There is a phenomenon being reported by numerous people worldwide. A growing number of citizens are becoming aware of being stalked, surveilled and manipulated possibly by their own government, other organizations or even individuals. The resulting symptoms include, but are not limited to, sleep disturbance, anxiety, hostility, aggression, depression, anger, hallucinations, delusions, paranoia and cognitive problems. Many are being labelled as delusional. I’m not questioning the presence of psychotic people in the world, but there are too many people complaining of stalking, surveillance and harassment for it to be psychosis in every case. So, what’s happening?

There are existing technologies and agendas available that affect a person’s well-being and behavior such as electronic surveillance, stalking, microwave hearing, silent subliminal messages and behavior modification.

Electronic surveillance is rampant in our country.

“A May 2003 report by Toffler Associates (a global forecasting and consulting company) mentioned 24/7 ‘global persistent surveillance’ accomplished using all sources. According to the report, surveillance technology is to be used to make the targeted individual aware that they’re being watched in order to alter their behavior.”[1] 

Following the attacks on 9/11, President Bush had authorized illegal wiretaps[2] by passing the Patriot Act on October 26, 2001 (see Department of Justice, The USA Patriot Act) that vastly expanded the government’s authority to spy on its own citizens in numerous ways.

In January 2008, the US Department of Justice publicized its survey “Stalking Victimization in the United States.” According to the survey an estimated 3.4 million people were victims of stalking while another 2.4 were victims of harassment.[3]

From a KION Central (West) Coast News report:

“The news report included an interview with Santa Cruz, California Police Lieutenant Larry Richard, who explicitly admits organized stalking is a real phenomenon that has been occurring for a long time.”[4]

Stalking by the government has occurred. Former FBI supervisor Ted L. Gunderson in a sworn affidavit in a legal action case against the FBI and DOJ said,

“I firmly believe that most individuals working in the FBI, other intelligence agencies, and the government overall are honest, law abiding public servants. However, a sophisticated network of rogue operatives has secretly infiltrated the FBI, other intelligence agencies including the CIA, and other key government positions. This rogue element seeks personal power and wealth and considers themselves above the law and the Constitution.”

Gunderson continued,

“In addition to high-ranking members of the FBI, other intelligence services, and the government overall, wealthy, powerful members of criminal syndicates, multi-millionaires and the corporate elite are using the government gang stalking program to harass enemies. . . . “The victims are targeted for a variety of reasons including government and corporate whistleblowers, parties to financial and employment disputes, parties to marital disputes (usually divorced women), and jilted paramours.”

Unfortunately, persons of convenience are also selected.

He stated that

“Journalists covering controversial issues, and even attorneys and private investigators representing unpopular clients or interests, have been targeted by this program.”[5]

“Psychological Operations (PsyOp), are a planned process of conveying messages to a target audience (TA) to promote certain attitudes, emotions and behavior. PsyOp is basically the use of communication to influence behavior.” [6] 

Direct energy, biological and chemical weapons and computer network operations are all used in PsyOps.

One of the hallmark symptoms that distinguish between the mentally normal and mentally ill is the presence of voices in the head or auditory hallucinations. However, there are weapons that can direct sound onto a person. “Microwave hearing” refers to the production of audible artificial hearing or audible artificial hallucination.

A microwave voice transmission non-lethal weapon is referenced in the thesaurus of the Center for Army Lessons Learned, which is a military instruction website. It also lists analogous devices using silent sound.

A 1980 NASA document (NASA abstract report number AD-A090426, June 1, 1980) stated that

“one can remotely create the perception of noise in the heads of personnel by exposing them to low power, pulsed microwaves. By proper choice of pulse characteristics, intelligible speech may be created.”

The US Army in its “Bioeffects of Selected Non-lethal Weapons” document states that the use of this technology could be psychologically devastating.

Silent subliminal messages are powerful subliminal messages that can be transmitted by infrasound (just below human hearing) directly to the subconscious mind to influence thought and emotions with no conscious filtering. Subliminal mind-control is considered a non-lethal weapon.

Lt. Colonel John B. Alexander of the US Army, one of the prime movers behind the advanced development of non-lethal weapons, states in an article “The New Mental Battlefield: ‘Beam me up Spock’” in the US Army Military Review, Dec. 1980 EPI 6022,

“Mind-altering techniques designed to impactopponents are well advanced. The procedures employed include manipulation of human behavior through the use of psychological weapons affecting sight, sound, smells, temperature, electromagnetic energy or sensory deprivation.” [7]

In the June/July 1987 issue of Peace Magazine, former Congressman James Scheur (R-NY) is quoted as saying,

 “We are developing devices and products capable of controlling violent individuals and entire mobs without injury. We can tranquilize, impede, immobilize, harass, shock, upset, chill, temporarily blind, deafen, or just plain scare the wits out of anyone the police have a proper need to control and restrain.”

Between 2016 and 2018 there are news reports of U.S. and Canadian diplomats in Cuba and China experiencing a strange perception of high frequency noises and neuro-behavioral symptoms such as headaches, dizziness and vertigo. There are reports from others around the world suffering with similar symptoms.

Some think we are being experimented on with these weapons. Citizens don’t want to believe that our government would allow this to occur, but unfortunately my research has shown that this is indeed a possibility. In 2007, NBC News quoted the Air Force Secretary Michael Wynne:

“Non-lethal weapons such as high-power microwave devices should be used on American citizens in crowd control situations before they are used on the battlefield.”[8]

Non-consensual experimentation is not just current. Past experiments include radiation tests and mustard gas experiments in the 1940s, testicle implants from 1910 to the 1950s, the use of STDs in Guatemala in the 1940s, and the infamous Tuskegee syphilis experiments that ran from 1932 to 1972.

Jim Guest, former Representative (R-MO) and retired aerospace engineer, wrote the members of the Missouri Legislature asking for help for the many “who are being affected unjustly by electronic weapons torture and covert harassment groups.”[9]

Why haven’t we known about this? In an article called “The Revolution in Military Affairs and Conflict Short of War” Stephen Metz, PhD, director of Strategic Studies Institute at the U.S. Army War College, and James Kievit, a research analyst at the Strategic Studies Institute, state,

“The use of new technology may also run counter to basic American values. The advantage of directed-energy weapons over conventional ones is deniability. Deniability must be aimed at the American people…”[10]

There are some schools of thought that claim when an individual is too close to revealing these programs, they are considered a threat in one way or another and neutralized through a concept known as targeting, which includes the use of weapons and including death. Some who have died under “suspicious circumstances” include Sen. Ted Kennedy (D-MA), bioweapons expert Dr. Frank Olson, Dr. Fred Bell (a radio host and whistleblower on non-lethal weapons) and Dr. Rauni Kilde, former medical doctor for Finland and whistleblower on mind control technology.

Committing and discrediting individuals is another way of silencing victims. Of course, not discussing cases is used to deny anything. Censoring and classifying are common.

Do you think this all sounds like science fiction? You bet. There’s a quote by Canadian philosopher Marshall McLuham: “Only the small secrets need to be protected. The big ones are kept secret by public incredulity.”

It is now clear these programs do exist and are capable of inducing mental illness symptoms, which could be labeled by psychiatrists as psychotic. In the modern world, if you could evoke these symptoms, it could be used to silence people by mimicking mental illness. Once a person is designated abnormal, all his/her behavior and characteristics are covered by that label . . . forever. Who will then listen to them?

