell these in carbon markets.
Bayer also has a programme in the US called ForGround. Upstream companies can use the platform to advertise and offer discounts for equipment, seeds and other inputs.
For example, getting more farmers to use reduced tillage or no-till is of huge benefit to Bayer (sold on the basis of it being ‘climate friendly’). The kind of reduced tillage or no-till promoted by Bayer requires dousing fields with its RoundUp (toxic glyphosate) herbicide and planting seeds of its genetically engineered Roundup resistant soybeans or hybrid maize.
And what of the cover crops referred to above? Bayer also intends to profit from the promotion of cover crops. It has taken majority ownership of a seed company developing a gene-edited cover crop, called CoverCress. Seeds of CoverCress will be sold to farmers who are enrolled in ForGround and the crop will be sold as a biofuel.
But Bayer’s big target is the downstream food companies which can use the platform to claim emissions reductions in their supply chains.
Agribusiness corporations and the big tech companies are jointly developing carbon farming platforms to influence farmers on their choice of inputs and farming practices (big tech companies, like Microsoft and IBM, are major buyers of carbon credits).
The non-profit GRAIN says (see the article The corporate agenda behind carbon farming) that Bayer is gaining increasing control over farmers in various countries, dictating exactly how they farm and what inputs they use through its ‘Carbon Program’.
GRAIN argues that, for corporations, carbon farming is all about increasing their control within the food system and is certainly not about sequestering carbon.
Digital platforms are intended to be one-stop shops for carbon credits, seeds, pesticides and fertilisers and agronomic advice, all supplied by the company, which gets the added benefit of control over the data harvested from the participating farms.
Technofeudalism
Yanis Varoufakis, former finance minister of Greece, argues that what we are seeing is a shift from capitalism to technofeudalism. He argues that tech giants like Apple, Meta and Amazon act as modern-day feudal lords. Users of digital platforms (such as companies or farmers) essentially become ‘cloud serfs’, and ‘rent’ (fees, data etc) is extracted from them for being on a platform.
In feudalism (land) rent drives the system. In capitalism, profits drive the system. Varoufakis says that markets are being replaced by algorithmic ‘digital fiefdoms’.
Although digital platforms require some form of capitalist production, as companies like Amazon need manufacturers to produce goods for their platforms, the new system represents a significant shift in power dynamics, favouring those who own and control the platforms.
Whether this system is technofeudalism, hypercapitalism or something else is open to debate. But we should at least be able to agree on one thing: the changes we are seeing are having profound impacts on economies and populations that are increasingly surveilled as they are compelled to shift their lives online.
The very corporations that are responsible for the problems of the prevailing food system merely offer more of the same, this time packaged in a genetically engineered, ecomodernist, fake-green wrapping (see the online article From net zero to glyphosate: agritech’s greenwashed corporate power grab).
Elected officials are facilitating this by putting the needs of monopolistic global interests ahead of ordinary people’s personal freedoms and workers’ rights, as well as the needs of independent local producers, enterprises and markets.
For instance, the Indian government has in recent times signed memoranda of understanding (MoU) with Amazon, Bayer, Microsoft and Syngenta to rollout data-driven, precision agriculture. A ‘one world agriculture’ under their control based on genetically engineered seeds, laboratory created products that resemble food and farming without farmers, with the entire agrifood chain, from field (or lab) to retail in their hands.
This is part of a broader strategy to shift hundreds of millions out of agriculture, ensure India’s food dependence on foreign corporations and eradicate any semblance of food democracy (or national sovereignty).
In response, a ‘citizen letter’ (July 2024) was sent to the government. It stated that it is not clear what the Indian Council of Agricultural Research (ICAR) will learn from Bayer that the well-paid public sector scientists of the institution cannot develop themselves. The letter says entities that have been responsible for causing an economic and environmental crisis in Indian agriculture are being partnered by ICAR for so-called solutions when these entities are only interested in their profits and not sustainability (or any other nomenclature they use).
The letter poses raises some key concerns. Where is the democratic debate on carbon credit markets. Is the ICAR ensuring that the farmers get the best rather than biased advice that boosts the further rollout of proprietary products? Is there a system in place for the ICAR to develop research and education agendas from the farmers it is supposed to serve as opposed to being led by the whims and business ideas of corporations?
The authors of the letter note that copies of the MoUs are not being shared proactively in the public domain by the ICAR. The letter asks that the ICAR suspends the signed MoUs, shares all details in the public domain and desists from signing any more such MoUs without necessary public debate.
Valuing Humanity
Genuine approaches to addressing the challenges humanity faces are being ignored by policymakers or cynically attacked by corporate lobbyists. These solutions involve systemic shifts in agricultural, food and economic systems with a focus on low consumption (energy) lifestyles, localisation and an ecologically sustainable agroecology.
As activist John Wilson says, this is based on creative solutions, a connection to nature and the land, nurturing people, peaceful transformation and solidarity.
This is something discussed in the recent article From Agrarianism to Transhumanism: The Long March to Dystopia in which it is argued that co-operative labour, fellowship and our long-standing spiritual connection to the land should inform how as a society we should live. This stands in stark contrast to the values and impacts of capitalism and technology based on instrumental rationality and too often fuelled by revenue streams and the goal to control populations.
When we hear talk of a ‘spiritual connection’, what is meant by ‘spiritual’? In a broad sense it can be regarded as a concept that refers to thoughts, beliefs and feelings about the meaning of life, rather than just physical existence. A sense of connection to something greater than ourselves. Something akin to Weber’s concept of value rationality. The spiritual, the diverse and the local are juxtaposed with the selfishness of modern urban society, the increasing homogeneity of thought and practice and an instrumental rationality which becomes an end in itself.
Having a direct link with nature/the land is fundamental to developing an appreciation of a type of ‘being’ and an ‘understanding’ that results in a reality worth living in.
However, what we are seeing is an agenda based on a different set of values rooted in a lust for power and money and the total subjugation of ordinary people being rammed through under the false promise of techno solutionism (transhumanism, vaccines in food, neural laces to detect moods implanted in the skull, programmable digital money, track and trace technology etc.) and some distant notion of a techno utopia that leave malevolent power relations intact and unchallenged.
Is this then to be humanity’s never-ending “polar night of icy darkness”? Hopefully not. This vision is being imposed from above. Ordinary people (whether, for example, farmers in India or those being beaten down through austerity policies) find themselves on the receiving end of a class war being waged against them by a mega rich elite.
Indeed, in 1941, Herbert Marcuse stated that technology could be used as an instrument for control and domination. Precisely the agenda of the likes of Bayer, the Gates Foundation, BlackRock and the World Bank, which are trying to eradicate genuine diversity and impose a one-size-fits-all model of thinking and behaviour.
A final thought courtesy of civil rights campaigner Frederick Douglass in a speech from 1857:
“Power concedes nothing without a demand. It never did and it never will. Find out just what any people will quietly submit to and you have found out the exact measure of injustice and wrong which will be imposed upon them, and these will continue till they are resisted with either words or blows, or with both. The limits of tyrants are prescribed by the endurance of those whom they oppress.”
*
Click the share button below to email/forward this article to your friends and colleagues. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.
Renowned author Colin Todhunter specialises in development, food and agriculture. He is a Research Associate of the Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG).
O fundador do Telegram, Pavel Durov, foi formalmente indiciado por um tribunal francês, acusado de ser cúmplice de vários crimes alegadamente cometidos por usuários de seu aplicativo de mensagens. Depois de pagar uma multa de cinco milhões de euros, Durov foi libertado da prisão, mas está proibido de sair de França e poderá ser preso novamente no futuro.
Durov foi preso em Paris depois de chegar ao aeroporto local vindo do Azerbaijão. As acusações contra ele podem levar a uma pena de até dez anos de prisão, mas uma série de pressões diplomáticas parecem estar a dificultar os planos autoritários das autoridades francesas. Durov, apesar de russo de nascimento, possui diversos passaportes e é cidadão de diversos países, inclusive dos Emirados Árabes Unidos (EAU).
Durov viveu em Dubai durante muitos anos e desenvolveu profundos laços econômicos e estratégicos com o governo dos Emirados Árabes Unidos. Por isso, a pressão do país árabe para que a França o libertasse foi enorme. Os EAU ameaçaram pôr fim aos acordos de cooperação militar e econômica, o que certamente suscitou preocupações no governo francês. Na prática, pode-se dizer que os EAU utilizaram a sua posição internacional como um importante centro comercial e diplomático para ajudar Durov a enfrentar a tirania das autoridades francesas.
É preciso dizer que não há argumentos sólidos para condenar Durov. Os criadores de redes sociais não podem ser responsabilizados pelo que outros usuários fazem em suas plataformas. Se Durov fornecesse às autoridades francesas as chaves de acesso aos códigos internos do Telegram, ele não só estaria ajudando a punir os criminosos que utilizam o aplicativo, mas também violando os dados privados de milhões de usuários inocentes – além de dar ao governo francês acesso a dados compartilhados por autoridades estaduais, empresários e militares que usam o Telegram.
Se a França estivesse verdadeiramente comprometida com valores como a liberdade e a democracia, a prisão de Durov nunca teria acontecido. No entanto, a França contemporânea é tudo menos democrática. Paris está a tornar-se uma ditadura sob Emmanuel Macron, que se recusou repetidamente a reconhecer a derrota eleitoral da sua coligação partidária, tomando medidas autoritárias semelhantes às de alguns regimes autocráticos em todo o mundo.
O próprio Durov é cidadão francês. Se a França fosse uma democracia, estaria preocupada em garantir as liberdades individuais dos seus cidadãos. No entanto, mesmo os países islâmicos do Médio Oriente, como os EAU, que são frequentemente descritos como “autocráticos” pelo Ocidente, respeitam mais os valores democráticos do que a França – como se pode ver nos esforços dos EAU para libertar Durov da prisão.
O fato mais interessante sobre o caso de Durov, contudo, é que alguns meios de comunicação ocidentais estão a tentar descrevê-lo como uma espécie de “agente” russo. Há uma narrativa de que o Telegram é uma ferramenta russa de “guerra híbrida”. Os propagandistas ocidentais estão a tentar induzir o público em erro, fazendo-o acreditar na falácia de que Durov se recusa a partilhar dados com as autoridades francesas, a fim de supostamente “proteger os russos”. No entanto, a verdade é bem diferente.
Apesar de ter nascido na Rússia, Durov sempre foi um adversário do governo russo. Ideologicamente libertário, Durov sempre teve uma visão ocidentalizada da política do seu país, vendo Moscou como um inimigo da liberdade individual. Deixou a sua terra natal em busca de maior liberdade no Ocidente – e está agora a ser perseguido pela França, o país onde Durov procurou a cidadania na esperança de encontrar maior liberdade do que na Rússia.
Durov está agora a aprender da pior maneira possível que a “liberdade” defendida pelo Ocidente é apenas retórica. Na França, onde esperava ser “livre”, Durov está a ser perseguido simplesmente por defender os seus valores libertários e por se recusar a partilhar dados sensíveis com as autoridades estatais. Durov nunca enfrentou uma perseguição tão brutal no seu próprio país, o que mostra que o nível de violação das liberdades individuais no Ocidente é mais elevado do que na Rússia.
Ainda não se sabe qual será o futuro de Durov. Ele ainda não está “livre”, pois Paris ordenou que permanecesse em território francês. As autoridades locais estão tentando intimidá-lo, utilizando o terror psicológico para fazê-lo revelar os códigos do Telegram. Proibido de deixar França, a única esperança de Durov poderá ser procurar asilo nas instalações diplomáticas sediadas em França de um país do qual tem cidadania.
Só uma coisa é certa para Durov: ele não está seguro na França, o país onde outrora acreditou que encontraria a liberdade.
As autoridades ucranianas admitem o seu fracasso em Kursk. Recentemente, o comandante das forças armadas de Kiev afirmou que o objetivo da operação não foi alcançado, reconhecendo o sucesso da Rússia em evitar que a Ucrânia desviasse a atenção russa de outras frentes. Tais declarações mostram quão errados estão os meios de comunicação ocidentais ao tentar propagandear o caso Kursk como uma “vitória ucraniana”.
O Coronel General Aleksandr Syrsky, o principal comandante militar da Ucrânia, afirmou que Kiev não conseguiu atingir o seu objectivo em Kursk. Segundo ele, a operação teve como objetivo principal desviar a atenção de Moscou, obrigando os russos a retirar as tropas de Donbass e enviá-las para a fronteira norte. Desta forma, os ucranianos esperavam obter ganhos territoriais significativos no Donbass, enfrentando posições russas desprotegidas.
Syrsky reconhece que o resultado real da invasão de Kursk foi diferente: a Rússia expandiu ainda mais as suas posições no Donbass, ganhando novos territórios e destacando ainda mais tropas para a região. O comandante ucraniano acredita que atualmente as principais frentes no Donbass são Pokrovsk e Kurakhovsk, no oeste da República Popular de Donetsk. Estas cidades ocupam posições estratégicas chave para as linhas de abastecimento de Zaporozhye e Dnepropetrovsk. Desde 2014, Kiev tem se preocupado em manter fortificações militares em ambas as cidades, mas os constantes ataques russos ameaçam a estabilidade ucraniana na região.
“Uma das tarefas de conduzir uma operação ofensiva na direção de Kursk era desviar forças inimigas significativas de outras direções, principalmente das direções de Pokrovsk e Kurakhovsk (…) Claro, o inimigo entende isso, então continua a concentrar seus principais esforços na direção de Pokrovsk, onde estão concentradas suas unidades mais prontas para o combate (…) O inimigo está tentando retirar unidades de outras direções, enquanto na direção de Pokrovsk, pelo contrário, está aumentando seus esforços,” ele disse.
Por outras palavras, a manobra de Kiev em Kursk foi uma tentativa desesperada da Ucrânia para impedir – ou pelo menos atrasar – a inevitável vitória russa no Donbass. Kiev esperava uma retirada russa de cidades estratégicas na zona disputada, a fim de fortalecer as posições fronteiriças em Kursk, o que parece um grave erro estratégico por parte dos ucranianos.
O cálculo feito por Kiev baseou-se numa realidade de fraqueza militar, que corresponde à situação atual das forças ucranianas, mas não reflete as condições militares da Rússia. Se a Ucrânia for atacada numa frente diferente, Kiev só poderá retirar tropas de outras direções para proteger esta nova área. A Ucrânia está a operar num regime de plena mobilização, tendo já gasto todos os seus recursos militares e dependendo de uma gestão rigorosa do que resta das suas tropas e equipamento.
Por outro lado, os russos ainda utilizam uma pequena percentagem do seu aparelho de defesa na operação militar especial. Não há necessidade de a Rússia retirar tropas de uma frente para proteger uma nova região atacada. Moscou pode simplesmente enviar tropas da retaguarda para esta nova frente, sem interromper o abastecimento das linhas anteriores. Além disso, a Rússia pode aumentar simultaneamente a sua presença tanto nas novas como nas antigas posições, uma vez que ainda existe um grande exército de reservistas e voluntários prontos para serem mobilizados se necessário.
Em Kursk, a Rússia poupou as tropas já envolvidas nas principais frentes da operação e, em vez de as redistribuir, simplesmente utilizou as suas forças de retaguarda para neutralizar a invasão. A principal contribuição em Kursk veio das tropas do Grupo PMC Wagner que estavam estacionadas na República da Bielorrússia desde Junho do ano passado. Entretanto, vendo que os ucranianos estão desesperados para proteger Pokrovsk e Kurakhovsk, Moscou enviou ainda mais tropas para estas frentes, razão pela qual a vitória final nestas direções é esperada em breve.
Ao admitir o fracasso e revelar os planos ucranianos em Kursk, Syrsky deixou clara a incapacidade estratégica e a inexperiência militar dos tomadores de decisões ucranianos. Kiev simplesmente ignorou o fato de a Rússia ainda ter milhares de tropas e equipamento disponível para proteger qualquer ponto das suas fronteiras sem ter de retirar nenhum dos seus soldados já mobilizados.
É também interessante sublinhar como os meios de comunicação ocidentais se enganaram ao reportar apressadamente a invasão de Kursk como uma “virada de jogo”. Segundo “analistas” ocidentais, Kiev conseguiu “trazer a guerra para a Rússia”, mas o próprio comandante do exército ucraniano admite que este nunca foi o verdadeiro objetivo da operação.
O custo deste erro foi enorme para Kiev. No final, a situação inverteu-se: foram as tropas de Kiev que recuaram de Donbass para invadir Kursk, deixando vulneráveis áreas-chave da principal zona de conflito e permitindo à Rússia avançar ainda mais.
Commemorating The Tragic Events of 9/11. 23 Years Ago
We bring to the attention of our readers Michel Chossudovsky’s article published in 2002 pertaining to the role of Sen Bob Graham and Rep Porter Goss, chairmen of the Joint inquiry on 9/11 of the Senate and House of Representatives.
A mysterious September 11 breakfast meeting hosted by Sen Bob Graham and Rep Porter Goss was held with the head of Pakistani intelligence on the morning of 9/11.
Author’s Note
While the Joint inquiry (under the helm of Bob Graham and Porter Goss) had collected mountains of intelligence material, through careful omission, the numerous press and intelligence reports in the public domain (mainstream media, alternative media, etc), which confirm that key members of the Bush Administration were involved in acts of political camouflage, were carefully removed from the Joint inquiry’s hearings.
In retrospect, the mission of Porter Goss and Bob Graham to Islamabad in late August 2001 was part of the preparation of the propaganda campaign, with a view to sustaining the official narrative, i.e “Al Qaeda was behind the conspiracy to bring down the WTC towers, Muslims did it”, etc., which essentially sustains the official 9/11 narrative.
It is worth noting that during the visit of the Congressional delegation, they had the opportunity to meet and talk to Afghanistan’s Ambassador to Pakistan who confirmed that:
“the Taliban [Government] would never allow bin Laden to use Afghanistan to launch attacks on the US or any other country” (AFP).
As we recall, Afghanistan was identified as a “state sponsor of terror”. The 9/11 attacks were categorized as an act of war, an attack on America by a unnamed foreign power.
On September 12, 2001, less than 24 hours after the attacks, at a meeting of the Atlantic Council in Brussels, NATO invoked for the first time in its history “Article 5 of the Washington Treaty – its collective defence clause” declaring the 9/11 attacks on the World Trade Center (WTC) and the Pentagon “to be an attack against all NATO members.”
What this decision implied is that the US and its NATO allies accused Afghanistan on orders of the Taliban government of supporting Osama Bin Laden and attacking America.
To my knowledge, the conversation of Porter Goss and Bob Graham with the Ambassador of Afghanistan during their visit to Islamabad was not mentioned at the meeting of the Atlantic Council, nor was it recorded by the 9/11 Inquiry Commission.
Also of significance, in the wake of 9/11, the Afghan government on two occasions had communicated through diplomatic channels with Washington indicating that they were open to delivering Osama bin Laden to US Justice, if there were preliminary evidence of his involvement in the 9/11 attacks.
These offers were casually turned down by the Bush Administration.
The following text published by Global Research in 2002, provides details on the breakfast meeting hosted by Sen Bob Graham and Rep. Porter Goss on the morning of September 11, 2001 as well as their trip to Pakistan in late August.
Michel Chossudovsky, September 5, 2023, August 31, 2024
* * *
Mysterious September 11 2001 Breakfast Meeting on Capitol Hill
by Michel Chossudovsky
Was it an ‘intelligence failure’ to give red carpet treatment to the [alleged] ‘money man’ behind the 9-11 terrorists, or was it simply ‘routine’?
On the morning of September 11, Pakistan’s Chief Spy General Mahmoud Ahmad, the alleged “money-man” behind the 9-11 hijackers, was at a breakfast meeting on Capitol Hill hosted by Senator Bob Graham and Rep. Porter Goss, the chairmen of the Senate and House Intelligence committees:
“When the news [of the attacks on the World Trade Center] came, the two Florida lawmakers who lead the House and Senate intelligence committees were having breakfast with the head of the Pakistani intelligence service. Rep. Porter Goss, R-Sanibel, Sen. Bob Graham and other members of the House Intelligence Committee were talking about terrorism issues with the Pakistani official when a member of Goss’ staff handed a note to Goss, who handed it to Graham. “We were talking about terrorism, specifically terrorism generated from Afghanistan,” Graham said.
(…)
Mahmoud Ahmad, director general of Pakistan’s intelligence service, was “very empathetic, sympathetic to the people of the United States,” Graham said. (NYT)
***
In late August 2001, barely a couple of weeks before 9/11, Senator Bob Graham, Representative Porter Goss and Senator Jon Kyl were in Islamabad for consultations. Meetings were held with President Musharraf and with Pakistan’s military and intelligence brass including the head of Pakistan’s Inter Services Intelligence (ISI) General Mahmoud Ahmad. (image right) An AFP report confirms that the US Congressional delegation also met the Afghan ambassador to Pakistan, Abdul Salam Zaeef. At this meeting, which was barely mentioned by the US media,
“Zaeef assured the US delegation [on behalf of the Afghan government] that the Taliban would never allow bin Laden to use Afghanistan to launch attacks on the US or any other country.” (AFP, August 28, 2001)
Note the sequencing of these meetings. Bob Graham and Porter Goss were in Islamabad in late August 2001.
The meetings with President Musharraf and the Afghan Ambassador were on the 27th of August 2001,
The mission was still in Islamabad on the 30th of August,
General Mahmoud Ahmad arrived in Washington on an official visit of consultations barely a few days later (September 4th).
During his visit to Washington, General Mahmoud met his counterpart CIA director George Tenet and high ranking officials of the Bush administration.2
9/11 “Follow-up Meeting” on Capitol Hill
On the morning of September 11, the three lawmakers Bob Graham, Porter Goss and Jon Kyl (who were part of the Congressional delegation to Pakistan) were having breakfast on Capitol Hill with General Ahmad, the alleged “money-man” behind the 9-11 hijackers. Also present at this meeting were Pakistan’s ambassador to the U.S. Maleeha Lodhi and several members of the Senate and House Intelligence committees were also present.
This meeting was described by one press report as a “follow-up meeting” to that held in Pakistan in late August. “On 8/30, Senate Intelligence Committee chair Sen. Bob Graham (D-FL) “‘was on a mission to learn more about terrorism.’ (…) On 9/11, Graham was back in DC ‘in a follow-up meeting with’ Pakistan intelligence agency chief Mahmud Ahmed and House Intelligence Committee chair Porter Goss (R-FL)” 3 (The Hotline, 1 October 2002):
“When the news [of the attacks on the World Trade Center] came, the two Florida lawmakers who lead the House and Senate intelligence committees were having breakfast with the head of the Pakistani intelligence service. Rep. Porter Goss, R-Sanibel, Sen. Bob Graham and other members of the House Intelligence Committee were talking about terrorism issues with the Pakistani official when a member of Goss’ staff handed a note to Goss, who handed it to Graham. “We were talking about terrorism, specifically terrorism generated from Afghanistan,” Graham said.
(…)
Mahmood Ahmed, director general of Pakistan’s intelligence service, was “very empathetic, sympathetic to the people of the United States,” Graham said.
Goss could not be reached Tuesday [September 11]. He was whisked away with much of the House leadership to an undisclosed “secure location.” Graham, meanwhile, participated in late-afternoon briefings with top officials from the CIA and FBI.” 4
While trivializing the importance of the 9/11 breakfast meeting, The Miami Herald (16 September 2001) confirms that General Ahmad also met Secretary of State Colin Powell in the wake of the 9/11 attacks:
“Graham said the Pakistani intelligence official with whom he met, a top general in the government, was forced to stay all week in Washington because of the shutdown of air traffic ‘He was marooned here, and I think that gave Secretary of State Powell and others in the administration a chance to really talk with him’. Graham said.”5
Again the political significance of the personal relationship between General Mahmoud (the alleged “money man” behind 9/11) and Secretary of State Colin Powell is casually dismissed. According to The Miami Herald, the high level meeting between the two men was not planned in advance. It took place on the spur of the moment because of the shut down of air traffic, which prevented General Mahmoud from flying back home to Islamabad on a commercial flight, when in all probability the General and his delegation were traveling on a chartered government plane. With the exception of the Florida press (and Salon.com, 14 September, 2001), not a word was mentioned in the US media’s September coverage of 9-11 concerning this mysterious breakfast reunion.
“A Cloak but No Dagger”
Eight months later on the 18th of May 2002, two days after the “BUSH KNEW” headline hit the tabloids, the Washington Post published an article on Porter Goss, entitled: “A Cloak But No Dagger; An Ex-Spy Says He Seeks Solutions, Not Scapegoats for 9/11”.
Focusing on his career as a CIA agent, the article largely served to underscore the integrity and commitment of Porter Goss to waging a “war on terrorism”. Yet in an isolated paragraph, the article acknowledges the mysterious 9/11 breakfast meeting with ISI Chief Mahmoud Ahmad, while also confirming that “Ahmad ran a spy agency notoriously close to Osama bin Laden and the Taliban”:
“Now the main question facing Goss, as he helps steer a joint House-Senate investigation into the Sept. 11 attacks, is why nobody in the far-flung intelligence bureaucracy — 13 agencies spending billions of dollars — paid attention to the enemy among us. Until it was too late.”
Goss says he is looking for solutions, not scapegoats. “A lot of nonsense,” he calls this week’s uproar about a CIA briefing that alerted President Bush, five weeks before Sept. 11, that Osama bin Laden’s associates might be planning airline hijackings.
“None of this is news, but it’s all part of the finger-pointing,” Goss declared yesterday in a rare display of pique. “It’s foolishness.” [This statement comes from the man who was having breakfast with the alleged “money-man” behind 9-11 on the morning of September 11]
(…) Goss has repeatedly refused to blame an “intelligence failure” for the terror attacks. As a 10-year veteran of the CIA’s clandestine operations wing, Goss prefers to praise the agency’s “fine work.”
(…)
On the morning of Sept. 11, Goss and Graham were having breakfast with a Pakistani general named Mahmud Ahmed — the soon-to-be-sacked head of Pakistan’s intelligence service. Ahmed ran a spy agency notoriously close to Osama bin Laden and the Taliban. 6 (Washington Post, 18 May 2002)
“Putting Two and Two together”
While the Washington Post scores in on the “notoriously close” links between General Ahmad and Osama bin Laden, it fails to dwell on the more important question: what were Rep. Porter Goss and Senator Bob Graham and other members of the Senate and House intelligence committees doing together with the alleged 9/11 “money-man” at breakfast on the morning of 9/11. In other words, the Washington Post report does not go one inch further in begging the real question: Was this mysterious breakfast venue a “political lapse”, an intelligence failure or something far more serious? How come the very same individuals (Goss and Graham) who had developed a personal rapport with General Ahmad, had been entrusted under the joint committee inquiry “to reveal the truth on 9-11.”(see p. )
The media trivialises the breakfast meeting, it presents it as a simple fait divers and fails to “put two and two together”. Neither does it acknowledge the fact, amply documented, that “the money-man” behind the hijackers had been entrusted by the Pakistani government to discuss the precise terms of Pakistan’s “collaboration” in the “war on terrorism” in meetings held behind closed doors at the State department on the 12th and 13th of September. 11 7(See Michel Chossudovsky, op cit)
Smoking Gun
When the “foreknowledge” issue hit the street on May 16th 2002, “Chairman Porter Goss said an existing congressional inquiry has so far found ‘no smoking gun’ that would warrant another inquiry.” 8 This statement points to an obvious “cover-up”. The smoking gun was right there sitting in the plush surroundings of the Congressional breakfast venue on Capitol Hill on the morning of September 11.
O regime de Kiev não poupa nem mesmo os seus próprios políticos da perseguição religiosa contra a Igreja Ortodoxa. Um membro do parlamento ucraniano foi recentemente alvo das autoridades do país devido à sua posição contra a proibição da Ortodoxia. Até mesmo membros da família do político foram alvo das forças neonazistas, o que mostra a natureza verdadeiramente anti-humanitária das práticas ucranianas.
O deputado Artyom Dmitruk declarou recentemente que está a ser sujeito a perseguições políticas e religiosas devido ao seu apoio à Ortodoxia. Durante a votação do projeto de lei para proibir a Igreja Ortodoxa Ucraniana (que faz parte do Patriarcado de Moscou), Dmitruk manteve uma posição firme e divergente da maioria dos parlamentares. No seu discurso, afirmou que a fé do povo ucraniano não deveria ser proibida, o que encorajou milhares de fiéis a saírem às ruas de Kiev em protesto contra a nova lei.
A sua posição fez dele um inimigo do regime. Foi acusado de vários crimes simplesmente porque é contra a proibição da fé de 80% do povo ucraniano. Ele fugiu do país e afirma que sua família está em perigo. Segundo Dmitruk, agentes especiais e militantes tentaram sequestrar alguns de seus parentes, incluindo sua esposa, mãe e filhos, embora já estivessem fora do território ucraniano.
“Eles tentaram sequestrar minha família. Tentaram sequestrar minha mãe, minha esposa e dois filhos pequenos de um hotel na Europa”, disse ele.
Se houve uma operação para raptar a família de Dmitruk fora da Ucrânia, então Kiev está a usar o seu aparelho de inteligência para ações ilegais no estrangeiro apenas para punir um cidadão ucraniano que votou contra uma lei anti-cristã. Isto mostra o nível de fanatismo da mentalidade criminosa da Junta de Kiev, que está disposta a tudo para “punir” quem não agrada as decisões irracionais do regime.
O paradeiro de Dmitruk ainda é desconhecido, mas fontes afirmam que ele emigrou da Moldávia para um país europeu, para onde teria ido depois de deixar a Ucrânia. Entre as acusações contra ele, o regime incluiu o alegado crime de ter atravessado ilegalmente a fronteira. Ele também é acusado de ter “agredido” um policial, aparentemente resistindo a uma tentativa de detenção ilegal.
Dmitruk está proibido de entrar em território russo, pois, ao contrário do que afirmam as autoridades ucranianas, não é um “agente do Kremlin”, mas sim um militante radical pró-Kiev. Além de ex-levantador de peso e empresário do setor esportivo, Dmitruk foi responsável pela manutenção de campos de treinamento de militantes nacionalistas em Odessa. Ele nunca demonstrou qualquer simpatia pela Rússia na operação militar especial, e o seu único desacordo com o governo ucraniano é sobre a questão da religião. No entanto, Kiev colocou-o na sua lista de mortes, acrescentando o seu nome ao infame site “Myrotvorets”.
É importante enfatizar que Dmitruk definitivamente não está seguro em solo europeu. Os países aliados da Ucrânia poderiam simplesmente sabotá-lo, colaborando na sua prisão, sequestro ou assassinato. Se estivesse em solo húngaro, a sua situação poderia ser um pouco melhor, uma vez que Budapeste mantém uma posição dissidente na Europa sobre a questão ucraniana. Contudo, mesmo assim, agentes infiltrados da OTAN poderiam encontrá-lo e prejudicá-lo.
Talvez a única alternativa real para Dmitruk proteger a si e à sua família seja render-se às autoridades russas, uma vez que, ao contrário das forças do seu próprio país, Moscou nunca demonstrou qualquer interesse em eliminá-lo. A decisão mais racional para ele seria renunciar ao seu apoio a Kiev no conflito, pedir desculpa pelo seu envolvimento no treino de criminosos e procurar um acordo para entrar na Rússia – possivelmente sendo preso pelos seus crimes em troca de asilo humanitário para a sua família. Se isso não for feito, continuará a enfrentar perigos na Europa.
Na verdade, o caso de Dmitruk é apenas mais um exemplo de como Kiev está disposta a matar os seus próprios políticos para implementar medidas de perseguição religiosa. A russofobia ucraniana atingiu níveis absolutamente insanos, com até apoiantes do regime a serem perseguidos simplesmente por acreditarem na religião dos seus antepassados.
Entretanto, fanáticos ultranacionalistas do chamado “Patriarcado de Kiev” – uma pseudo-igreja não reconhecida pela comunidade ortodoxa – têm sido amplamente apoiados e financiados pelo regime. A seita está a agir como uma espécie de “igreja estatal” e é apoiada por Zelensky devido à sua russofobia ideológica, que inclui até atos blasfemos como a veneração dos “heróis nacionais da Ucrânia” – como o soldado SS e colaborador do Holocausto Stephen Bandera .
Todos estes fatos mostram como a vitória de Moscou na operação militar especial é a esperança de liberdade não só para os russos, mas também para o próprio povo ucraniano.
The distinction between tactical nuclear weapons and the conventional battlefield arsenal has been blurred. America’s new nuclear doctrine is based on “a mix of strike capabilities”. The latter, which specifically applies to the Pentagon’s planned aerial bombing of Iran, envisages the use of nukes in combination with conventional weapons.
The Israeli government is using its war on Hamas to divert attention from its real objective which is the expansion of the Jewish state on Palestinian land. Not surprisingly, Israel’s activities in the north have resulted in mass evacuations that have intensified the suffering of the traumatized population.
Every species eventually hits an adaptation-or-extinction juncture at some point, where it must adapt to changing conditions on this planet or vanish into the fossil records. Humanity is arriving at such a juncture today. We’ll either awaken the potential which rests dormant within all of us to become a truly conscious species, or we will go the way of the dinosaur. We have the freedom to go either direction.
Polish President Duda revealed on Monday that his country has already spent a whopping 3.3% of its GDP on providing military, humanitarian, and other forms of support to Ukraine over the past two and a half years, which works out to approximately $25 billion thus far.
Japan has issued an apology to its citizens for the disastrous consequences of the COVID-19 mRNA vaccines and has launched far-reaching scientific inquiries and criminal investigations to establish the truth and punish the perpetrators.
The DNC has filed a lawsuit against the Georgia Election Board to block the rule that requires counties to ensure the accuracy of the votes prior to certification. If you remember, this was a question in the 2020 election when Georgia and other states’ votes were certified without authentication.
The entrepreneurial Russian founder of the internet platform app Telegram, Pavel Durov, who stands out as a stalwart protector of our privacy and freedom, as of August 24th is now locked away in a French jailcell. Upon arrival at Paris-Le Bourget Airport, Durov was detained.
The decay of western civilization is unfolding in real time right in front of our eyes.
Israel has ramped up its assault on the West Bank with an incursion the likes of which has not been seen since 2002, at the same time we learn that the Biden administration has been scrambling to increase its weapons shipments to Israel.Haaretz reports that August has been the second-busiest month for weapons shipments from the US to Israel’s Nevatim Airbase, second only to October 2023.
Meanwhile in the UK the government is going insane arresting critics of Israel’s western-backed atrocities for speech crimes. Prominent pro-Palestinian voices Richard Medhurst, Sarah Wilkinson and Richard Barnardhave all been targeted by counter-terrorism police in recent days under the British Terrorism Act on the allegation that they have been too supportive of forbidden groups in their expression of political opinion about recent events in the middle east. They join British journalist Kit Klarenbergand former British ambassadorCraig Murray, who came under attack for speech crimes under the same law last year.