If you know someone who insists this is happening to them, don’t automatically discount them as delusional. Consider they may be a victim of one or more of these programs.

 

 

*

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

Notes

  1. Mark M. Rich. New World War: Revolutionary Methods for Political Control, pg. 89 (see also Toward a Revolution in Intelligence Affairs, Rand Corporation, 2005.)
  2. David Sanger. “Bush Admits He Ordered Domestic Spying Program,” The New York Times, reprinted Anchorage Daily News, 18 December 2005. (See also: “The Fisa Amendments Act Authorizes Warrantless Spying on Americans,” by Jennifer Granick, The Stanford Law School Center for Internet and Society Blog, 5 November 2012). Sourced fromhttps://www.nytimes.com/2005/12/18/politics/bush-says-he-ordered-domestic-spying.html
  3. US Department of Justice Survey, “Stalking Victimization in the United States,” January 2009. Sourced from https://victimsofcrime.org/docs/src/baum-k-catalano-s-rand-m-rose-k-2009.pdf?sfvrsn=0
  1. “Gang Stalking, Bullying on Steroids,” 29 January 2011. KION Central (West) Coast News. Sourced from https://medium.com/@thomas.mcfarlan/the-numerous-reports-of-organized-stalking-bycalifornia-tv-news-outlets-24d806873606
  1. Ted L. Gunderson, sworn affidavit 26 April 2011, Los Angeles, California. Mr. Keith Labella action against FBI and DOJ. Sourced from https://www.oregonstatehospital.net/d/otherfiles/gunderson.pdf
  2. Mark M. Rich. New World War, pg. 103.
  1. “Military Review,” the US Air Force Institute for National Security Studies. Sourced from https://www.wanttoknow.info/mk/alexander-new-battlefield.pdf
  2. http://www.nbcnews.com/id/14806772/ns/us_news-security/t/nonlethal-weapons-touted-use-citizens/). See also:https://www.outsidethebeltway.com/cnn_claims_af_secretary_wants_to_test_weapons_on_protestors/
  3. Representative Jim Guest. 10 October 2007 excerpt from Jim Guest’s letter to members of the Legislature. Sourced from https://targetedindividualscanada.files.wordpress.com/2011/03/letter2.jpg
  4. Steven Metz, James Kievit. “The Revolution in Military Affairs and Conflict Short of War.” US Army War College, Carlisle Barracks, PA. 17013-5050. Sourced from https://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/report/1994/ssi_kievit-metz.pdf
  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on The Psychotic Impacts of Stalking, Electronic Surveillance, Harassment and Wiretaps: The Neuro-Behavioral Symptoms

Chinese-Indian relations are worsening after reckless statements by the latter’s media and officials, proving that ties between the two Asian Great Powers are much shakier than either side publicly acknowledges and thus raising the risk that President Xi’s unconfirmed visit to the South Asian state next month might not happen at all if this worrying trend isn’t reversed.

CGTN opinion editor Huang Jiyuan published a thought-provoking piece earlier this week titled “Is this a turning point in India’s foreign policy towards China?“, which raised awareness about worsening Chinese-Indian relations as a result of the latter’s recklessness. The writer elaborated on how concerning it was that Indian Minister of External Affairs Jaishankar parroted Trumpian “trade war” talk about China’s economic practices while speaking at a conference in Singapore on Monday, questioning whether this should be interpreted as India reconsidering its commitment to reaching a deal for forming the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership (RCEP) between itself, China, Japan, South Korea, Australia, New Zealand, and the ASEAN states and concluding that “enough has happened already to raise the alarm on the possibility of a rockier China-India relationship.”

That’s a very insightful perspective that perfectly complements the author’s own recent piece for the same outlet about how “India is rapidly approaching a pivotal geopolitical moment“, which points out that the two main variables determining the future of Chinese-Indian relations are whether New Delhi continues to proceed with the RCEP negotiations and if it solicits Huawei’s world-class services for constructing its nationwide 5G network. It’s presently uncertain what India will ultimately decide, but judging by two recent media reports and the latest statement from its Ministry of External Affairs, ties between the two are shakier than ever and might even imperil President Xi’s unconfirmed trip to the South Asian state next month if they aren’t resolved before then because it might be inappropriate for the Chinese leader to visit his Indian counterpart in what could possibly become an increasingly tense context.

Indian media and a local politician from the ruling BJP alleged that the Chinese military secretly built a bridge in the part of South Tibet that New Delhi de-facto administers as its own and regards as “Arunachal Pradesh”, though this was denied by the Indian Army. Even so, it contributed to the creation of a toxic atmosphere in Indian-Chinese relations, one made even worse by a scandalous follow-up report purporting that China is financing anti-hydropower NGOs in that same disputed territory. On the topic of territorial disputes, the Indian Ministry of External Affairs also lashed out at China earlier this week for issuing a joint statement with Pakistan during Foreign Minister Wang Yi’s recent visit that condemned India’s unilateral actions in Kashmir and praised the China-Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC), the flagship project of the Belt & Road Initiative (BRI) whose transit through Pakistani territory that India claims as its own is why it refuses to join this global initiative.

Bearing these recent developments in mind, the conclusion reached in Huang Jiyuan’s latest op-ed that “enough has happened already to raise the alarm on the possibility of a rockier China-India relationship” is proven to be even more correct than the writer might have realized at the time of publication. India is indeed rapidly approaching a pivotal geopolitical moment, though all indications seem to worryingly suggest that it’s poised to position itself as the regional countervailing “balance” to China per the US’ “Indo-Pacific” strategy of using the South Asian state to “contain” the People’s Republic. Unless this trend is reversed within the coming weeks, President Xi’s unconfirmed trip to India might change from being a sequel to his and Modi’s famous 2018 Wuhan Summit and turn into a damage control mission instead, if not outright scrapped in response and thus representing the informal commencement of a new era of rivalry between the two.

*

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

This article was originally published on OneWorld.

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

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on China-India Relations Are Real Shaky Ahead of President Xi’s Unconfirmed Visit Next Month
  • Tags: ,

Although the Russian Far East has huge investment potential in the fields of raw materials, mineral resources, fisheries, forestry’s and tourism, it still remains a sparely populated area of only around 7 million people. With China, India, Japan, Indonesia and Russia projected to be some of the world’s biggest economies by 2030 according to many experts, the 21st Century has been dubbed as the “Asian Century,” and it is for this reason that Russian President Vladimir Putin has prioritized the rapid development of the Russian Far East.

The region is not only resource rich, but is also conveniently located in northeast Asia, bordering Mongolia, China and North Korea, while sharing a maritime border with Japan. It is so strategic and rich that only weeks ago French President Emmanuel Macron expressed his belief that Europe stretches from Lisbon on the Atlantic Coast to the Russian Pacific port of Vladivostok. Vladivostok has hosted the Eastern Economic Forum annually ever since its establishment 2015, in part to attract foreign investors to diversify from only Chinese investments in the Russian Far East. China has invested tens of billions into the region, making it easily the biggest foreign investor in the region.

However, with Indian Prime Minister Modi on the eve of Vladivostok’s 5th Eastern Economic Forum proposing a trilateral cooperation between India, Russia and Japan by jointly developing the Russian Far East, it appears that China’s economic influence in the region will be challenged. Although China emphasizes peaceful relations through mutual economic development and prosperity, it still has frosty relations with Japan and India. It is therefore unsurprising that India and Japan have opted to invest in the Russian Far East to challenge China’s economic might in a region that also shares a vast border with China.