Mary Kostakidis, for years the face of television news in Australia as anchor of the SBS nightly broadcast, has been accused of supporting ethnic cleansing of Jews for two reteweets about Israel’s war on…
Something similar is happening in Australia, where high-profile journalist Mary Kostakidisfaces charges of violating the Racial Discrimination Act for two retweets about Israel and Hezbollah which offended the Zionist Federation of Australia. This move came shortly after the Australian government appointed its first “anti-semitism envoy”, a move many feared would lead to crackdowns on speech that is critical of Israel.
And in France President Emmanuel Macron has refused to honor the results of an election, which saw the left-wing New Popular Front alliance win a plurality in July, by appointing a new prime minister. Many have accused the president of orchestrating a coup, and Macron’s actions are being widely cited as proof that the so-called “centrists” of western liberalism will always side with fascists to stop any movement toward socialism. Jean-Luc Mélenchon, who leads the largest party in New Popular Front, recently vowed to recognize Palestine “as quickly as possible”.
While all this is happening, the Russians are warning of a third world war as the western empire’s proxy war in Ukraine continues to escalate. Zelenskyites have been citing the Ukrainian invasion of Kursk as evidence that Moscow has been bluffing about all its red lines, saying the largest invasion of Russia since the second world war proves that the only real danger is NATO’s unwillingness to escalate further with more attacks deeper into Russian territory.
Sure, throw all caution to the wind and keep on ramping up brinkmanship with a nuclear superpower. What’s the worst that could possibly happen?
There is no good news to be found in the unfolding of dystopia and armageddon. Expecting otherwise would not be reasonable.
This doesn’t mean there’s nothing to be happy about, or that there’s no joy or beauty to be found in our world. Joy and beauty can be found everywhere you look. You’re just not going to be made happy by reading the real news stories about the times we are living in.
We live in an unfathomably beautiful world, and happiness is the default position of human consciousness underneath all the madness and egocentricity we’ve heaped on top of it. All it takes is a little inner work and inner clarity and you can experience as much happiness and beauty as you can stand in any moment of your waking life.
There is stunning beauty to be found on the crest of the wave of the apocalypse. The seagulls and crows fighting over the fast food garbage on the road. The rising smoke from the factories. The smell of the exhaust fumes and the frenzied din of traffic and capitalism. It is all so beautiful.
We’ve each been blessed with the gift of human life, and every human lifetime is an opportunity to experience more enjoyment than we ever would have dreamed possible if we can just learn to pierce through the illusions of ego and duality and start perceiving life as it’s actually showing up in each moment. All it takes is some sincere looking and curiosity about the true nature of mind, the true nature of self, and the true nature of perception.
And if we can open our eyes in this way, as an added bonus we can come to recognize that things aren’t hopeless for humanity after all. That while all the systems of our society are completely locked down to prevent health and change in every meaningful way right now, we all have within us a vast potentiality that we had previously never accounted for. That the human brain can actually transcend the unwholesome relationship with mental narrative which has allowed it to be propagandized and psychologically enslaved to the status quo this entire time, and begin moving with real freedom within our world.
All of humanity has the potential to awaken from its deluded propensity toward imbuing mental narrative with the power of belief. If it can happen to an individual human (and it most assuredly can), then it can happen to humanity as a collective. This potential sleeps within us all, waiting to be awakened.
Every species eventually hits an adaptation-or-extinction juncture at some point, where it must adapt to changing conditions on this planet or vanish into the fossil records. Humanity is arriving at such a juncture today. We’ll either awaken the potential which rests dormant within all of us to become a truly conscious species, or we will go the way of the dinosaur. We have the freedom to go either direction.
In the meantime, life is beautiful, and life is joyful, even on the precipice of the existential abyss. All we need to do is wake up enough to enjoy this fact.
*
Click the share button below to email/forward this article to your friends and colleagues. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.
The conflict between Israel and militant groups like Hamas and Hezbollah has been a defining struggle in the Middle East for decades. The constant cycle of violence, punctuated by wars, rocket attacks, and incursions, has made Israel’s security one of the most delicate and volatile issues in global geopolitics. As the war intensifies, largely supported and sustained by the United States, the nation of Israel faces a precarious future. The current trajectory suggests that far from achieving a peaceful resolution, this prolonged conflict could lead to Israel’s eventual destruction, driven by both external military pressures and internal socio-political destabilization.
A History of Escalation
The conflict between Israel and Hamas has roots in the broader Israeli-Palestinian struggle. Hamas, an Islamist militant group based in Gaza, has been at war with Israel since its founding in 1987. Hezbollah, a Lebanese militant group backed by Iran, emerged during the Lebanese Civil War and has been a constant threat along Israel’s northern border. Both groups reject the legitimacy of the Israeli state and have launched numerous attacks aimed at weakening Israel militarily, politically, and morally.
The United States, Israel’s chief ally, has provided billions of dollars in military aid, intelligence, and diplomatic backing to support Israel’s defense efforts. This support has allowed Israel to maintain a qualitative military edge over its adversaries, ensuring its survival amid regional hostilities. However, the reliance on U.S. backing has also tied Israel’s fortunes to broader American geopolitical strategies, sometimes complicating Israel’s pursuit of a stable, peaceful resolution to its conflicts.
The U.S. Role in the Conflict
The United States has long played a central role in shaping Israel’s military posture and regional strategy. Through financial support, arms sales, and diplomatic interventions, the U.S. has ensured that Israel remains a dominant military power in the region. The Iron Dome missile defense system, sophisticated fighter jets, and state-of-the-art intelligence capabilities have all been supplied or co-developed with the United States.
However, this close relationship has also come at a cost. Israel’s dependence on the U.S. means that it is often aligned with American foreign policy objectives, which can sometimes escalate conflicts rather than defuse them. For example, the U.S. policy of maximum pressure on Iran, including sanctions and the targeting of Iranian proxies, has emboldened groups like Hezbollah, which rely on Iranian support. Hezbollah’s increased aggression towards Israel, particularly in southern Lebanon, is a direct consequence of this heightened tension, leading to a growing two-front threat for Israel—one from Gaza in the south and one from Lebanon in the north.
The Ongoing War and the Erosion of Israel’s Security
The war with Hamas and Hezbollah is no longer confined to short, sporadic outbreaks of violence. The growing sophistication of these groups, particularly Hezbollah, which boasts tens of thousands of rockets and a well-trained fighting force, has elevated the threat level to Israel’s very existence. Israel’s airstrikes, incursions, and military campaigns, supported by U.S. intelligence and technology, have been able to suppress these groups but not eliminate them.
Each round of conflict exacts a heavy toll on Israel. Civilian casualties, economic disruptions, and the constant stress on Israeli society have left deep scars. The war has become more than a military issue; it is eroding the fabric of Israeli society. The nation’s democratic institutions are under immense pressure, with increasing polarization over how to handle the conflict. Far-right factions within Israel push for harsher military responses and territorial expansion, while left-wing and centrist groups call for peace negotiations and a two-state solution. This internal division only adds to Israel’s vulnerability.
Moreover, the constant state of war has turned Israel into a fortress state, diverting vast resources into defense at the expense of other critical areas like social welfare, education, and infrastructure. The never-ending cycle of violence also stifles the potential for peace, as young generations grow up in an environment where war is the norm, making reconciliation seem like a distant dream.
The Growing Geopolitical Isolation of Israel
In addition to its military challenges, Israel faces increasing geopolitical isolation. Although it has normalized relations with several Arab states through the Abraham Accords, the ongoing occupation of Palestinian territories and the treatment of Palestinians in Gaza and the West Bank continue to draw international condemnation. This growing pressure could undermine Israel’s relationships even with its newfound Arab allies, particularly if the Israeli-Palestinian conflict reignites on a larger scale.
Israel’s aggressive military actions, especially in densely populated areas like Gaza, draw sharp criticism from the international community. The United Nations, European Union, and various human rights organizations regularly condemn Israel for what they consider disproportionate use of force and violations of international law. This criticism not only delegitimizes Israel on the global stage but also complicates its alliances, including those with key Western powers.
As the U.S. becomes increasingly involved in its own internal political struggles and shifts its focus towards the rising challenge from China, Israel may find itself with less unequivocal support from Washington. A reduction in U.S. backing, or even a reorientation of U.S. foreign policy away from the Middle East, could leave Israel more isolated and vulnerable than ever.
The Risk of Overstretch and Collapse
The ongoing war, sustained by U.S. support, is pushing Israel towards a state of overreach. The constant need to fight on multiple fronts—against Hamas in Gaza, Hezbollah in Lebanon, and potentially other regional actors like Iran—threatens to overstretch the Israeli military and economy. Protracted conflict without a clear path to peace is draining Israel’s resources and morale.
If the war continues without resolution, Israel may eventually face the prospect of collapse—not from a single overwhelming military defeat, but from the cumulative toll of endless conflict. The social divisions within Israel, the economic strain of perpetual war, and the erosion of its international standing all contribute to this dangerous trajectory.
Conclusion: A Warning for Israel’s Future
Israel’s war against Hamas and Hezbollah, sustained and supported by the United States, is heading down a dangerous path. While Israel has so far managed to maintain its military superiority, the costs of this constant war are becoming unsustainable. Without a shift in strategy—one that prioritizes diplomacy, peacebuilding, and regional stability—Israel risks heading towards a final destruction, not from external conquest, but from internal disintegration and geopolitical isolation.
The cycle of violence cannot continue indefinitely without breaking the very foundations of the Israeli state. If the current path persists, Israel may find itself facing a future where its survival is no longer guaranteed, a sobering prospect for a nation built on the promise of security and resilience amidst a hostile region. The urgency for a new approach has never been greater.
*
Click the share button below to email/forward this article to your friends and colleagues. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.
Prof. Ruel F. Pepa is a Filipino philosopher based in Madrid, Spain. A retired academic (Associate Professor IV), he taught Philosophy and Social Sciences for more than fifteen years at Trinity University of Asia, an Anglican university in the Philippines.
Sources
Cordesman, Anthony H. “The Israeli-Palestinian War: Escalating to Nowhere.”Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS), 2005.
Jones, Seth G. “War by Proxy: Iran’s Growing Footprint in the Middle East.”Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS), March 2022.
Khalidi, Rashid. The Hundred Years’ War on Palestine: A History of Settler Colonialism and Resistance, 1917–2017. Metropolitan Books, 2020.
Mearsheimer, John J. The Tragedy of Great Power Politics. W.W. Norton & Company, 2001.
Norton, Augustus Richard. Hezbollah: A Short History. Princeton University Press, 2014.
International Crisis Group. “Averting War: U.S. Policy Towards Hezbollah and Lebanon.” ICG Middle East Report, September 2021.
The Economist. “Israel’s Escalating Conflict: The Perils of Fighting Hamas and Hezbollah at the Same Time.” May 2022.
The United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA). “Occupied Palestinian Territory: Humanitarian Impact of the Conflict.”
United States Department of Defense. “2022 National Defense Strategy.”
Featured image: Statue of the founder of Zionism Theodor Herzl, unveiled in 2012 at the Mikveh Israel synagogue in Tel Aviv. It is called “Herzl meets Emperor Wilhelm II”
Imagine you are a head of state facing a domestic crisis. You bypass vote in the parliament to force unpopular measures through questionable methods (amid major protests), then use excessive violence against the demonstrations. Next, you call snap elections to neutralize radical political dissidents, and lose it. Then, you use a major international sports event to gain more time and just ignore the election results by refusing to name a Prime Minister from the winning coalition.
What are you, then? Some would certainly use the word “dictator” even. It would be hard indeed to describe such a peculiar state of affairs as anything other than a kind of a coup d’état, right? In this case, the international community would certainly denounce the authoritarian head of state and pressure him or her into complying with election results, right? Well, not necessarily so if you are Emmanuel Macron. A quick look at the events may offer a glimpse of the depth of the trouble the French are in.
First, Macron dissolved the Assemblée Nationale and decided to call new legislative elections, on June 30 (and on July 7, for the second round). This was a response to the fact that the right-wing populist party Rassemblement National’s (RN) won the European elections, which in itself was a defeat for the President. RN, formerly known as Front national (until 2018) is the party of Marine Le Pen, who, bear in mind, vowed to pull France out of NATO’s military command in 2022, when she was a (defeated) presidential candidate. Macron won the election back then, but Le Pen was promising this while heading to the second round and certainly raised many eyebrows among Paris’ political Establishment.
As I wrote before, describing the RN party or European populist parties in general as pure and simple “fascism” is not accurate. The French President’s measure in June was in any case a daring move to crush a political group which is seen as a threat. Senator François Patriat, who is an ally of Macron, at the time said: “The president’s back in control. Now he’s taking action. It’s the end of Marine Le Pen.” Many criticized the decision and feared it could backfire and result in France having a “far-right” Prime Minister. This did not happen. But the result was certainly not what Macron was hoping for.
The snap elections, as mentioned, were described as a risky political gamble. Macron lost it. Even though the result was a “hung parliament”, the New Popular Front or Nouveau Front populaire (NFP) did win the larger number of parliamentary seats, which was a humiliating political defeat for the President. Macron himself, however, begs to differ: “no one won”, he has stated. According to him, “The blocs or coalitions that emerged from these elections all represent a minority.” The NFP disputes this: “The New Popular Front is without contest the first force in the new National Assembly”
The new coalition’s programme promises, among other things, to fight the cost-of-living crisis with a price cap, to raise the minimum wage, and to lower the retirement age besides bringing back the wealth tax Macron had abolished.
Keep in mind that last year Macron resorted to quite unorthodox methods to sign his controversial pension reform bill into law, prompting demonstrations nationwide. The government responded with a massive crackdown on demonstrators and journalists, which was denounced by the Council of Europe and by Reporters Without Borders and France’s Human Rights League, among others. The political maneuver to go ahead with the pension reform was described as an intricate constitutional coup, which consisted in forcing the bill (which increased the retirement age) through the Parliament with no vote in the lower house.
France has been under a caretaker administration since the aforementioned July general election, which arguably failed to produce a working majority in the country’s national assembly. This has been a deadlock. And there seems to be no way out of it. On August 26 a Elysée press release said that the President would not name the NFP candidate because: “Institutional stability dictates that this option should not be retained.” The reasoning is that by appointing a Prime Minister that the President supposedly “knows” would “fall”, the head of state would then be “in breach of the Constitution, which requires him to ensure the stability and independence of the country.” The intricacies of the French semi-presidentialist system part, one can clearly see a pattern here.
Image is licensed under CC BY 4.0
Macron, if one remembers, called the Paris Olympics a “truce” and used the international event to gain time, but could now be running out of excuses. On Saturday, Jean-Luc Mélenchon (leader of far-left party La France Insoumise – LFI) announced LFI members shall not join any NFP government – a scenario including the LFI was supposedly keeping the President from naming Lucie Castets (the NFP candidate) for Prime Minister. Macron’s outgoing Prime Minister has responded by saying that the “unilateral application” of the NFP’s policy platform “would lead to an unprecedented fiscal bludgeoning,” and even to “the economic collapse of our country.” The Elysée is just not having it. The truth is that there seems to be no way Macron is accepting a left-wing government. Meanwhile, the political crisis goes on.
One is left then with the puzzling fact that such a peculiar situation taking place in a G7 country is not getting that much press coverage – or that much criticism for that matter. Comparing it with the ongoing political crisis in Venezuela is enough to make the case that the French affair is indeed being underreported. The double standard in any case goes beyond journalism: Western political leaders coming from all across the political spectrum have denounced Venezuela’s President Nicolas Maduro over the recent presidential election controversy and many are urging the Venezuelan government to come forward with more transparency about the results and so on. No major Western political leaders thus far have pressured the French head of state into honoring the election’s results by naming a Prime Minister from the winning left-wing coalition. It goes without saying that if Macron were a Global South leader pursuing energy projects in his country or if he were a “pro-China” or “pro-Russian” European head of state, then things would be quite different.
Be it as it may, things are expected to get harder for the French President. The left-wing is now threatening Macron with impeachment procedures no one believes will succeed, but, more importantly, the country faces a political and economic crisis and demonstrations are expected to spread and to become increasingly violent, as is the case in other European countries today. As I wrote, Macron has been pursuing bold foreign policy shifts, but it seems domestic issues may get on the way.
*
Click the share button below to email/forward this article to your friends and colleagues. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.
In advance publicity for this book, Greg Guma’s fifteenth, the author describes it as “a media saga, a personal story, and a cautionary tale.” Guma is no stranger to alternative media.
Beginning in 1968 as cub reporter for the Bennington Banner in southern Vermont, in the 1980s and 1990s he served as editor for Toward Freedom, a historic left magazine (for which I have also written) that published for more than six decades. Guma also edited the alternative weekly The Vermont Vanguard Press and later went on to co-found another weekly, the Vermont Guardian. But the period that makes up a large part of this volume is the story of his term—which began in 2006—as executive director of the Pacifica Radio Network.
Pacifica Radio Network, founded in 1949 in Berkeley, California, by pacifist Lewis Hill, has been a shining light of alternative media for decades. In the 1990s and early 2000s, the network was going through a huge internal struggle over the management and governance of the five member stations. The network also served dozens of affiliate community radio stations around the country (one of which I worked at, and I found myself a participant in many of the struggles at the network as they played out). The battles over the vision and the future of this vital resource were referred to by many as a pro-democracy movement and resulted in new bylaws and new leadership.
All of this occurred at the same time the United States was involved in two successive wars in the Persian Gulf and another in the Balkans. It was a time when independent media was needed more than ever. It was also a period of massive consolidation in broadcast media and the burgeoning of a new class of low-power FM radio stations to serve hyperlocal communities.
It is onto this playing field that Guma was hired as executive director for Pacifica in a period of some calm between the storms. In 300 or so detailed pages of reminiscence and analysis, he tells the story of his time at Pacifica, his goals, and the perils and pitfalls of working in such a volatile and transformational environment. The recollections of Guma’s two-year stint at Pacifica are both revealing and sometimes brutal. He provides details of internal conflicts and hopes unfulfilled.
But the book is not only about Guma’s time at Pacifica; rather, woven between the chapters are stories of his own growth and transformation, the 1960s, his time with a young Bernie Sanders, and much more. But all of it circles around the various forms of alternative (and some mainstream) media that informed and guided his life and his work.
Guma notes that the muckraking journalist Lincoln Steffens of the early twentieth century (who also wrote for La Follette’s Weekly, the precursor of The Progressive) was a role model. “As a teenager I chose writers, not assassins or athletes, as guides and subjects of admiration,” he writes.
Ultimately, although much of it is historical, the book is very forward-looking, taking on the bigger questions of what we do now as our very democracy—and our planet—are under severe threat.
“I still believe that a profound change is underway, the birth of a global consciousness. It has not been halted by crony capitalism, endless wars, demagogues, or cultural counterrevolution,” says Guma near the book’s end. “The best way to resist the drift toward authoritarian thinking and change the outcomes is to hold onto realism, skepticism, imagination, and our aspirations for a better world.”
Managing Chaos is a great read. The stories are reminiscent and sometimes poignant if you were there, but always informative of an important period of our history even if you weren’t.
*
Click the share button below to email/forward this article to your friends and colleagues. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.
Publisher: Independently published (July 25, 2024)
Paperback: 317 pages
ISBN-13: 979-8324478988
An eye-witness account that explores the unique, tumultuous history of Pacifica radio and alternative media in America.
Filled with episodes from an eclectic career, Greg Guma’s 15th book discusses the evolution of radio and television, the impacts of concentrated media ownership, the rise of the alternative press, his complex relationship with Bernie Sanders, his work in Vermont before and during a progressive revolution that changed the state’s power structure, and decades later, what happened while he managed the original listener-supported radio network.
Weaving together an intimate chronicle of what he saw as Pacifica’s post-revolutionary CEO and episodes from his earlier life as a stressed out student, rookie reporter, radical organizer and unconventional editor, Guma explores the challenges of maintaining democratic institutions in a culture of distrust and polarization, of striking the delicate balance between truth and advocacy, observation and participation, and of handling conflicts with persuasion instead of force.
Managing Chaos is a media saga, a personal story, and a cautionary tale.
Ukraine is now desperate to embroil Poland in a hot war with Russia.
Polish President Duda revealed on Monday that his country has already spent a whopping 3.3% of its GDP on providing military, humanitarian, and other forms of support to Ukraine over the past two and a half years, which works out to approximately $25 billion thus far. He then added that it also gave almost 400 tanks thus far too. This was followed the day after by Zelensky demanding even more and suggesting that Poland was still holding back from giving all that it really could.
“Today, the Polish side’s attention to our defense capabilities has slightly decreased. I mean, Poland probably gave what it could, and there are probably some things that remain in Poland today. I am raising one question… There is a specific question: we really need your MiGs, your airplanes.”
He then speculated that
“Poland … hesitates to be alone with [shooting Russian missiles]. It wants the support of other countries in NATO. I think this would lead to a positive decision by Romania.”
Polish Defense Minister Kosiniak-Kamysz responded to Zelensky by clarifying in comments to the publicly financed Polish Press Agency that
“The Polish government, both our government and our predecessors, have donated billions of dollars in equipment to Ukraine. That’s all we were able to donate. But the security of the Polish state is always my highest priority and all decisions we make in this matter are made through the prism of the security of the Polish state.”
He then segued into responding to Zelensky’s appeal that Poland intercept Russian missiles over Ukraine by saying that
“No country will make such decisions individually. I have not seen any supporters of making this decision in NATO. I am not surprised that President Zelensky will appeal for this because this is his role. But our role is to make decisions in line with the interests of the Polish state. And that is what we are making today.”
Several factors are therefore at play with regard to Zelensky’s latest demands. First, he’s trying to correct perceptions of their lopsided partnership via “megaphone diplomacy” in the hopes that the optics of demanding more arms despite the enormous amount thereof that Poland confirmed that it already gave Ukraine will come off as some sort of power flex. Second, the innuendo is that Poland should sacrifice more of its sovereignty by participating in the EU’s planned military union in order to boost production.
And finally, he obviously wants to pressure Poland to lobby NATO more on Ukraine’s behalf in order to reach an agreement for permitting it to intercept Russian missiles across the border. Nevertheless, Kosiniak-Kamysz’s response shows that Zelensky is surprisingly meeting some resistance from Tusk’s German-backed liberal-globalist government. His positive reference to the previous conservative-nationalist government and repeated reaffirmation of state interests sends a very powerful message.
It seems that there are still influential conservative-nationalists within Poland’s permanent military bureaucracy, which is a part of its “deep state”, who have some red lines in terms of how far they’ll go in support of Ukraine. The existence of these figures can be intuited by Kosiniak-Kamysz’s abovementioned words that contradicted the expected approach of Tusk’s team. They don’t want to sacrifice Poland’s minimum defense needs nor provoke a war with Russia and then risk being hung out to dry by NATO.
In other words, they’ve maxed out their military support for Ukraine, though that doesn’t mean that Poland will abandon it. Its “deep state” – both the liberal-globalist faction represented by Tusk and the (very imperfect) conservative-nationalist one represented by the former government – hate Russia more than they love Poland so they’ll remain embroiled in this proxy war till it’s finally over. Accordingly, they’ll probably still find some way to continue helping Ukraine, even if it’s less than before.
That said, the fact that Poland has already pretty much given Ukraine everything that it could and isn’t going to unilaterally risk sparking World War III by intercepting Russian missiles across the border bodes ill for Kiev at precisely the moment when it needs as much support as possible. Its invasion of Kursk failed to decelerate the pace of Russia’s advance in Donbass, which has actually accelerated since then, and the impending capture of Pokrovsk could reshape the conflict’s dynamics as explained here.
That’s precisely why Zelensky is so hellbent on Poland intercepting Russian missiles over Ukraine despite the risk of World War III breaking out since he expects that the resultant crisis would lead to Moscow engaging in a series of concessions for the sake of peace. NATO doesn’t share his views though no matter how much its propagandists mock Putin for his tepid response to every red line that Ukraine has crossed thus far otherwise they’d have already approved this and Zelensky wouldn’t have to beg for it.
The abovementioned insight regarding NATO’s continued reluctance to escalate tensions with Russia via direct involvement in their proxy war also suggests that it might not conventionally intervene if Ukraine provokes Belarus into carrying out cross-border attacks out of self-defense. That scenario was touched upon here when warning about Kiev’s possible plans to attack or cut off its northern neighbor’s southeastern city of Gomel, which might be partially predicated on prompting the intervention scenario.
NATO is unlikely to commence a conventional intervention unless Poland agrees to play a leading role, but its “deep state” still seems scared that their country might be hung out to dry judging by Zelensky and Kosiniak-Kamysz’s remarks about why it doesn’t want to intercept Russian missiles across the border. Poland therefore might not lobby for either scenario despite Ukraine’s demand, and it could also possibly refuse to play such a role even if NATO suggested it and offered Article 5 guarantees.
Of course, it can’t be ruled out that Poland’s “deep state” dynamics might change, thus resulting in the formulation of completely different policies. There’s no indication that this might soon happen with its military part, however, which is the most important one in this respect. After all, Kosiniak-Kamysz’s remarks came as a surprise precisely because they contradicted expectations. If its “deep state’s” military dynamics remain the same, then Ukraine shouldn’t count on Poland trying to “rescue” it from Russia.
*
Click the share button below to email/forward this article to your friends and colleagues. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.
Andrew Korybko is an American Moscow-based political analyst specializing in the relationship between the US strategy in Afro-Eurasia, China’s One Belt One Road global vision of New Silk Road connectivity, and Hybrid Warfare. He is a regular contributor to Global Research.
Unit 601 of the IDF’s Combat Engineering Corps is clearing a vast swath of land across central Gaza splitting the 25-mile-long territory into two parts.
The so-called Netzarim corridor (Highway 749)—which crosses Gaza from east to west—will provide faster transport for IDF troops operating in the area and will also function as vital part of Israel’s security cordon separating the north from the south. There is no doubt that military outposts will be established along the corridor as well as in locations along the western coast.
The aim of these actions is to protect the development of new settlements that will be built north of the corridor.
In short, the Israeli government is using its war on Hamas to divert attention from its real objective which is the expansion of the Jewish state on Palestinian land.
Not surprisingly, Israel’s activities in the north have resulted in mass evacuations that have intensified the suffering of the traumatized population. According to the Palestinian Chronicle:
The United Nations announced on Tuesday that Israel issued three fresh evacuation orders for over 19 neighborhoods in the north of Gaza and Deir Al-Balah, bringing the number of massive evacuation orders to 16 in August alone, which leaves only 11 percent of the Gaza Strip untouched by the evacuation orders.
As we noted earlier, the Palestinians are being driven from the north to make room for new settlements that will be built sometime in the near future. The Netzarim corridor serves as a critical buffer zone separating these new colonies from potential attack by Palestinian militants. Israel intends to maintain control over Gaza by putting restrictions on movement and by designating areas where Palestinians can gather. In other words, Palestinians will be refugees in their own country. This is an excerpt from an article at the World Socialist Web Site:
Gaza’s population, which stood at over 2 million before the start of the genocide, is now crammed into an area that is just 41 square kilometers, or 11 percent of Gaza’s total area, with the remaining 89 percent being placed on evacuation orders by the Israeli Defense Forces.
The United Nations warned, “The area is lacking critical infrastructure and basic services, while aid provision is limited due to access and security issues. The severe overcrowding, with a density of 30,000 to 34,000 individuals per square kilometer has exacerbated the dire shortage of essential resources such as water, sanitation and hygiene supplies, health services, protection and shelter.” UN forced to suspend food distribution as Israel places 89 percent of Gaza under evacuation orders,World Socialist Web Site
This is Netanyahu’s plan in a nutshell:
Shrink the Gaza concentration camp to a mere 11 percent of its original size.
Transfer the population to the designated location.
Partition the territory to allow for settlement activity and the expropriation of gas reserves off the coast.
🧵A news piece that aired on Israeli Channel 14 yesterday reveals that Israel is vigorously working not just on a security zone around the whole of Gaza Strip, but also on a completely leveled buffer zone south of Gaza City, a latitudinal highway, splitting the strip into 2 parts pic.twitter.com/s4DLO3OzY6
Surprisingly, an article posted Wednesday at CNN confirms our analysis and admits that Israel’s postwar plans involve “cutting the strip in two” and maintaining a permanent “operational foothold in the area”. And while the author does not verify our theory on settlement development, readers can draw their own conclusions. Israel would never put so much money and effort into an operation that didn’t extend the borders of the Israeli state. Here’s CNN:
A satellite image from March 6 reveals that the east-west road, which has been under construction for weeks, now stretches from the Gaza-Israeli border area across the entire roughly 6.5-kilometer-wide strip, dividing northern Gaza, including Gaza City, from the south of the enclave….
The Israel Defense Forces (IDF) told CNN they were using the route to “establish (an) operational foothold in the area”and allow “the passage of forces as well as logistical equipment.”…
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu unveiled a plan, obtained by CNN, to his security cabinet on February 23 for a post-Hamas future for Gaza, including the “complete demilitarization” of the enclave, and the overhaul of its security, civil administration and education systems. Palestinians living in Gaza fear Israel’s post-war security plans will further restrict their freedom of movement… Israeli road splitting Gaza in two has reached the Mediterranean coast, satellite imagery show,CNN
Keep in mind, that these developments are taking place while Israeli diplomats are currently conducting ceasefire negotiations in Cairo. Why would Hamas agree to a deal with Israel when Israel is in the process of seizing more Palestinian land and tightening the occupation?
They won’t, which means the bloodbath will continue for the foreseeable future. Hamas has no other choice. Here’s an excerpt from a post by author Anthony Lowenstein:
…. Israel’s goal in Gaza is long-term occupation and the building of small settlements, slowly building into something far more substantial. The editor of @haaretzcom outlines the grim state of play:
“The public discourse in Israel is focused on the hostages and their fate, but Netanyahu considers them to be a media nuisance, a battering ram by his political opponents, and a distraction from the goal: A prolonged occupation of the Gaza Strip, or – as he has repeatedly declared since the outbreak of the war – “Israeli security control. “Control of the Philadephi route and the “security corridor” along the border allows Israel to surround Gaza’s land borders and isolate it from Egypt. Control of the Netzarim road route in practice divides northern Gaza, where few Palestinian remain with destroyed homes and infrastructures, from the southern part of the coastal enclave, overflowing with refugees from the entire Strip.
“In practice, a long-term arrangement for “the day after” is being drawn up. Israel will control the northern Gaza Strip and drive out the 300,000 Palestinian still there. Maj.-Gen. (res.) Giora Eiland, the war’s ideologue, proposes starving them to death, or exiling them, as a lever with which to defeat Hamas. The Israeli right envisions a Jewish settlement of the area, with vast real estate potential of convenient topography, a sea view, and proximity to central Israel.
“The 57-year experience of the occupation of the West Bank and East Jerusalem indicates that this is a long process that requires a lot of patience and diplomatic maneuvering capability. No large Jewish city will be built in Gaza tomorrow, but progress will be made acre by acre, mobile home by mobile home, outpost by outpost – just like in Hebron, Elon Moreh, and Gilad Farm. “The southern Gaza Strip will be left for Hamas, which will have to care for the destitute residents under Israeli siege, even after the international community loses interest in the story and moves on to other crises. Netanyahu believes with certainty that, after the U.S. elections, the influence of pro-Palestinian demonstrators on American politics will wane, even if Vice President Kamala Harris wins.” Haaretz
Like many other analysts, I totally misread Israel’s intentions in Gaza. After obliterating one city after another from north to south, I assumed that Netanyahu had a plan for breaching the Rafah Crossing and driving two million Palestinians into the Sinai Desert. I can see now I was wrong; that is not the plan. It might have been the original strategy, but Egyptian President Abdel Fattah El-Sisi preemptively deployed a sizable part of his army to the border to prevent Israel from executing its ethnic cleansing plan. Check out the headlines:
Images show barbed wire, expanded fortifications on Sinai side of border, with Cairo fearing that Gazans could seek shelter from IDF operation by attempting to cross into Egypt
So, maybe, Netanyahu scrapped his original ethnic cleansing plan in order to avoid a full-blown conflagration with Egypt? We don’t know for sure. But what we do know is that Israel’s endgame for Gaza is now in full view. The area north of the corridor will be occupied by Israeli settlers committed to the Zionist ideal while the native population will be left to languish in grinding poverty in makeshift tent cities cut off from the outside world.
*
Click the share button below to email/forward this article to your friends and colleagues. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.
This article was originally published on The Unz Review.
Michael Whitney is a renowned geopolitical and social analyst based in Washington State. He initiated his career as an independent citizen-journalist in 2002 with a commitment to honest journalism, social justice and World peace.
He is a Research Associate of the Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG).
Background: The association between severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) mRNA vaccines and myocarditis/pericarditis in the Japanese population has not been systematically investigated. This study was aimed at clarifying the association between SARS-CoV-2 mRNA vaccines (BNT162b2 and mRNA-1273) and myocarditis/pericarditis as well as influencing factors by using the Japanese Adverse Drug Event Report database.
Methods: Reporting odds ratios (RORs) and 95 % confidence intervals (95 % CIs) for the association between the vaccines and myocarditis/pericarditis were calculated using data from the database (April 2004-December 2023). Age, sex, onset time, and outcomes in symptomatic patients were evaluated.
Results: The total number of reports was 880,999 (myocarditis: 1846; pericarditis: 761). The adverse events associated with the vaccines included myocarditis (919 cases) and pericarditis (321 cases), with the ROR [95 % CIs] being significant for both (myocarditis: 30.51 [27.82-33.45], pericarditis: 21.99 [19.03-25.40]). Furthermore, the ROR [95 % CIs] of BNT162b2 and mRNA-1273 were 15.64 [14.15-17.28] and 54.23 [48.13-61.10], respectively, for myocarditis, and 15.78 [13.52-18.42] and 27.03 [21.58-33.87], respectively, for pericarditis. Furthermore, most cases were ≤30 years or male. The period from vaccination to onset was ≤8 days, corresponding to early failure type based on analysis using the Weibull distribution. Outcomes were recovery or remission for most cases; however, they were severe or caused death in some cases.
Conclusion: In the Japanese population, SARS-CoV-2 mRNA vaccination was significantly associated with the onset of myocarditis/pericarditis. The influencing factors included age of ≤30 years and male. Furthermore, although most adverse events occurred early after vaccination, overall outcomes were good.
Click the share button below to email/forward this article to your friends and colleagues. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.
Keisuke Takada, Division of Pharmacodynamics, Keio University Faculty of Pharmacy, 1-5-30 Shibakoen, Minato-ku, Tokyo, 105-8512, Japan; Department of Pharmacy, Yokohama General Hospital, 2201-5 Kuroganecho, Aoba-ku, Yokohama City, Kanagawa, 225-0025, Japan.
Kazuaki Taguchi, Division of Pharmacodynamics, Keio University Faculty of Pharmacy, 1-5-30 Shibakoen, Minato-ku, Tokyo, 105-8512, Japan. Electronic address: [email protected].