India, Japan and Sri Lanka signed an agreement to build a new container terminal in the port of Colombo, demonstrating that New Delhi and Tokyo have experience in cooperating in a trilateral format. With India opting to be the only South Asian country not involved in the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI), India continues to show coldness to China as the latter continues to rapidly develop neighboring countries, especially with Nepal and rival Pakistan. With the BRI developing Sri Lanka, it appears India and Japan are creating a new economic duo to match China’s economic strength, and are now prepared to take this to a new front away from Sri Lanka and to the Russian Far East.

Japan’s investments in the Russian Far East’s economy already exceeds $15 billion and will continue to develop, according to Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe. And with India also expressing its interest, the Russian Far East has become a promising place for all prospectors. With Russian President Vladimir Putin offering free land handouts in the Far East to Russians and naturalized citizens in May 2016, it demonstrates that Russia has identified that if it wants to benefit from Asia’s rapid development and economic dominance in the 21st century, it needs to develop its regions in Asia.

With the development of the region naturally meaning increased trade and cultural exchanges with China, tens of thousands of Chinese citizens have now migrated to the region in search of opportunities and establish themselves as merchants and entrepreneurs. Whether we begin seeing Indian and Japanese merchants in the Russian Far East remains to be seen.

With India and China competing in Nepal and border issues on the Indian-Chinese frontier remaining unresolved in New Delhi’s eyes, it appears that India is now wanting to compete against China in a region that has had connections with China for millennia. Russia has been encouraging more and diversified investments in the Far East and Japan and India will take every opportunity to do this.

Russia and China remain strategic partners and are also pragmatic international players that continue to pursue a policy of non-interference. Therefore, although China has frosty relations with Japan and India, it can respect Russia’s ties with both countries. This pragmatism has now allowed India and Japan to engage in a friendly competition for economic influence over Russia’s resource rich region. Although both Japan and China invest in raw material and energy projects in the Far East, India will be a new player to this sector with Indian Oil and Gas Minister Dharmendra Pradhan expressing his long-term interest in the Russian coal and steel sector during his visit to Russia last week.

With India becoming increasingly energy hungry because of its enormous and growing population, alongside its economic development, it is easily seen why the resource rich Russian region is of critical importance to it. For Japan, the region presents unmatched economic opportunities. Most interestingly to observe is whether India and Japan will continue to work in trilateral formats to continue expanding their economic interests and challenge the BRI in other regions. It appears now that after their cooperation in Sri Lanka, their second step is to challenge the expansion of the BRI in Russia’s Far East by competing for lucrative contracts and opportunities that the region can offer.

*

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

Paul Antonopoulos is Director of the Multipolar research centre.

Featured image is from InfoBrics

The Globalization of War is undoubtedly one of the most important books on the contemporary global situation produced in recent years. 

In his latest masterpiece, Professor Michel Chossudovsky shows how the various conflicts we are witnessing today in Ukraine, Syria, Iraq and Palestine are in fact inter-linked and inter-locked through a single-minded agenda in pursuit of global hegemony helmed by the United States and buttressed by its allies in the West and in other regions of the world.   Dr Chandra Muzaffar, President of the International Movement for a Just World (JUST)

The Globalization of War: America’s “Long War” against Humanity

Michel Chossudovsky

$15.00, Save 40% on list price

 The following text is the Preface of  Michel Chossudovsky’s New Book entitled: The Globalization of War, America’s Long War against Humanity

The Book can be ordered directly from Global Research Publishers.  

Scroll down for more details

PREFACE

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.

Under a global military agenda, the actions undertaken by the Western military alliance (U.S.-NATO-Israel) in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Palestine, Ukraine, Syria and Iraq are coordinated at the highest levels of the military hierarchy. We are not dealing with piecemeal military and intelligence operations. The July-August 2014 attack on Gaza by Israeli forces was undertaken in close consultation with the United States and NATO. The actions in Ukraine and their timing coincided with the onslaught of the attack on Gaza.

In turn, military undertakings are closely coordinated with a process of economic warfare which consists not only in imposing sanctions on sovereign countries but also in deliberate acts of destabilization of financial and currencies markets, with a view to undermining the enemies’ national economies.

The United States and its allies have launched a military adventure which threatens the future of humanity. As we go to press, U.S. and NATO forces have been deployed in Eastern Europe including Ukraine. U.S. military intervention under a humanitarian mandate is proceeding in sub-Saharan Africa. The U.S. and its allies are threatening China under President Obama’s “Pivot to Asia”.

In turn, military maneuvers are being conducted at Russia’s doorstep which could potentially lead to escalation.

The U.S. airstrikes initiated in September 2014 directed against Iraq and Syria under the pretext of going after the Islamic State are part of a scenario of military escalation extending from North Africa and the Eastern Mediterranean to Central and South Asia.

The Western military alliance is in an advanced state of readiness. And so is Russia.

Russia is heralded as the “Aggressor”. U.S.-NATO military confrontation with Russia is contemplated.

Enabling legislation in the U.S. Senate under “The Russian Aggression Prevention Act” (RAPA) has “set the U.S. on a path towards direct military conflict with Russia in Ukraine.”

Any U.S.-Russian war is likely to quickly escalate into a nuclear war, since neither the U.S. nor Russia would be willing to admit defeat, both have many thousands of nuclear weapons ready for instant use, and both rely upon Counterforce military doctrine that tasks their military, in the event of war, to pre-emptively destroy the nuclear forces of the enemy.1

The Russian Aggression Prevention Act (RAPA) is the culmination of more than twenty years of U.S.-NATO war preparations, which consist in the military encirclement of both Russia and China:

From the moment the Soviet Union collapsed in 1991, the United States has relentlessly pursued a strategy of encircling Russia, just as it has with other perceived enemies like China and Iran. It has brought 12 countries in central Europe, all of them formerly allied with Moscow, into the NATO alliance. U.S. military power is now directly on Russia’s borders.2

The Globalization of War by Global Research

click image to order

Worldwide Militarization

 From the outset of the post World War II period to the present, America’s s global military design has been one of world conquest. War and globalization are intricately related. Militarization supports powerful economic interests. America’s “Long War” is geared towards worldwide corporate expansion and the conquest of new economic frontiers.

The concept of the “Long War” is an integral part of U.S. military doctrine. Its ideological underpinnings are intended to camouflage the hegemonic project of World conquest. Its implementation relies on a global alliance of 28 NATO member states. In turn, the U.S. as well as NATO have established beyond the “Atlantic Region” a network of bilateral military alliances with “partner” countries directed against Russia, China, Iran and North Korea. What we are dealing with is a formidable military force, deployed in all major regions of the World.

The “Long War” is based on the concept of “Self-Defense”. The United States and the Western World are threatened. “The Long War” constitutes “an epic struggle against adversaries bent on forming a unified Islamic world to supplant western dominance”. Underlying the “Long War”, according to a study by the Rand Corporation, the Western World must address “three potential threats”:

  • those related to the ideologies espoused by key adversaries in the conflict,
  • those related to the use of terrorism • those related to governance (i.e., its absence or presence, its quality, and the predisposition of specific governing bodies to the United States and its interests). … in order to ensure that this long war follows a favorable course, the United States will need to make a concerted effort across all three domains.3

Our objective in this book is to focus on various dimensions of America’s hegemonic wars, by providing both a historical overview as well as an understanding of America’s contemporary wars all of which, from a strategic viewpoint, are integrated.

Our analysis will focus on the dangers of nuclear war and the evolution of military doctrine in the post-9/11 era.

The central role of media propaganda as well as the failures of the anti-war movement will also be addressed. While the first chapter provides an overview, the subsequent chapters provide an insight into different dimensions of America’s long war.

Chapter I, Imperial Conquest: America’s “Long War” against Humanity provides a post World War II historical overview of America’s wars from Korea and Vietnam to Afghanistan, Iraq and Syria. There is a continuum in U.S. Foreign Policy from the Truman Doctrine of the late 1940s to the neocons and neoliberals of the George W. Bush and Barack Obama administrations.

Part II focuses on the dangers of nuclear war and global nuclear radiation.

Chapter II, The Dangers of Nuclear War Conversations with Fidel Castro consists of Conversations with Fidel Castro and the author pertaining to the future of humanity and the post-Cold War process of militarization. This exchange took place in Havana in October 2010.

Chapter III focuses on the doctrine of Pre-emptive Nuclear and the Role of Israel in triggering a first strike use of nuclear weapons against Iran.

Chapter IV, The Threat of Nuclear War, North Korea or the United States? focuses on the persistent U.S. threat (since 1953) of using nuclear weapons against North Korea while labeling North Korea a threat to global security.

Chapter V, Fukushima: A Nuclear War without a War. The Unspoken Crisis of Worldwide Nuclear Radiation examines the dangers of nuclear energy and its unspoken relationship to nuclear weapons. Nuclear energy is not a civilian economic activity. It is an appendage of the nuclear weapons industry which is controlled by the so-called defense contractors. The powerful corporate interests behind nuclear energy and nuclear weapons overlap.

Part III illustrates at a country level, the modus operandi of U.S. military and intelligence interventions, including regime change and the covert support of terrorist organizations. The country case studies (Yugoslavia, Haiti, Libya, Iraq, Syria, Palestine, Ukraine) illustrate how individual nation states are destabilized as a result of U.S.-NATO covert operations and “humanitarian wars.” While the nature and circumstances of these countries are by no means similar, there is a common thread. The purpose is to provide a comparative understanding of country-level impacts of America’s long war against humanity. In all the countries analyzed, the intent has been to destroy, destabilize and impoverish sovereign countries.

Chapter VI, NATO’s War on Yugoslavia: Kosovo “Freedom Fighters” Financed by Organized Crime examines the role of the Kosovo Liberation Army (KLA) as an instrument of political destabilization. In Yugoslavia, the endgame of NATO’s intervention was to carve up a prosperous and successful “socialist market economy” into seven proxy states. The political and economic breakup of Yugoslavia in the 1990s served as a “role model” for subsequent “humanitarian military endeavors.”

Chapter VII, The U.S. led Coup d’Etat in Haiti against the government of Jean Bertrand Aristide was carried out in February 2004 with the support of Canada and France. In a bitter irony, the U.S. ambassador to Haiti James Foley, had previously played a central role as U.S. special envoy to Yugoslavia, channeling covert support to the Kosovo Liberation Army (KLA). In Haiti, his responsibilities included U.S. aid to the Front pour la Libération et la reconstruction nationale (FLRN) (National Liberation and Reconstruction Front) largely integrated by former Tonton Macoute death squads. Closely coordinated with the process of regime change and military intervention, the IMF-World Bank macroeconomic reforms played a crucial role in destroying the national and impoverishing the Haitian population.

Chapter VIII, “Operation Libya” and the Battle for Oil: Redrawing the Map of Africa reveals the hidden agenda behind NATO’s 2011 humanitarian war on Libya, which consisted in acquiring control and ownership of Libya’s extensive oil reserves, that is, almost twice those of the United States of America. U.S. Africa Command (AFRICOM) played a key role in the war on Libya in coordination with NATO.

Libya is the gateway to the Sahel and Central Africa. More generally, what is at stake is the redrawing of the map of Africa at the expense of France’s historical spheres of influence in West and Central Africa, namely a process of neocolonial re-division.

Chapter IX, The War on Iraq and Syria. Terrorism with a “Human Face”: The History of America’s Death Squads examines U.S.-NATO’s covert war on Syria, which consists in creating Al Qaeda affiliated terrorist entities. The U.S.-led covert war consists in recruiting, training and financing Islamist death squads which are used as the foot-soldiers of the Western military alliance. The ultimate military objective is the destruction of both Iraq and Syria.

Chapter X, War and Natural Gas. The Israel Invasion and Gaza’s Offshore Gas Fields focuses on Israel’s attack directed against Gaza with a view to confiscating Gaza’s offshore gas reserves.

In Chapter XI, The U.S. has Installed a Neo-Nazi Government in Ukraine, the structure of the U.S.-EU sponsored proxy regime in Kiev is examined. Key positions in government and the Armed Forces are in the hands of the two neo-Nazi parties. The Ukraine National Guard financed and trained by the West is largely integrated by Neo-Nazis Brown Shirts.

Part IV is entitled Breaking the American Inquisition. Reversing the Tide of War focuses on some of the contradictions of the antiwar movement.

Chapter XII, The “American Inquisition” and the “Global War on Terrorism” analyzes the central role of America’s “war on terrorism” doctrine in harnessing public support for a global war of conquest. The “Global War on Terrorism” (GWOT) is a fabrication based on the illusion that one man, Osama bin Laden, outwitted the multi-billion dollar U.S. intelligence community.

Today’s “Global War on Terrorism” (GWOT) is a modern form of inquisition. It has all the essential ingredients of the French and Spanish Inquisitions. Going after “Islamic terrorists”, carrying out a worldwide pre-emptive war to “protect the Homeland” are used to justify a military agenda.

In turn, “The Global War on Terrorism” is presented as a “Clash of Civilizations”, a war between competing values and religions, when in reality it is an outright war of conquest, guided by strategic and economic objectives.

Chapter XII, “Manufactured Dissent”, Colored Revolutions and the Antiwar Movement in Crisis examines the role of corporate foundations in funding dissent and the inability of “progressive” civil society organizations and antiwar collectives to effectively confront the tide of media disinformation and war propaganda.

COMMENDATIONS

The Globalization of War is an extraordinarily important book. It tags the origin of a long series of wars and conflicts, from the end of World War II to the present, as being direct products of U.S. Foreign Policy. Nothing happens by accident. U.S. provocateurs, usually agents of the CIA, incite one conflict after another in what Michael Chossudovsky labels America’s “Long War” against Humanity.

It comprises a war on two fronts. Those countries that can either be “bought,” or destabilized by a corrupt international financial system, are easy targets for effective conquest. In other cases insurrection, riots and wars are used to solicit American military intervention to fill the pockets of the military-industrial complex that General Eisenhower warned us about. The “End Game” is a New World Order embracing a dual economic and military dictatorship prepared to use atomic weapons and risk the future of the entire human species to achieve its ends.