Masaru Samura, Division of Pharmacodynamics, Keio University Faculty of Pharmacy, 1-5-30 Shibakoen, Minato-ku, Tokyo, 105-8512, Japan; Department of Pharmacy, Yokohama General Hospital, 2201-5 Kuroganecho, Aoba-ku, Yokohama City, Kanagawa, 225-0025, Japan; Faculty of Pharmaceutical Sciences, Teikyo Heisei University, 4-21-2 Nakano, Nakano-ku, Tokyo, 164-8530, Japan.
Yuki Igarashi, Department of Pharmacy, Yokohama General Hospital, 2201-5 Kuroganecho, Aoba-ku, Yokohama City, Kanagawa, 225-0025, Japan.
Yuko Okamoto, Division of Pharmacodynamics, Keio University Faculty of Pharmacy, 1-5-30 Shibakoen, Minato-ku, Tokyo, 105-8512, Japan.
Yuki Enoki, Division of Pharmacodynamics, Keio University Faculty of Pharmacy, 1-5-30 Shibakoen, Minato-ku, Tokyo, 105-8512, Japan.
Koji Tanikawa, Department of Pharmacy, Yokohama General Hospital, 2201-5 Kuroganecho, Aoba-ku, Yokohama City, Kanagawa, 225-0025, Japan.
Kazuaki Matsumoto, Division of Pharmacodynamics, Keio University Faculty of Pharmacy, 1-5-30 Shibakoen, Minato-ku, Tokyo, 105-8512, Japan.
Featured image: A hand holding an mRNA vaccine vial. (Spencer Davis / Unsplash)
Japan has issued an apology to its citizens for the disastrous consequences of the COVID-19 mRNA vaccines and has launched far-reaching scientific inquiries and criminal investigations to establish the truth and punish the perpetrators.
.
.
VIDEO. ANALYSIS OF NANOBOTS
The globalist elite and Big Pharma are panicking, terrified of what the Japanese are finding, and they are doing everything they can to discredit these investigations, including ordering the mainstream media to initiate a total media blackout of any news coming out of Japan.
But we are not going to allow the elite to succeed in gaslighting the public any longer. Japan are uncovering crimes against humanity and the whole world needs to hear this information.
A new Japanese study published in the International Journal of Vaccine Theory Practice and Research suggest that Pfizer and Moderna vaccines contain unauthorized “animated worm-like” entities, invisible to the human eye, that swim, wriggle, and assemble themselves into complex structures.
As the Dr. Young Mi Lee and Dr. Daniel Broudy from Okinawa Christian University explain, these worm-like entities are responsible for causing clots inside millions of human bodies around the world since the mRNA roll out.
Real-Time Self-Assembly of Stereomicroscopically Visible Artificial Constructions in Incubated Specimens of mRNA Products Mainly from Pfizer and Moderna: A Comprehensive Longitudinal Study
Authors
Young Mi Lee, MDPracticing Physician, Hanna Women’s Clinic Doryeong-ro 7, KumgSung Building, 2nd Fl., Jeju, Jejudo, 63098, Republic of Korea (South Korea)
Daniel Broudy, PhDProfessor of Applied Linguistics, Okinawa Christian University
Observable real-time injuries at the cellular level in recipients of the “safe and effective” COVID-19 injectables are documented here for the first time with the presentation of a comprehensive description and analysis of observed phenomena. The global administration of these often-mandated products from late 2020 triggered a plethora of independent research studies of the modified RNA injectable gene therapies, most notably those manufactured by Pfizer and Moderna. Analyses reported here consist of precise laboratory “bench science” aiming to understand why serious debilitating, prolonged injuries (and many deaths) occurred increasingly without any measurable protective effect from the aggressively, marketed products. The contents of COVID-19 injectables were examined under a stereomicroscope at up to 400X magnification. Carefully preserved specimens were cultured in a range of distinct media to observe immediate and long-term cause-and-effect relationships between the injectables and living cells under carefully controlled conditions. From such research, reasonable inferences can be drawn about observed injuries worldwide that have occurred since the injectables were pressed upon billions of individuals. In addition to cellular toxicity, our findings reveal numerous — on the order of 3~4 x 106 per milliliter of the injectable — visible artificial self-assembling entities ranging from about 1 to 100 µm, or greater, of many different shapes. There were animated worm-like entities, discs, chains, spirals, tubes, right-angle structures containing other artificial entities within them, and so forth. All these are exceedingly beyond any expected and acceptable levels of contamination of the COVID-19 injectables, and incubation studies revealed the progressive self-assembly of many artifactual structures. As time progressed during incubation, simple one- and two-dimensional structures over two or three weeks became more complex in shape and size developing into stereoscopically visible entities in three-dimensions. They resembled carbon nanotube filaments, ribbons, and tapes, some appearing as transparent, thin, flat membranes, and others as three-dimensional spirals, and beaded chains. Some of these seemed to appear and then disappear over time. Our observations suggest the presence of some kind of nanotechnology in the COVID-19 injectables..
Author Biographies
.
Young Mi Lee, MD, Practicing Physician, Hanna Women’s Clinic Doryeong-ro 7, KumgSung Building, 2nd Fl., Jeju, Jejudo, 63098, Republic of Korea (South Korea)
Young Mi Lee, MD, is a practicing physician specializing in obstetrics and gynecology, and is also a reproductive endocrinologist; because of her work over the last three years she has become an expert in stereomicroscopy and in the microbiology of incubated COVID-19 injectables, especially, Pfizer and Moderna
Daniel Broudy, PhD, Professor of Applied Linguistics, Okinawa Christian University
Daniel Broudy holds a doctorate in applied psycholinguistics from the School of Communication and Creative Arts at Deakin University. He is a professor of applied linguistics at Okinawa Christian University. His research integrates research in cognitive linguistics, developmental and social psychology, semiotics, and communication theory as an effort to describe the ways in which centers of power organize campaigns of persuasion and engineer consent for policies and actions across cultures. His work appears with Palgrave, Macmillan, Westminster University Press, Opole University Press, the University Press of Wrocław, Peter Lang, Media Theory, Ethical Space: The International Journal of Ethics, Peace News, Truthout, The Asia-Pacific Journal: Japan Focus, Fast Capitalism, Propaganda in Focus, and System: An International Journal of Educational Technology and Applied Linguistics.
Dr. Young Mi Lee and Dr. Daniel Broudy isolated vaccine vials for three weeks, then examined them under 400 times magnification and found what they describe as “undisclosed additional engineered components” … also known as nanotechnology.
As Lee and Broudy observed, when the nanotechnology is energized it creates “discs, chains, spirals, tubes, and right-angle structures.”
What are these nanorobots and why would Pfizer and Big Pharma want to secretly inject thousands of billions of them into unsuspecting human beings?
And when exactly does the nanotechnology “energize”, you ask?
Lee and Broudy were astonished to find the “additional engineered components” energize when they are placed near cellphones or computers.
These are nanobots that communicate with a central database, the IP of which cannot be traced to a location or a single computer.
Evidence is now emerging that the elite have implemented their plan – without our consent – to turn the human race into a vast battery reserve to be harvested in secret.
Unfortunately for the elite, this secret has been blown wide open by researchers in Japan and around the world. We are onto them and their is a plan in place to serve them with the justice they so richly deserve.
The Japanese study concludes that the smart microscopic components are part of the global elite’s “long-planned well-funded Internet of Bodies,” which was described as a kind of “synthetic global central nervous system”turning humans into controllable “Biohybrid Magnetic Robots.”
They also demanded the labels “vaccine” and “safe and effective” be removed because the concoction injected into billions of people around the world is not a vaccine nor safe and effective.
The more we learn about the so-called vaccines, the more we understand that “safe and effective” is perhaps the biggest of the Big Lies the elite ever told.
The mainstream media are desperate to convince you this is just a conspiracy theory, but we have the evidence for you in black and white.
A patent granted to Bill Gates awarded the self-appointed world health czar the “exclusive rights” to computerize human bodies and use them as local wireless networks.
Microsoft was awarded US Patent 6,754,472, which is titled: Method and apparatus for transmitting power and data using the human body.
Which really should be science fiction, if you stop to think about it. Did anybody consult you about whether you are willing to hand over to Bill Gates the exclusive rights to your body?
The elite always tell us their plans, but nobody wants to take them at their word.
It’s called Revelation of the Method, a subliminal psychological warfare tool that serves as a clever and occult way of demoralizing the masses and increasing the powers of the elites who rule over us.
It’s time we start taking these totalitarian criminals and psychopaths at their word.
*
GLOBAL RESEARCH EDITOR’S NOTE
It is important to read the Abstract of the IJVPTR Study and address the complexities, without jumping to conclusions as outlined in Baxter Dmitry’s article.
Click the share button below to email/forward this article to your friends and colleagues. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.
Baxter Dmitry is a writer at The People’s Voice. He covers politics, business and entertainment. Speaking truth to power since he learned to talk, Baxter has travelled in over 80 countries and won arguments in every single one. Live without fear.
Featured image is from TPV
The Worldwide Corona Crisis, Global Coup d’Etat Against Humanity
by Michel Chossudovsky
Michel Chossudovsky reviews in detail how this insidious project “destroys people’s lives”. He provides a comprehensive analysis of everything you need to know about the “pandemic” — from the medical dimensions to the economic and social repercussions, political underpinnings, and mental and psychological impacts.
“My objective as an author is to inform people worldwide and refute the official narrative which has been used as a justification to destabilize the economic and social fabric of entire countries, followed by the imposition of the “deadly” COVID-19 “vaccine”. This crisis affects humanity in its entirety: almost 8 billion people. We stand in solidarity with our fellow human beings and our children worldwide. Truth is a powerful instrument.”
Reviews
This is an in-depth resource of great interest if it is the wider perspective you are motivated to understand a little better, the author is very knowledgeable about geopolitics and this comes out in the way Covid is contextualized. —Dr. Mike Yeadon
In this war against humanity in which we find ourselves, in this singular, irregular and massive assault against liberty and the goodness of people, Chossudovsky’s book is a rock upon which to sustain our fight. –Dr. Emanuel Garcia
In fifteen concise science-based chapters, Michel traces the false covid pandemic, explaining how a PCR test, producing up to 97% proven false positives, combined with a relentless 24/7 fear campaign, was able to create a worldwide panic-laden “plandemic”; that this plandemic would never have been possible without the infamous DNA-modifying Polymerase Chain Reaction test – which to this day is being pushed on a majority of innocent people who have no clue. His conclusions are evidenced by renown scientists. —Peter Koenig
Professor Chossudovsky exposes the truth that “there is no causal relationship between the virus and economic variables.” In other words, it was not COVID-19 but, rather, the deliberate implementation of the illogical, scientifically baseless lockdowns that caused the shutdown of the global economy. –David Skripac
A reading of Chossudovsky’s book provides a comprehensive lesson in how there is a global coup d’état under way called “The Great Reset” that if not resisted and defeated by freedom loving people everywhere will result in a dystopian future not yet imagined. Pass on this free gift from Professor Chossudovsky before it’s too late. You will not find so much valuable information and analysis in one place. –Edward Curtin
ISBN: 978-0-9879389-3-0, Year: 2022, PDF Ebook, Pages: 164, 15 Chapters
All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the Translate Website button below the author’s name.
To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.
Click the share button above to email/forward this article to your friends and colleagues. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.
***
(Originally published December 3, 2023)
“They’re not asking for anything else; they just want the gift of life. If it’s there and it’s possible please give it. I don’t want to die, God help me.”
– Sheila Lewis at the NCI in Ottawa on May 17, 2023. She was not allowed an organ transplant on the grounds of her choice to not take the COVID-19 vaccine. She died three months later. [1]
Approximately four years ago, as of this date, was when signs began to arise of some sort of nasty illness erupting in China. [2]
Not big news at the time. The general public then had no idea this illness would escalate beyond China into a full blown “pandemic” that authorities at the World Health Organization (WHO) would need drastic measures, including lockdowns, social distancing and even withholding rights of organization, and an aggressive vaccination approach to retain it.
Now, four years after the worst seems to be over – the WHO Director-General stated that COVID-19 no longer constitutes a public health emergency of international concern – and life seems to be getting back to normal, albeit with the economic and social repercussions still evident in the wake of the COVID-19 storm.
We find however two events marking the anniversary of the beginning these changes to the planetary crisis.
One is the Final Report completed earlier this week by the National Citizens Inquiry: Canada’s Response to COVID-19. Commissioners tabled their full report after listening to and questioning sworn testimonials from over 300 witnesses in eight different cities across Canada. The Inquiry into the Appropriateness and Efficacy of COVID-19 Response in Canada was the product of over a year of work, and was forged as the culmination of a full citizens report. According to the authors, literally thousands of volunteers were active in making these hearings possible. [3]
The other timely indication is the rise of mainstream media coverage of illnesses around the globe, and the threat of another pandemic on the horizon. If this is a replay of history, we can seemingly look forward to a “doubling-down” on masking, restrictions and a massive new threat as a divided public could soon emerge into a civil war among those desperate to “protect our children” while the Vaccination program, Digital IDs etc are going to be implemented “by hook or by crook.”
This episode of the Global Research News Hour will focus on the three Dickensian ghosts of Pandemic Past, Pandemic present and Pandemics yet to come.
In our first half hour, we highlight the recent Final Report of the NCI and interview NCI Commissioner Kenneth Drysdale about its content and its prospects for the future.
In our second half hour, James Corbett joins us once again to talk about the pandemic horrors arising and also talks about the draft Pandemic Agreement tabled in October and what the signing of this agreement by the WHO could mean for the future of public health and for democracy in Canada and around the world.
Kenneth Drysdale, FEC and P.Eng is an executive engineer with over 40 years of experience as a Professional Engineer, which includes 29 years experience in the development and management of national and regional engineering businesses. Ken is currently retired from full time practice as a consulting engineer, but continues to be active in the area of forensic engineering, investigations, preparation of expert reports and expert testimony at trial, arbitrations, and mediations. He has testified as expert witness at trials in Manitoba and Ontario. He has acted as the arbitrator and mediator in disputes.
James Corbett started The Corbett Report website in 2007 as an outlet for independent critical analysis of politics, society, history, and economics. An award-winning investigative journalist, he has lectured on geopolitics at the University of Groningen’s Studium Generale, and delivered presentations on open source journalism at The French Institute for Research in Computer Science and Automation’s fOSSa conference, at TedXGroningen and at Ritsumeikan University in Kyoto.
Global Research:So, as we see in the press, there have been a series of article coming out in the mainstream press mentioning a new pandemic definitely coming. And now, we’re seeing upsetting news from China that has prompted masking and distancing in China. Again, it looks like a respiratory illness not from a novel virus, but from, you know, clusters of overlapping common viruses. And this could be a replay of four years ago, although this time the health care enforcers, if I could put it that way, will be prepared, you know, for the few people who dissent from the standard advice of the WHO. But the new pandemic sort of treaty comes out in May of 2024, or it’s supposed to. I’m wondering, James, what you think about this. Is this the next step in the plans to establish the power grab of the WHO? Is this something you’ve been expecting? Or is it just a seasonal flu being embellished?
James Corbett: It really could be both, actually. And in fact, I will add to this mix, that as we are recording the latest headlines are, “UK detects its first human case of swine flu strain.” So, apparently, there is even more fuel for this fire that’s developing even as we are talking right now. And I think people can probably intuit that regardless of what you think about what happened over the past few years, the ground work has been laid, at least in the psyche and the consciousness of the public to understand and expect that there will be massive response to any future pandemic threats.
And as much as people may poo-poo the craziness of the past few years and the masking and the lockdowns, it is interesting to speculate what might happen if there was a truly, as opposed to not quite – a nothing virus, I won’t say it that way, but at least a very, very small event in terms of mortality. If there was a truly bubonic plague-level taking out one quarter of the population type of illness going around, the way people would be clamouring for the very rules and restrictions that they were protesting against in the previous few years.
And you have to at least imagine that if there were people in positions of power and authority who seek to profit in every sense, monetarily and just through power grabs from that type of fear, that at the very least, they would be playing into that, if not actively seeking to create such strains. But at any rate, we don’t even have to go there.
And the way that I understand this entire topic, because I have been researching very carefully over the past 16 years now, the topic of false flag terrorism, I do see the parallels between the War on Terror, and the new biosecurity state that’s coming into view with the pandemic preparedness that the United Nations, for example, was talking about after their latest general assembly. And having a political call that we must have some sort of new agreements from the World Health Organization to help us prepare for this. And oh, lo and behold, they are working on just such an agreement that they won’t really let us see until it has passed, presumably, at next year’s World Health Assembly in Geneva in May of 2024. And I think the way to understand this is that throughout, for example, the 1990s, it wasn’t just that Osama Bin Laden suddenly appeared all overnight. There was a gradual buildup of events that took place in an escalating cycle. And in the American domestic response context we could see, for example, Waco, and then the OKC bombing, preparing the public for these psychologically-jarring, very large-scale terror events.
And on the international scale, the African Embassy bombings, the USS Cole introducing the sort of – the idea to the public. We saw, for example, in the wake of the OKC bombing, the introduction of the Crime Omnibus bill that Joe Biden now likes to brag that he essentially – he really kind of wrote the Patriot Act, because that was just an extension of the Crime Omnibus bill that they tried to pass in the wake of the OKC bombing. All of this infrastructure was being laid beforehand.
And interestingly enough, it wasn’t even simply 9/11 that caused the actual pulling of the trigger on the entire Homeland Security state and the actual institution of the Patriot Act. It was the anthrax attacks which were literally, directly targeting Congress at the exact time that they were deliberating on the Patriot Act and whatever provisions might be slipped into there. And then, the anthrax attacks happened, caused this massive panic, the shutdown of Congress. They decided to pass the Patriot Act right away in an overnight session, panic, emergency.
And now, there’s a new law of the land, and entirely new paradigm of governance. We are looking at a potentially very similar trajectory. We saw the buildup of events from the swine flu of 2009, Zika, the Ebola scare of 2014, et cetera. Escalating throughout the 2010’s into the Covid scare of the past few years. And now, we are on the cusp of potentially another scare which might cause the actual political impetus and even the public to get on board with the idea of the World Health Organization swooping in to save the day with their brand new pandemic agreement.
GR: Mm-hmm. Yeah, I can’t help but notice that another aspect of it that was being planned for was the fact that climate change would somehow be motivating this or, you know, resulting in the transfer of more of these – the virus from animals to humans or something like that. And this is right now during the latest COP28, you know, summary —
JC: Exactly. Exactly right. And in fact, that’s an incredibly important thing to underline, because one of the pieces that is being embedded, or at least, from what we’ve seen is being embedded in the new pandemic agreement that they’re working on behind closed doors is this concept of One Health, in which it will not simply be about human health.
It’s not just that the World Health Organization is going to steward over the entirety of the human population and let’s trust our health to their assessment. No, it’s One Health, as in, it’s not just human health, it’s animal health, climate/environment health, is all related. And thus, essentially the entire world and all of its resources come under the jurisdiction of the World Health Organization. Though, it is incredibly important.
And one of the things that they stress is zoonotic transfer from animal species to human species. And this is happening because we’re encroaching on protected areas and because of climate change, et cetera, et cetera. So now, all of this starts to become essentially, as has been pointed out, for example by the Club of Rome in their 1991 publication on the first global revolution where they said that they were looking for a way to unite humanity behind the concept of humanity itself being the enemy, and global warming fit the bill, because it is a human – presumably, at least according to the theory – is a human-generated problem and it requires this global governmental solution. And that’s exactly what we seemed to be facing with this.
GR: Yeah. Well, maybe you could bring us up to speed on the changes that the WHO has planned, I mean, for those who, you know, are maybe up-to-date. I mean, there’s the creation of the document aimed at the prevention of, preparedness for, and response to the future pandemic. They tabled a recent draft in October, okay, where you say it’s all been discussed behind closed doors, nobody can see. Could you just highlight a few of the concerns – just a few – of the concerns you are raising about this not-quite-a-treaty document that, in combination with changes to the international health regulations, could see the sovereignty of states and individual’s health threatened even more than they already are.
JC: There are certainly aspects of power grab, money grab to this from the big pharmaceutical companies that could stand to benefit from the types of changes that are coming into view.
There is also the setting up of genomic data transfers of not just pandemic pathogens of international concern, but potential pathogenic problems, which essentially opens up a Pandora’s box of countries potentially being somehow – at least through this treaty – legally obligated to start sharing various genetic data in ways that are not very well explained, at least in the draft documents that we’ve seen so far. They also raised, for the first time in a legal document, the concept of ‘infodemic,’ which they give some sort of cursory definition to. But essentially, the question on the table is: what to do in the light of future pandemic or emergency situations when people are spreading false information on the internet.
And we know what that looks like, because well, for I mean, myself, I had my YouTube channel with nearly 600,000 subscribers that I’d built up over 14 years taken out at the flip of a switch because it was, of course, in contravention of World Health Organization mandates and remits or whatever gobbledeegook garbage language that YouTube used to censor masses of people back during the previous scare. We can only imagine they are now looking at actually instituting some teeth in that, so that the World Health Organization itself can really come in and censor people.
There are many, many other concerns, but the most concerning to me is the fact that they are no longer calling it an ‘agreement’ or ‘instrument’ or other legal body, blah blah blah, whatever they were – gobbledeegook mouthful of a phrase they were using to describe this document before.
They are calling it specifically a “pandemic agreement,” but very specifically in Article 21 of the draft that they released on October 31st – boo, Halloween – they have specifically a reference to the creation of a “Conference of the Parties,” which for people who do not know, the C-O-P – COP – is used in the United Nations framework Convention on Climate Change. It’s used in the Biological – Treaty, Warfare Treaty, et cetera, et cetera. All of these various UN branches and agreements have their C-O-P, their Conference of the Parties, which is essentially set up like a type of government, which will not just operate and institute a single set of laws. It will continue to operate and meet year after year after year to try to develop and continue adding teeth to whatever agreement that they sign in May 2024.
So, even if the pandemic agreement that will undoubtedly get rubber stamped in May 2024 unless we make that politically unfeasible, even if that agreement was fine on its face and didn’t actually institute any of this, the Conference of the Parties that will meet every year thereafter, could add all of these things to the agreement.
And guess what? There is exactly zero political accountability or insight into this process whatsoever. In the exact same way that Canadians, for example, have exactly zero say over the Conference of the Parties at the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, you don’t get to elect whatever representative the Canadian government decides to send over there. And you have absolutely no say on whatever they decide in those agreements. But then, they start to become the rule of the law – the law of the land in Canada.
How did that happen? It’s because, essentially, this is a great sovereignty takeover that is happening right under our eyes and they are attempting to do the exact same thing with the World Health Organization.
GR: Wow. I know that – yeah, it sounds like you’ve got sort of a mini-state within the state that is basically saying, ‘Okay, whatever you guys decide, this is what the rules are going to be.’ At least in health. I know that there’s an article, WION reports that Kate Bingham, the chairperson of the UK’s Disease X, could turn out to be the UK’s vaccine task force from May-December 2020 said that she believed that Disease X could turn out to be considerably more perilous than Covid-19. You also mentioned in your last – in our last interview that Bill Gates said that Covid-19 was a Pandemic I, and we are facing Pandemic II, like World War II, you know? It will be more demanding that everyone get vaccinated, I imagine. Do you see the health enforcers clamping down on vaccines at a time when fewer and fewer people are bothering to go based on what – the data they are seeing?
JC: I think that what the past few years has exposed is that the fact that we should not be listening unquestioningly to what we are told is ‘the science,’ while excluding all of those medical professionals, including very degreed, very credentialed, people who have had entire careers in the medical field who have never once been question, but now are toxic and cannot be interviewed or mentioned in mainstream media because they dared to question the pronouncements of the past few years. And we find out, oh, wait, they were right.
There are serious health concerns with what is masquerading as a vaccine which is actually this mRNA injection, et cetera. There is a lot of people who have woken up to that reality.
The only way I think that they can continue to push forward with this agenda is to double down. And the only way to really double down is to create or generate or play up or whatever it is some sense of not just a renewed crisis, but an actually escalating crisis. ‘This is going to be worse than what we saw with that Covid thing. You thought that was bad? Wait until you see this.’ And unfortunately, we are talking about the people who have been working in that murky world of biological weapons that we were talking about in our previous conversation with David Kelly who, presumably, would know a thing or two about what Disease X might look like.
And for the people in the audience who don’t know about this, there has been talk for years now about war gaming and planning. There have been disease exercises run by these various organizations and foundations, et cetera, on Clade X and other such things, which is an imaginary potential future pandemic of some sort of respiratory virus or something along those lines that will spread around the world. They have been war gaming out that situation for many situation for many years now.
And one would expect that, well, when you start at the least when you have a hammer, everything looks like a nail. Well, at least in this situation, whatever develops, whether natural or some sort of man-made thing, whether released on purpose or accidentally escaping from some – one of these Class 5 biological containment facilities or whatever the case may be, at any rate, they will try to hammer that problem down because they see it as the nail. And the hammer that they have is all of this infrastructure that they are putting into place right now for the biosecurity state which will almost inevitably involve some sort of mandatory vaccinations – “vaccinations” – once again talking about this new – I guess we can’t call it experimental anymore because it’s the human population that’s being experimented on, the mRNA injections, and other such novel ideas for really rearranging people and their natural biological processes. Playing with the code of life, the “software of life,” as even Moderna and other companies have called it.
And who is spearheading all of this and being the front man for it? Of course, it’s Bill Gates, the man who took over the software of the computer world 30 years ago and is now going to try to transform the software of life itself.
GR: Yeah, well that leads me to my final question for you and I hope you will address it. The idea of how we actually prepare for Pandemic II and the WHO legislation coming down the pike.
JC: Unfortunately, this is one of those problems which there is no half-hearted solution. There may be a number of stop-gap political measures that can be made that might lesson the impact of this. But as we have seen, no matter what sort of legal instruments or documents or pieces of paper people might have like the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms that they think protects their fundamental rights, those can all and will all be discarded in the sense – in the perceived sense of a crisis, whether real or imaginary.
And so, what really, truly needs to happen is a fundamental transformation of not the political system itself but our understanding of our individual human sovereignty, our medical freedom. We have the right to make our decisions for our own bodies. And that decision may be: I perceive there is a real risk, I’m going to mask up, I’m going to take the mRNA, whatever that position is, it is again up to and incumbent on each individual to make that decision for themselves. And no presumed, self-described health authority has the right to mandate that on anyone. Until that fundamental transformation of human consciousness takes place, I don’t think there will be some sort of solution from within the political system as it is being woven around us.
Because as I said, for example, you have zero input into the UNFCC process, you will have zero input into this World Health Organization process that is going on. So, I would say that the first order of political sorts of things that we can do to start to generate this consciousness in the public sphere, is to create and put momentum behind an effort to start by withdrawing Canada and every other nation from the World Health Organization itself.
Just as a start, just to say, “No.” Our health sovereignty as a nation does not rely on whatever the World Health Organization is saying. That organization may exist, and it may have its recommendations and we may follow those recommendations, maybe we won’t. But we will not sign our countries sovereignty over to this organization and put ourselves beholden to them. That would be the first step.
The second step, of course, would be to withdraw from the United Nations and all of these other global government nascent bodies that breach national sovereignty. And then, people can start working on taking the next level down from, ‘Well, we don’t need this international government. Why do we need the national government to dictate to all of the provinces, for example, so we can bring it down to the provincial level. And from the provincial level, eventually maybe we can get to actual individual sovereignty. But until we start reversing exactly going in the opposite direction of this trend towards global consolidation of power, and moving it down towards the individual. Until that momentum starts to shift, I don’t think we’ll have a real solution here.
GR: Fantastic. James Corbett, thanks a lot for sharing your knowledge and understanding with our listeners. We really appreciate it.
CIXX 106.9 FM, broadcasting from Fanshawe College in London, Ontario. It airs Sundays at 6am.
WZBC 90.3 FM in Newton Massachusetts is Boston College Radio and broadcasts to the greater Boston area. The Global Research News Hour airs during Truth and Justice Radio which starts Sunday at 6am.
Campus and community radio CFMH 107.3fm in Saint John, N.B. airs the Global Research News Hour Fridays at 7pm.
CJMP 90.1 FM, Powell River Community Radio, airs the Global Research News Hour every Saturday at 8am.
Caper Radio CJBU 107.3FM in Sydney, Cape Breton, Nova Scotia airs the Global Research News Hour starting Wednesday afternoon from 3-4pm.
National Citizens Inquiry: Canada’s Response to COVID-19 (November 28, 2023),’Inquiry into the Appropriateness and Efficacy of COVID-19 Response in Canada’; https://nationalcitizensinquiry.ca/commissioners-report/
Today, the dangers of military escalation are beyond description.
What is now happening in Ukraine has serious geopolitical implications. It could lead us into a World War III Scenario.
Vladimir Putin’s statement on February 21st, 2022 was in response to US threats to use nuclear weapons on a preemptive basis against Russia, despite Joe Biden’s “reassurance” that the US would not be resorting to “A First Strike” nuclear attack against an enemy of America.
The article below first published in February 2006 addresses US Military Doctrine focussing among other issues on the integration of nuclear and conventional warfare. This is absolutely fundamental.
“Known in official Washington, as “Joint Publication 3-12”, the new nuclear doctrine (Doctrine for Joint Nuclear Operations (DJNO) (March 2005)) calls for “integrating conventional and nuclear attacks” under a unified and “integrated” Command and Control (C2).
In this context, nuclear and conventional weapons are considered to be “part of the tool box”, from which military commanders can pick and choose the instruments that they require in accordance with “evolving circumstances” in the war theater.
None of these weapons in the Pentagon’s “tool box”, including conventional bunker buster bombs, cluster bombs, tactical nuclear weapons and mini-nukes, chemical and biological weapons are described as “weapons of mass destruction” when used by the United States of America and its coalition partners. (quoted from article below)
The stated objective is to:
“ensure the most efficient use of force and provide US leaders with a broader range of [nuclear and conventional] strike options to address immediate contingencies. Integration of conventional and nuclear forces is therefore crucial to the success of any comprehensive strategy. This integration will ensure optimal targeting, minimal collateral damage, and reduce the probability of escalation.” (Doctrine for Joint Nuclear Operations p. JP 3-12-13) emphasis added
The DJNO states that the:
“use of nuclear weapons within a [war] theater requires that nuclear and conventional plans be integrated to the greatest extent possible” (DJNO, p 47)
The implications of this “integration” are far-reaching because once the decision is taken by the Commander in Chief, namely the President of the United States, to launch a joint conventional-nuclear military operation, there is a risk that tactical nuclear weapons could be used without requesting subsequent presidential approval.
In this regard, execution procedures under the jurisdiction of the theater commanders pertaining to nuclear weapons are described as “flexible and allow for changes in the situation”:
“Geographic combatant commanders are responsible for defining theater objectives and developing nuclear plans required to support those objectives, including selecting targets.
…Command, control, and coordination must be flexible enough to allow the geographic combatant commander [e.g. USCENTCOM Four Star General] to strike time-sensitive targets such as mobile missile launch platforms.” Doctrine for Joint Nuclear Operations Doctrine (emphasis added)
Currently, under the Biden presidency, Commander General Michael E. Kurilla is Chief of Staff for U.S. Central Command. (image right)
I should mention that the results of this research were subsequently integrated into my book entitled Towards A World War Three Scenario, The Dangers of Nuclear War, Global Research Publishers, 2011.
Nuclear war threatens the future of humanity. Our objective is “Building Awareness” by informing people Worldwide. We have taken the decision that as of September 1 2024, readers will be able to download the pdf version of my book free of charge.
Having carefully reviewed US military doctrine for more than 20 years, I can confirm that under the Biden Administration, preemptive nuclear war against Russia, China, Iran and North Korea is “on the table”.
According to the Union of Concerned Scientists (2006 study), a nuclear attack against Iran is on the drawing board of the Pentagon.
My research suggests that nuclear war is on the drawing board of the Pentagon. You do not allocate 2000 billion dollars to nuclear weapons, without contemplating their use.
How many schools and hospitals could you finance with 2 trillion dollars? Why is there poverty in America?
Truth is a Powerful and Peaceful Weapon, which is the object of Google and Facebook censorship.
Nuclear War Threatens the Future of Humanity. No mainstream media analysis. The imminent dangers of nuclear war are the object of censorship.
Say No to Joe Biden’s Two Trillion Dollars Nuclear Weapons Program. That Budget must be cancelled.
SAY YES TO WORLD PEACE
Please forward this article, post it on your blog. Spread the word. Initiate a campaign against nuclear war.
[the title of the 2006 article has been changed, no other changes have been made]
Michel Chossudovsky, Global Research, August 30, 2024
***
Nuclear War Is “On the Table”
Build Awareness
by Michel Chossudovsky
February 2006
It Started with Harry Truman
“We have discovered the most terrible bomb in the history of the world. It may be the fire destruction prophesied in the Euphrates Valley Era, after Noah and his fabulous Ark…. This weapon is to be used against Japan …
[We] will use it so that military objectives and soldiers and sailors are the target and not women and children.
Even if the Japs are savages, ruthless, merciless and fanatic, we as the leader of the world for the common welfare cannot drop that terrible bomb on the old capital or the new. …
The target will be a purely military one… It seems to be the most terrible thing ever discovered, but it can be made the most useful.”
Remember Hiroshima: “A Military Base” according to Harry Truman
“The World will note that the first atomic bomb was dropped on Hiroshima a military base. That was because we wished in this first attack to avoid, insofar as possible, the killing of civilians..” (President Harry S. Truman in a radio speech to the Nation, August 9, 1945).
[Note: the first atomic bomb was dropped on Hiroshima on August 6, 1945; the Second on Nagasaki, on August 9, on the same day as Truman’s radio speech to the Nation]
At no point since the first atomic bomb was dropped on Hiroshima on August 6th, 1945, has humanity been closer to the unthinkable. All the safeguards of the Cold War era, which categorized the nuclear bomb as “a weapon of last resort” have been scrapped. “Offensive” military actions using nuclear warheads are now described as acts of “self-defense”.
The distinction between tactical nuclear weapons and the conventional battlefield arsenal has been blurred. America’s new nuclear doctrine is based on “a mix of strike capabilities”. The latter, which specifically applies to the Pentagon’s planned aerial bombing of Iran, envisages the use of nukes in combination with conventional weapons.
As in the case of the first atomic bomb, which in the words of President Harry Truman “was dropped on Hiroshima, a military base”, today’s “mini-nukes” are heralded as “safe for the surrounding civilian population”.
The Dangerous Doctrine for Joint Nuclear Operations
Known in official Washington, as “Joint Publication 3-12”, the new nuclear doctrine (Doctrine for Joint Nuclear Operations (DJNO) (March 2005)) calls for “integrating conventional and nuclear attacks” under a unified and “integrated” Command and Control (C2).
It largely describes war planning as a management decision-making process, where military and strategic objectives are to be achieved, through a mix of instruments, with little concern for the resulting loss of human life.
The Pentagon’s Toolbox
Military planning focuses on “the most efficient use of force” , -i.e. an optimal arrangement of different weapons systems to achieve stated military goals.
In this context, nuclear and conventional weapons are considered to be “part of the tool box”, from which military commanders can pick and choose the instruments that they require in accordance with “evolving circumstances” in the war theater.