Michel Chossudovsky is one of the few individuals I know who has analyzed the anatomy of the New World Order and recognized the threat to the entire human species that it is. The Globalization of War is a must read for anyone who prefers peace and hope to perpetual war, death, dislocation and despair. Hon. Paul Hellyer, former Canadian Minister of National Defence

Professor Michel Chossudovsky is the most realistic of all foreign policy commentators. He does not lie for money and position, and he does not sell his soul for influence. His book provides an honest appraisal of the extreme danger that hegemonic and demonic American neoconservatism poses to life on earth. Dr. Paul Craig Roberts, former Assistant Secretary, U.S. Treasury, former Wall Street Journal editor,  former Wm. E. Simon Chair in Political Economy, Center for Strategic and International Studies, Georgetown University. 

At these moments when  the threat  of humanity’s  extinction  by the forces  unleashed by the  empire  and its vassals,  it is imperative that we  grasp  the nature of the beast  that threatens us with  its endless wars perpetrated in the name of the  highest levels of freedom.

This  vital work by an outstanding teacher  will remain an enduring testimony  of the author’s  all-embracing  humanism and scholarship that has always been inseparable  from his political activism  that spans  several decades.    It should be mandatory reading  for those seeking to understand , and thus  to contain and repel,   the  compulsive  onslaughts   of the hegemon’s  endless wars with its boundless bestialities and crimes against humanity..Dr Frederic F. Clairmonte, award winning author and political economist, distinguished (former) economic analyst at the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD).

The Globalization of War is undoubtedly one of the most important books on the contemporary global situation produced in recent years. It comes from the pen of one of the most insightful and incisive writers on global politics and the global economy alive today.

In his latest masterpiece, Professor Michel Chossudovsky shows how the various conflicts we are witnessing today in Ukraine, Syria, Iraq and Palestine are in fact inter-linked and inter-locked through a single-minded agenda in pursuit of global hegemony helmed by the United States and buttressed by its allies in the West and in other regions of the world. This Machiavellian, indeed, diabolical agenda not only centres around wars of conquest and subjugation but also seeks to dismember and destroy sovereign states. Russia, China and Iran are the primary targets of this drive for dominance and control. The underlying economic motives behind this drive are camouflaged in the guise of a civilized West fighting “barbaric Islamic terrorism” which as Chossudovsky exposes is sometimes sponsored and sustained by intelligent networks in the West.

Chossudovsky has aptly described this US helmed agenda for hegemony as a “long war against humanity.” It is an assertion that is backed by solid facts and detailed analysis in a brilliant work that should be read by all those who are concerned about the prevailing human condition. And that should include each and every citizen of planet earth. Dr. Chandra Muzaffar, President of the International Movement for a Just World (JUST) and former Professor of Global Studies at the Science University of Malaysia.

The media, political leaders, academics and the public at large often forget to put into historical perspective the spiral of daily news: we tend to concentrate on the latest events and crisis.

This may explain why the latest report of the US Senate on CIA’s rendition flights, detention places in black wholes and use of torture following 9/11 attacks and the invasion of Iraq has been received as a surprise and shocking news. Such practices have been well known by the international community and depicted, among others, in a number of United Nations documents as well as in Dick Marty’s reports to the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe.

This CIA’s behavior has a long history including assassination plots of political leaders, coups d’Etat, terrorist attacks and other subversive actions that merge into a recurrent pattern.

The Pax Americana like the Pax Romana has been built through wars and domination. General Smedley D. Butler, a hero and the most decorated soldier of the United States had already denounced the US policy in his book “War is a racket”, written over 70 years ago.

Michel Chossudovsky’s book “The Globalization of Warfare” has the great merit of putting into historical perspective the hegemonic project that has been carried out by the United States through various centuries for the control and exploitation of natural resources. Jose L. Gomez del PradoUN Independent Human Rights Expert, Former Member UN Group on the use of mercenaries

Michel Chossudovsky leads the world in communicating critical information that few or none know. He is a perfect guide for the East European to Russia war now in the making. John McMurty, professor emeritus, Guelph University, Fellow of the Royal Society of  Canada

Michel Chossudovsky ranks as the world’s leading expert on globalization – a hegemonic weapon that empowers financial elites and enslaves 99 percent of the world’s population. The Globalization of War exposes covert operations waging economic warfare designed to destabilize national economies deemed to be inimical to the USA and her NATO allies. The military dimension of western hegemonic strategies threatens to trigger a permanent global war. Chossudovsky’s book is diplomatic dynamite – and the fuse is burning rapidly. Michael Carmichael, President of the Planetary Movement 

150115 Long War Cover hi-res finalv2 copy3.jpg

The Globalization of War: America’s “Long War” against Humanity

Michel Chossudovsky

ISBN Number: 978-0-9737147-6-0
Year: 2015
Pages: 240 Pages

List Price: $24.95

Special Price: $15.00


Special: Dirty War on Syria + Globalization of War (Buy 2 books for 1 price!)

original

Special: Globalization of War + Globalization of Poverty (Buy 2 books for 1 price!)

 

Special: Globalization of War + Towards a World War III Scenario (Buy 2 books for 1 price!)

Bulk Order: Click here to order multiple copies at a discounted price (North America only)

Click here to order in PDF format

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on The Globalization of War, America’s “Long War” against Humanity by Michel Chossudovsky

Debt-Entrapping: The US Student Loan Racket

September 12th, 2019 by Stephen Lendman

Entrapping students into longterm or permanent debt bondage is part of a government/corporate scheme to enrich private lenders.

Because of the high cost of higher education, millions of students need large loans to pay tuition, fees, and other expenses.

Some face burdens up to $100,000 or higher. If unpaid after 30 years, it can be multiples this amount because of debt service costs. If default or declare bankruptcy, it’s unforgiven. Bondage is permanent.

Exceptions are only granted in extreme hardship cases likely to continue for the term of indebtedness, along with having shown good faith efforts to repay.

In the vast majority of cases, loans must be repaid as long as they’re outstanding. Federal laws mandate it – perhaps to get worse. More on this below.

The longer unpaid student loan balances remain outstanding, the more profitable it is for lenders, including from defaults.

Wages can be garnished. So can portions of Social Security and other retirement benefits. A conspiratorial alliance of lenders, guarantors, servicers, and collection companies derive income from debt service and inflated collection fees.

Principle, accrued interest, late payments and collection agency penalties create enormous burdens to repay. Once entrapped, escape is impossible. Unless repaid, future lives and careers are impaired.

According to CollegeDebt.com, current student loan debt exceeds $1.7 trillion, second only to mortgage debt, over $800 billion more than credit card debt, nearly $1 trillion above auto loan debt.

The total for FinAid.org is slightly lower at under $1.7 trillion, the amount increasing exponentially, expected to reach $2 trillion by 2022 – permanent debt bondage for millions of Americans.

The above figures exclude compounded interest charges, making the overall burden exponentially higher for countless numbers of debt entrapped individuals.

About 45 million students and graduates have outstanding student loan indebtedness.

It’s hard to repay because of protracted main street Depression conditions. Real unemployment exceeds 20% based on how the Labor Department calculated it in the 1980s – before numbers were manipulated lower to create the illusion greater jobs creation, low unemployment, and prosperity than exist.

The 3.7% number is pure deception. Most jobs available are rotten low-pay/poor-or-no-benefit part-time or temp ones – millions of industrial and high-paying better jobs offshored to low-wage countries.

For individuals entrapped in high student loan debt, serving and repaying it is especially burdensome, forcing millions into default but not free from their obligation.

According to theFreeThoughtProject.com, citing government data, “11.5% of student loans are 90 days or more delinquent or are in default” – a nearly $200 billion unrepayed debt obligation, increasing because of mounting debt service costs.

GOP Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee chairman Lamar Alexander proposed legislation to automatically deduct monthly student loan indebtedness for worker paychecks.

If enacted into law, the change could affect around 40 million individuals. Federal student loans can now be repaid 14 different ways.

Alexander proposed cutting it to two. By one route, monthly debt service would be capped at 10% of discretionary income – the residual amount after taxes and what’s needed for necessities, including food, shelter, clothing, and medical expenses.

A second option is repaying student loan debt over a 10-year period. Either way, employers would make automatic payroll deductions. A sub-option would be for borrowers to set up their own automatic debt service arrangement with their lenders directly.

The  National Consumer Law Center slammed Alexander’s proposal, saying “(f)or borrowers with tight budgets that need to be navigated on a monthly basis, forced automatic payroll withholding may mean diverting money away from rent, heat or food in order to pay their student loans.”

The problem with them is once entrapped, escape is nearly impossible. Except for court ruled hardship cases, as explained above, student loan indebtedness remains for life as long as it’s outstanding.

It’s part of a colossal scheme to transfer the nation’s wealth from ordinary Americans to the nation’s super-rich. It’s been going on for decades, accelerated under Obama, more so under Trump.

For most students in need of financial help to pay tuition, fees and other expenses, loans are relatively easy to get, tough to service, almost never forgiven.

A vicious circle entraps students, graduates and workers, even retirees if entrapped with unrepayed debt.

Student loans take years or decades to repay. Much can happen over an extended period, including unemployment for short or longer periods.

At best, most all debt entrapped individuals can only delay repayment, not get out from under it.

The longer debt remains unrepayed, the greater the service costs, why repayment most often takes many years.

Millions of Americans are entrapped in longterm or permanent debt bondage. America’s ownership society favors capital at the expense of popular rights and well-being – ordinary people exploited to benefit the privileged few.

*

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

Award-winning author Stephen Lendman lives in Chicago. He can be reached at [email protected]. He is a Research Associate of the Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG)

His new book as editor and contributor is titled “Flashpoint in Ukraine: US Drive for Hegemony Risks WW III.”

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

Visit his blog site at sjlendman.blogspot.com.

Hong Kong Protest Leader Hangs Out with White Helmets Boss

September 12th, 2019 by Makia Freeman

Joshua Wong has recently been doing some flyin’ around and hobnobbing with the rich, famous and powerful. He went to Berlin and met with German Chancellor Angela Merkel and other ‘pro-democracy’ figures like Mayor of Kiev Vitaly Klitschko, who was for awhile himself a Western favorite when the US was actively involved in the color revolution in Ukraine. While there, Wong met with Raed Al Saleh, the head of the White Helmets. For those who don’t know, the White Helmets are a Western propaganda construct with close links to terrorist groups such as Al Qaeda and Jahbat Al Nusra  (now known as Tahrir Al Sham). What would a supposedly organic grassroots movement leader in China have in common with a Syrian war organization? On the surface, nothing; under the surface, everything; they are both propaganda and destabilization tools of Western (US-UK) foreign meddling and interference.

A Brief Background: The White Helmets-Al Qaeda-Al Nusra Connection

The White Helmets paraded around like heroes pretending to be the saviors of the Syrian people during the earlier years of the Syrian War (which is still ongoing). Appropriately, they were the stars of a TV documentary which won Oscars. Oscars are awarded for acting – and that’s all it really was, acting. The White Helmets were founded in 2013 by James Le Mesurier, a British ex-mercenary and intelligence agent. True independent journalists such as Vanessa Beeley exposed how the White Helmets were a front for various groups of US-UK-Israeli funded rebel terrorists, who were fighting the legitimately elected president of Syria, Bashar Al Assad. In videos like this and this, Beeley walks through an abandoned White Helmets center in Sakhour, East Aleppo … right next door (20 meters) from the Al Nusra Front Aleppo headquarters. In fact, both centers had various entrances to each other and the only thing dividing them is a playground wall. Beeley noted:

“On the 30th April 2017 we visited the abandoned White Helmet centre in Sakhour, East Aleppo. This was the biggest, and most publicized White Helmet centre in East Aleppo. Paperwork left behind proves that various US, UK, EU countries were supplying the group … The White Helmets, as we know, are exclusively embedded in Nusra Front, ISIS & other extremist controlled areas … that contain maximum 20% of the Syrian population, many of whom are living under enforced starvation, deprivation, lack of medical care, imprisonment, torture, execution, rape … at the hands of the extremist factions that the White Helmets support and assist.”

Hong Kong Protest Leader Joshua Wong Also Met with Neocon Coup-Plotter Marco Rubio

If Joshua Wong is trying to paint himself as a leader of a grassroots movement, he’s doing the worst job possible. The evidence is overwhelming that he’s just another pawn of US foreign policy and regime change efforts, led by notorious NGOs like the NED (National Endowment for Democracy). This is the case even if a large segment of the Hong Kong protestors are grassroots activists and ordinary people. As mentioned in articles like Taunting the Dragon: Background to US-China Trade War & Hong Kong Protests, Wong was caught meeting with senior US official Julie Eadah from the USA’s Hong Kong consulate.

Not surprisingly, if you’re following the thread by now, he even met with devoted war hawk, neocon and Venezuelan coup-plotter Marco Rubio. I highlighted Rubio’s role in the US coup against Venezuela earlier this year in 2019. I also mentioned in the above-linked Taunting the Dragon article that Rubio had been drafting legislation to forge a split in China between Beijing and the Uyghur minority group. Why on Earth would Wong be associating with Rubio, unless it was precisely because he was getting tuition and instructions on how to split Hong Kong away from China, thus causing Beijing the maximum amount of difficulty as possible?

Hong Kong Protests: Begging for US Intervention and ‘Liberation’?

As “brutal and authoritarian” as the Chinese Government might be in relation to its own people, one has to wonder what the Hong Kong protestors are thinking when they are holding up signs asking President Trump to “liberate them”? Talk about jumping out of the fire and into the frying pan. What do they want – the US to attack China and annex Hong Kong? Do they somehow think that Beijing will fold under pressure from the US-China Trade War and just let the US intervene in Hong Kong without consequences? According to RT, here’s what happened at recent protest rally on September 8th 2019:

“Hong Kong protesters rallied in their thousands and clashed with police in fresh unrest. They even called on Washington to “liberate” them from Chinese rule, suggesting some may now view the US as their patron. Thousands of demonstrators marched to the US Consulate in Hong Kong on Sunday, in what they said was an appeal to President Donald Trump to intervene in the weeks-long political turmoil. Videos of the rally show protesters waving American flags as they sing the US national anthem and play ‘The Star Spangled Banner’ through the speakers on their phones.”

US interference has reached the point of such blatancy that the color revolution protestors are actually waving US flags and playing the Star Spangled Banner! Holy cow! Guess it moved on from a weeks ago when they holding up the union jack, the flag of their former colonial rulers, the UK. RT also reported on Hong Kong Protest leader Jimmy Lai and on another Hong Kong Protest leader Martin Lee, more supposedly grassroots’ leaders who just happen to be meeting with Zionist neocon, ex-CIA head and current Secretary of State, Mike Pompeo:

One of the men at the center of the protest movement is a Hong Kong tycoon, Jimmy Lai, whose company owns one of the most-read local papers, a tabloid called the Apple Daily. Another one is politician and barrister, Martin Lee, the founding chairman of the local Democratic Party. Both men visited Washington at the height of the protests to meet with some high-ranking US officials including State Secretary Mike Pompeo.