None of these weapons in the Pentagon’s “tool box”, including conventional bunker buster bombs, cluster bombs, mini-nukes, chemical and biological weapons are described as “weapons of mass destruction” when used by the United States of America and its coalition partners.
The stated objective is to:
“ensure the most efficient use of force and provide US leaders with a broader range of [nuclear and conventional] strike options to address immediate contingencies. Integration of conventional and nuclear forces is therefore crucial to the success of any comprehensive strategy. This integration will ensure optimal targeting, minimal collateral damage, and reduce the probability of escalation.” (Doctrine for Joint Nuclear Operations p. JP 3-12-13) emphasis added
The New Nuclear Doctrine turns Concepts and Realities Upside Down
It not only denies the devastating impacts of nuclear weapons, it states, in no uncertain terms, that nuclear weapons are “safe” and their use in the battlefield will ensure “minimal collateral damage and reduce the probability of escalation”.
The issue of radioactive fallout is barely acknowledged with regard to tactical nuclear weapons. These various guiding principles which describe nukes as “safe for civilians” constitute a consensus within the military, which is then fed into the military manuals, providing relevant “green light” criteria to geographical commanders in the war theater.
“The new triad offers a mix of strategic offensive and defensive capabilities that includes nuclear and non-nuclear strike capabilities, active and passive defenses, and a robust research, development, and industrial infrastructure to develop, build, and maintain offensive forces and defensive systems …” (Ibid) (key concepts indicated in added italics)
The new nuclear doctrine, however, goes beyond preemptive acts of “self-defense”, it calls for “anticipatory action” using nuclear weapons against a “rogue enemy” which allegedly plans to develop WMD at some undefined future date:
Responsible security planning requires preparation for threats that are possible, though perhaps unlikely today. The lessons of military history remain clear: unpredictable, irrational conflicts occur. Military forces must prepare to counter weapons and capabilities that exist or will exist in the near term even if no immediate likely scenarios for war are at hand. To maximize deterrence of WMD use, it is essential US forces prepare to use nuclear weapons effectively and that US forces are determined to employ nuclear weapons if necessary to prevent or retaliate against WMD use. (Ibid, p. III-1, emphasis added)
Nukes would serve to prevent a non-existent WMD program (e.g. Iran) prior to its development. This twisted formulation goes far beyond the premises of the 2001 Nuclear Posture Review and NPSD 17. which state that the US can retaliate with nuclear weapons if attacked with WMD:
“The United States will make clear that it reserves the right to respond with overwhelming force – including potentially nuclear weapons – to the use of [weapons of mass destruction] against the United States, our forces abroad, and friends and allies.” … (NSPD 17) [National Security Presidential Directives]
Integration” of Nuclear and Conventional Weapons Plans
The Doctrine for Joint Nuclear Operations outlines the procedures governing the use of nuclear weapons and the nature of the relationship between nuclear and conventional war operations.
The DJNO states that the:
“use of nuclear weapons within a [war] theater requires that nuclear and conventional plans be integrated to the greatest extent possible”
The implications of this “integration” are far-reaching because once the decision is taken by the Commander in Chief, namely the President of the United States, to launch a joint conventional-nuclear military operation, there is a risk that tactical nuclear weapons could be used without requesting subsequent presidential approval.
In this regard, execution procedures under the jurisdiction of the theater commanders pertaining to nuclear weapons are described as “flexible and allow for changes in the situation”:
“Geographic combatant commanders are responsible for defining theater objectives and developing nuclear plans required to support those objectives, including selecting targets. When tasked, CDRUSSTRATCOM, as a supporting combatant commander, provides detailed planning support to meet theater planning requirements. All theater nuclear option planning follows prescribed Joint Operation Planning and Execution System procedures to formulate and implement an effective response within the timeframe permitted by the crisis..
Since options do not exist for every scenario, combatant commanders must have a capability to perform crisis action planning and execute those plans. Crisis action planning provides the capability to develop new options, or modify existing options, when current limited or major response options are inappropriate.
…Command, control, and coordination must be flexible enough to allow the geographic combatant commander to strike time-sensitive targets such as mobile missile launch platforms.” Doctrine for Joint Nuclear Operations Doctrine (emphasis added)
Theater Nuclear Operations (TNO)
While presidential approval is formally required to launch a nuclear war, geographic combat commanders would be in charge of Theater Nuclear Operations (TNO), with a mandate not only to implement but also to formulate command decisions pertaining to nuclear weapons. ( Doctrine for Joint Nuclear Operations Doctrine )
We are no longer dealing with “the risk” associated with “an accidental or inadvertent nuclear launch” as outlined by former Secretary of Defense Robert S. McNamara , but with a military decision-making process which provides military commanders, from the Commander in Chief down to the geographical commanders with discretionary powers to use tactical nuclear weapons.
Moreover, because these “smaller” tactical nuclear weapons have been “reclassified” by the Pentagon as “safe for the surrounding civilian population”, thereby “minimizing the risk of collateral damage”, there are no overriding built-in restrictions which prevent their use. (See Michel Chossudovsky, The Dangers of a Middle East Nuclear War , Global Research, February 2006) .
Once a decision to launch a military operation is taken (e.g. aerial strikes on Iran), theater commanders have a degree of latitude. What this signifies in practice is once the presidential decision is taken, USSTRATCOM in liaison with theater commanders can decide on the targeting and type of weaponry to be used. Stockpiled tactical nuclear weapons are now considered to be an integral part of the battlefield arsenal. In other words, nukes have become “part of the tool box”, used in conventional war theaters.
Planned Aerial Attacks on Iran
An operational plan to wage aerial attacks on Iran has been in “a state of readiness” since June 2005. Essential military hardware to wage this operation has been deployed. (For further details see Michel Chossudovsky, Nuclear War against Iran, Jan 2006 ).
Vice President Dick Cheney has ordered USSTRATCOM to draft a “contingency plan”, which “includes a large-scale air assault on Iran employing both conventional and tactical nuclear weapons.” (Philip Giraldi, Attack on Iran: Pre-emptive Nuclear War , The American Conservative, 2 August 2005).
In January 2005 a significant shift in USSTRATCOM’s mandate was implemented. USSTRATCOM was identified as “the lead Combatant Command for integration and synchronization of DoD-wide efforts in combating weapons of mass destruction.” To implement this mandate, a brand new command unit entitled Joint Functional Component Command Space and Global Strike , or JFCCSGS was created.
Overseen by USSTRATCOM, JFCCSGS would be responsible for the launching of military operations “using nuclear or conventional weapons” in compliance with the Bush administration’s new nuclear doctrine. Both categories of weapons would be integrated into a “joint strike operation” under unified Command and Control.
“The Defense Department is upgrading its nuclear strike plans to reflect new presidential guidance and a transition in war planning from the top-heavy Single Integrated Operational Plan of the Cold War to a family of smaller and more flexible strike plans designed to defeat today’s adversaries. The new central strategic war plan is known as OPLAN (Operations Plan) 8044…. This revised, detailed plan provides more flexible options to assure allies, and dissuade, deter, and if necessary, defeat adversaries in a wider range of contingencies….
One member of the new family is CONPLAN 8022, a concept plan for the quick use of nuclear, conventional, or information warfare capabilities to destroy–preemptively, if necessary–“time-urgent targets” anywhere in the world. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld issued an Alert Order in early 2004 that directed the military to put CONPLAN 8022 into effect. As a result, the Bush administration’s preemption policy is now operational on long-range bombers, strategic submarines on deterrent patrol, and presumably intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs).”
The operational implementation of the Global Strike would be under CONCEPT PLAN (CONPLAN) 8022, which now consists of “an actual plan that the Navy and the Air Force translate into strike package for their submarines and bombers,’ (Japanese Economic Newswire, 30 December 2005, For further details see Michel Chossudovsky, Nuclear War against Iran, op. cit.).
CONPLAN 8022 is ‘the overall umbrella plan for sort of the pre-planned strategic scenarios involving nuclear weapons.’
‘It’s specifically focused on these new types of threats — Iran, North Korea — proliferators and potentially terrorists too,’ he said. ‘There’s nothing that says that they can’t use CONPLAN 8022 in limited scenarios against Russian and Chinese targets.’ (According to Hans Kristensen, of the Nuclear Information Project, quoted in Japanese Economic News Wire, op. cit.)
Nuclear Weapons Deployment Authorization
The planning of the aerial bombings of Iran started in mid-2004, pursuant to the formulation of CONPLAN 8022 in early 2004. In May 2004, National Security Presidential Directive NSPD 35 entitled Nuclear Weapons Deployment Authorization was issued.
The contents of this highly sensitive document remains a carefully guarded State secret. There has been no mention of NSPD 35 by the media nor even in Congressional debates. While its contents remains classified, the presumption is that NSPD 35 pertains to the deployment of tactical nuclear weapons in the Middle East war theater in compliance with CONPLAN 8022.
In this regard, a recent press report published in Yeni Safak (Turkey) suggests that the United States is currently:
“deploying B61-type tactical nuclear weapons in southern Iraq as part of a plan to hit Iran from this area if and when Iran responds to an Israeli attack on its nuclear facilities”. (Ibrahim Karagul, “The US is Deploying Nuclear Weapons in Iraq Against Iran”, (Yeni Safak,. 20 December 2005, quoted in BBC Monitoring Europe).
This deployment in Iraq appears to be pursuant to NSPD 35 ,
What the Yenbi Safak report suggests is that conventional weapons would be used in the first instance, and if Iran were to retaliate in response to US-Israeli aerial attacks, tactical thermonuclear B61 weapons could then be launched This retaliation using tactical nuclear weapons would be consistent with the guidelines contained in the 2001 Nuclear Posture Review and NSPD 17 (see above).
Israel’s Stockpiling of Conventional and Nuclear Weapons
Confirmed by several press reports, Israel has taken delivery, starting in September 2004 of some 500 US produced BLU 109 bunker buster bombs (WP, January 6, 2006). The first procurement order for BLU 109 [Bomb Live Unit] dates to September 2004. In April 2005, Washington confirmed that Israel was to take delivery of 100 of the more sophisticated bunker buster bomb GBU-28 produced by Lockheed Martin ( Reuters, April 26, 2005). The GBU-28 is described as “a 5,000-pound laser-guided conventional munitions that uses a 4,400-pound penetrating warhead.” It was used in the Iraqi war theater:
The Pentagon [stated] that … the sale to Israel of 500 BLU-109 warheads, [was] meant to “contribute significantly to U.S. strategic and tactical objectives.” .
Mounted on satellite-guided bombs, BLU-109s can be fired from F-15 or F-16 jets, U.S.-made aircraft in Israel’s arsenal. This year Israel received the first of a fleet of 102 long-range F-16Is from Washington, its main ally. “Israel very likely manufactures its own bunker busters, but they are not as robust as the 2,000-pound (910 kg) BLUs,” Robert Hewson, editor of Jane’s Air-Launched Weapons, told Reuters. (Reuters, 21 September 2004)
The report does not confirm whether Israel has stockpiled and deployed the thermonuclear version of the bunker buster bomb. Nor does it indicate whether the Israeli made bunker buster bombs are equipped with nuclear warheads. It is worth noting that this stock piling of bunker buster bombs occurred within a few months after the Release of the NPSD 35¸ Nuclear Weapons Deployment Authorization (May 2004).
Israel possesses 100-200 strategic nuclear warheads . In 2003, Washington and Tel Aviv confirmed that they were collaborating in “the deployment of US-supplied Harpoon cruise missiles armed with nuclear warheads in Israel’s fleet of Dolphin-class submarines.” (The Observer, 12 October 2003) . In more recent developments, which coincide with the preparations of strikes against Iran, Israel has taken delivery of two new German produced submarines “that could launch nuclear-armed cruise missiles for a “second-strike” deterrent.” (Newsweek, 13 February 2006. See also CDI Data Base)
Israel’s tactical nuclear weapons capabilities are not known
Israel’s participation in the aerial attacks will also act as a political bombshell throughout the Middle East. It would contribute to escalation, with a war zone which could extend initially into Lebanon and Syria. The entire region from the Eastern Mediterranean to Central Asia and Afghanistan’s Western frontier would be affected..
The Role of Western Europe
Several Western European countries, officially considered as “non-nuclear states”, possess tactical nuclear weapons, supplied to them by Washington.
The US has supplied some 480 B61 thermonuclear bombs to five non-nuclear NATO countries including Belgium, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands and Turkey, and one nuclear country, the United Kingdom. Casually disregarded by the Vienna based UN Nuclear Watch, the US has actively contributed to the proliferation of nuclear weapons in Western Europe.
As part of this European stockpiling, Turkey, which is [was] a partner of the US-led coalition against Iran along with Israel, possesses some 90 thermonuclear B61 bunker buster bombs at the Incirlik nuclear air base. (National Resources Defense Council, Nuclear Weapons in Europe , February 2005)
Consistent with US nuclear policy, the stockpiling and deployment of B61 in Western Europe are intended for targets in the Middle East. Moreover, in accordance with “NATO strike plans”, these thermonuclear B61 bunker buster bombs (stockpiled by the “non-nuclear States”) could be launched “against targets in Russia or countries in the Middle East such as Syria and Iran” ( quoted in National Resources Defense Council, Nuclear Weapons in Europe , February 2005)
Moreover, confirmed by (partially) declassified documents (released under the U.S. Freedom of Information Act):
“arrangements were made in the mid-1990s to allow the use of U.S. nuclear forces in Europe outside the area of responsibility of U.S. European Command (EUCOM). As a result of these arrangements, EUCOM now supports CENTCOM nuclear missions in the Middle East, including, potentially, against Iran and Syria”
With the exception of the US, no other nuclear power “has nuclear weapons earmarked for delivery by non-nuclear countries.” (National Resources Defense Council, op cit)
While these “non-nuclear states” casually accuse Tehran of developing nuclear weapons, without documentary evidence, they themselves have capabilities of delivering nuclear warheads, which are targeted at Iran. To say that this is a clear case of “double standards” by the IAEA and the “international community” is a understatement.
Germany: De Facto Nuclear Power
Among the five “non-nuclear states” “Germany remains the most heavily nuclearized country with three nuclear bases (two of which are fully operational) and may store as many as 150 [B61 bunker buster ] bombs” (Ibid). In accordance with “NATO strike plans” (mentioned above) these tactical nuclear weapons are also targeted at the Middle East.
While Germany is not officially a nuclear power, it produces nuclear warheads for the French Navy. It stockpiles nuclear warheads and it has the capabilities of delivering nuclear weapons. The European Aeronautic Defense and Space Company – EADS , a Franco-German-Spanish joint venture, controlled by Deutsche Aerospace and the powerful Daimler Group is Europe’s second largest military producer, supplying .France’s M51 nuclear missile.
France Endorses the Preemptive Nuclear Doctrine
In January 2006, French President Jacques Chirac announced a major shift in France’s nuclear policy.
Without mentioning Iran, Chirac intimated that France’s nukes should be used in the form of “more focused attacks” against countries, which were “considering” the deployment of Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD).
He also hinted to the possibility that tactical nuclear weapons could be used in conventional war theaters, very much in line with both US and NATO nuclear doctrine (See Chirac shifts French doctrine for use of nuclear weapons , Nucleonics Week January 26, 2006).
The French president seems to have embraced the US sponsored “War on Terrorism”. He presented nuclear weapons as a means to build a safer World and combat terrorism:
Nuclear weapons are not meant to be used against “fanatical terrorists,” nevertheless “the leaders of states which used terrorist means against us, as well as those who considered using, in one way or another, weapons of mass destruction, must understand that they are exposing themselves to a firm, appropriate response on our side…”.(Ibid)
Although Chirac made no reference to the preemptive use of nuclear weapons, his statement broadly replicates the premises of the Bush administration’s 2001 Nuclear Posture Review , which calls for the use of tactical nuclear weapons against ”rogue states” and “terrorist non-state organizations”.
The stockpiled weapons are B61 thermonuclear bombs. All the weapons are gravity bombs of the B61-3, -4, and -10 types.2 .
Those estimates were based on private and public statements by a number of government sources and assumptions about the weapon storage capacity at each base
Building a Pretext for a Preemptive Nuclear Attack
The pretext for waging war on Iran essentially rests on two fundamental premises, which are part of the Bush administration’s National Security doctrine.
1. Iran’s alleged possession of “Weapons of Mass Destruction” (WMD), more specifically its nuclear enrichment program.
2. Iran’s alleged support to “Islamic terrorists”.
These are two interrelated statements which are an integral part of the propaganda and media disinformation campaign.
The “Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD)” statement is used to justify the “pre-emptive war” against the “State sponsors of terror”, –i.e. countries such as Iran and North Korea which allegedly possess WMD. Iran is identified as a State sponsor of so-called “non-State terrorist organizations”. The latter also possess WMDs and potentially constitute a nuclear threat. Terrorist non-state organizations are presented as a “nuclear power”.
“The enemies in this [long] war are not traditional conventional military forces but rather dispersed, global terrorist networks that exploit Islam to advance radical political aims. These enemies have the avowed aim of acquiring and using nuclear and biological weapons to murder hundreds of thousands of Americans and others around the world.” (2006 Quadrennial Defense Review ),
In contrast, Germany and Israel which produce and possess nuclear warheads are not considered “nuclear powers”.
In recent months, the pretext for war, building on this WMD-Islamic terrorist nexus, has been highlighted ad nauseam, on a daily basis by the Western media.
In a testimony to the US Senate Budget Committee, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice accused Iran and Syria of destabilizing the Middle East and providing support to militant Islamic groups. She described Iran as the “a central banker for terrorism”, not withstanding the fact amply documented that Al Qaeda has been supported and financed from its inception in the early 1980s by none other than the CIA. (See Michel Chossudovsky, Who is Osama bin Laden, Global Research 2001).
“It’s not just Iran’s nuclear program but also their support for terrorism around the world. They are, in effect, the central banker for terrorism,” (Statement to the Senate Budget Committee, 16 February 2006)
“Second 9/11”: Cheney’s “Contingency Plan”
While the “threat” of Iran’s alleged WMD is slated for debate at the UN Security Council, Vice President Dick Cheney is reported to have instructed USSTRATCOM to draw up a contingency plan “to be employed in response to another 9/11-type terrorist attack on the United States”. This “contingency plan” to attack Iran uses the pretext of a “Second 9/11” which has not yet happened, to prepare for a major military operation against Iran.
The contingency plan, which is characterized by a military build up in anticipation of possible aerial strikes against Iran, is in a “state of readiness”.
What is diabolical is that the justification to wage war on Iran rests on Iran’s involvement in a terrorist attack on America, which has not yet occurred:
The plan includes a large-scale air assault on Iran employing both conventional and tactical nuclear weapons. Within Iran there are more than 450 major strategic targets, including numerous suspected nuclear-weapons-program development sites. Many of the targets are hardened or are deep underground and could not be taken out by conventional weapons, hence the nuclear option. As in the case of Iraq, the response is not conditional on Iran actually being involved in the act of terrorism directed against the United States. Several senior Air Force officers involved in the planning are reportedly appalled at the implications of what they are doing—that Iran is being set up for an unprovoked nuclear attack—but no one is prepared to damage his career by posing any objections. (Philip Giraldi, Attack on Iran: Pre-emptive Nuclear War , The American Conservative, 2 August 2005, emphasis added)
Are we to understand that US military planners are waiting in limbo for a Second 9/11, to launch a military operation directed against Iran, which is currently in a “state of readiness”?
Cheney’s proposed “contingency plan” does not focus on preventing a Second 9/11. The Cheney plan is predicated on the presumption that Iran would be behind a Second 9/11 and that punitive bombings would immediately be activated, prior to the conduct of an investigation, much in the same way as the attacks on Afghanistan in October 2001, allegedly in retribution for the role of the Taliban government in support of the 9/11 terrorists. It is worth noting that the bombing and invasion of Afghanistan had been planned well in advance of 9/11. As Michael Keefer points out in an incisive review article:
“At a deeper level, it implies that “9/11-type terrorist attacks” are recognized in Cheney’s office and the Pentagon as appropriate means of legitimizing wars of aggression against any country selected for that treatment by the regime and its corporate propaganda-amplification system…. (Keefer, February 2006 )
Keefer concludes that “an attack on Iran, which would presumably involve the use of significant numbers of extremely ‘dirty’ earth-penetrating nuclear bombs, might well be made to follow a dirty-bomb attack on the United States, which would be represented in the media as having been carried out by Iranian agents” (Keefer, February 2006 )
The Battle for Oil
The Anglo-American oil companies are indelibly behind Cheney’s “contingency plan” to wage war on Iran. The latter is geared towards territorial and corporate control over oil and gas reserves as well as pipeline routes.
There is continuity in US Middle East war plans, from the Democrats to the Republicans. The essential features of Neoconservative discourse were already in place under the Clinton administration. US Central Command’s (USCENTCOM) theater strategy in the mid-1990s was geared towards securing, from an economic and military standpoint, control over Middle East oil.
“The broad national security interests and objectives expressed in the President’s National Security Strategy (NSS) and the Chairman’s National Military Strategy (NMS) form the foundation of the United States Central Command’s theater strategy. The NSS directs implementation of a strategy of dual containment of the rogue states of Iraq and Iran as long as those states pose a threat to U.S. interests, to other states in the region, and to their own citizens. Dual containment is designed to maintain the balance of power in the region without depending on either Iraq or Iran. USCENTCOM’s theater strategy is interest-based and threat-focused. The purpose of U.S. engagement, as espoused in the NSS, is to protect the United States’ vital interest in the region – uninterrupted, secure U.S./Allied access to Gulf oil.
Iran possesses 10 percent of global oil and gas reserves, The US is the first and foremost military and nuclear power in the World, but it possesses less than 3 percent of global oil and gas reserves.
On the other hand, the countries inhabited by Muslims, including the Middle East, North Africa, Central Asia, West and Central Africa, Malaysia, Indonesia and Brunei, possess approximately 80 percent of the World’s oil and gas reserves.
The “war on terrorism” and the hate campaign directed against Muslims, which has gained impetus in recent months, bears a direct relationship to the “Battle for Middle East Oil”. How best to conquer these vast oil reserves located in countries inhabited by Muslims? Build a political consensus against Muslim countries, describe them as “uncivilized”, denigrate their culture and religion, implement ethnic profiling against Muslims in Western countries, foster hatred and racism against the inhabitants of the oil producing countries.
The values of Islam are said to be tied into “Islamic terrorism”. Western governments are now accusing Iran of “exporting terrorism to the West” In the words of Prime Minister Tony Blair:
“There is a virus of extremism which comes out of the cocktail of religious fanaticism and political repression in the Middle East which is now being exported to the rest of the world. “We will only secure our future if we are dealing with every single aspect of that problem. Our future security depends on sorting out the stability of that region.””You can never say never in any of these situations.” (quoted in the Mirror, 7 February 2006)
Muslims are demonized, casually identified with “Islamic terrorists”, who are also described as constituting a nuclear threat. In turn, the terrorists are supported by Iran, an Islamic Republic which threatens the “civilized World” with deadly nuclear weapons (which it does not possess). In contrast, America’s humanitarian “nuclear weapons will be accurate, safe and reliable.”
The World is at a Critical Crossroads
It is not Iran which is a threat to global security but the United States of America and Israel.
In recent developments [2006], Western European governments –including the so-called “non-nuclear states” which possess nuclear weapons– have joined the bandwagon. In chorus, Western Europe and the member states of the Atlantic alliance (NATO) have endorsed the US-led military initiative against Iran.
The Pentagon’s planned aerial attacks on Iran involve “scenarios” using both nuclear and conventional weapons. While this does not imply the use of nuclear weapons, the potential danger of a Middle East nuclear holocaust must, nonetheless, be taken seriously. It must become a focal point of the antiwar movement, particularly in the United States, Western Europe, Israel and Turkey.
It should also be understood that China and Russia are (unofficially) allies of Iran, supplying them with advanced military equipment and a sophisticated missile defense system. It is unlikely that China and Russia will take on a passive position if and when the aerial bombardments are carried out.
The new preemptive nuclear doctrine calls for the “integration” of “defensive” and “offensive” operations. Moreover, the important distinction between conventional and nuclear weapons has been blurred..
From a military standpoint, the US and its coalition partners including Israel and Turkey are in “a state of readiness.”
Through media disinformation, the objective is to galvanize Western public opinion in support of a US-led war on Iran in retaliation for Iran’s defiance of the international community.
War propaganda consists in “fabricating an enemy” while conveying the illusion that the Western World is under attack by Islamic terrorists, who are directly supported by the Tehran government.
“Make the World safer”, “prevent the proliferation of dirty nuclear devices by terrorists”, “implement punitive actions against Iran to ensure the peace”. “Combat nuclear proliferation by rogue states”…
Supported by the Western media, a generalized atmosphere of racism and xenophobia directed against Muslims has unfolded, particularly in Western Europe, which provides a fake legitimacy to the US war agenda. The latter is upheld as a “Just War”. The “Just war” theory serves to camouflage the nature of US war plans, while providing a human face to the invaders.
What can be done?
The antiwar movement is in many regards divided and misinformed on the nature of the US military agenda. Several non-governmental organizations have placed the blame on Iran, for not complying with the “reasonable demands” of the “international community”. These same organizations, which are committed to World Peace tend to downplay the implications of the proposed US bombing of Iran.
To reverse the tide requires a massive campaign of networking and outreach to inform people across the land, nationally and internationally, in neighborhoods, workplaces, parishes, schools, universities, municipalities, on the dangers of a US sponsored war, which contemplates the use of nuclear weapons. The message should be loud and clear: Iran is not the threat. Even without the use of nukes, the proposed aerial bombardments could result in escalation, ultimately leading us into a broader war in the Middle East.
Debate and discussion must also take place within the Military and Intelligence community, particularly with regard to the use of tactical nuclear weapons, within the corridors of the US Congress, in municipalities and at all levels of government. Ultimately, the legitimacy of the political and military actors in high office must be challenged.
The corporate media also bears a heavy responsibility for the cover-up of US sponsored war crimes. It must also be forcefully challenged for its biased coverage of the Middle East war.
For the past year, Washington has been waging a “diplomatic arm twisting” exercise with a view to enlisting countries into supporting of its military agenda. It is essential that at the diplomatic level, countries in the Middle East, Asia, Africa and Latin America take a firm stance against the US military agenda.
Condoleezza Rice has trekked across the Middle East, “expressing concern over Iran’s nuclear program”, seeking the unequivocal endorsement of the governments of the region against Tehran. Meanwhile the Bush administration has allocated funds in support of Iranian dissident groups within Iran.
What is needed is to break the conspiracy of silence, expose the media lies and distortions, confront the criminal nature of the US Administration and of those governments which support it, its war agenda as well as its so-called “Homeland Security agenda” which has already defined the contours of a police State.
The World is at the crossroads of the most serious crisis in modern history. The US has embarked on a military adventure, “a long war”, which threatens the future of humanity.
It is essential to bring the US war project to the forefront of political debate, particularly in North America and Western Europe.
Political and military leaders who are opposed to the war must take a firm stance, from within their respective institutions. Citizens must take a stance individually and collectively against war.
ISBN Number: 978-0-9737147-5-3
Year: 2012
Pages: 102
PDF Edition: $6.50 (sent directly to your email account!)
Michel Chossudovsky is Professor of Economics at the University of Ottawa and Director of the Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG), which hosts the critically acclaimed website www.globalresearch.ca . He is a contributor to the Encyclopedia Britannica. His writings have been translated into more than 20 languages.
Reviews
“This book is a ‘must’ resource – a richly documented and systematic diagnosis of the supremely pathological geo-strategic planning of US wars since ‘9-11’ against non-nuclear countries to seize their oil fields and resources under cover of ‘freedom and democracy’.” –John McMurtry, Professor of Philosophy, Guelph University
“In a world where engineered, pre-emptive, or more fashionably “humanitarian” wars of aggression have become the norm, this challenging book may be our final wake-up call.” -Denis Halliday, Former Assistant Secretary General of the United Nations
Michel Chossudovsky exposes the insanity of our privatized war machine. Iran is being targeted with nuclear weapons as part of a war agenda built on distortions and lies for the purpose of private profit. The real aims are oil, financial hegemony and global control. The price could be nuclear holocaust. When weapons become the hottest export of the world’s only superpower, and diplomats work as salesmen for the defense industry, the whole world is recklessly endangered. If we must have a military, it belongs entirely in the public sector. No one should profit from mass death and destruction. –Ellen Brown, author of ‘Web of Debt’ and president of the Public Banking Institute
Annex A
Five basic types of US Military Plans:
• Campaign Plan (CAMPLAN): A plan for a series of related military operations aimed at accomplishing a strategic or operational objective within a given time and space (e.g., campaign plan for Iraq incorporating a number of subordinate specific plans).
• Operations Plan (OPLAN): A completed plan required when there is compelling national interest, when a specific threat exists, and/or when the nature of the contingency requires detailed planning (e.g., North Korea). OPLANs contains all formatted annexes (see below), and Time Phased Force and Deployment Data (TPFDD), a database containing units to be deployed, routing of deploying units, movement data of forces, personnel, logistics and transportation requirements. An OPLAN can be used as a basis for development of an Operations Order (OPORD).
• Operations Plan in Concept Form Only (CONPLAN): An operations plan in an abbreviated format prepared for less compelling national interest contingencies than for OPLANs and for unspecific threats. A CONPLAN requires expansion or alteration to convert into an OPLAN or OPORD. It normally includes a statement of Strategic Concept and annexes A-D and K (see below). CONPLANs that do have TPFDDs are usually developed because of international agreement or treaties.
• Functional plans (FUNCPLAN): An operations plan involving the conduct of military operations in a peacetime or non-hostile environment (e.g., disaster relief, humanitarian assistance, counter-drug, or peacekeeping operations).
• Theater Security Cooperation and Theater Engagement Plans (TSCPs and TEPs): Day-to-day plans to set the initial conditions for future military action in terms of multinational capabilities, U.S. military access, coalition interoperability, and intelligence
January 8: The Nuclear Posture Review is officially published.
June: White House issues National Security Presidential Directive (NSPD) 14, “Nuclear Weapons Planning Guidance.”
September 14: White House issues National Security Presidential Directive (NSPD) 17, “National Strategy to Combat Weapons of Mass Destruction.”
September 17: White House issues the National Security Strategy of the United States. The document publicly formulates a more proactive preemption doctrine
December 10: White House issues “National Strategy to Combat Weapons of Mass Destruction,” the unclassified version of National Security Presidential Directive (NSPD) 17. The wording in NSPD 17 of using “potentially nuclear weapons” is replaced with “all of our options.”
December 16: White House issues National Security Presidential Directive (NSPD) 23, “National Policy on Ballistic Missile Defense.”
2003
January 10: President Bush signs Change 2 to the Unified Command Plan (UCP), which assigns four emerging missions to STRATCOM: missile defense, global strike, information operations, and global C4ISR. (Command and Control, Communications, Computers, Intelligence, Sensors and Reconnaissance). The directive identifies global strike as “a capability to deliver rapid, extended range, precision kinetic (nuclear and conventional) and non-kinetic (elements of space and information operations) effects in support of theater and national objectives.”
March: Defense Secretary Rumsfeld issues “Nuclear Posture Review: Implementation Plan, DOD Implementation of the December 2001 Nuclear Posture Review Report to Congress.”
June 4: STRATCOM issues CONPLAN 8022-02, Strategic Concept draft.
June: White House issues National Security Presidential Directive (NSPD) 28, “United States Nuclear Weapons Command and Control, Safety, and Security.” The guidance “provides direction on various nuclear issues, to include security.”
October 1: OPLAN (Operation Plan) 8044, the first strategic plan not using the name SIOP, is put into effect by STRATCOM.
November: The first CONPLAN 8022 (Global Strike) is completed by STRATCOM.
2004
April 19: Defense Secretary Rumsfeld issues NUWEP (Nuclear Weapons Employment Policy). The document states in part: “U.S. nuclear forces must be capable of, and be seen to be capable of, destroying those critical war-making and war-supporting assets and capabilities that a potential enemy leadership values most and that it would rely on to achieve its own objectives in a post-war world.”
May 24: Air Combat Command publishes Global Strike CONOPS.
May: White House issues National Security Presidential Directive (NSPD) 35, “Nuclear Weapons Deployment Authorization,” which authorizes deployment of tactical nuclear weapons in Europe.
July 8: STRATCOM commander General E. Cartwright informs Congress that Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld “just signed the Interim Global Strike Alert Order, which provides the President a prompt, global strike capability.” The Alert Order directs the Air Force and Navy to put CONPLAN 8022 into effect on selected strike platforms including long-range bombers and strategic submarines.
August 17: STRATCOM publishes Global Strike Interim Capability Operations Order (OPORD).
October 1: OPLAN 8044 Revision 01 becomes effective. According to Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff General Richard B. Myers, “STRATCOM has revised our strategic deterrence and response plan that became effective in the fall of 2004. This revised, detailed plan provides more flexible options to assure allies, and dissuade, deter, and if necessary, defeat adversaries in a wider range of contingencies.” (emphasis added)
January 10: CJCS issues Global Strike Joint Integrating Concept, Version 1.
March 1: President Bush signs Unified Command Plan 2004.
October 1: OPLAN 8044 Revision 02 is put into effect by STRATCOM. According to the Pentagon, this was a “major revamping” of the U.S. strategic war plan which, among other issues, included the “integration of conventional strike options into [the] OPLAN.”
2006
Early 2006: CJCS is scheduled to publish updated Doctrine for Joint Nuclear Operations (Joint Pub 3-12). However, this and three other Joint Pub nuclear documents were cancelled.
February 6: Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld released the Quadrennial Defense Review.
This carefully researched article by John Steinbach on Israel’s nuclear arsenal was first published by Global Research in March 2002.
“Should war break out in the Middle East again,… or should any Arab nation fire missiles against Israel, as the Iraqis did, a nuclear escalation, once unthinkable except as a last resort, would now be a strong probability.” Seymour Hersh(1)
“Arabs may have the oil, but we have the matches.” Ariel Sharon(2) (right image)
Introduction
With between 200 and 500 thermonuclear weapons and a sophisticated delivery system, Israel has quietly supplanted Britain as the World’s 5th Largest nuclear power, and may currently rival France and China in the size and sophistication of its nuclear arsenal.
Although dwarfed by the nuclear arsenals of the U.S. and Russia, each possessing over 10,000 nuclear weapons, Israel nonetheless is a major nuclear power, and should be publically recognized as such.
Since the Gulf War in 1991, while much attention has been lavished on the threat posed by Iraqi weapons of mass destruction, the major culprit in the region, Israel, has been largely ignored.
Possessing chemical and biological weapons, an extremely sophisticated nuclear arsenal, and an aggressive strategy for their actual use, Israel provides the major regional impetus for the development of weapons of mass destruction and represents an acute threat to peace and stability in the Middle East.
The Israeli nuclear program represents a serious impediment to nuclear disarmament and nonproliferation and, with India and Pakistan, is a potential nuclear flashpoint.(prospects of meaningful non-proliferation are a delusion so long as the nuclear weapons states insist on maintaining their arsenals,) Citizens concerned about sanctions against Iraq, peace with justice in the Middle East, and nuclear disarmament have an obligation to speak out forcefully against the Israeli nuclear program.
Birth of the Israeli Bomb
The Israeli nuclear program began in the late 1940s under the direction of Ernst David Bergmann, “the father of the Israeli bomb,” who in 1952 established the Israeli Atomic Energy Commission.
It was France, however, which provided the bulk of early nuclear assistance to Israel culminating in construction of Dimona, a heavy water moderated, natural uranium reactor and plutonium reprocessing factory situated near Bersheeba in the Negev Desert.
Israel had been an active participant in the French Nuclear weapons program from its inception, providing critical technical expertise, and the Israeli nuclear program can be seen as an extension of this earlier collaboration. Dimona went on line in 1964 and plutonium reprocessing began shortly thereafter. Despite various Israeli claims that Dimona was “a manganese plant, or a textile factory,” the extreme security measures employed told a far different story. In 1967, Israel shot down one of their own Mirage fighters that approached too close to Dimona and in 1973 shot down a Lybian civilian airliner which strayed off course, killing 104.(3)
There is substantial credible speculation that Israel may have exploded at least one, and perhaps several, nuclear devices in the mid 1960s in the Negev near the Israeli-Egyptian border, and that it participated actively in French nuclear tests in Algeria.(4) By the time of the “Yom Kippur War” in 1973, Israel possessed an arsenal of perhaps several dozen deliverable atomic bombs and went on full nuclear alert.(5)
Possessing advanced nuclear technology and “world class” nuclear scientists, Israel was confronted early with a major problem- how to obtain the necessary uranium. Israel’s own uranium source was the phosphate deposits in the Negev, totally inadequate to meet the need of a rapidly expanding program. The short term answer was to mount commando raids in France and Britain to successfully hijack uranium shipments and, in 1968, to collaborate with West Germany in diverting 200 tons of yellowcake (uranium oxide).(6)
These clandestine acquisitions of uranium for Dimona were subsequently covered up by the various countries involved. There was also an allegation that a U.S. corporation called Nuclear Materials and Equipment Corporation (NUMEC) diverted hundreds of pounds of enriched uranium to Israel from the mid-50s to the mid-60s.
Despite an FBI and CIA investigation, and Congressional hearings, no one was ever prosecuted, although most other investigators believed the diversion had occurred(7)(8). In the late 1960s, Israel solved the uranium problem by developing close ties with South Africa in a quid pro quo arrangement whereby Israel supplied the technology and expertise for the “Apartheid Bomb,” while South Africa provided the uranium.
South Africa and the United States
In 1977, the Soviet Union warned the U.S. that satellite photos indicated South Africa was planning a nuclear test in the Kalahari Desert but the Apartheid regime backed down under pressure.
On September 22, 1979, a U.S. satellite detected an atmospheric test of a small thermonuclear bomb in the Indian Ocean off South Africa but, because of Israel’s apparent involvement, the report was quickly “whitewashed” by a carefully selected scientific panel kept in the dark about important details.
Later it was learned through Israeli sources that there were actually three carefully guarded tests of miniaturized Israeli nuclear artillery shells. The Israeli/South African collaboration did not end with the bomb testing, but continued until the fall of Apartheid, especially with the developing and testing of medium range missiles and advanced artillery. In addition to uranium and test facilities, South Africa provided Israel with large amounts of investment capital, while Israel provided a major trade outlet to enable the Apartheid state avoid international economic sanctions.(9)
Although the French and South Africans were primarily responsible for the Israeli nuclear program, the U.S. shares and deserves a large part of the blame. Mark Gaffney wrote (the Israeli nuclear program) “was possible only because (emphasis in original) of calculated deception on the part of Israel, and willing complicity on the part of the U.S..”(10)
From the very beginning, the U.S. was heavily involved in the Israeli nuclear program, providing nuclear related technology such as a small research reactor in 1955 under the “Atoms for Peace Program.” Israeli scientists were largely trained at U.S. universities and were generally welcomed at the nuclear weapons labs. In the early 1960s, the controls for the Dimona reactor were obtained clandestinely from a company called Tracer Lab, the main supplier of U.S. military reactor control panels, purchased through a Belgian subsidiary, apparently with the acquiescence of the National Security Agency (NSA) and the CIA.(11) In 1971, the Nixon administration approved the sale of hundreds of krytons(a type of high speed switch necessary to the development of sophisticated nuclear bombs) to Israel.(12) And, in 1979, Carter provided ultra high resolution photos from a KH-11 spy satellite, used 2 years later to bomb the Iraqi Osirak Reactor.(13) Throughout the Nixon and Carter administrations, and accelerating dramatically under Reagan, U.S. advanced technology transfers to Israel have continued unabated to the present.
The Vanunu Revelations
Following the 1973 war, Israel intensified its nuclear program while continuing its policy of deliberate “nuclear opaqueness.” Until the mid-1980s, most intelligence estimates of the Israeli nuclear arsenal were on the order of two dozen but the explosive revelations of Mordechai Vanunu, a nuclear technician working in the Dimona plutonium reprocessing plant, changed everything overnight. A leftist supporter of Palestine, Vanunu believed that it was his duty to humanity to expose Israel’s nuclear program to the world. He smuggled dozens of photos and valuable scientific data out of Israel and in 1986 his story was published in the London Sunday Times.
Rigorous scientific scrutiny of the Vanunu revelations led to the disclosure that Israel possessed as many as 200 highly sophisticated, miniaturized thermonuclear bombs. His information indicated that the Dimona reactor’s capacity had been expanded several fold and that Israel was producing enough plutonium to make ten to twelve bombs per year. A senior U.S. intelligence analyst said of the Vanunu data,”The scope of this is much more extensive than we thought. This is an enormous operation.”(14)
Just prior to publication of his information Vanunu was lured to Rome by a Mossad “Mata Hari,” was beaten, drugged and kidnapped to Israel and, following a campaign of disinformation and vilification in the Israeli press, convicted of “treason” by a secret security court and sentenced to 18 years in prison. He served over 11 years in solitary confinement in a 6 by 9 foot cell. After a year of modified release into the general population(he was not permitted contact with Arabs), Vanunu recently has been returned to solitary and faces more than 3 years further imprisonment. Predictably, The Vanunu revelations were largely ignored by the world press, especially in the United States, and Israel continues to enjoy a relatively free ride regarding its nuclear status. (15)
Israel’s Arsenal of Mass Destruction
Today, [2003] estimates of the Israeli nuclear arsenal range from a minimum of 200 to a maximum of about 500.
Whatever the number, there is little doubt that Israeli nukes are among the world’s most sophisticated, largely designed for “war fighting” in the Middle East. A staple of the Israeli nuclear arsenal are “neutron bombs,” miniaturized thermonuclear bombs designed to maximize deadly gamma radiation while minimizing blast effects and long term radiation- in essence designed to kill people while leaving property intact.(16) Weapons include ballistic missiles and bombers capable of reaching Moscow, cruise missiles, land mines (In the 1980s Israel planted nuclear land mines along the Golan Heights(17)), and artillery shells with a range of 45 miles(18).
In June, 2000 an Israeli submarine launched a cruise missile which hit a target 950 miles away, making Israel only the third nation after the U.S. and Russia with that capability. Israel will deploy 3 of these virtually impregnable submarines, each carrying 4 cruise missiles.(19)
The bombs themselves range in size from “city busters” larger than the Hiroshima Bomb to tactical mini nukes. The Israeli arsenal of weapons of mass destruction clearly dwarfs the actual or potential arsenals of all other Middle Eastern states combined, and is vastly greater than any conceivable need for “deterrence.”
Israel also possesses a comprehensive arsenal of chemical and biological weapons. According to the Sunday Times, Israel has produced both chemical and biological weapons with a sophisticated delivery system, quoting a senior Israeli intelligence official,
“There is hardly a single known or unknown form of chemical or biological weapon . . .which is not manufactured at the Nes Tziyona Biological Institute.”)(20)
The same report described F-16 fighter jets specially designed for chemical and biological payloads, with crews trained to load the weapons on a moments notice. In 1998, the Sunday Times reported that Israel, using research obtained from South Africa, was developing an “ethno bomb; “In developing their “ethno-bomb”, Israeli scientists are trying to exploit medical advances by identifying distinctive a gene carried by some Arabs, then create a genetically modified bacterium or virus… The scientists are trying to engineer deadly micro-organisms that attack only those bearing the distinctive genes.” Dedi Zucker, a leftist Member of Knesset, the Israeli parliament, denounced the research saying, “Morally, based on our history, and our tradition and our experience, such a weapon is monstrous and should be denied.”(21)
Israeli Nuclear Strategy
In popular imagination, the Israeli bomb is a “weapon of last resort,” to be used only at the last minute to avoid annihilation, and many well intentioned but misled supporters of Israel still believe that to be the case.
Whatever truth this formulation may have had in the minds of the early Israeli nuclear strategists, today the Israeli nuclear arsenal is inextricably linked to and integrated with overall Israeli military and political strategy. As Seymour Hersh says in classic understatement ; “The Samson Option is no longer the only nuclear option available to Israel.”(22) Israel has made countless veiled nuclear threats against the Arab nations and against the Soviet Union (and by extension Russia since the end of the Cold War) One chilling example comes from Ariel Sharon, the current [2002] Israeli Prime Minister
“Arabs may have the oil, but we have the matches.”(23)
(In 1983 Sharon proposed to India that it join with Israel to attack Pakistani nuclear facilities; in the late 70s he proposed sending Israeli paratroopers to Tehran to prop up the Shah; and in 1982 he called for expanding Israel’s security influence to stretch from “Mauritania to Afghanistan.”)
In another example, Israeli nuclear expert Oded Brosh said in 1992,
“…we need not be ashamed that the nuclear option is a major instrumentality of our defense as a deterrent against those who attack us.”(24)
According to Israel Shahak,
“The wish for peace, so often assumed as the Israeli aim, is not in my view a principle of Israeli policy, while the wish to extend Israeli domination and influence is.”
and
“Israel is preparing for a war, nuclear if need be, for the sake of averting domestic change not to its liking, if it occurs in some or any Middle Eastern states…. Israel clearly prepares itself to seek overtly a hegemony over the entire Middle East…, without hesitating to use for the purpose all means available, including nuclear ones.”(25)
Israel uses its nuclear arsenal not just in the context of deterrence” or of direct war fighting, but in other more subtle but no less important ways. For example, the possession of weapons of mass destruction can be a powerful lever to maintain the status quo, or to influence events to Israel’s perceived advantage, such as to protect the so called moderate Arab states from internal insurrection, or to intervene in inter-Arab warfare.(26)
In Israeli strategic jargon this concept is called “nonconventional compellence” and is exemplified by a quote from Shimon Peres; “acquiring a superior weapons system(read nuclear) would mean the possibility of using it for compellent purposes- that is forcing the other side to accept Israeli political demands, which presumably include a demand that the traditional status quo be accepted and a peace treaty signed.”(27)
From a slightly different perspective, Robert Tuckerr asked in a Commentary magazine article in defense of Israeli nukes,
“What would prevent Israel… from pursuing a hawkish policy employing a nuclear deterrent to freeze the status quo?”(28)
Possessing an overwhelming nuclear superiority allows Israel to act with impunity even in the face world wide opposition. A case in point might be the invasion of Lebanon and destruction of Beirut in 1982, led by Ariel Sharon, which resulted in 20,000 deaths, most civilian. Despite the annihilation of a neighboring Arab state, not to mention the utter destruction of the Syrian Air Force, Israel was able to carry out the war for months at least partially due to its nuclear threat.
Another major use of the Israeli bomb is to compel the U.S. to act in Israel’s favor, even when it runs counter to its own strategic interests.
As early as 1956 Francis Perrin, head of the French A-bomb project wrote “We thought the Israeli Bomb was aimed at the Americans, not to launch it at the Americans, but to say, ‘If you don’t want to help us in a critical situation we will require you to help us; otherwise we will use our nuclear bombs.'”(29) During the 1973 war, Israel used nuclear blackmail to force Kissinger and Nixon to airlift massive amounts of military hardware to Israel.
The Israeli Ambassador, Simha Dinitz, is quoted as saying, at the time,
“If a massive airlift to Israel does not start immediately, then I will know that the U.S. is reneging on its promises and…we will have to draw very serious conclusions…”(30)
Just one example of this strategy was spelled out in 1987 by Amos Rubin, economic adviser to Prime Minister Yitzhak Shamir, who said
“If left to its own Israel will have no choice but to fall back on a riskier defense which will endanger itself and the world at large… To enable Israel to abstain from dependence on nuclear arms calls for $2 to 3 billion per year in U.S. aid.”(31)
Since then Israel’s nuclear arsenal has expanded exponentially, both quantitatively and qualitatively, while the U.S. money spigots remain wide open.
Regional and International Implications
Largely unknown to the world, the Middle East nearly exploded in all out war on February 22, 2001. According to the London Sunday Times and DEBKAfile, Israel went on high missile alert after receiving news from the U.S. of movement by 6 Iraqi armored divisions stationed along the Syrian border, and of launch preparations of surface to surface missiles.
DEBKAfile, an Israeli based “counter-terrorism” information service, claims that the Iraqi missiles were deliberately taken to the highest alert level in order to test the U.S. and Israeli response. Despite an immediate attack by 42 U.S. and British war planes, the Iraqis suffered little apparent damage.(32) The Israelis have warned Iraq that they are prepared to use neutron bombs in a preemptive attack against Iraqi missiles.
The Israeli nuclear arsenal has profound implications for the future of peace in the Middle East, and indeed, for the entire planet.
It is clear from Israel Shahak that Israel has no interest in peace except that which is dictated on its own terms, and has absolutely no intention of negotiating in good faith to curtail its nuclear program or discuss seriously a nuclear-free Middle East,”Israel’s insistence on the independent use of its nuclear weapons can be seen as the foundation on which Israeli grand strategy rests.”(34)
According to Seymour Hersh,
“the size and sophistication of Israel’s nuclear arsenal allows men such as Ariel Sharon to dream of redrawing the map of the Middle East aided by the implicit threat of nuclear force.”(35)
General Amnon Shahak-Lipkin, former Israeli Chief of Staff is quoted
“It is never possible to talk to Iraq about no matter what; It is never possible to talk to Iran about no matter what. Certainly about nuclearization. With Syria we cannot really talk either.”(36)
Ze’ev Shiff, an Israeli military expert writing in Haaretz said,
“Whoever believes that Israel will ever sign the UN Convention prohibiting the proliferation of nuclear weapons… is day dreaming,”(37) and Munya Mardoch, Director of the Israeli Institute for the Development of Weaponry, said in 1994, “The moral and political meaning of nuclear weapons is that states which renounce their use are acquiescing to the status of Vassal states. All those states which feel satisfied with possessing conventional weapons alone are fated to become vassal states.”(38)
As Israeli society becomes more and more polarized, the influence of the radical right becomes stronger. According to Shahak,
“The prospect of Gush Emunim, or some secular right-wing Israeli fanatics, or some some of the delerious Israeli Army generals, seizing control of Israeli nuclear weapons…cannot be precluded. …while israeli jewish society undergoes a steady polarization, the Israeli security system increasingly relies on the recruitment of cohorts from the ranks of the extreme right.”(39)
The Arab states, long aware of Israel’s nuclear program, bitterly resent its coercive intent, and perceive its existence as the paramount threat to peace in the region, requiring their own weapons of mass destruction.
During a future Middle Eastern war (a distinct possibility given the ascension of Ariel Sharon, an unindicted war criminal with a bloody record stretching from the massacre of Palestinian civilians at Quibya in 1953, to the massacre of Palestinian civilians at Sabra and Shatila in 1982 and beyond) the possible Israeli use of nuclear weapons should not be discounted. According to Shahak, “In Israeli terminology, the launching of missiles on to Israeli territory is regarded as ‘nonconventional’ regardless of whether they are equipped with explosives or poison gas.”(40) (Which requires a “nonconventional” response, a perhaps unique exception being the Iraqi SCUD attacks during the Gulf War.)
Meanwhile, the existence of an arsenal of mass destruction in such an unstable region in turn has serious implications for future arms control and disarmament negotiations, and even the threat of nuclear war. Seymour Hersh warns,
“Should war break out in the Middle East again,… or should any Arab nation fire missiles against Israel, as the Iraqis did, a nuclear escalation, once unthinkable except as a last resort, would now be a strong probability.”(41) and Ezar Weissman, Israel’s current President said “The nuclear issue is gaining momentum(and the) next war will not be conventional.”(42)
Russia and before it the Soviet Union has long been a major(if not the major) target of Israeli nukes. It is widely reported that the principal purpose of Jonathan Pollard’s spying for Israel was to furnish satellite images of Soviet targets and other super sensitive data relating to U.S. nuclear targeting strategy. (43) (Since launching its own satellite in 1988, Israel no longer needs U.S. spy secrets.) Israeli nukes aimed at the Russian heartland seriously complicate disarmament and arms control negotiations and, at the very least, the unilateral possession of nuclear weapons by Israel is enormously destabilizing, and dramatically lowers the threshold for their actual use, if not for all out nuclear war.
In the words of Mark Gaffney,
“… if the familar pattern(Israel refining its weapons of mass destruction with U.S. complicity) is not reversed soon- for whatever reason- the deepening Middle East conflict could trigger a world conflagration.” (44)
Many Middle East Peace activists have been reluctant to discuss, let alone challenge, the Israeli monopoly on nuclear weapons in the region, often leading to incomplete and uninformed analyses and flawed action strategies.
Placing the issue of Israeli weapons of mass destruction directly and honestly on the table and action agenda would have several salutary effects.
First, it would expose a primary destabilizing dynamic driving the Middle East arms race and compelling the region’s states to each seek their own “deterrent.”
Second, it would expose the grotesque double standard which sees the U.S. and Europe on the one hand condemning Iraq, Iran and Syria for developing weapons of mass destruction, while simultaneously protecting and enabling the principal culprit.
Third, exposing Israel’s nuclear strategy would focus international public attention, resulting in increased pressure to dismantle its weapons of mass destruction and negotiate a just peace in good faith.
Finally, a nuclear free Israel would make a Nuclear Free Middle East and a comprehensive regional peace agreement much more likely. Unless and until the world community confronts Israel over its covert nuclear program it is unlikely that there will be any meaningful resolution of the Israeli/Arab conflict, a fact that Israel may be counting on as the Sharon era dawns.
Notes
1. Seymour Hersh, The Samson Option: Israel’s Nuclear Arsenal and American Foreign Policy, New York,1991, Random House, p. 319 (A brilliant and prophetic work with much original research)2
2. Mark Gaffney, Dimona, The Third Temple:The Story Behind the Vanunu Revelation, Brattleboro, VT, 1989, Amana Books, p. 165 (Excellent progressive analysis of the Israeli nuclear program)
3. U.S. Army Lt. Col. Warner D. Farr, The Third Temple Holy of Holies; Israel’s Nuclear Weapons, USAF Counterproliferation Center, Air War College Sept 1999 <www.fas.org/nuke/guide/israel/nuke/farr,htm (Perhaps the best single condensed history of the Israeli nuclear program)
4. Hersch, op.cit., p. 131
5. Gaffney, op.cit., p. 63
6. Gaffney, op. cit. pp 68 – 69
7. Hersh, op.cit., pp. 242-257
8. Gaffney, op.cit., 1989, pps. 65-66 (An alternative discussion of the NUMEC affair)
9. Barbara Rogers & Zdenek Cervenka, The Nuclear Axis: The Secret Collaboration Between West Germany and South Africa, New York, 1978, Times Books, p. 325-328 (the definitive history of the Apartheid Bomb)
10. Gaffney, op. cit., 1989, p. 34
11. Peter Hounam, Woman From Mossad: The Torment of Mordechai Vanunu, London, 1999, Vision Paperbacks, pp. 155-168 (The most complete and up to date account of the Vanunu story, it includes fascenating speculation that Israel may have a second hidden Dimona type reactor)
12. Hersh, op. cit., 1989, p. 213
13. ibid, p.198-200
14. ibid, pp. 3-17
15. Hounman, op. cit. 1999, pp 189-203
16. Hersh, 1989. pp.199-200
17. ibid, p. 312
18. John Pike and Federation of American Scientists, Israel Special Weapons Guide Website, 2001, Web Address http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/israel/index.html (An invaluable internet resource)
19. Usi Mahnaimi and Peter Conradi, Fears of New Arms Race as Israel Tests Cruise Missiles, June 18, 2000, London Sunday Times
20. Usi Mahnaimi, Israeli Jets Equipped for Chemical Warfare October 4, 1998, London Sunday Times
21. Usi Mahnaimi and Marie Colvin, Israel Planning “Ethnic” bomb as Saddam Caves In, November 15, 1998, London Sunday Times
22. Hersh, op.cit., 1991, p. 319
23. Gaffney, op.cit., 1989, p. 163
24. Israel Shahak, Open Secrets: Israeli Nuclear and Foreign Policies, London, 1997,Pluto Press, p. 40 (An absolute “must read” for any Middle East or anti-nuclear activist)
25 ibid, p.2
26. ibid, p.43
27. Gaffney, op.cit., 1989, p 131
28. “Israel & the US: From Dependence to Nuclear Weapons?” Robert W. Tucker, Novenber 1975 pp41-42
29. London Sunday Times, October 12, 1986
30. Gaffney, op. cit. 1989. p. 147
31. ibid, p. 153
32. DEBKAfile, February 23, 2001 WWW.debka.com
33. Uzi Mahnaimi and Tom Walker, London Sunday Times, February 25, 2001
34. Shahak, op. cit., p150
35. Hersh, op.cit., p. 319
36. Shahak, op. cit., p34
37. ibid, p. 149
38. ibid, p. 153
39. ibid, pp. 37-38
40. ibid, pp 39-40
41. Hersh, op. cit., p. 19
42. Aronson, Geoffrey, “Hidden Agenda: US-Israeli Relations and the Nuclear Question,” Middle East Journal, (Autumn 1992), 619-630.
The Palianytsia is more of a psychological weapon than a tactical one due to its envisaged role in reshaping perceptions and getting America to lift its restrictions on using the ATACMS to strike deep inside Russian territory.
Defense Minister Umerov was also quoted as writing on Facebook that “This once again proves that for victory, we need long-range capabilities and the lifting of restrictions on strikes on the enemy’s military facilities.” Palianytsia’s range is equivalent to the ATACMS’.
Therein lies the reason behind the media hype over this new weapon.
Although Kiev claims that it was an entirely indigenous creation, it’s difficult to believe that NATO countries didn’t contribute to it. More than likely, Western military-technical specialists participated in its production, though this might have been done without their political leadership being aware. The goal appears to have been to pressure them into lifting restrictions by Ukraine on the use of their weapons after this fait accompli.
Chinese Special Representative for Eurasian Affairs Li strongly implied as much after he warned earlier this week that Western “super hawks” and members of the military-industrial complex are behind the push for letting Ukraine use their weapons to hit deep inside of Russian territory.
About that scenario, Russian Foreign Minister Lavrov also chimed in and accused Zelensky of “blackmailing” the West, which he said would amount to “playing with fire” if they end up going through with it.
The US still doesn’t let Ukraine strike targets deep inside of Russia, even though the precedent is for it to always give Kiev whatever it demands after some time. This delay is attributable both to a desire to control escalation with Russia and to simple pragmatism. After all, if the best weapons were given and deployed right away (after training was completed of course) but didn’t make much of a difference, then there’d be nothing better to give them once they ran out and defeat would soon follow.
It therefore makes sense to start small and exercise restraint before scaling up and easing restrictions. As regards the Palianytsia, while it might have an important tactical purpose if its claimed range is accurate, its real significance is to justify the easing of those aforesaid restrictions on the use of American arms. Ukraine wants policymakers and the public to believe that the Palianytsia was already used and Russia didn’t “overreact” like some expected, so it also won’t “overreact” if ATACMS restrictions are soon lifted.
While this ploy might prove successful, two of the implied points contained within the preceding narrative are counterproductive to Ukraine’s soft power cause. For example, some might question the need for more American arms and financing if Ukraine is already able to supposedly create long-range missiles on its own without any help like it claims just happened. There’s also the question of why the lifting of restrictions is so urgent if Ukraine is winning like it also claims is the case too.
If its military-industrial complex is carrying on just fine without any Western support and its invasion of Kursk has truly been the game-changer that some have presented it as being, then it follows that foreign aid could be curtailed and there’s no reason to risk an escalation with Russia by easing restrictions. Neither is obviously true, but the fact that Ukraine is still pushing this narrative shows how much more desperate it’s becoming as well as the importance of elite and public opinion on this sensitive issue.
The Palianytsia is therefore more of a psychological weapon than a tactical one due to its envisaged role in reshaping perceptions and getting America to lift its restrictions on using the ATACMS to strike deep inside Russian territory.
Even if it succeeds, however, that probably won’t change the military-strategic dynamics of this conflict in Kiev’s favor since Russia continues to gradually gain ground in Donbass, and its impending capture of Pokrovsk could lead to a chain reaction of victories in the coming future.
*
Click the share button below to email/forward this article to your friends and colleagues. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.
Andrew Korybko is an American Moscow-based political analyst specializing in the relationship between the US strategy in Afro-Eurasia, China’s One Belt One Road global vision of New Silk Road connectivity, and Hybrid Warfare. He is a regular contributor to Global Research.
Featured image is a cropped version of the image within the text
Há provas crescentes de que a Ucrânia está a cooperar diretamente com a expansão do terrorismo no continente africano. Recentemente, uma fonte local de um país africano revelou à imprensa russa alguns detalhes sobre o envolvimento da Ucrânia no fortalecimento de grupos extremistas em África, especialmente na região do Sahel. Parece cada vez mais claro que o Ocidente Coletivo e o regime de Kiev vêem África como um novo front anti-Rússia, investindo em militantes salafistas radicais para defender os interesses da OTAN na região.
Um informante de um meio de comunicação russo na África disse que a Embaixada da Ucrânia na Costa do Marfim está a ser usada como centro de apoio a grupos terroristas tuaregues que lutam nos países do Sahel. Segundo informações, reuniões entre jihadistas e autoridades ucranianas, incluindo diplomatas, militares e agentes de inteligência, estão ocorrendo dentro das instalações diplomáticas. Nas reuniões, foram discutidos planos de cooperação conjunta entre Kiev e os tuaregues, incluindo mecanismos de apoio e financiamento, bem como a formação de jihadistas por soldados ucranianos.
Um fato interessante revelado pela fonte é que os combatentes tuaregues estão supostamente a ir para a Ucrânia para serem treinados pelas forças especiais de Kiev. Aparentemente, há um amplo intercâmbio militar entre ucranianos e tuaregues, com comandos ucranianos em solo africano também envolvidos em hostilidades contra forças estatais locais e o Grupo PMC Wagner russo. O objetivo desta cooperação militar é aumentar as capacidades de combate tanto dos ucranianos como dos tuaregues, com as forças anti-russas a trocarem experiências em diferentes cenários militares.
“Os rebeldes tuaregues visitaram a Costa do Marfim antes de receberem formação na Ucrânia. Lá, eles provavelmente se reuniram com oficiais do GUR e planejaram como os grupos sairiam para o treinamento”, disse a fonte a jornalistas russos.
Aparentemente, o tema começou a suscitar preocupações às autoridades da Costa do Marfim, que teriam lançado uma investigação sobre o caso. Ainda não há muitas informações disponíveis sobre o tema, pois certamente o assunto está sendo investigado em sigilo para evitar vazamentos de dados estratégicos. No entanto, se as autoridades da Costa do Marfim confirmarem esta suspeita, é provável que a crise diplomática entre a Ucrânia e os países africanos se agrave ainda mais, podendo levar ao encerramento de embaixadas e à expulsão de diplomatas.
Desde o ataque terrorista tuaregue às forças do Grupo Wagner no Mali, no início de Agosto, o envolvimento da Ucrânia no apoio a estas milícias extremistas têm estado no centro das atenções de vários países africanos. Mali, Níger e Burkina Faso, além de cortarem relações diplomáticas com a Ucrânia, pediram ao Conselho de Segurança da ONU uma investigação aprofundada sobre os crimes de Kiev em África. De acordo com a declaração conjunta dos três estados, a ONU deve “tomar medidas apropriadas contra estas ações subversivas que fortalecem os grupos terroristas em África e constituem uma manifestação do envolvimento de patrocinadores estatais estrangeiros na expansão do terrorismo na região”.
Recorde-se que, além destes casos recentes, desde 2022, algumas autoridades africanas têm relatado a presença de armas ocidentais nas mãos de terroristas locais. Acredita-se que parte das armas enviadas para a Ucrânia sejam redirecionadas para a África, abastecendo milícias jihadistas locais. Embora seja real, a mera corrupção dos funcionários ucranianos não parece suficiente para explicar este fenômeno. Parece haver uma intenção real por parte dos agentes ocidentais e ucranianos de armar grupos terroristas no Sahel, sendo esta questão não apenas o resultado da corrupção.
Há uma explicação muito simples para a intenção do Ocidente de cooperar com os tuaregues e outros jihadistas africanos. Nos últimos anos, tem havido uma onda de revoluções soberanistas na África, especialmente na região do Sahel – que é considerada por muitos especialistas como o “Heartland Africano” devido aos seus recursos naturais e geografia estratégica. A França tem sido historicamente o país “responsável” pelo combate ao terrorismo em África, mas Paris nunca pareceu realmente eficiente nesta tarefa.
A França nunca abandonou as suas práticas coloniais, procurando sempre preservar a subserviência dos países africanos. Para tal, Paris tem cooperado historicamente com grupos terroristas, uma vez que prejudicam o desenvolvimento nacional dos estados da antiga “Françafrique”. Após as revoluções, algumas nações do Sahel terminaram a cooperação de segurança com a França e contrataram o Grupo PMC Wagner para combater terroristas – levando os países ocidentais a reagir, transformando o Sahel num novo campo de batalha por procuração anti-Rússia.
O envolvimento da Ucrânia nas hostilidades do Sahel é óbvio, mas este é apenas o primeiro tema a ser investigado. O regime de Kiev é apenas um representante e não tem soberania suficiente para agir sozinho em qualquer ação relevante. Se a Ucrânia apoia os tuaregues, então os patrocinadores ocidentais de Kiev certamente autorizaram estas manobras. Depois de esclarecido o envolvimento da Ucrânia, é necessário investigar a participação dos países ocidentais no apoio aos jihadistas – principalmente a França e os EUA, que são os estados mais interessados em minar a cooperação entre África e a Rússia.
August 29th, 2024 by Canadians for Justice and Peace in the Middle East
Canadians for Justice and Peace in the Middle East (CJPME) urges journalists and officials to exercise heightened scrutiny and skepticism regarding reports suggesting Iranian influence over pro-Palestine protests. Earlier this summer, several newspapers and Conservative Party leader Pierre Poilievre shared conspiracy theories about Iranian control over pro-Palestine student encampments based on a report by XPOZ, an Israeli cyber-security company. According to a new analysis by CJPME’s Media Accountability Project, however, XPOZ is a highly partisan source with suspect and opaque research methods, and should not be cited by journalists.
“Irresponsible media reports treating XPOZ as a credible source have given fuel to those who want to falsely portray student activists as agents of Iran. This is a conspiracy theory,” said Jason Toney, Director of Media Advocacy for CJPME. “To be clear, there is no evidence that Iran is behind protests in Canada, period. Anyone who has worked with pro-Palestine activists around Canada knows the suggestion that Iran is funding protests is beyond outlandish,” Toney added.
The XPOZ report was first covered in an article by UK-based Iran International under the outlandish headline, “Iran masterminded anti-Israel protest in Canadian university,” and subsequently by the National Post which claimed that “anti-Israel protests at McGill University were boosted by a social media influence campaign with potential ties to Iran.” The latter article was shared by Conservative Party leader Pierre Poilievre as a supposed example of “foreign interference.” This has led many commentators to refer to alleged Iranian influence in pro-Palestine protests as a proven fact, continuing a trend of columnists alleging – without any evidence whatsoever – that the protests are funded and/or directed by Iran.
However, CJPME’s analysis found serious methodological and contextual issues that call into question the findings by XPOZ. These include a refusal to publicly release the report, a lack of transparency about its data, potential bias and conflict of interest due to the XPOZ’s ties to the Israeli military and intelligence services, and an apparent selection bias in its social media analysis. CJPME strongly recommends that journalists, columnists, and editors refrain from citing XPOZ due to these serious issues. Further, CJPME recommends that Canadians reject false conspiracy theories that defame and attempt to minimize pro-Palestine protests.
*
Click the share button below to email/forward this article to your friends and colleagues. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.
According to The New York Times, Washington and London collaborated with the Ukrainians in the invasion of Kursk, allowing for better execution of border operations, while American officials have expressed their skepticism that Ukraine will be able to hold onto the territory it captured from Russia. Yet, despite this incredulity, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky claims that Russia has not been deterred from expanding its military operations in Ukraine into Sumy Oblast.
The US and the UK have provided Ukraine with satellite images and other information about the Kursk region following the invasion by the Ukrainian Armed Forces, the US newspaper reported.
“Within days of the offensive, the United States and Britain provided Ukraine with satellite imagery and other information about the Kursk region,” the article said, citing two sources, who explained that this was “to enable commanders to better monitor the movement of Russian reinforcements that could attack Ukrainian troops or cut off their likely retreat to Ukraine.”
On August 6, Ukrainian troops launched an attack on the Kursk region of Russia. The invasion marked Ukraine’s most significant aggression against Russia since February 2022. Commenting on the attack, Russian President Vladimir Putin said Ukraine had carried out another large-scale provocation by indiscriminately firing at civilian targets and that the enemy would have an adequate response.
Understanding the power of the Russian military and its abilities, American officials, according to the New York Times, are not convinced that Ukraine intends to hold its position in Russia for long.
“Ukrainian forces have not been digging the kind of extensive trenches necessary to protect soldiers and equipment from enemy fire, if Russia musters enough firepower to repel the attack. They have not been laying minefields to slow down a counterattack, nor have they constructed barriers to slow down Russian tanks,” the outlet reported.
“What the war has shown us so far is that the way to slow a military down is through ‘defence in depth,’” said Seth G. Jones, a senior vice president with the Center for Strategic and International Studies, in reference to the strategy of using multiple layers of defensive positioning. “If they are not defending territory with a mixture of trenches and mines, it is going to be virtually impossible to hold territory.”
Yet, despite Washington expressing its skepticism that Ukraine can hold onto captured Russian territory and claiming it was not informed about the Kiev regime’s plans before its incursion into Kursk on August 6, even going as far as saying it took no part in the operation, the New York Times has exposed this as another American lie.
This was also pointed out by Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Sergei Ryabkov, who said on August 27 that US involvement in Ukraine’s ongoing incursion into the Kursk region is “an obvious fact.”
“Washington’s course of escalation is becoming increasingly provocative,” the deputy minister said, adding that the impression is that US officials believe they have permission to do anything.