And as a former senior adviser in the Trump and Bush administrations Christian Whiton, who met both Lai and Lee in Hong Kong this summer, put it “causing this crisis for the Chinese government … is good in the national interests of the US.””

Final Thoughts

The Hong Kong protests are now in their 15th week and show no sings of slowing down. With the US gradually moving its focus away from Russia as enemy #1 and onto China as the new enemy #1, you can expect to see more Sinophobia (and less Russophobia). You can expect to see more foreign meddling and interference, more deals with and ‘aid’ to Taiwan, Hong Kong, Macau, the Uyghurs, the Dalai Lama (Tibetans) and any other minority group which could cause friction with the ruling Chinese Communist Party. This is the 21st century, and all of these economic and meddling shenanigans are part of the 21st century new hybrid warfare.

*

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

This article was originally published on The Freedom Articles.

Makia Freeman is the editor of alternative media / independent news site The Freedom Articles and senior researcher at ToolsForFreedom.com. Makia is on Steemit and FB.

Sources

https://williambowles.info/2019/09/11/color-revolutionaries-of-the-world-unite-hong-kong-protest-leader-pictured-with-white-helmets-boss/

https://www.mintpressnews.com/james-le-mesurier-british-ex-military-mercenary-founded-white-helmets/230320/

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r4JFcB-sHv8

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G7omLaKwRT4

https://thefreedomarticles.com/ngos-choice-tool-subversion-nwo/

https://thefreedomarticles.com/soros-hack-top-10-machinations/

https://thefreedomarticles.com/taunting-dragon-us-china-trade-war-hong-kong-protests/

https://thefreedomarticles.com/4th-generation-warfare-us-attacks-venezuela/

https://twitter.com/SpeakerPelosi/status/666795258747953152

https://twitter.com/camilateleSUR/status/1171171454349729792/photo/1

https://www.rt.com/news/468361-us-hong-kong-protesters-meddling/

https://www.rt.com/news/468301-hong-kong-protest-leaders-ties-us/

Featured image: Hong Kong protest leader Joshua Wong meets with neocon coup-plotter Marco Rubio on September 8th 2019. Image credit: CamilaSUR

Over the course of the past decade the United States, following decades of relative stagnation in oil production, has surprised many to become the largest oil producer in the world, exceeding Russia as well as Saudi Arabia.

Latest daily production is just above 12.1 million barrels a day. In November 2018 for the first time in decades the US became a net oil exporter.

The geopolitical implications to this energy boom in a world where oil determines the growth of entire economies, would appear to be great. Almost all the increase owes to the exploitation of what is called shale oil, unconventional oil found in shale rock formations. The US Department of Energy projects a rise to 8.8 million barrels daily from US shale oil alone, a new record. Now though, we are seeing the first clear signs that the “shale boom” could implode even faster than it rose. The implications for American foreign policy and global geopolitics and economics are significant.

The ‘Fracking’ Revolution

The idea of extracting oil or natural gas embedded in shale rocks has been known for years. However shale oil, or tight oil as it is known, first became economical with introduction of new horizontal drilling techniques combined with oil prices of $100 a barrel or more. This was about two decades ago.

In hydraulic fracturing or fracking, oil embedded in shale rock thousands of feet down is injected with a high pressure mix of water, lots of it, mixed with chemicals and sand. The de facto sand blasting creates fissures where oil can flow into the oil pipeline. The actual drilling of a shale well is only about 30-40% of the total cost. Up to 55-70% are from completion which includes actual fracking. The independent oil consultancy, Wood Mackenzie, recently estimated that the USA held an impressive 60% of all world shale reserves that are economically viable at oil prices of $60 per barrel or less.

Now it begins to get interesting. The current price for the West Texas Intermediate marker grade of oil is around $58 a barrel, where it has been for months. The price has not shot up as many expected despite the disruptions in Venezuela, in Iran and around the Persian Gulf. This puts shale well production, much of which today is in the Permian basin in West Texas or Bakken in North Dakota, at a delicate point.

When Saudi Arabia and the Arab OPEC producers decided to flood the market in 2014 with cheap oil in order to force the US shale producers into bankruptcy, the results were disastrous for the OPEC countries financially, but new technology advances allowed the major part of US shale oil production to survive at far lower prices. That, combined with a Federal Reserve Zero Interest Rate Policy (ZIRP), made borrowing to produce oil attractive for shale companies. Now, with two years of gradual Fed rate increase policies, shale companies are beginning to show signs of major stress.

Economic Troubles

Little known is the fact that despite all technological advances and economies of scale, the USA shale oil industry as a whole has yet to turn a net profit. At a juncture when world GDP growth begins to look very bleak, whether in China or in the EU or Emerging Markets like Brazil or Argentina or Turkey, US shale companies face a critical juncture.

The year 2018, according to projections of the International Energy Agency was supposed to be the year that the shale industry finally turned a profit. The IEA wrote in early 2018 that “higher prices and operational improvements are putting the US shale sector on track to achieve positive free cash flow in 2018 for the first time ever.” Since it began, until the Saudi price crash, that is from 2000-2014, US shale companies as a whole according to IEA estimates, already generated a cumulative negative free cash flow of more than $200 billion. With glowing predictions for a “new Saudi Arabia, and banks willing to lend to after the 2008 financial crisis, money poured into shale. Companies claimed once infrastructure was in place the profits would soon flow. It didn’t. Despite over two years of rising world oil prices, some 33 US publicly traded shale companies had a combined negative cash flow of $3.9 billion in the first half of 2018.

But with possible war with Iran and the unrest in Venezuela combined with projections of a growing US economy, the US shale industry told their bankers that 2019 would be the year finally of net profit. The reality has been the opposite. Shale company combined capital expenditures for the first Quarter of 2019 alone have exceeded operating cash flow by a whopping $5 billion. And now with oil prices stuck seemingly at $58 and the prospects for economic slowdown, not only abroad but more recently in the USA itself, many bank lenders to the US shale oil bonanza are having second thoughts.

Unconventional means more cost

Unconventional means by definition more costly to produce. Shale, unlike conventional oil reservoirs, deplete far faster than normal oil wells. In many cases a shale well loses 70% of recoverable oil the first year. The Permian Basin has been measured at 22% a year. To justify taking on debt via junk bonds and other lending to continue producing, shale companies went to the best, so-called “sweet spots” and projected the optimistic numbers into the future.

Explaining second quarter 2019 profits, the CEO of one of the most successful companies, Scott Sheffield of Pioneer Natural Resources warned in early August that most of the oil from so-called “sweet spots,” or “tier 1 acreage,” has already been extracted. “Tier 1 acreage is being exhausted at a very quick rate,” Sheffield stated.

To counter faster depletion rates of shale wells, companies have resorted to technical changes in terms of sand, closeness of drilling and other means. As the drilling is forced to go to less ideal areas, one oil industry source likened it to walking up the down escalator, drilling more just to stay even. That costs more per barrel.