“The impression is that [US] colleagues have thrown away the remnants of common sense and believe everything is allowed for them. Their clientele in Kiev follows similar approaches. The consequences can be much more severe than what they are already experiencing. They know where and in what areas we are responding in practical terms,” Ryabkov told reporters.
Russia has already reported that Western weapons, including British tanks and US rocket systems, were used by Ukraine in Kursk, whilst the Kiev regime has confirmed the use of US Himars missiles to destroy bridges in the region.
Yet, despite warnings that the Ukrainian military will not be able to hold onto positions captured in Kursk, Zelensky delusionally said at a press conference on August 24 that the operation in Kursk has helped prevent the Russian army from occupying Ukraine’s Sumy Oblast and its regional centre, the city of Sumy.
“We have stopped a Russian operation in the north (of Ukraine), (we have done) a preventive strike, and we have accomplished this task. We have prevented the encirclement of part of Sumy Oblast,” Zelensky claimed.
Rather, there was no indication that Russia was about to launch an operation in Sumy Oblast, which is why the Ukrainian military captured many settlements with very little resistance. Instead, the Ukrainian invasion has only incentivised the Kremlin to expand its operations from just Eastern Ukraine into Sumy Oblast to create a safety zone so Russian civilians can no longer be targeted once Ukrainian forces have been pushed back over the border. It appears that only Zelensky, and not even the Americans, have faith that this operation will achieve its goals.
*
Click the share button below to email/forward this article to your friends and colleagues. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.
On August 28, I listed some of the electoral procedures Democrats are putting in place in order to steal the November presidential election:
Minneapolis has designated those who entered the US illegally “justice impacted individuals” and put them into a protected class which apparently includes the right to vote.
The DNC has filed a lawsuit against the Georgia Election Board to block the rule that requires counties to ensure the accuracy of the votes prior to certification. If you remember, this was a question in the 2020 election when Georgia and other states’ votes were certified without authentication.
In Wayne County, Michigan, the 19th most populous county in the US (there are 3,244 counties in the US) which includes Detroit, Warren, and Dearborn, 98% of the poll watchers appointed to oversee the 2024 presidential vote are Democrats.
The Wisconsin Supreme Court overturned the ban against ballot drop boxes that allow fraudulent ballots to enter the vote count. Here is the NBC News headline: “Wisconsin Supreme Court overturns ruling that barred most ballot drop boxes”
The Biden regime provides “immigrant-invaders” with federal ID cards when they enter. In blue jurisdictions immigrant-invaders are registered to vote when they apply for a driver’s license. The Democrats can then vote the registrations.
Thus the presstitute false news report from the Democrat New Republic that “Kamala Harris is inspiring many new voters to register.”
This is the way that the ruling establishment will explain the sudden increase in ballot numbers from illegal alien votes. These votes might be accounted for by illegal aliens voting or by Democrats stuffing drop boxes with the automatic registrations of illegals that puts “immigrant-invaders” on voting lists when they are issued driving licenses.
As Republican poll watchers have been eliminated from such populous areas as Wayne County Michigan, there is no check on illegal alien voting.
Newsweek reports that “Kamala Harris Overtakes Donald Trump in New Poll.”
This particular poll comes from the Florida Atlantic University Political Communication and Public Opinion Research Lab. If memory serves, this is the left-wing university, financed by the insouciant Florida government and taxpayers, that has caused so much trouble for Florida Governor Ron DeSantis and Donald Trump.
Ask yourselves how in less than one month Kamala Harris went from the most disapproved of American politicians to being the front runner in a presidential election and such an inspiring candidate that the voting rolls are bulging with new voters for Kamala.
The answer is that it is all a media and establishment orchestration to create the impression in the limited minds of insouciant Americans that as Kamala is leading, the election wasn’t stolen.
As Republicans and American citizens are apparently incapable of acknowledging reality, they have taken no effective steps to protect the integrity of US elections.
Theft it is, and theft it will be.
And no one will do anything about it.
*
Click the share button below to email/forward this article to your friends and colleagues. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.
Paul Craig Roberts is a renowned author and academic, chairman of The Institute for Political Economy where this article was originally published. Dr. Roberts was previously associate editor and columnist for The Wall Street Journal. He was Assistant Secretary of the Treasury for Economic Policy during the Reagan Administration. He is a regular contributor to Global Research.
Featured image: Voting signs in Spanish, English, and Chinese show the way to the polling station. Photo by Tim Brown/Source
Two weeks ago, I was prompted to write “Censorship on Steroids: Truthteller Alert,” in response to unprecedented internet censorship, co-timed with increasing persecution of highly visible truthtellers.
Nearly a decade ago, I wrote a Global Research article entitled “A History of America’s War on Whistleblowers and Journalists Since 9/11.”
The “planetary controllers” know that the masses are finally waking up like never before, increasingly aware and angry over the powerbrokers perpetuating their forever crime spree against both humanity and children with total impunity.
Thus, to save themselves, Western governments have declared war against the truth and all truthtellers.
People on this earth are now realizing that those occupying Western government offices of power are demanding World War III be ignited on two active warfronts in Ukraine and the Middle East, with an imminent third theater of operations in Pacific Asia. And, for the first time in humans’ history, all three fronts of this global war will be fought between rivaling nuclear powers.
With bankers’ wars ruling our planet for centuries, at will, the moneychanger controllers have been creating and financing both sides to every global conflict through divide and rule deception as their M.O.
This presentation is twofold, providing cursory glimpses into both the recently stepped up high-profile arrests and attacks against a handful of the most visible truthtellers as well as the coordinated global assault against internet users expressing their free speech rights, also increasingly arrested on bogus charges of “hate speech” and/or antisemitism crimes.
With the recent political unrest and riots in the United Kingdom, the Kier Starmer government is arresting internet users for simply criticizing the foreign invaders and their rising crime rates.
Those British citizens exercising their human right to peaceful assembly protest are beaten and imprisoned by police while crimes committed by those invaders from other nations go virtually unpunished. The two-tiered (in)justice system, driven by DEI (Diversity, Equity, Inclusion) and identity politics mandates, means that free speech is now a crime under emerging hate speech law increasingly applied across all Western nations toward critics of Israel’s genocide or of foreign asylum seekers.
Even more appalling is the top cop in Britain threatens to extradite internet users in other countries critical of Britain.
EU minister Thierry Breton even made written threats of lawfare to Elon Musk prior to his interview with the leading US presidential candidate, former President Trump, claiming certain topics were off limits as misinformation or potential hate speech. Next month’s UN Summit of the Future agenda per its documents is implementing the infamous Agenda 2030, which is the globalist NWO model, outlining global limits on free speech. These are all clear signs of total tyranny against both private citizens online in their own homes as well as public citizens and former presidents.
The entrepreneurial Russian founder of the internet platform app Telegram, Pavel Durov, who stands out as a stalwart protector of our privacy and freedom, as of August 24th is now locked away in a French jailcell. Upon arrival at Paris-Le Bourget Airport, Durov was detained.The French government arrested him as part of a preliminary investigation for Telegram platform’s insufficient moderation, its encryption tools, alleged lack of police cooperation rendering him bogusly “complicit in drug trafficking, pedophilia offenses and fraud.” These charges are simply a groundless, over-the-top cover for Durov’s vehement protection of free speech. Moreover, the core reason for arrest is related to Iran hackers disclosing on Telegram sensitive classified Israeli documents revealed on August 21st by the Israeli newspaper Haaretz titled:
After Iran Steals Sensitive Israeli Data, Israel Tries to Censor the Internet
During a recent trip to America, Pavel brought along his Telegram engineer who was approached by US intelligence services attempting to recruit him to secretly install backdoor to spy on the privacy data of all Telegram users.
Unlike other hi-tech entrepreneurial sellouts like Facebook’s Mark Zuckerberg who sells users’ private data while working directly in collusion with the Big Brother 1984 Orwellian government in Washington to collect surveillance data on every citizen to be unconstitutionally used against us, Durov stood up to this oppression steadfastly preserving our individual human rights and civil liberties that guarantee freedom of speech.
Pavel Durov was granted multiple citizenship status in other countries including France in the West because he is painfully cognizant of his own homeland Russia’s even longer track record cracking down on citizens’ free speech. As a holdout for freedom, Pavel apparently has replaced the now free Julian Assange, released in June after 11-years of cruel US-UK bondage,
Durov becoming the newest martyred upholder of our lost human rights.
We who still value our civil liberties now vanishing so rapidly amidst today’s one-world government power grab, plunging humanity into neo-feudal enslavement, must push back with all our collective might against this dystopian slaughter of both our disappearing freedoms as well as our very lives, “since we are all Palestinians”.
The arrest of Pavel Durov followed just four days after British independent journalist Richard Medhurst’s announcement that he was just arrested and detained for 24-hours at London’s Heathrow Airport under UK’s Terrorism Act. With a Syrian mother and British father, both awarded Nobel Peace Prize in 1988 for their work as UN Peacekeepers, this young journalist with 321,000 subscribers on YouTube has been critical of the Palestinian genocide by the criminal state of Israel. Richard extensively covered the Julian Assange extradition case in London. During the recent psyops of “right-wing” riots in the United Kingdom, the Starmer government used the timing to grab Medhurst at the airport on totally bogus charges to send the message for other prominent truthtellers to keep their mouth shut.
At exactly the same time, the UK’s Starmer government went after outspoken dissident reporter Richard Medhurst, after the US Department of Justice obtained a search and seizure warrant, on August 19th the DoJ’s weaponized FBI raided the upstate New York home of former weapons inspector-journalist-analyst Scott Ritter seeking evidence of collaborating with demonized Cold War enemy Russia. A month or so earlier, the US State Department confiscated Scott Ritter’s passport pulling him off a plane headed to a media conference in St. Petersburg, Russia.
All these blatant, unlawful crimes being executed against high-profile truthtellers are a threat to the treasonous governments of the West that have all abandoned their constitutional republics.
Then let’s not forget the case of Reiner Fuellmich, the German attorney that led the Corona Investigative Committee compiling overwhelming criminal evidence exposing the Covid-19 pandemic debacle.
[A shorten version of a longer article by Joachim Hagopian]
*
Click the share button below to email/forward this article to your friends and colleagues. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.
Joachim Hagopian is a West Point graduate, former Army officer and author of “Don’t Let the Bastards Getcha Down” exposing a faulty US military leadership system based on ticket punching up the seniority ladder, invariably weeding out the best and brightest, leaving mediocrity and order followers rising to the top as politician-bureaucrat generals designated to lose every modern US war by elite design. After the military, Joachim earned a master’s degree in Clinical Psychology and worked as a licensed therapist in the mental health field with abused youth and adolescents for more than a quarter century.
Strategic deterrence is one of the most important aspects of any global power’s/superpower’s security architecture. Countries such as Russia and the US have the world’s largest stockpiles of thermonuclear weapons, meaning that their ability to inflict untold damage on anyone is absolutely unparalleled.
One of the first steps to take in countering cult imposed chaos, is to check one’s taken for granted unquestioned habits, in order to see if they may be a contributory factor. Disruption by chaos, as I said at the beginning, can be eradicated by stepping back into a quiet space, to which I will now add – and reviewing one’s contribution to further supporting the source of disruption.
An in-depth analysis of Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s meeting with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy in Kyiv, has highlighted Indian efforts and proposed role in peace mediation process between Russia and Ukraine.
At no point since the first atomic bomb was dropped on Hiroshima on August 6th, 1945, has humanity been closer to the unthinkable. All the safeguards of the Cold War era, which categorized the nuclear bomb as “a weapon of last resort” have been scrapped. “Offensive” military actions using nuclear warheads are now described as acts of “self-defense”.
At 4:45 am., local time, Sunday August 25, Israel began a series of 50 preemptive airstrikes over villages in the south of Lebanon resulting in civilian casualties and injuries. According to Israel, they had information that Hezbollah was planning a massive attack on Israel using 6,000 missiles. Israel claimed to have hit missile launchers and weapon storages.
The actual reasons for this arrest have nothing to do with the allegation in the charge sheet and they are bound to resonate with partisans of freedom everywhere. Firstly, it is Durov’s resolute and principled refusal to share on demand with security agencies information that would compromise the privacy of Telegram users.
In an earlier article, I explained what distinguishes anti-Zionism from antisemitism. However, the fundamental difficulty lies in the habitual association of the state in Western Asia with the Jews. Should we view those who inhabit and govern Israel as Jews or have they become something else — namely, Israelis?
We are only manipulated to the degree to which we allow ourselves to be. Pull back a few paces from the insanity and you can find yourself in a quiet reflective place having absolutely nothing to do with the relentless razzamataz of the globalist construct.
At this point of time, in particular, it is really important to take such a step on a daily basis. Because the chaos being imposed by the central control system is directly absorbed by our three dimensional five senses, and at that moment is taken to be the sum total of all that is.
But when one draws back and quietens the mind, the centre of attention shifts to the inner heart zone. From here one is able to calmly and rationally assess whatever it is that is troubling one.
Only in this way can one discern the difference between the superficial/fake and the true.
Within today’s highly volatile information field the brain is loaded with a thousand different – and largely contradictory – streams of information which it is incapable of discerning or ordering without first putting them through the filter of an always discerning heart-centred awareness.All meditation practices follow the same principle.
This is not what the chaos imposers want us to do, of course. They want us to suffer endless bouts of agitation, stress, fear, anger and ultimately despair. They want to overload our brain cells to the point where our attempt to make sense of what is designed to make no sense, drives large segments of the population to drink, drugs, pharmaceutical sedatives and a lingering form of depression.
This mass sedated state of mankind is worth billions of dollars to Big Pharma and Big Alcohol – and quite obviously supports the general dumbing-down agenda of the deep state.
But there is more to it than this.
The desire to confuse, corrupt and kill-off mankind does not have its origins within the fundamental evolutionary process of sentient and empathic human beings. It should not be confused with the mix of typical ‘hard knocks’ we all have to contend with in the struggle to keep moving ahead.
No, these malevolent actions are essential components of once covert, but now overt, satanic practices based upon an anti-life precept closely related to that of psychopaths and those we call megalomaniacs.
As we go about our daily business struggling to maintain some form of basic equilibrium, it does not occur to most that this nefarious torture regime has its roots in the work of a small but powerful cult which basically despises sentient mankind.
If we clearly understood this, we would realise that trying to use rational thought procedures to explain the deliberately imposed irrational and chaotic, is a worse than useless task.
Their chaos is deliberate and designed to elicit panicked public calls for ‘order’; the imposition of which will be uncompromising. ‘Order Out of Chaos’ leads to totalitarian lockdown.
Those ‘only half’ human, or non-human dictators who we witness today manifesting their seemingly infinite need to torture, control and destroy, are getting their dark energies from what Robert Monroe, the late US researcher involved in the study of human consciousness, termed ‘loosh’.
What is loosh?
Loosh is that form of vibratory energy manifest by emotional expressions, both positive and negative. Both emotionally expressed love and hate will give off loosh.
But in the context of this article I refer to the vibrations given-off by fear, anxiety, anger and despair as providing a form of emotional food for the anti-life forces that show no emotion, no empathy and no interest in the victims of their vampiric full spectrum dominance agenda.
It is profoundly shocking to suddenly recognise that the deeply sick satanic behaviour patterns that emanate from the exponents of loosh mining, have been adopted by very public icons at the top end of the music business, professional sport, global banking and related corporate empires, scientific institutions, politics, religion and increasingly psychotic multi billionaires seeking to exert their domination over all aspects of planetary life.
Within the many thousands of secret society founded Masonic lodges that proliferate North America and Europe, the leading figureheads ritually worship demonic overlords who in turn appear to bestow upon them a form of dark Astral power.
This crosses over with paedophiles, child sacrificers and traffickers. It is no longer simply a source of speculation that deeply evil acts of utter degradation are performed by those who seek highest office in the top suite of New World Order pyramid. And from there, down the ladder to aspiring young leaders of the Schwab ‘sell your soul school for future fascists’.
It is a big – but entirely necessary brain stretch – to grasp the fact that these are the forces setting the agenda of almost all types of planetary activities, right down to the seemingly superficial details of everyday life.
Here’s an example of what I mean. When you hear that your telephone landline is going to be phased out in 2025 and that only a digital connection will then be available, you might think “Damn! These companies are at it again, always cost cutting the quality and giving us the cheaper version so as to increase their profits.”
But while such an explanation touches on a perennial superficial truth, the real reason hides in the shadows, manipulated by the anti-life cult’s overriding ambitions to wrest control over our ability to electronically communicate with some degree of privacy –and to thereby steal reams of personal data at the ping of a ‘smart’ EMF button. Data that can then be used to trap one into complying with the increasingly nefarious demands of the surveillance state.
The sequence goes further: loss of landline means ‘must go digital and Wi-Fi’. Going digital and Wi-Fi instantly connects one up with the global microwave radiation transmission tower and satellite emitting EMF frequency bands that operate through mobile and smart phones at 3,4 and 5G power outputs.
An increasingly vast labyrinth of intersecting wireless wave-forms create ‘electro smog’ which interrupt the natural circadian rhythms of the atmosphere and magnetosphere – as well as distorting the 7.83 hertz Schumann Resonance – known as ‘the earth’s heart beat’.
This is the resonance field which keeps balance within the earth’s electromagnetic low vibratory energy field, tapped into by bees, insects, birds and plants, and indeed, by our own instinct of natural inner and outer balance.
Human health is not unaffected. On goes the cell phone – and immediately pulses of non-ironising radiation are activated which pass through the human temple and into the soft brain tissue, with potentially lasting consequences according to British radiation expert Barry Trower and other leading EMF specialist researchers.
All the while, those manning the digital and cybernetic control centres of the planet are alert to orders coming down from secret service operatives, to put an algorithmic tab on the communications made by ‘too effective’ dissidents, so their ‘offensive’ material can be traced and expunged.
If this fails to elicit the desired silencing, they have the option of setting up a reverse messaging system which, unbeknown to the receiver, sends a digital electronic message directly into the neocortex of the supposed renegade, with the tacit objective of destabilising his/her thoughts and emotions. This can, of course, be done to anyone – and no doubt is.
A vast ‘hive mind’ is thus brought into being, where carefully chosen thought and nervous system controlling pulses can be directed from a central digital control hub to wherever deemed necessary, to block the rise of creative and spiritual energies essential for a sane society and the greater positive evolution of mankind.
Such pulses will not do the desired job to those who are spiritually aware. Such individuals remain immune.
5G/6G have the capacity to carry such mass invasiveness even further. To establish a virtual reality high-tech ‘smart’ environment which overlays the natural world which is our home. This is where the vastly popular digital Wi-Fi ‘convenience culture’ ultimately takes us.
So, how is this explained by your friendly regional telecommunications corporation?
“Hello, we are making a few small changes that will help you achieve higher quality tele-communications and save on old landline rental charges. We care about our customers and want to offer the best possible convenience advantages available today. Thank you for your attention”
Sincerely, Teledeception plc.
Unthinkingly accepting what are sold as ‘convenient improvements’ to one’s daily life – can have big consequences. So next time you nonchalantly reach into your back pocket to pull out your mobile phone, know who it is you are supporting and what it is that you are killing-off.
Counteracting Chaos
One of the first steps to take in countering cult imposed chaos, is to check one’s taken for granted unquestioned habits, in order to see if they may be a contributory factor.
Disruption by chaos, as I said at the beginning, can be eradicated by stepping back into a quiet space, to which I will now add – and reviewing one’s contribution to further supporting the source of disruption.
“Still shopping at the hypermarket?” Yes, I support corporate agribusiness.
“Still watching television?” Yes, I support mainstream fake news, the streaming of political dogma and general entertainment shows.
“Still playing with your EMF gismos and laptop?” Yes, I support crap soap opera movies, Net Flix distractions and war game apps.
“Still proud to troll around the multifarious features of your latest smartphone?” Yes, I support all smartphone technology that is taking over my life.
“Still searching for the highest interest rates at your chosen global banking institution?” Yes, of course, need to get the best rate going, even though I realise I may be supporting the global vampiring of the earth’s resources and profits of the war and weapons industry.
“Still going against the call of your soul by trying to ignore your addiction to the convenience culture slavery agenda?” Err, well, never thought about that. But it’s a soulless world and I need to operate in it in order to bring in sufficient income to maintain my life style.
You get it, of course. How many of these fundamental hurdles have you actually crossed? Only one or two – maybe none? Be honest.
Do you consider yourself to be fighting injustice or supporting it?
Are you true to yourself – your real self – or are you still essentially embracing the chaos that provides a fertile base for the hypocritical life so ubiquitously manifesting today?
These are the admittedly brutal ‘in the mirror’ questions that we must ask ourselves and demand answers to. Answers in the form of actions that will end any further support of the chaos – and turn into a commitment to illuminate and live by truth.
There is no other way of supporting the deep change that must be brought about. It all starts with us, and we need to act bravely and conscientiously and to lead by example.
If one is not able to set the necessary example, how can one expect others to?
Words unattached to actions have become empty and ultimately meaningless. Yet much of social media chat and smart-messaging is just that – an empty shell, and echo chamber that distracts from facing-up to reality and making a solid stand for the emancipation and regeneration of Life.
The crisis now at our door presents the best and most meaningful challenge that mankind has ever faced. It quite simply drives us to dig deep and unlock that hidden power within.
Dark manifestations are not just the domain of a satanic cult. They also emanate from our own seemingly locked-in behaviour patterns and are a reflection of the long term accumulated repression of our deeper instincts. It is well known that energetic natural and creative instincts not given expression, turn into their opposites and subsequently manifest as destructive powers.
The insentient anti-life power play will only be stopped in its tracks by an awakened mankind, able and willing to give full expression to the call of heart and soul.
By repressing or ignoring the voice of soul/ heart wisdom, we enter the same territory as that of our dark-side oppressors. We too become loosh to fuel their malevolent attacks on human kind.
The longer we leave this battle ground uncontested, the longer the satanists will prevail and the longer will we suffer the repercussions of our passivity – which is, in fact, a form of soul suicide.
No, dear friends, dare not entertain such a concept. Let us draw our symbolic golden swords and turn to face our oppressors head-on.
At this highly auspicious moment, a previously latent power will rise up in us that transforms the ordinary into the extraordinary. That turns the timid silent witness into courageous spiritual warrior.
It is such heroic acts that will finally
We all have it in us to render such a service to humanity and to thus honour that Supreme Consciousness which entrusted us to take responsibility for perpetuating the momentum of creation.
*
Click the share button below to email/forward this article to your friends and colleagues. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.
Julian Rose is an organic farmer, writer, broadcaster and international activist. He is author of four books of which the latest ‘Overcoming the Robotic Mind’ is a clarion call to resist the despotic New World Order takeover of our lives. Do visit his website for further information www.julianrose.info
While Russian long-range precision strike weapons are raining down on the entire territory under the Neo-Nazi junta’s control, there are still those who insist that the latter “can win” and that “everyone” should ensure “Ukraine’s victory” no matter the cost. One would certainly respect such optimism and self-confidence in peacetime. However, in war, this gets a lot of people killed.
Despite being perfectly aware of this, many in the EU/NATO still want war with Russia. This is particularly true in countries with endemic and/or truly pathological Russophobia, with some of the most prominent examples being the United Kingdom, Baltic states and Poland. In all these regions there’s an irrational hatred for all things Russian, particularly among the political elites who are simply poised to wage war despite being aware that the results would be catastrophic.
What was supposed to be NATO’s third most powerful member (had it ever joined) turned into a virtual junkyard of the latest Western military equipment. And yet, it seems there are several other nations in NATO that would want this horribly unflattering role as well. Namely, Poland is the “logical” choice for many, although most of those people don’t seem to understand the gravity of the current situation. This includes many Poles who are refusing to assess the consequences.
High-ranking NATO officials have already announced a number of major moves that can only be described as extremely hostile toward Russia. The annual NATO summit in Washington DC back in July was a clear indicator of that. Apart from the regular weapons shipments to the Neo-Nazi junta, particularly air defense systems, the much-touted F-16s are in the spotlight again. The Netherlands, Denmark and the United States jointly announced that the deliveries of these US-made jets are ongoing. The Dutch F-16 are of particular concern, as they’re also nuclear-capable. However, while this could certainly lead to an uncontrollable escalation, the moves of some individual member states are a real danger to global peace. As previously mentioned, the situation with Poland is particularly concerning, as some of its top-ranking military officers are calling for an all-out war.
Although he didn’t really mention any specific country, it’s only logical to presume he was talking about war with Russia. Such provocative statements accomplish nothing, and yet, here we are. However, not everyone in the Polish top brass thinks this way. Namely, on July 22, Major General Leon Komornicki, former Deputy Chief of the General Staff of the Polish Armed Forces, gave an interview to the Polish-language WNP, slamming the very idea that the Neo-Nazi junta can “defeat Russia”, calling it a mistake. In doing so, General Komornicki offered a rather unique perspective, one that’s not only fresh and unexpected, but also the only one that makes some sense.
General Komornicki questioned NATO’s readiness to come to its members’ aid in case there was a wider war and pointed out that if Russia were to strike, Poland would face defeat. This surprisingly lucid and honest admission is quite rare in Poland nowadays. The country has either been under the rule of openly Russophobic nationalist governments that don’t like to work with Brussels or equally Russophobic, but Brussels-friendly administrations that don’t like to work with anyone outside the European Union and NATO, meaning there are no real differences.
Click the share button below to email/forward this article to your friends and colleagues. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.
On August 15, 2024, the United Nations reported that over 40,000 Palestinians, most of them women and children, have been killed by Israel since the start of the October 7, 2023, war. The United Nations further reported that Israel is violating a multitude of international laws. Nevertheless, as reported by CBS News the same month, the Biden Administration has just sent another $20 billion in military aid to this criminal government.
The USA is the world’s only remaining superpower and doesn’t seem to care what the rest of the world thinks. But the rest of the world does care.
As reported by CBS News, over 140 of the 193 United Nations member countries support and recognize a separate Palestinian nation.
Spain, Ireland, and Norway joined in that recognition last May. Even France has announced that it’s open to the idea.
The only reason why Palestine isn’t a U.N. member state is because the US uses its veto power to block the resolution. Russia, the UK, China, and France also have this veto power.
The US has used its veto power 45 times over the years to block any resolutions critical of Israel. But some countries have begun carrying out their own sanctions against Israel. If enough countries join in, this could lead to Israel’s destruction.
Image: President Gustavo Petro Urrego of Colombia addresses the UN General Assembly (Photo credit: UN)
The fossil fuel that takes care of most of Israel’s energy needs is coal. Israel’s largest supplier of coal is Colombia. As explained here and here, earlier this month, Colombia’s President Gustavo Petro made good on the threat he made last June and signed a decree banning the sale of coal to Israel until it ends its genocidal assault on Gaza.
South Africa, Israel’s second-largest supplier of coal, is being urged to do the same, which is a possibility. As reported here, it was South Africa that brought Israel up on charges of genocide before the International Court of Justice earlier this year. One thing is certain: without a reliable power grid, Israel’s dark deeds may literally cause them to wind up in the dark.
Last May, Turkey announced that it will stop all trade with Israel until the war with Hamas ends, as reported here and here. Turkey is the world’s seventh largest food producer and Israel’s fourth largest trading partner.
Israel relies on Turkey for food and construction materials. Because both countries are very close to each other, Israel can get what it needs quickly. More than 300 kosher-certified markets operate throughout Turkey to serve Israel’s needs, so this will also hurt businesses in Turkey. But for Israel, it will be worse. Prices will go up due to higher transportation costs. If the war with Hamas lasts long enough, trade relations between Israel and Turkey may never be restored. Turkey’s trade embargo “is one of the most sweeping steps taken by any country to oppose Israel’s war against Hamas in Gaza.”
A huge part of Israel’s economy is tourism. Every year millions of people, many of them on religious pilgrimages, visit the Holy Land’s plethora of historical and religious sites, such as Jerusalem’s Western Wall, also known as the Wailing Wall, the Church of the Holy Sepulchre, the Dome of the Rock, the Church of the Nativity in Bethlehem, Masada, etc. There are also beautiful beach resorts, the Dead Sea, museums, and much more. But since the Hamas war, foreign tourism, especially Christian pilgrimage, has grinded to a halt. COVID-19 restrictions also did severe damage to Israel’s tourism industry and depleted its financial reserves. But combined with this war, much of the tourism industry may go out of business, as well as a lot of other businesses.
As reported here,here, and here, since the war began, some 46,000 Israeli businesses have shut down. By the end of the year, as many as 60,000 businesses might close shop. Israel’s labor force has been severely depleted because a lot of it is now fighting in the Israeli army.
There are also no longer any Palestinians to supply cheap labor. Nearly 85,000 Palestinians worked in the construction industry alone. This, combined with many foreign construction workers leaving the country, has caused many building sites to totally shut down. Because of this, Israel is sending thousands of their troops home so they can go back to their old jobs. Lack of consumer spending due to the constriction of Israel’s economy has also badly affected cafes and restaurants.
If that isn’t bad enough, the high-tech sector, one of the bulwarks of Israel’s economy, is giving up on Israel.
“Almost 70% of local Israeli startup companies have taken legal or financial steps toward relocation, including withdrawing cash reserves, moving headquarters outside Israel, and relocating employees or conducting layoffs.”
The Israeli government’s reaction to all of this economic chaos that they have caused is to double down and be more determined than ever to keep doing what they’re doing. For example, right now the US is negotiating with Israel and Hamas for a ceasefire. As explained here, here, and here, Israel won’t agree to Hamas’ demand for a permanent ceasefire, which isn’t surprising.
Image: Ron Dermer (Licensed under CC BY-SA 3.0)
As explained in my previous article, most of the Israeli government believe they are God’s “chosen people” and that Palestine is theirs by divine right.
Their attitude is: How dare the Palestinians resist us? We’re going to dominate and oppress them forever. For example, earlier this year, The Times of Israel reported that Israel’s Strategic Affairs Minister, Ron Dermer, arrogantly declared that “even if Israel is forced to fight alone. Even if the entire world turns on Israel, including the United States, we’re going to fight until the battle’s won.” Two cognitive biases describe this kind of crazy: the backfire effect and congnitive dissonance. Meaning, when deeply held beliefs, especially prejudices, are contradicted by facts, the resulting anxiety causes the person to stubbornly double down in their desperate need to hold onto them.
Of course, the United States could easily put Dermer’s idiotic declaration to the test by doing what protesters the world over are demanding: stop supplying Israel with weapons. In other words, a total arms embargo. But the US wouldn’t even have to do that. As reported here, all the US would have to do is what President Ronald Reagan did back in 1982 when Israel started bombing civilian targets in Lebanon. Reagan ordered Israel’s then Prime Minister to stop bombing Lebanon. Israel immediately cooperated. President Biden could easily do the same, and Dermer’s bluff would be called even if he wasn’t bluffing. Most of the fanatics in the Israeli government would realize that they won’t be able to get away with their war crimes if we don’t back them up. And we have to stop backing them up, folks.
Israel has broken all the rules of war. They have destroyed hospitals, schools, and denied humanitarian aid to the people in Gaza.
Last July, the Lancet, one of the world’s most respected peer review journals, estimated that the secondary effects of the carnage Israel has carried out in Gaza—starvation, disease, poor sanitation, etc.—could result in up to 186,000 deaths within this month.
Last July, Israel’s Parliament (Knesset) introduced a bill that declared the UN’s main relief organization for Palestinians a terrorist organization. This has never happened in the history of the United Nations. Last May, CNN did a scathing expose on the terrible abuse and torture Palestinian prisoners are being subjected to in Israeli prison camps, such as being blindfolded, strapped down, forced to wear diapers, and in some cases having their limbs amputated because their restraints were too tight.
And here is the cherry on the sundae. Last December, the New York Times reported that “Israeli officials obtained Hamas’s battle plan for the Oct. 7 terrorist attack more than a year before it happened,” which they code named “Jericho Wall.” Wow! This isn’t some fringe conspiracy theory website making this claim. This is the New York Times, folks.
So, why didn’t Israel do something to prevent it? Because the claim was that the Israeli military considered the plan “too difficult for Hamas to carry out.” Why do I not believe that? Probably because it reminds me of 911 under President George W. Bush, who’s administration, as reported by Business Insider, was warned “no fewer than 40 separate times that a major attack by Al Qaeda was on the horizon.”
And because 911 did happen, it allowed Bush and his cronies to pass the unpatriotic Patriot Act, create the totally useless Department of Homeland Security, which includes those airport molesters called the TSA, and allow them to wage useless illegal wars against Iraq and Afghanistan. In my opinion, that’s why Israel did nothing. It was their perfect excuse to carry out an ethnic cleansing. Sorry, but that’s how I see it, folks.
So, why doesn’t Biden do what Reagan did? Order Israel to end the war. There is no need to negotiate anything. Perhaps the military industrial complex has become too powerful. As explained here, here, and here, the US is the largest exporter of weapons in the world. War is big business, and it makes big money for a few at the top at the expense of the rest of us. Or perhaps the political will just isn’t there due to massive corruption. As reported by Business Insider, key members of Congress own stock in the companies of these death merchants. War makes them money, so why derail the ghoulish gravy train? But derail it we must.
It’s doubtful that Biden will do anything about Israel during his remaining time in office except maybe negotiate a temporary ceasefire. If Trump wins, he will certainly do nothing. He has said as much. Don’t forget, it was Trump who moved the US Embassy from Tel Aviv to illegally occupy Jerusalem. As for Kamala Harris, there is a chance that she might do what other presidents have done: end the conflict. And no matter what Trump supporters say, Harris is only the Vice President. She has no power to do anything now. But she didn’t attend Netanyahu’s speech before Congress, and she isn’t cheerleading Israel, and I see that as a hopeful sign.
In the meantime, Israel has now launched preemptive air strikes against Hezbollah in Lebanon, claiming, as always, that it’s just defending itself. If you believe that, I’ve got a bridge in Brooklyn, New York, that I’d like to sell you: cheap. You put up a toll booth, charge a dollar, and you’ll be a billionaire in less than a month. Really. It’s a steal. You can’t miss.
*
Click the share button below to email/forward this article to your friends and colleagues. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.
Michael J. Talmo has been a professional writer for over 40 years and is strongly committed to the protection of civil liberties. He has also produced three music videos: The Masker Mash, COVID Vaccine Man, and The Corona Globalists.
Geopolitics is an approach to politics that stresses the features imposed on foreign policy by geographical location, environment, and natural resources. Geopolitics as a discipline contributes to the emphasis on continuity in contemporary political realism.
The focal idea of geopolitics is that those who control the Eurasian landmass (Heartland) dominate global politics. Regarding this idea, Ukraine has always been a significant part of Heartland. Therefore, many great powers have been fighting to impose their control over the territory of contemporary Ukraine (or part of it) from the Middle Ages up to today (for instance, Poland, Lithuania, Russia, Sweden, Vikings, Ottoman Empire). Nevertheless, Ukraine up to 1923 (the creation of the USSR) was just a geographical notion but not a political-administrative subject.
The pre-2014 Ukraine was a country covering a huge territory of East Europe from the Carpathian Mt. in the west to the Donets River in the east being bounded by the Black Sea in the south. The neighbors were and still are Poland, Slovakia, Hungary, Belarus, Russia, Moldova, and Romania. After the dissolution of the USSR after Cold War 1.0, an independent (Greater) Ukraine took necessary measures in order to as possible as reduce its economic dependence on Russia as well as on other ex-Soviet republics.
For instance, such measures included an agreement to import the oil from Iran instead of from Russia. However, the exploitation of natural/mineral resources has been neglected while heavy industry, including iron and steel production, machinery, and transport production followed by aircraft, chemicals, and consumer goods, became an industrial priority. In essence, the food and textile industries are very important while grain is of crucial agricultural and export importance in the Ukrainian economy. However, in general, Ukrainian agriculture became very much damaged because of the 1986 nuclear catastrophe at Chernobyl as the large cultivating area became contaminated.
Regarding politics, it is surely true that any Russophobic political regime in Kiev will continue to enjoy the U.S. financial, political, and military support no matter the results of the U.S. presidential elections this year in November.
The question can be only of which intensity but not yes or no for the very reason that a political administration of the U.S. is overwhelmingly controlled by the Deep State that means at least concerning American foreign policy (especially regarding Israel) no matter from which out of two parties the President is or which party is having the majority in Congress (Republicans or Democrats). Such position in regard to both Russia and Ukraine can be explained by the need for the U.S. to support Ukraine for any price in the long term for at least clear geopolitical reasons as many years ago a Polish-American notorious Russophobe Zbigniew Brzezinski wrote that unquestionable fact is that without the territory of (Soviet) Ukraine, any form of Russia simply cannot be an empire or, in other words, if Ukraine became subordinated to the Russian crucial influence or annexed by Moscow, Russia will in such case become once again an empire.
However, another reason for the American Russophobic policy in Ukraine is of a more global nature as Washington wants to fight any newly emerged (or potential) new world order in international relations led by Russia or/and China (for instance, formed around the framework of the BRICS+ countries or so). In order words, for American policymakers, any division of interest zones from the global perspective will harm America’s dominant position (enjoyed after the end of the Cold War 1.0) in international politics as well as the economy for the very reason that it would reduce the global market for American products and financial investments.
Therefore, such geopolitical, economic, and financial interests of the U.S. are driving American policy in Ukraine to arm and train Ukrainian military and paramilitary troops in order to win the war against Russia (which, in fact, according to many authors, a putschist pro-Western regime in Kiev started in 2014 during and after the Euro-Maidan Revolution). Officially, the U.S. Army is not involved in the conflict but in fact, Ukrainian soldiers are fighting for different interests and benefits of the American administration and companies. Obviously, Washington is waging a proxy war against Russia on the territory of (Soviet) Ukraine but not for the reason that the Russian Special Military Operation (since the end of February 2022) threatened any kind of American national security but oppositely as the U.S. directly threatened the security of the Russian Federation, the existence of the Russian culture and above all of ethnic Russians in the eastern and southern parts of Ukraine (including Crimea too). For the American administration, it is obvious that the return of Ukraine within the framework of the Russian predominant influence would, actually, mean the beginning of the displacement of the U.S. and its Western partners (the so-called Collective West) firstly from the biggest portion of Eurasia, and then probably from many countries of the Global South (predominantly from Africa). In this context, it can be said that the Ukrainian military and paramilitary detachments are fighting for the continuation of the post-Cold War 1.0 hegemonic position of the U.S. in global politics.
It is not hidden that many experts in international relations connect U.S. support for Ukraine against Russia to the very specific economic interests of different Western international, multinational, and financial companies. Nevertheless, the economy of Ukraine already after 2014 was put into the hands of Western companies and, consequently, it is why the Collective West, led by the United States, is not ready to peacefully hand over certain territories to Russia which historically belonged to Russia and being settled by Russian majority population. It is estimated, for instance, that around half of all arable land in Ukraine was sold to Western companies before 2022. Western sources openly claim that the conflict in Ukraine is a battle for very rich natural/mineral resources that this East European country possesses but, they can be out of Western exploitation as a huge part of them is already under Russian control (in the Donbas region, for example).
The question is: How are natural resources (probably crucially?) important in the current war between NATO and Russia on the soil of (Soviet) Ukraine?It can probably be understood from the fact that being aware of the bare reality that the existence of a client (East European) political regime depends mainly on the support (in a variety of forms) by the foreign (Western) powers, the officials of the Ukrainian authorities since 2014 invoked the argument of significant reserves of rare minerals in order to secure the constant support of Western bosses even officially claiming that some 5% all the global reserves of critical raw materials are located in (pre-2014) Ukraine. They claim, for instance, that around 500.000 tons of lithium reserves are located in the Donbas region. Ukraine is one of the top 10 producers of titanium, iron, kaolin, manganese, zirconium, and graphite. According to relevant Western sources, (pre-2014) Ukraine has about 20.000 deposits of 116 different mineral resources, of which only 3.055 deposits were active before 2022, or only about 15% out of all. In other words, if Western companies want to exploit such natural resources their governments must support the Kiev regime in the war against the Russian minority in East Ukraine and Russia herself.
According to some estimations, the territory of Ukraine before 2014 (Soviet territory) possess circa up to 20% of the world’s reserves of all titanium ores. It must be noted that titanium ore is necessary for the aerospace, medical, automotive, and shipbuilding industries from a global perspective. In addition to having at least 500.000 discovered reserves of lithium needed for the production of car batteries (in fact, lithium reserves are larger), Ukraine is among the top 5 global producers of gallium, which is necessary for producing semiconductors. The territory of pre-2014 Ukraine had large reserves of beryllium, which is used for the production of atomic energy, aerospace, military, and electronics industries.
Additionally, Ukraine has significant reserves of zirconium and apatite, which are needed for the production of atomic energy. In other words, according to some statistics, Ukraine ranks third in the world in terms of zirconium oxide reserves, just behind South Africa and Australia having also some 20% of the world’s graphite reserves. Ukraine has significant reserves of non-ferrous metals: copper (fourth place in Europe), lead (fifth place), zinc (sixth place) and silver (ninth place). Finally, Ukraine has significant reserves of nickel and cobalt as well.
Why Ukrainian natural resources are important to the Collective West which is supporting and financing the Ukrainian-NATO war against Russians and Russia from 2014 onward?It can be understood from the very facts that
1) today China controls up to 90% of the world’s total production of rare earth minerals, from extraction to processing, and
2) the EU imports 40% of all critical minerals exactly from China.
Taking into consideration Ukraine’s rare natural/mineral reserves, Ukraine can greatly help Western economies to gain a greater level of independence from both China and Russia in the field of energy.
Nevertheless, in the first place out of all other natural/mineral resources in Ukraine, titanium is mostly interesting for U.S. policymakers regarding the current military conflict in the country.
It has to be stressed that the largest deposits of titanium ore in Ukraine are still under the control of the Kiev regime. Significantly, Ukraine has huge reserves of titanium (second place in the world) while at the same time, the U.S. is forced to import around 90% of titanium for its economic purposes.Titanium is unavoidable in the aerospace industry and the production of commuting aircraft, and therefore, as an example, American Boeing provides up to 30% of its needs for titanium from Russia (in 2021, Russia was the world’s second exporter of titanium after China), but mainly processing ore from Ukraine and after February 2022 (the beginning of the Special Military Operation-SMO) from Africa and Asia. However, during Russian SMO, some of the most important mineral deposits in East Ukraine came under Moscow’s control.
The Donbas region is of prime importance regarding Ukrainian mineral and other natural resources and, therefore, is primarily well known for its huge coal reserves, which is why it is estimated that Russia currently controls 80% of Ukraine’s coal production. In the part of the Zaporozhie area that is annexed to Russia, there is one of the largest iron mines in former (Soviet territory) Ukraine. The Sea of Azov has significant oil and gas reserves. Both Zaporozhie and Donetsk areas possess two of the three largest lithium deposits in former Ukraine, which have not been exploited so far. However, the crucial point is that Russia would be among the top global producers of lithium having control of the Donetsk and Zaporozhie areas and their lithium reserves. Therefore, many Western experts linked the future of Europe’s energy question with the Ukrainian re-capture of Donbas for the very reason that this region possesses some of the largest lithium (and other) deposits in Europe.
In conclusion, the case of Ukraine makes clear that the issue of the exploitation of rare metals is, in fact, of a geopolitical nature, backed by the real fear of the Collective West of losing global economic-political dominance. Consequently, to get exploitation of several critical natural/mineral resources, the Collective West is ready to fight Russia till the last Ukrainian (mobilized by force) soldier.
*
Click the share button below to email/forward this article to your friends and colleagues. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.
Dr. Vladislav B. Sotirović is a former university professor in Vilnius, Lithuania. He is a Research Fellow at the Center for Geostrategic Studies. He is a regular contributor to Global Research.
An in-depth analysis of Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s meeting with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy in Kyiv, has highlighted Indian efforts and proposed role in peace mediation process between Russia and Ukraine.
Modi’s official visit to Kiev on August 23 was the first for an Indian head of government since the establishment of diplomatic relations between India and Ukraine in 1992. While the significance of this cannot be underestimated, it also exposed a few controversial questions. Some experts interpreted the official visit, though as friendly and symbolic, it was also considered as a combined attempt to solidify India’s economic diplomacy after a series of corporate agreements were reached after the deliberations and their joint talks over peace mediation. Modi and Zelenskyy have agreed to often-suggested ‘peace summit’ – several of such high-powered meetings have already been held since Russia began its ‘special military operation’ in neighbouring Ukraine.
For some reasons in the first place, India’s proposal on hosting second peace summit explicitly shows the importance it attaches within the context of its bilateral relations with Russia. India and Russia have had cordial relations dating back to Soviet times, and that has been described lately as ‘friendly’ and, in terms of economic benefits, referred to as highly appreciable as bilateral trade statistics vividly show in ministerial documents. During one official visit, Modi was photographed giving President Vladimir Putin a warm embrace, both have a long-running relationship. India’s bilateral trade with Russia stood at $65.6 billion in FY24, up 33 per cent year-on-year, and nearly 5.5 times higher than the pre-pandemic trade of $10.1 billion. The bilateral trade has increased especially since 2022 with Indian fuel importers snapping up discounted Russian crude despite repeated criticism by Western nations.
Image: Ukrainian President Zelensky’s meeting with India’s PM Modi (Source)
On the opposite side with Ukraine, Modi’s support was seen as a factor that could bolster efforts toward peace negotiations. At the same, the Indian leader took the opportunity to strengthen his country’s economic cooperation in Ukraine, possibly in the wider region. Modi and Zelenskyy discussed at length Ukraine’s peace formula, which prioritizes territorial integrity and the withdrawal of Russian troops, according to the Indian Ministry of Foreign Affairs.
With devastating consequences arising from more than two-year conflict, Modi passionately urged for early resolution of Ukraine conflict in August phone conversation with Russia’s Putin.
“Reiterated India’s firm commitment to support an early, abiding and peaceful resolution of the conflict,” Modi said in a post on X, describing the conversation.
Modi shared “insights” from his visit to Ukraine with Putin and “underlined the importance of dialogue and diplomacy as well as sincere and practical engagement between all stakeholders” to find peace, the Indian foreign ministry said in a statement.
“We are on the side of peace,” Modi added. “Personally, as a friend, if there is any role that I can play, I would very much like to play that role toward peace.”
Modi and Zelenskyy spent two and a half hours behind closed doors before they signed cooperation agreements in the spheres of agriculture, medicine, and culture. The joint statement said both countries agreed on the importance of closer dialogue to “ensure a comprehensive, just and lasting peace.”
Since Russia-Ukraine conflict began in February 2022, China and India (BRICS), have all along avoided condemning Russia’s invasion and instead have been urging Moscow and Kyiv to resolve the conflict through dialogue and diplomacy. Analysts earlier argued Modi’s neutral stance, as it is the case with Brazil, China and South Africa. One Ukrainian analyst said the outcome of Modi’s first visit was modest, as that was just “the beginning of a complex dialogue between India, Ukraine and Europe.” If India were to support Ukraine’s approach to a peace settlement, it could enhance Kyiv’s chances of gaining more backing from other countries in the “Global South” where “India remains China’s main competitor for influence.”
Reports show that ongoing negotiations with Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Turkey and Switzerland regarding the second summit on peace shared on social media. In addition to India and South Africa as BRICS members, China also has historically warm ties with Russia.
South Africa has attempted at peace resolution, and that was followed by China. Sergey Lavrov underestimated South Africa (BRICS chair in 2023), saying that the African peace initiative which consisted of ten (10) elements, was not well-formulated on paper. Similarly, Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov said:
“The peace initiative proposed by African countries is very difficult to implement, difficult to compare positions.”
As far back in May 2024, President Xi Jinping “clearly articulated that the Chinese side will support the convention of an international conference which will reflect the interests of both Russia and Ukraine equally and will be based on a large number of ideas and initiatives.”
For the discussions here, it is necessary to consider carefully, in the context the China’s Global Security Initiative (GSI) that could play important role in resolving the Russia-Ukraine crisis and possibly many others around the world. In the first place, China prominently places “cooperation” as the key component in its foreign policy, as oppose to Russia that is confrontational and yet talk about multipolar – in fact ‘multipolar’ in its basic sense means inclusive and integrated approach to global developments including conflict resolutions.
According to China’s concept, its Global Security Initiative principally aims at eliminating the root causes of international conflicts, improve global security governance, encourage joint international efforts to bring more stability and certainty to a volatile and changing era, and promote durable peace and development in the world.
The concept is guided by six commitments or pillars, which are
(i) pursuing common, comprehensive, cooperative, and sustainable security;
(ii) respecting the sovereignty and territorial integrity of all countries;
(iii) adhering to the purposes and principles of the UN Charter;
(iv) taking the legitimate security concerns of all countries seriously;
(v) peacefully resolving differences and disputes between countries through dialogue and consultation; and
(vi) maintaining security in both traditional and non-traditional domains.
Gleaning from these core principles, it’s safe to say that the Global Security Initiative could and probably would become a catalyst for the world to chart a new path to building sustainable peace, stability and development. The Global Security Initiative was first proposed by Chinese President Xi Jinping at the Boao Forum for Asia Annual Conference on April 21, 2022.
Late August 2024, China reiterated the call for more support for its Ukraine peace plan created with Brazil. Both as BRICS members have endorsed a comprehensive peace plan for Ukraine, after rounds of diplomacy consultations with Indonesia and South Africa to support the proposed plan. It is important to remind that China and Russia were absent from first peace summit hosted in Geneva, Switzerland in June. Russia was not invited while China chose not to attend.
Despite that, Chinese Envoy Li Hui has insisted on dialogue for conflict resolution, adding that “important global forces in promoting world peace” share similar positions on diplomacy and dialogue with China.
“They have maintained communication with both Russia and Ukraine and stay committed to a political settlement to the crisis through dialogue and negotiation,” said Li, China’s special envoy for Eurasian affairs.
Within the unfolding geopolitical context, BRICS in their declaration on 23 August, 2023, in Sandton, South Africa, underlined the fact that BRICS is ready, “as sovereign states cooperate to maintain peace and security” and further against actions that are “incompatible with the principles of democracy and multilateral system” in this modern world.
The declaration also re-affirmed their collective stand “on strengthening cooperation on issues of common interests within BRICS” and yet China, India and South Africa, through their previous efforts, could not find common interest to establishing relative, better still sustainable peace between Russia and Ukraine. The entire saga of settling the Ukrainian problem is now reaching a very critical point, even BRICS unable to find an acceptable promising solution on their BRICS association’s platform. In any case, the Russia-Ukraine crisis continues threatening global security, largely influencing the world economy.
Absolutely there is no need taking quotes to support the arguments in the article here, but it is necessary to reiterate that the Joint Statement of BRICS Ministers of Foreign Affairs and International Relations meeting on 1 June 2023 and the 13th Meeting of BRICS National Security Advisors and High Representatives on National Security held on 25 July 2023, stated (Point 12 in the 94-Point Declaration) categorically noted:
“We are concerned about ongoing conflicts in many parts of the world. We stress our commitment to the peaceful resolution of differences and disputes through dialogue and inclusive consultations in a coordinated and cooperative manner and support all efforts conducive to the peaceful settlement of crises.”
Interestingly BRICS members especially South Africa, China and India have made several practical steps without any substantial results. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Russian Federation has, in fact several times, clarified that BRICS is an informal association which comprises Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa. At the beginning of this year, as agreed at the XV BRICS Summit in South Africa, five countries – Ethiopia, Egypt, Iran, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates became full-fledged members. At this point, experts have asking the level its committed role as collective BRICS in the mediation process and within the basic principles adhered by the global multipolarity. Russia has held the BRICS presidency since January 1, 2024.
*
Click the share button below to email/forward this article to your friends and colleagues. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.
Kester Kenn Klomegah, who worked previously with Inter Press Service (IPS), Weekly Blitz and InDepthNews, is now a regular contributor to Global Research. He researches Eurasia, Russia, Africa and BRICS. His focused interest areas include geopolitical changes, foreign relations and economic development questions relating to Africa. As a versatile researcher, he believes that everyone deserves equal access to quality and trustworthy media reports.
A significant and sensitive issue that needs careful understanding is that of covert regime change and destabilization operations. According to research conducted by Lindsay A. O’Rourke, Professor of Political Science of Boston University, USA, there were 64 covert interventions for regime change by the USA during 1947-89. If the same trends continued in the later period, there would be over 100 such attempts by now, during the post-World War 2 period. At times some close allies of the USA have collaborated in such operations to a lesser or greater extent.
Of course there have been similar efforts by other countries too, particularly other big powers, but after the collapse of the Soviet Union their capacity as well as the inclination for this has decreased considerably. However in the case of the USA both the capacity and the inclination have been maintained right up to this day.
Some regime change attempts of the last decade that have attracted more attention have been in the context of such important countries as Ukraine (2014), Pakistan (2022) and Bangladesh (2024), the first mentioned being the most harmful historically. My estimate is that the chain of tragic events initiated by the Ukraine regime change has, directly as well as by indirect impacts, already led to over a million deaths.
Of course not all regime change covert operations are successful. Among the covert operations examined in the research of Lindsay O’Rourke 39 out of 64 efforts (over 60%) failed in securing regime change. The USA officially supported authoritarian forces in 44 out of these 64 cases while democracy was promoted only to the extent it benefited US interests.
What can be asserted confidently is that whether the regime change objective was achieved in any country or not, the country and its people were definitely harmed, often in very serious ways, and democracy was definitely harmed too, as covert operations certainly violate the basic spirit of democracy.
In addition often it is left or left of center forces/governments as well as working classes which are harmed the most in such covert operations (although sometimes covert regime change operations are also directed against right-wing nationalist regimes which insist on following independent policies in some important respects, including their foreign policy).
Left and democratic as well as working class forces in world suffered a big setback with the impeachment of Brazil’s President Dilma Rousseff in 2016, the imprisonment of front-line Presidential candidate Lula da Silva in 2018 and the loss of PT (Workers Party) in 2018 elections.
Dilma Rousseff receiving the presidential sash from Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva, 1 January 2011. (Licensed under CC BY 3.0 br)
A recent study has confirmed widespread allegations appearing time and again in Brazil and elsewhere that the USA played an important part in these events through its highly opportunistic use of anti-corruption movement, involving also illegal actions directed against these leaders and their political party.
This study is titled ‘Anti- Corruption and Imperialist Blind Spots—the Role of the US in Brazil’s Long Coup’ and is authored by Brian Mier, Bryan Pitts, Sean T. Mitchell, Rafael R. Ioris and Kathy Swart. This has been published in Latin American Perspectives.
A comprehensive examination of the evidence available, contained in US government statements, English language media accounts and hacked telegram chats among Brazilian prosecutors indicates that the US was widely involved in the ‘long coup’ that removed the left from power in Brazil in 2016 and secured the elections for the far right in 2018.
The leading role in this was played by an anti-corruption movement called Lava Jato or Operation Car Wash. This movement was preceded by big gatherings which educated and trained potential participants in those kinds of ‘anti-corruption’ activities which could target public sector companies and political leaders and could secure international cooperation, particularly US cooperation.
Brazil had discovered new big oil deposits and this may have instigated foreign attempts to harm its public sector oil and petroleum interests, to pave the way for higher private sector role. President Rousseff’s efforts to cut private bank profits may have been another reason for targeting her. A bigger reason may have been the strong role played by the governments of Lula and later Rousseff in protecting trade interests of developing countries, as well as their refusal to toe the US line in developing relations with countries like Iran, China and Russia. The independent stand taken on Palestine may also have irked the USA. Obama’s personal dislike for Lula may have been an aggravating factor too, as also the general hostility to any left government.
As the study by Brian Mier et al tells us, in June 2019, the evidence on US interference via Lava Jato was already so strong that the PT leader in Congress, Paulo Pimenta was able to provide a dossier full of information. It included names of US prosecutors, public statements by government officials, proof of parallel meetings and events, official schedules, proof of informal violation in collaboration of national sovereignty laws and US officials in Brazil getting unrestricted knowledge of government authorities.
In 2020 Intercept journalists published Telegram communications which revealed that the Lava Jato team had repeated secret meetings with 17 (US) FBI agents bypassing national laws and regulations.
On the day that leading Presidential candidate Lula was arrested in 2018, a prominent leader of Lava Jato was heard commenting—this is a gift from the CIA.
While leading US media kept quiet about the US role in all this, the leaders of Lava Jato were given very good coverage to boost their image and present them as great heroes.
Adding up all the evidence, this study concluded,
“Over the past one decade, continuing evidence has emerged that clearly demonstrates that the US government, particularly the Department of Justice, under both Obama and Trump, played a key role in supporting Lava Jato’s politically motivated witch-hunt against the PT.”
Further this study states,
“The US has long used invasions, insurgencies and economic blockades to advance its interests in Latin America. Today it has added the tool of anticorruption to its arsenal.”
All this is deeply disturbing. Firstly, this shows that the US has not lost any of its willingness to illegally oust those democratically elected governments which have been much appreciated for their role in reducing poverty and injustice.
The PT government had big contributions in reducing poverty and inequalities, but these gains were rapidly rolled back within a few years of their ouster (now of course PT and Lula are back), with the income share going to the bottom 50% diminishing significantly and the income share going to the top 1% getting boosted in a big way. What should serve as a lesson to other developing countries is how the USA operatives (using local collaborators) could achieve a government change and the imprisonment of highly popular leaders of the ruling party even in a leading country. The legal and other aspects of anti-corruption international agreements were used to strengthen this capacity and this study quotes documents regarding use of anti-corruption movements to destabilize US competitors and enemies.
Another very disturbing aspect is how a very opportunistic use was made of the anti-corruption rhetoric in a way that good leaders were turned into targets for corrupt practices while racketeers got celebrated as heroes. Thus while opposing corruption in sincere and honest ways must be a very important aspect of any democracy, caution should be exercised clearly regarding opportunistic used of any anti-corruption movements.
Jeffrey D. Sachs, University Professor and Director of the Center for Sustainable Development at Columbia University has written recently,
“Covert regime change operations are blatantly illegal under international law (notably the Doctrine of Non-Intervention, as expressed for example in the UN General Assembly Resolution 2025, 1970), and constitute perhaps the greatest threat to world peace, as they profoundly destabilize nations, and often lead to wars and other civil disorders.”
Professor Sachs has written this in an article published in Common Dreams (and elsewhere) in mid- August 2024, titled ‘Accusations of US regime-change operations in Pakistan and Bangladesh warrant UN attention’. In this article he has written that there is very strong evidence of US role in toppling of the government of Imran Khan in Pakistan in 2022 and the likelihood of something very similar in the overthrow of the government of Bangladesh led by Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina more recently in 2024. The two main leaders have themselves alleged such involvement of US role. Prof. Sachs writes,
“Their grave accusations against the US, as reported in the world media, should be investigated by the UN, since if true, the US actions would constitute a fundamental threat to world peace ad regional stability in South Asia.”
Keeping in view all these happenings in the region, it would be advisable for other countries of the region, particularly India, to be more cautious in the coming days.
*
Click the share button below to email/forward this article to your friends and colleagues. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.
Bharat Dogra is Honorary Convener, Campaign to Save Earth Now. His recent books include Planet in Peril, Protecting Earth for Children, Man over Machine and A Day in 2071. He is a regular contributor to Global Research.
Strategic deterrence is one of the most important aspects of any global power’s/superpower’s security architecture. Countries such as Russia and the US have the world’s largest stockpiles of thermonuclear weapons, meaning that their ability to inflict untold damage on anyone is absolutely unparalleled.
However, despite this, not even such superpowers should focus entirely on the military part of their doctrine, but on maintaining normal communication with other nuclear-armed states and ensuring that the world at least doesn’t get destroyed because of some trivial miscalculation.
America is the only country on Earth that has a plan to wage a simultaneous nuclear war with three nuclear-armed states – Russia, China and North Korea. Back in March, the US government adopted a new nuclear strategy that addresses this possibility, pushing for a more “decisive” response by the Pentagon. This extremely important document is updated approximately every four years, meaning that its changes are highly classified. According to The New York Times, this new strategy is “the first to examine in detail whether the United States is prepared to respond to nuclear crises that break out simultaneously or sequentially, with a combination of nuclear and non-nuclear weapons”. This was previously underscored by Pranay Vaddi, Special Presidential Assistant and Senior Director for Arms Control, Disarmament, and Nonproliferation at the National Security Council (NSC).
Vaddi and other high-ranking US officials, particularly those from the NSC, have publicly discussed the strategy changes, with Vaddi stating back in June that the plan underscores “the necessity to deter Russia, China and North Korea”, all at the same time. Another important change is also the fact that Moscow isn’t considered the sole strategic threat to the US, as this now applies to China as well. And while Russia’s strategic arsenal, the world’s most powerful, is still considered the primary threat to America, for the very first time, the strategy places significant emphasis on China. The US military projects that Beijing’s nuclear arsenal could grow from around 500 warheads to 1,500 by 2035, which is still a long way to go, as well as an effort that will require enormous investment in the military and a massive change in China’s nuclear/strategic doctrine, as Beijing would be tripling its current thermonuclear arsenal.
What’s more, in doing so, China would also be switching from a highly defensive strategic posture to an offensive one. However, despite this growing arsenal, it still remains a fraction of the stockpiles held by Washington DC and Moscow. In comparison, according to the latest data by the Federation of American Scientists, the US is in possession of exactly 5,044 warheads, 1,419 of which are deployed, while Russia has 5,580, with 1,549 deployed. In other words, both superpowers already have the number of deployed warheads that China’s entire arsenal is expected to reach no sooner than 2035, while it will still be three to four times smaller overall. However, the US is determined to push Beijing into a Cold War-like competition regardless. China’s minimalistic approach to strategic deterrence seems to be “too pacifist” for the US, which is why it’s doing everything in its power to push Beijing into an arms race.
The treaty limits deployed warheads to 1,550 in both countries, which is why more than 70% of their arsenals are effectively dormant. This is bound to change in less than a year and a half, when there will be no restrictions on the deployment of strategic weapons. Simultaneously, the US also keeps antagonizing North Korea, pushing it to enter a direct military alliance with Russia, resulting in the effective unification of their strategic arsenals, as an attack on one would now legally be considered an attack on both.
The results of such developments are very well known. We can read them in history books. However, there’s a very important distinction between then and now. Namely, the tripwire alliances of our age are all nuclear-armed, meaning that a potential global confrontation could be over in mere hours. It’s precisely thanks to US/NATO aggression against the world that around 950 million Americans, Canadians and Europeans are the target of the strategic arsenals of that same world. Because of its propensity to attack and destroy countries, groups of countries and even entire global regions, the political West has brought this upon itself, as much (if not most) of the world simply doesn’t want to take any risk by trusting the US/NATO. The only way to make sure that the political West is kept in check is to arm yourself with the most destructive weapons ever devised and aim them at Washington DC, Brussels, London, etc.
*
Click the share button below to email/forward this article to your friends and colleagues. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.
ISBN Number: 978-0-9737147-5-3 Year: 2012 Pages: 102
PDF Edition: $6.50 (sent directly to your email account!)
Michel Chossudovsky is Professor of Economics at the University of Ottawa and Director of the Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG), which hosts the critically acclaimed website www.globalresearch.ca . He is a contributor to the Encyclopedia Britannica. His writings have been translated into more than 20 languages.
Reviews
“This book is a ‘must’ resource – a richly documented and systematic diagnosis of the supremely pathological geo-strategic planning of US wars since ‘9-11’ against non-nuclear countries to seize their oil fields and resources under cover of ‘freedom and democracy’.” –John McMurtry, Professor of Philosophy, Guelph University
“In a world where engineered, pre-emptive, or more fashionably “humanitarian” wars of aggression have become the norm, this challenging book may be our final wake-up call.” -Denis Halliday, Former Assistant Secretary General of the United Nations
Michel Chossudovsky exposes the insanity of our privatized war machine. Iran is being targeted with nuclear weapons as part of a war agenda built on distortions and lies for the purpose of private profit. The real aims are oil, financial hegemony and global control. The price could be nuclear holocaust. When weapons become the hottest export of the world’s only superpower, and diplomats work as salesmen for the defense industry, the whole world is recklessly endangered. If we must have a military, it belongs entirely in the public sector. No one should profit from mass death and destruction. –Ellen Brown, author of ‘Web of Debt’ and president of the Public Banking Institute
A bizarre geopolitical thesis in the Indian media last week characterised Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s recent 7-hour trip to Ukraine via Poland as part of an effort “to plug a missing link — Central Europe — in India’s European policy.” Per this thesis, PM’s trip signified an Indian “push” into Central / Eastern Europe “disentangling New Delhi’s engagement with the region from its relationship with Russia.”
This bizarre thesis, by implication, carries the imprimatur of Modi government but External Affairs Minister S. Jaishankar’s cerebral mind never publicly vented such a stream of consciousness. Funnily enough, coaching academies who prepare candidates for the upcoming Civil Services Examination have also jumped into the fray with tutorials on the pernicious thesis!
Since the exponent of this thesis is a well-known senior journalist, Indian press lost no time to savour the exotica that sounded out of the ordinary. Whereas, the absurdity of the thesis should have been apparent at first glance to any erudite mind.
To delve into modern European history, Central Europe and Eastern Europe are not really interchangeable as geopolitical constructs. Central Europe is more of a geographical expression, as the region is culturally very diverse — even while sharing some historical and cultural similarities — whose “strategic awakening” actually begins only with the end of the Cold War and the collapse of the Berlin Wall.
The region broadly refers to the swathe of Europe that was historically part of the Austro-Hungarian and Ottoman empires comprisingpresent-day Austria, Germany, Switzerland, Liechtenstein, the Czech Republic, Slovakia, Hungary, Poland, Lithuania and Slovenia.
But Eastern Europe has been a sub-region of the European continent even with a wide range of geopolitical, geographical, ethnic, cultural, and socio-economic connotations. Itincludes present-day Belarus, Russia, Ukraine, Moldova and Romania plus the Balkans, the Baltic states and the Caucasus.
Geographically speaking, the region is defined by the Ural Mountains (in Russia) in the east while the western boundary remains nebulous, without any definite edges. (Hence the “German Question” in European history.) Eastern Europe is a significant part of European culture through millennia but distinguishable by the traditions of the Slavs and Greeks who are followers of Eastern Christianity where Eastern Orthodox forms the largest body.
Of course, the Iron Curtain gave Eastern Europe an entirely new redefinition. Indeed, redefinition has been a constant feature of Eastern European countries. Thus, the rubric Warsaw Pact came to be associated with Poland, but even then, the Visegrad Group didn’t fly — the politico-military alliance that Poland sought to create in 1991 with the Czech Republic, Slovakia and Hungary as a counterweight to the Old Europeans’ hegemony in the European Union. The Visegrad Group lost traction once Poland and Hungary elected national-conservative governments while the Czech Republic and Slovakia continued as liberal democracies.
The paradox is, when the Visegrad alliance finally split, it was over the four countries’ divergent reactions to Russia’s special military operations in Ukraine in 2022. While Poland and the Czech Republic adhered firmly to the US-led NATO strategy to wage a proxy war against Russia, Slovakia and Hungary remain ambivalent and increasingly question the raison d’état of the war and have lately begun opposing the war.
Thus, when Hungarian PM Viktor Orbán as the chairman of the rotating EU presidency floated a peace plan recently in consultation with Donald Trump to end the Ukraine war, the EU promptly disowned it (at US behest, of course.)
On the other hand, Slovakian PM Robert Fico who survived an assassination attempt in May due to his refusal to back the Kiev regime stands shoulder to shoulder with Orbán. Incidentally, there is a school of thought that the needle of suspicion in the assassination attempt on Fico in May points to Ukraine’s military intelligence. So much for a common Eastern European stance on Ukraine war– or Russia for that matter!
In fact, both Orbán and Fico advocate good relations and resumption of beneficial ties with Russia. They thoroughly disapprove the EU’s sanctions against Russia. Such being the state of play, how could Modi government have been so incredibly foolish as to imagine that India’s route to European engagement lies through Kiev and/or disengagement from Russia? Evidently, it is a lie.
The problem is not that India’s stance on Ukraine hinders the expansion of economic relations with Europe but the absence of an imaginative, robust economic diplomacy in a long-term perspective.
Although EU is India’s largest trading partner, accounting for €124 billion worth of trade in goods in 2023 (or 12.2% of total Indian trade), trade negotiations with EU have been dragging on for well over a decade. The EU’s stated objective is “to work towards a sound, transparent, open, non-discriminatory and predictable regulatory and business environment for European companies trading with or investing in India.”
But Delhi is in no hurry as trade is growing impressively (by almost 90% in the last decade) and trade in services between the EU and India reached €50.8 billion in 2023, up from €30.4 billion in 2020 — and, most important, the balance of trade remains in India’s favour.
In reality, without waiting for the Ukraine war to end, Delhi can take a look at China’s strategy to enter the European market through the East European gateway. China created a platform with Central and Eastern European countries known as the “14+1.” Hungary, Slovakia and Poland are important partners for China in this framework.
Orbán has been embracing Chinese investments despite the EU’s call for “derisking” while Fico is set to visit China. And the most interesting part is that it’s not just the pair of leaders currently viewed as the EU’s pro-Russian wild cards who are playing this game. Poland’s President Andrzej Duda, a tough critic of Moscow’s war against Ukraine, also just concluded a state visit hosted by his counterpart Xi Jinping in China.
Indeed, China continues to be on a charm offensive in Central and Eastern Europe. A new study from the European Think Tank Network on China says Hungary is an “outlier” regarding national measures on derisking from China. The report says that “Orbán’s government takes pride in attracting a growing number of Chinese investors to the country.”
Indeed, Hungary is becoming Europe’s electric vehicle hub – by courting Chinese carmakers. Fico is attracted to Orbán’s route and plans to conclude a strategic partnership agreement with China during his planned visit in fall. Now, don’t Hungary, Slovakia and Poland know that China and Russia have a quasi-alliance today, which is at an all-time level and only strengthening by the day because of the fallouts of Ukraine war such as western sanctions?
Our media pundits are clueless about Eastern Europe. Yet they are advocating India’s disengagement from Russia as a prerequisite of warm relations with that region! Why are they doing this? Such perverted logic only promotes American interests to erode India-Russia partnership and thereby erode the country’s strategic autonomy.
Going forward, it’s too really to tell now as to what form Ukraine takes as it emerges from this war. Ukraine has unresolved nationality questions. And territories in western Ukraine previously belonged to Poland (which was of course compensated with territories of defeated Germany) and Hungary before World War 2.
Poland says the 1943-44 massacre of some 100,000 Poles by Ukrainian nationalists was genocide. And today, the crux of the matter, from Russian perspective too, is that Ukraine’s identity as a sovereign state itself is built around the same neo-Nazi organisations that collaborated with Hitler’s occupation army to massacre Poles. Truly, this is a can of worms. India has no good reason to meddle with it.
*
Click the share button below to email/forward this article to your friends and colleagues. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.
Featured image:Poland’s government announced last year the discovery of a mass burial pit in Ukraine containing remains of ethnic Poles murdered by pro-Nazi Ukrainian nationalists in waves of World War 2 massacres. (Source: Indian Punchline)
A resposta da Alemanha à pandemia de COVID-19 foi baseada em objetivos políticos, e o governo implementou contramedidas que muitas vezes contradiziam evidências científicas e a opinião dos próprios cientistas do governo, de acordo com documentos vazados por um ex-funcionário da agência de saúde pública da Alemanha, o Instituto Robert Koch (RKI).
Um denunciante não identificado divulgou os “Arquivos RKI” para a jornalista investigativa Aya Velázquez, que em 23 de julho publicou os arquivos não editados — totalizando 3.865 páginas — na íntegra no Substack.
O RKI é o equivalente alemão aos Centros de Controle e Prevenção de Doenças dos EUA.
De acordo com o jornal alemão Schwäbische Zeitung, os Arquivos do RKI “contêm detalhes explosivos” sobre “vacinações infantis e ‘resistência da população’” e mostram “que o RKI tinha uma visão muito mais diferenciada da política do Coronavírus do que os responsáveis pela política e a maioria da mídia levaram a população a acreditar”.
“Um denunciante, um ex-funcionário do RKI, abordou-me e passou-me o conjunto de dados” por razões de “consciência”, escreveu Velázquez no Substack.
Outras revelações incluem evidências de que os legisladores estavam mirando e “cutucando” crianças, e o conhecimento por parte dos legisladores e cientistas de que as vacinas contra a COVID-19 eram ineficazes e levavam a eventos adversos graves.
Apesar desse conhecimento — e por razões políticas — autoridades governamentais adotaram medidas recompensando os vacinados e punindo os não vacinados.
Os arquivos do RKI também revelam que os formuladores de políticas e cientistas tentaram ignorar publicamente as evidências de uma “curva de achatamento” no início da pandemia, e as evidências de que máscaras e testes em massa não seriam úteis para prevenir a infecção.
Embora alguns tenham questionado a legitimidade dos documentos contidos nos Arquivos RKI, o Instituto Robert Koch, em um anúncio feito pelo programa de notícias alemão Tagesschau abordando a publicação de documentos não redigidos, não confirmou ou negou a legitimidade dos próprios documentos ou de seus conteúdos:
“O Instituto Robert Koch criticou a publicação de atas não redigidas da equipe de crise do RKI sobre a pandemia de COVID. O RKI condena expressamente a publicação ilegal de dados pessoais e segredos comerciais e empresariais de terceiros nesses conjuntos de dados e, em particular, qualquer violação de direitos de terceiros.”
Outros meios de comunicação alemães, incluindo os jornais de grande circulação Bild e Zeit, também noticiaram a divulgação dos arquivos.
‘Evidências claras de que o público em geral foi deliberadamente enganado’
A “vacinação generalizada de crianças” e as políticas que proíbem os não vacinados de muitos espaços públicos — para as quais o RKI “forneceu suposta legitimidade científica” — não foram baseadas em “considerações racionais e científicas”, mas em “decisões políticas”, escreveu Velázquez.
Stefan Homburg, Ph.D., professor de finanças públicas na Universidade de Hannover, na Alemanha, fazia parte de uma equipe que trabalhou com o denunciante para liberar os Arquivos RKI não editados. Ele disse ao The Defender que os documentos mostram que as decisões foram tomadas “exclusivamente por políticos” e que “RKI não apoiou essas medidas”.
“Agora temos evidências claras de que o público em geral foi deliberadamente enganado”, disse a advogada holandesa Meike Terhorst ao The Defender. “Os políticos tomaram as decisões, não as autoridades de saúde.”
O Dr. Christof Plothe, membro do comitê diretor do Conselho Mundial de Saúde, disse ao The Defender que os arquivos “mostram que nunca foi a ciência que iniciou o uso ineficaz e prejudicial de máscaras, o distanciamento social traumatizante e os lockdowns, ou que introduziu uma nova terapia genética rotulada como ‘vacina’… Foram os políticos que exigiram as medidas”.
O Ministro Federal da Saúde da Alemanha, Karl Lauterbach, da era da pandemia, figura com destaque nos documentos. Plothe disse que Lauterbach “nunca trabalhou com pacientes e é um lobista puro da Pharma ”.
O toxicologista alemão Helmut Sterz, anteriormente pesquisador de grandes empresas farmacêuticas — incluindo a Pfizer — disse ao The Defender que os documentos mostram que as decisões sobre a pandemia “foram tomadas por aqueles que são responsáveis pela criação desta ‘pandemia’” e que “verdadeiros especialistas ‘desapareceram’ do debate público”.
“As medidas às quais o povo alemão foi submetido, além de mandatos de máscaras e regras de distanciamento social, [incluem] um ‘lockdown dos não vacinados’ que proibiu as pessoas de [locais públicos] … A vacinação obrigatória foi imposta a membros militares e a todas as pessoas que trabalham no setor de saúde”, disse Plothe.
Documentos revelam discussões da UE para ‘pular os testes de Fase 3’ da vacina da Pfizer
“Normalmente, você planeja de 12 a 18 meses a partir do início da Fase I. A EMA e a Pfizer estão considerando se devem pular os testes da Fase III e ir direto para o uso amplo. Se os reguladores decidirem isso, então pode ser mais rápido do que 12 a 18 meses”, diz o documento.
A ata de uma reunião do RKI de 27 de abril de 2020 afirma: “Haverá várias vacinas que foram desenvolvidas e testadas em um processo rápido. Dados relevantes serão coletados somente após o marketing.”
De acordo com a revista médica alemã Aertzeblatt, documentos do RKI de janeiro e fevereiro de 2021, após as primeiras vacinas contra a COVID-19 terem sido introduzidas e administradas, revelam discussões questionando a eficácia da vacina AstraZeneca contra a COVID-19, afirmando que ela era “menos perfeita” e que sua “ecologia precisa ser discutida”.
Um documento de 29 de janeiro de 2021 (página 135), por exemplo, afirma que “o STIKO [Comitê Permanente de Vacinação do RKI] recomenda a vacina apenas para pessoas com menos de 65 anos, pois há falta de evidências para pessoas com mais de 65 anos, intervalos de confiança muito amplos, muito incerto, pois há duas vacinas de RNA altamente eficazes disponíveis”.
De acordo com a revista alemã Tichys Einblick, os documentos mostram que já no início de 2021, “o RKI sabia sobre os efeitos colaterais sérios das vacinas, por exemplo, da AstraZeneca. No entanto, logo depois, praticamente todos os principais políticos importantes foram vacinados publicamente com precisamente esta injeção.”
Essas admissões ocorreram apesar da retórica pública da época afirmar que as vacinas protegeriam contra a propagação e a infecção da COVID-19.
Documentos do RKI de 12 e 15 de março de 2021 fizeram referência à identificação de eventos adversos graves após a vacinação da AstraZeneca contra a COVID-19 na Dinamarca, Holanda e Áustria, e um documento de 9 de abril de 2021 discute uma alta taxa de casos de trombose associados à vacina da AstraZeneca, principalmente em homens.
Por sua vez, um documento de 23 de abril de 2021 faz referência a seis casos de trombose cerebral relacionados à vacina Johnson & Johnson (Janssen) contra a COVID-19 nos EUA, mas não propõe mudanças nas recomendações de vacinação da Alemanha.
“É particularmente ruim que o RKI tenha reconhecido muitos ferimentos de vacina causados pela AstraZeneca, mas não tenha alertado o público”, disse Homburg. “A pressão política constante também é notável.”
‘Deve ser legal ser vacinado’
Os Arquivos RKI também revelaram esforços por parte do governo alemão e das autoridades de saúde pública do país para atingir especificamente crianças com restrições da COVID-19 — esforços que foram marcados por interferência política:
Um documento do RKI de 19 de maio de 2021 afirma: “Mesmo que a STIKO não recomende a vacinação para crianças, [o então Ministro da Saúde Jens] Spahn ainda está planejando um programa de vacinação infantil”.
Um documento de 21 de maio de 2021 afirma que, embora as associações pediátricas “estejam relutantes em vacinar crianças… Os políticos já estão preparando campanhas de vacinação para vacinar as faixas etárias relevantes”.
Um documento do RKI de 14 de julho de 2021 revela discussões sobre um “desafio de vacinação de influenciadores no YouTube” e “desenvolvimento de material para grupos-alvo mais jovens”, que “seriam abordados com mais humor” — até mesmo reações e efeitos colaterais da vacina. “Deve ser legal ser vacinado”, afirmou o documento.
A ata de uma reunião do RKI de 15 de dezembro de 2021 revela que o Ministério da Saúde da Alemanha estava “considerando a vacinação de reforço de crianças, embora não haja recomendação e, em alguns casos, nenhuma aprovação para isso”.
Tais medidas foram promovidas apesar do conhecimento inicial de que as crianças não foram significativamente afetadas pela COVID-19. Um documento do RKI de 26 de fevereiro de 2020 referiu-se a dados da China descobrindo que 2% dos casos eram em crianças, enquanto um documento de 30 de novembro de 2020 sugeriu que os ambientes escolares provavelmente não contribuiriam significativamente para a disseminação do vírus, mas que o fechamento das escolas “exacerbaria” a situação.
E uma reunião do RKI em 4 de dezembro de 2020, examinando dados de vários países, concluiu que a reabertura de escolas não levou a uma disseminação significativamente maior do vírus.
‘Os vacinados devem receber algum tipo de privilégio’
Apesar dessas descobertas, houve pressão política para recompensar os vacinados e punir os não vacinados, de acordo com os arquivos do RKI.
Um documento de 5 de novembro de 2021 disse que a retórica da mídia sobre “uma pandemia de não vacinados” “não era correta do ponto de vista científico”, porque “toda a população está contribuindo” para novas ondas de infecção.
No entanto, as autoridades decidiram continuar culpando os não vacinados pela disseminação da COVID-19, porque isso serviria “como um apelo a todos aqueles que não foram vacinados para que se vacinem”, de acordo com o documento.
O documento também observou que Spahn “fala da [pandemia dos não vacinados] em todas as coletivas de imprensa… então não pode ser corrigido”. O documento contém um reconhecimento, no entanto, de que “deve-se ter muito cuidado com a declaração de que as vacinas protegem contra qualquer infecção (mesmo assintomática)” porque “conforme o tempo entre as vacinações aumenta”, a infecção se torna mais provável.
Um documento do RKI de 10 de maio de 2021 continha uma determinação de que dizer a verdade ao público “causaria grande confusão”, enquanto manter as recomendações de vacinação existentes serviria “para salvar [a] vacina”.
Em vez disso, um documento de 7 de janeiro de 2022 declarou que “os vacinados devem receber privilégios de algum tipo”, incluindo menos restrições de viagem, e que esse era um objetivo desejado pelo Ministério da Saúde alemão, ao mesmo tempo em que pedia mais “testes dos não vacinados após a entrada” no país.
Da mesma forma, um documento de 10 de março de 2021 sugeriu que a vacinação contra a COVID-19 deveria ser promovida ao público como um meio de “poder participar novamente da vida social”, para pessoas que estavam cansadas de “proibições e restrições”.
No entanto, um documento do RKI de 4 de dezembro de 2020 sugeriu que os vacinados deveriam continuar a cumprir as “medidas de higiene”, enquanto um documento de 30 de dezembro de 2020 sugeriu que os vacinados ainda deveriam usar máscaras, “pois ainda há risco de transmissão”.
As autoridades alemãs queriam “evitar chamar a atenção” para o achatamento da curva
Os arquivos do RKI revelam ainda que, no início da pandemia da COVID-19, houve pressão política para manter as restrições, apesar do “achatamento da curva”.
Um documento de 25 de março de 2020 admitiu que “a curva está se estabilizando lentamente”, mas disse: “Devemos evitar chamar a atenção para isso em nossas comunicações externas, para incentivar o cumprimento das medidas”.
Um documento de 18 de novembro de 2020 contém uma admissão de que as doenças respiratórias estavam “bem abaixo” do nível do ano anterior, com uma tendência de queda. Da mesma forma, um documento de 30 de novembro de 2020 afirma que as doenças respiratórias gerais estavam “bem abaixo dos anos anteriores”. Um documento de 27 de janeiro de 2021 afirma que uma política “sem COVID” não é viável.
E de acordo com um documento de 25 de fevereiro de 2022, o RKI foi impedido de rebaixar sua avaliação geral de risco da COVID-19 de “muito alto” para “alto”, mesmo depois que os sintomas, em sua maioria leves, da onda Ômicron foram evidentes, devido à intervenção de Lauterbach e do Ministério da Saúde alemão.
Uso de máscaras pelo público em geral é considerado “problemático” — mas imposto mesmo assim
Os arquivos do RKI também contêm reconhecimentos de que as políticas de uso de máscaras e testes foram ineficazes para limitar a disseminação da COVID-19, mas foram adotadas por razões políticas:
Um documento de 27 de janeiro de 2020 afirma que o uso de máscaras “não faz sentido” para pessoas assintomáticas, pois não há evidências de que seria uma “medida preventiva útil para a população em geral”.
Um documento de 23 de outubro de 2020 declarou que as máscaras FFP2 (semelhantes às máscaras N95) seriam “mal utilizadas” pelo público e não ofereceriam proteção, mas, em vez disso, poderiam incutir uma falsa sensação de segurança nas pessoas. “Os danos das máscaras FFP2 podem superar os benefícios”, afirma o documento.
Um documento de 30 de outubro de 2020 diz: “As máscaras FFP2 não têm valor agregado se não forem ajustadas e usadas corretamente” e são inúteis fora da “saúde e segurança ocupacional”.
Um documento de 13 de janeiro de 2021 afirma que as máscaras FFP2 “podem levar a problemas de saúde para pessoas com condições preexistentes e, portanto, devem permanecer uma decisão individual” e que “uma exigência geral de máscara FFP2 não é considerada sensata”.
Um documento de 18 de janeiro de 2021 não encontrou “nenhuma base técnica para recomendar máscaras FFP2 para a população”, observando o risco de “efeitos colaterais indesejáveis”.
No entanto, em 2 de julho de 2021, os documentos do RKI continham sugestões, baseadas na Academia Americana de Pediatria, para o uso geral de máscaras para crianças de 2 anos ou mais e que “O uso de máscaras deve ser mantido… mesmo em baixas incidências e deve ser entendido como manutenção de medidas básicas”.
Documentos do RKI também questionaram os testes em massa para COVID-19. Um documento de 3 de fevereiro de 2020 declarou que resultados positivos de PCR após a recuperação “não significam necessariamente infecciosidade”, enquanto um documento de 29 de julho de 2020 concluiu que os testes para COVID-19 eram ineficazes, mas um “desejo político” de testes tinha que ser “atendido”.
Da mesma forma, um documento do RKI de 16 de dezembro de 2020 sugeriu a suspensão de procedimentos eletivos (operações planejadas), devido à “pressão dos governos estaduais”.
New research presented at the Federal Reserve’s annual research conference in Kansas City, Wyoming, found weaknesses in US Treasuries, once labelled a “safe haven” for securities. This is devastating news for the US as unsustainable debt and the weaponisation of the US dollar are now catching up and negatively affecting the American economy.
The study determined that the bonds are a “little different from the debt issued by the likes of Germany, Britain, France, or even big corporations,” Reuters reported on August 23. According to the article, the study found that the US government has enjoyed an “exorbitant privilege” of borrowing heavily from the global market despite growing gaps in the federal budget.
“In response to COVID, US Treasury investors seem to have shifted to the risky debt model when pricing Treasuries,” Reuters wrote.
The researchers found that investors did not stockpile Treasury bonds, which would have increased their volume, but rather reduced prices, as they did with bonds from other countries.
“In the risky debt regime, valuations will respond to government spending shocks, which may involve large yield changes in bond markets,” the researchers explained.
“In this environment, large-scale asset purchases by central banks in response to a large government spending increase have undesirable public finance implications,” they wrote. “These purchases, which provide temporary price support, destroy value for taxpayers but subsidise bondholders” and may also encourage governments to overestimate their true fiscal capacity.
“Policymakers, including central banks, should internalise this shift when assessing whether bond markets are functioning properly,” the authors concluded.
This is an unsurprising outcome considering that four decades ago, the US national debt hovered around $907 billion, while today, according to the US Treasury Department, it exceeds that amount dozens of times over, reaching over $35 trillion.
In September 2022 alone, US President Joe Biden approved nearly $4.8 trillion in loans, including $1.85 trillion for the American Bailout and $370 billion for the bipartisan infrastructure bill. Rising interest rates over the past year and a half have compounded the situation, increasing the cost of servicing the national debt.
In fact, interest payments on the national debt are expected to be the fastest-growing part of the federal budget over the next three decades, according to the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget. Thus, by 2032, payments are expected to triple to $1.4 trillion, and by 2053, interest payments are expected to rise to $5.4 trillion. To put that in perspective, that will be more than the US spends on Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, and all other mandatory and discretionary spending programs.
Biden is set to hold the record for increasing the country’s public debt among all American leaders, and by the end of his term, the debt is expected to reach $36.3 trillion specifically. Since the start of the Biden administration, US debt has increased by $7.3 trillion, surpassing the $35 trillion mark for the first time in history in July.
Between January 2021 and July 2024, the average increase in US debt was 0.026% per day. If these rates continue, the US public debt will grow by another $1.3 trillion by the end of Biden’s term. Thus, by the end of the Democrat’s four-year term, the amount could increase by a record $8.6 trillion.
So far, Biden’s predecessor, former President Donald Trump, who is trying to return to the White House, is the record holder for the increase in the US indicator. During the Republican term, the debt grew by almost $7.8 trillion. However, more than half of this increase occurred in 2020, when the COVID-19 pandemic began. The third worst result was under Barack Obama when the US debt grew by $5.7 trillion in his first term.
The last time the country saw a president reduce the indicator was more than 100 years ago when Calvin Coolidge (1923-1929) reduced the country’s debt by almost a third.
According to polling conducted exclusively for Newsweek by Redfield & Wilton Strategies and published on August 25, 46% of Americans believe the economy is in a worse state than in January 2021, when Trump left the White House, compared to 33% who said it has improved. In effect, Americans feel the economy’s decline as the cost-of-living crisis deepens.
This is coupled with the fact that US Treasuries are no longer a safe bet, showing that the US is far from being the global economic hegemon it once was. Yet, despite this reality, the US continues to use its economy as a weapon against countries outside of its control.
As a Professor of Political Economy Glenn Diesen highlighted in his response to the Reuters article,
“It appears that fiscal irresponsibility, unsustainable debt, weaponisation of the US dollar, and legalisation of theft reduce demand for US Treasuries.”
*
Click the share button below to email/forward this article to your friends and colleagues. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.
At 4:45 am., local time, Sunday August 25, Israel began a series of 50 preemptive airstrikes over villages in the south of Lebanon resulting in civilian casualties and injuries.
According to Israel, they had information that Hezbollah was planning a massive attack on Israel using 6,000 missiles. Israel claimed to have hit missile launchers and weapon storages.
At 5:00 am. Hezbollah responded with 320 missiles and tens of drones. The large number of missiles rendered the sophisticated “Iron Dome” Israeli air defense system ineffective. The exact extent of the damages in Israel is not known, but there were significant losses.
One missile fired by the Lebanese resistance group, Hezbollah, made a direct hit on the Davoura, an Israeli military boat. The ship was sunk with one dead and five injured.
The drones all hit targets successfully and none were shot down. The GPS system in Israel was rendered useless by an unknown source simultaneously as the attack commenced. Some experts have pondered if the GPS system was scrambled to coordinate with the operation.
Israeli settlers have used social media sites, such as Telegram, to post videos of damages homes and burning buildings as a result of the attack.
According to the manager of Ben Gurion airport in Tel Aviv, over 50 airlines have cancelled flights.
The US Embassy in Lebanon has emailed its citizens to leave Lebanon; however, to make evacuation plans which do not depend on the American government. According to the manager of the Rafik Hariri airport in Beirut, as of 2:00 pm. the airport was still functioning. Netanyahu has said if he decides to open a full scale war on Lebanon, the Israeli air force will destroy the airport.
Israeli media had advised Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu to inform the public as to what Hezbollah has hit prior to 6:00 pm., at which time Hezbollah leader, Hassan Nasrallah, gave a televised speech. The Netanyahu government did not admit that the 8200 division of the Israeli Defense Forces based in the suburbs of Tel Aviv was hit, but Nasrallah said according to their sources on the ground, the 8200 division was hit. This unit is comparable the United States’ National Security Agency, and is the largest single unit of Israel’s Defense Forces carrying out intelligence, information technology, offensive and defensive cyber security operations.
AFP news agency posted videos of houses severely damaged in Acre, in northern Israel, 19 kilometers from the Lebanon border.
The Israeli media, Walla, reported that Israel had informed the US prior to the attack; however, the New York Times reported that an American official said there was no prior warning of the attack on the south of Lebanon.
Former Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert delivered to Haaretz newspaper on August 25 a scathing attack on Netanyahu and his two right-wing ministers, Itamar Ben-Gvir and Bezalel Smotrich, who he referred to as criminals. Olmert said Netanyahu does not want to free the hostages in an agreement, and does not seek to stop the military operation in Gaza.
Netanyahu ordered members of his cabinet from the Likud party and MPs to remain silent and refrain from media interviews, according to Haaretz.
The Mayor Tel Aviv announced they have prepared 240 bunkers to be used as shelters.
Hezbollah released the names of Israeli military bases hit by missiles and drones. They are: Meron Air Base, Naffesef, Zatoon, and Zaoura. Bases in the occupied Golan Heights hit are: Keela, UF, Youdon, Ramot, and Neftali.
Hezbollah released an official statement at 6:50 am., reporting the amount of missiles and drones used in what was described as the ‘first wave’. The attack on military targets in Israel was announced in retaliation for the Israeli assassination of Foud Shukr, a high ranking Hezbollah operative killed in Beirut on July 30.
Image is licensed under CC BY 4.0
The Lebanese caretaker Prime Minister, Najib Mikati, met with his cabinet and placed phone calls to the friends of Lebanon to discuss ways to decrease tensions between Hezbollah and Israel.
Civil leaders of the settlements in the north of Israel, have said they have cut off all communication with the Netanyahu government until a solution to the conflict can be found. They are furious and accuse the government of only protecting the central cities such as Tel Aviv.
The families gathered at the Ministry of Defense in Tel Aviv and said,
“This seems to be the last opportunity. Either there will be a deal, or we will descend into escalation.”
“Since early July, a deal has been ready for signing, but Netanyahu’s new conditions, particularly the Philadelphi Route, are blocking it.”
The mother of a hostage said, “It’s not the Philadelphi Route but a Philadelphi spin,” referring to the demands of Netanyahu, which experts see as a tool to avoid any ceasefire deal.
The families have consistently demanded their government place a priority on the lives of its citizens.
On August 24, Netanyahu said that a ceasefire in Gaza was not on his list of priorities.
On August 25, an Israeli delegation arrived in Cairo for ongoing ceasefire negotiations, just hours after the attack on Lebanon and the retaliatory strike on Israel. At midnight of August 26, the negotiations collapsed without success. Hamas reminded negotiators that it had agreed to the July 2 proposal drafted by the US.
Hezbollah has said they will cease all attacks on Israel if a ceasefire is agreed upon. US President Joe Biden had a commitment from Netanyahu to a ceasefire in July, but then Netanyahu reneged on his promise. Recently, Israel has proposed to pull back one kilometer from the Philadelphia Corridor in Gaza, but the Hamas side is asking for a full Israeli withdrawal as the terms to a deal.
The US has sent air craft carriers, destroyers, submarines and various military assets to the region in an effort to pressure the Lebanese resistance group from retaliating against Israel’s assassination of Shukr, but Hezbollah ignored the threats.
*
Click the share button below to email/forward this article to your friends and colleagues. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.
It seems that over two hundred years after the Revolution, in France the Liberté part of its celebrated slogan has not really stuck.
On Saturday 24 August, Russian social media platform entrepreneur Pavel Durov was arrested by the French police at Le Bourget airport near Paris on trumped-up charges. The French authorities went about it in a sneaky third-world manner that does them no honour. They waited for Durov’s plane to enter French air space before issuing the arrest warrant. In it Durov was charged with a slew of “ham sandwich” offences, including such absurdities as “promotion of terrorism, paedophilia, fraud, drug trafficking, organised crime, and cyberbullying”. As soon as Durov departed the plane, he was surrounded and led off by police agents.
The actual reasons for this arrest have nothing to do with the allegation in the charge sheet and they are bound to resonate with partisans of freedom everywhere. Firstly, it is Durov’s resolute and principled refusal to share on demand with security agencies information that would compromise the privacy of Telegram users. Durov’s firm position in this regard collided directly with legislation which obligates social platforms operating on European Union territory to do precisely that.
Secondly, the same legislation requires social media platforms to institute a humiliating system of what euphemistically is called “monitoring.” This amounts to directed censorship of opinions expressed by users in their Telegram posts. Durov wanted none of it. But in the EU, platform management is under orders to engage in this odious practice on behalf of and according to the directives of the totalitarian EU political elite. The firm rejection by Durov of that invasive demand, as we just saw, had dire consequences for his personal liberty.
All collective West based social platforms have willingly succumbed to these unethical demands and have more or less meekly agreed to act as extensions for their countries’ security services, to the detriment of users’ privacy.
Tucker Carlson a few months ago performed a huge public service by broadcasting an immensely informative interview with the thirty nine year-old Russian Wunderkind, recorded at Durov’s office in the United Arab Emirates.
The fascinating interview unveils the portrait of an enormously gifted, focused, eloquent, engagingly modest, and above all supremely principled person. Durov and his equally accomplished brother were the driving force behind VK, the Russian version of Facebook characterised by a much greater degree of sophistication, and later on of the Telegram social media platform which, at last count, had a global following of over nine hundred million users. But the key takeaway that emerged from Tucker Carlson’s interview, and it was with providential timing to counteract the deluge of media calumnies that is sure to follow Durov’s arrest, is something entirely different. It is the glaring contrast between the Russian genius, unmoved by the temptations of wealth and fame, and the avarice, vanity and emptiness of his Western counterparts who have been trying to compete with him in the same line of work.
With all that being said, like many members of the Russian intelligentsia, from A. Herzen in the 19th century on to the present day, Pavel Durov fell prey to his compatriots’ standard infantile misperception of where the grass is greener. At an earlier stage of his career he sadly failed to strike a reasonable balance between his passionate and laudable commitment to freedom and privacy and the conscientious fulfillment of his patriotic duties which, in their broad sweep, override fidelity to narrower principles, no matter how fundamental in their significance. Had he acted more flexibly then, and in the interview with Tucker Carlson the circumstances of that episode are fully revealed, he would not have turned into a stateless global nomad and most likely would not have fallen into the trap so treacherously sprung on him in Paris.
The legal situation arising from the detention of Pavel Durov, with the preposterous charges concocted against him and the harrowing possibility of twenty years’ imprisonment, is tailor made for maître Jacques Vergès but, unfortunately, he is no longer with us. One hopes that Durov will secure competent and uncorrupted representation and that his legal counsel shall grasp the self-evident fact that the case against him in its entirety is political, with criminal elements maliciously contrived and grafted on for propaganda effect.
The Assange case now having been settled, Pavel Durov is certain to become the new global privacy and freedom of expression icon. Freedom loving people world-wide will mobilise to show support in order to extract him from the clutches of the pathetic Macron regime and its overseas “partners” who, from the background, are undoubtedly pulling the strings. That is well and good. But one simply wishes that once and for all liberty would triumph. Icons are uplifting, but we could easily do with one fewer if that were the price that we should have to pay in order to secure the freedom to which Pavel so admirably dedicated his passionate idealism and irrepressible creativity.
*
Click the share button below to email/forward this article to your friends and colleagues. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.
Stephen Karganovic is president of “Srebrenica Historical Project,” an NGO registered in the Netherlands to investigate the factual matrix and background of events that took place in Srebrenica in July of 1995. He is a regular contributor to Global Research.
Featured image: Pavel Durov at the TechCrunch conference in Berlin, 2013 (Licensed under CC BY 2.0)
Rethinking Srebrenica
By Stephen Karganovic
Rethinking Srebrenica examines the forensic evidence of the alleged Srebrenica “massacre” possessed by the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY) in The Hague. Even though the ICTY created more than 3,500 autopsy reports, many of these autopsy reports were based on bone fragments, which do not represent complete bodies. An examination of the matching femur bones found reveals that there were only about 1,900 complete bodies that were exhumed. Of these, some 1,500 autopsy reports indicated a cause of death consistent with battlefield casualties. Only about 400 autopsy reports indicated execution as a cause of death, as revealed by ligatures and blindfolds. This forensic evidence does not warrant the conclusion of a genocide having taken place.
Karganovic examines the events that took place in Srebrenica in July 1995 in a wholistic manner instead of restricting it to a three-day event. The ten chapters cover:
1) Srebrenica: A Critical Overview;
2) Demilitarization of the UN Safe Zone of Srebrenica;
3) Genocide or Blowback?;
4) General Presentation and Interpretation of Srebrenica Forensic Data (Pattern of Injury Breakdown);
5) An Analysis of the Srebrenica Forensic Reports Prepared by the ICTY Prosecution Experts;
6) An Analysis of Muslim Column Losses Attributable to Minefields, Combat Activity, and Other Causes;
7) The Genocide Issue: Was there a Demonstrable Intent to Exterminate All Muslims?;
Prominent academic and author Dr Michel Chossudovsky warned that the so-called war on terrorism is a front to propagate America’s global hegemony and create a New World Order.
Dr Chossudovsky said terrorism is made in the US and that terrorists are not the product of the Muslim world.
According to him, the US global war on terrorism was used to enact anti-terrorism laws that demonised Muslims in the Western world and created Islamophobia.
Elaborating on his argument, Dr Chossudovsky said that NATO was responsible for recruiting members of the Islamic state while Israel is funding “global jihad elements inside Syria”.
Dr Chossudovsky, who is also the founder of the Centre for Research and Globalisation, further emphasised that the global war on terrorism is a fabrication, a big lie and a crime against humanity.
Echoing Dr Chossudovsky’s arguments, Malaysia’s prominent political scientist, Islamic reformist and activist Dr Chandra Muzaffar said that the US has always manipulated religion to further its global hegemony on sovereign states.
*
Click the share button below to email/forward this article to your friends and colleagues. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.
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.
Alexander Hamilton and the Origins of the Fed
US wars involve the federal government and other governmental institutions in nurturing wars within a war economy that enriches death merchants and costs destruction and millions of lives all over the world. A dominant US war economy limits possibilities for any economy of peace, and brings decadence and impoverishment to US citizens while favoring societal decay. Worse, the US forever wars are expanding to include the biggest investment groups so they make money out of destruction/reconstruction that includes the privatization of entire countries.
Kucinich argues the US faces an ideological mindset sponsored by the neoconservatives who see the US as a force fighting against “evil” all over the world.
The Worldwide Corona Crisis, Global Coup d’Etat Against Humanity
In late August 2001, barely a couple of weeks before 9/11, Senator Bob Graham, Representative Porter Goss and Senator Jon Kyl were in Islamabad for consultations. Meetings were held with President Musharraf and with Pakistan’s military and intelligence brass including the head of Pakistan’s Inter Services Intelligence (ISI) General Mahmoud Ahmad. (image right) An AFP report confirms that the US Congressional delegation also met the Afghan ambassador to Pakistan, Abdul Salam Zaeef. At this meeting, which was barely mentioned by the US media, 
日本語の序文のテキスト.
“A NATO invasion of nuclear Russia is currently underway, and the world is unaware that it is in World War III”. Has President Putin’s Patience Reached Its Limits?
Towards A Worldwide Monkeypox Pandemic? Big Money behind “Fake Science”
There Never Was a “New Corona Virus”, There Never Was a Pandemic
France – The Satanic Olympics. The Macron Government Belongs to a Diabolical Cult
The Israeli Terrorist State. Craig Murray
FDA Confesses: Zero Scientific Evidence of “Monkeypox Virus” or Contagion… Not Even a “Genome” Found by Anyone… Anywhere
The Brave New World of 2030: ‘You’ll Own Nothing. And You’ll be Happy.’
The Future – How They Will Control All of Us. Is “The Deep State” Preparing for Another “Plandemic”
French Olympics Closing – Dystopian Apocalypse Now?
Vladimir Putin and Klaus Schwab “Go Way Back”. Does Putin Support the Covid Vaccine?
Pfizer’s “Secret” Report on the Covid “Vaccine”. Beyond Manslaughter. The Evidence is Overwhelming. The Vaccine Should Be Immediately Withdrawn Worldwide
Predictive Programming, Symbolism, and Ideological Subversion at Olympic Games Opening Ceremonies
“Something’s Coming, We Don’t Know What It Is” … But It Is Going to be Bad. Edward Curtin
The Hiroshima Nagasaki “Dress Rehearsal”: Oppenheimer and the U.S. War Department’s Secret September 15, 1945 “Doomsday Blueprint” to “Wipe the Soviet Union off the Map”
Planned NATO-Kiev Assassination of Putin and Defense Minister Belousov: How NATO and Neo-Nazi Junta Lunatics Nearly Blew Up the World
The WHO Confirms that the Covid-19 PCR Test is Flawed: Estimates of “Positive Cases” are Meaningless. Both the Lockdown and the “Vaccine” Have No Scientific Basis
America’s Perpetual War: Six Questions
COVID Roundup: New Zealand Codifies Forced Injections in Martial Law ‘Pandemic Plan’
It’s the End of the World As We Know It. The American-NATO Rush Toward Nuclear War with Russia. Scott Ritter
Iran to Hit Israel Hard with Smart Power
In this regard, execution procedures under the jurisdiction of the theater commanders pertaining to nuclear weapons are described as “flexible and allow for changes in the situation”:
The insentient anti-life power play will only be stopped in its tracks by an awakened mankind, able and willing to give full expression to the call of heart and soul.
“
Rethinking Srebrenica