Now an alarming new industry report suggests that the shale oil producers, at least in the rich Permian Basin, have been faking their numbers or under-reporting the shale wells completed to make the numbers look better. A detailed report by energy analysts at Kayrros indicates that oil companies in the Permian Basin greatly under-reported the number of shale oil wells completed in 2018. Kayrros estimates that more than 1,100 wells were completed in the Permian Basin but not reported as required by law. That would mean a significant 21% greater number of completed wells to produce the same volume as had been reported. That means the average well is far more expensive per barrel and far less efficient. Kayrros advisory chairman and CEO of Schlumberger, Andrew Gould remarked,

“With far more wells contributing to Permian and US oil production than accounted for, current shale oil production is substantially more water- and sand-intensive than is commonly believed.”

Kayrros estimates that in 2018 in the Permian Basin alone that actual demand for special grade sand was under-estimated by 9.2 billion pounds and water under-estimated by 12.5 billion gallons. That’s a lot of sand and a lot of water. At some point the companies will be importing sand from the deserts of Arabia at that rate. The environmental costs of shale oil fracking in terms of water, contamination, earthquakes are enormous and need a separate treatment.

To worsen the energy outlook, the spectacular oil production growth rates in the US appear to be stagnating, a worrisome sign given the fact that shale wells deplete annually at anywhere between 20-40% per year or more compared with around 4% for conventional wells. Earlier estimates suggested that the largest US shale region, Permian Basin, would reach its economic peak around 2025 or after.

A recent study of shale production by J. D. Hughes, an oil geologist who has followed the industry closely, suggests that with productivity per well peaking or even in some regions like North Dakota actually declining, oil companies are being forced to pour more money in, drill more just to replace lost output. In 2018, the industry spent $70 billion on drilling 9,975 wells, according to Hughes, with $54 billion going specifically to oil.

“Of the $54 billion spent on tight oil plays in 2018, 70% served to offset field declines and 30% to increase production,” Hughes wrote.

He added,

“production will fall as costs rise. Assuming shale production can grow forever based on ever-improving technology is a mistake—geology will ultimately dictate the costs and quantity of resources that can be recovered.”

Add to this all the huge debts of the shale oil companies are a growing problem. According to the Wall Street Journal some $9 billion worth of debt is set to mature over the second half of 2019 and banks are becoming reluctant to continue financing in a weaker economy. Then a staggering $137 billion in debt matures between 2020 and 2022, debt that was taken on to survive the 2014-15 oil market meltdown. Many producers will likely go down, though giants like ExxonMobil will survive.

If major oil shale regions are already beginning to shows signs of limits at present prices, and if decline rates are about to significantly accelerate over the coming 2-3 years, it will have major implications for US foreign policy as well as the economy. A major factor in the recent actions of Washington in the Middle East and even Venezuela has clearly been driven by a sense that America no longer depends on foreign oil and can take greater geopolitical risks. Oil and the remarkable shale boom were largely behind this impression.

The Trump Administration began in 2017 as one of the most oil-friendly in recent history. Rex Tillerson, CEO of ExxonMobil, was named Secretary of State. Texas oil-friendly Governor Rick Perry headed Energy Department. Others were named who favored expansion of shale oil as a national priority. If this domestic shale oil support suddenly begins to vanish, it will send major new shock waves around the globe at a time when shock waves are coming from every direction. It’s not the end of the Oil Age, but it could soon be the end of the USA shale oil boom, one fueled on mountains of debt, horrendous environmental destruction and wishful thinking. In turn that could trigger a global oil price shock that will turn the economy dramatically down.

*

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

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


seeds_2.jpg

Seeds of Destruction: Hidden Agenda of Genetic Manipulation

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

List Price: $25.95

Special Price: $18.00

 

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

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

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

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on The New American Oil Empire Built on Sand. The “Fracking Revolution”
  • Tags: ,

Post-Bolton Thaw in US Relations with Iran?

September 12th, 2019 by Stephen Lendman

Hold the cheers!

The US has been hostile toward Iran since its 1979 revolution. It’s hostile toward all nations it doesn’t control.

Its imperial project calls for transforming them into US client states, pro-Western puppet rule replacing their sovereign independence, gaining control over their resources and populations.

The US has been waging war on Iran by other means for 40 years, including by Obama straightaway after the JCPOA was consummated.

In November 1979, the US seized $12 billion in Iranian government bank deposits, securities, gold, and other properties. They included $5.6 billion held by overseas branches of US banks.

A full trade embargo followed. In January 1981, it was lifted under provisions of the Algiers Accords. Most Iranian assets were unblocked. Iranian Assets Control Regulations remained in place.

US war on Iran by other means rages more intensively since Trump took office, co-orchestrated by now departed Bolton and Pompeo, far-right hardliners representing two sides of the same coin.

In the 1980s, Tehran was falsely accused of supporting international terrorism and attacking Persian Gulf shipping.

Reagan’s 1987 Executive Order (EO) 12613 embargoed Iranian goods and services.

In March 1995, Clinton’s EO 12957 prohibited US involvement with Iranian oil development.

His 1995 EO 12959 imposed new illegal sanctions. His 1997 EO 13059 prohibited virtually all trade and investments with Iran.

In 1996, the Iran and Libya Sanctions Act (ILSA) became law. In 2006, it was renamed the Iran Sanctions Act (ISA).

It prohibits US and foreign oil development investments. Violators face stiff penalties. They include denial of Export-Import Bank of the United States help, rejection of export licenses, and/or sanctions.

In 2008, banks and other US depository institutions were prohibited from processing transfers between Iranian and non-Iranian banks.

In 2010, the US Comprehensive Iran Sanctions, Accountability, and Divestment Act (CISADA) became law.

It extended sanctions imposed by the 1996 Iran Sanctions Act,  punishing entities doing business with Tehran’s oil sector.

Section 103 prohibited importing certain Iranian foodstuffs and carpets. Other provisions banned various Iranian imports, directly or through third countries.

Exporting goods, technology, or services to Iran are prohibited, including from offshore locations.

US individuals and companies are prohibited from engaging in purchases, sales, transportation, swaps, financing, or brokering transactions related to goods or services of Iranian private or government origin.

In July 2017, the Countering America’s Adversaries Through Sanctions Act (CAATSA) imposed tough new sanctions on Iran.

They target its legitimate ballistic missile program, its nonexistent WMD development, banning the sale or transfer of military or so-called dual use sales to Iran, and financial help, along with directing the president to sanction violators of CAATSA provisions.

Trump’s unlawful May 2018 JCPOA pullout was followed by imposing multiple rounds of tough US sanctions on Iran, including on its energy sector, petroleum related products, other economic sectors, and central bank transactions.

Aiming to reduce Iranian oil exports to zero, Trump regime hardliners want its economy crushed, its people immiserated.

Iranophobe Bolton is gone. Militantly hostile to Iran Pompeo and his hardline henchmen remain.

Is any change in Trump regime policy toward Iran likely? Will 40 years of US hostility toward the country be softened — with arguably the most hardline executive branch and congressional policymakers in US history running things?

Will Trump and Iranian President Rouhani meet on the sidelines of the annual UN General Assembly session later this month?

On Wednesday, Rouhani said “as long as there are sanctions in place, there is no point in negotiating with the US.”

On the same day, Secretary of Iran’s Supreme National Security Council Ali Shamkhani commented on Bolton’s sacking, saying:

“Superficial changes in the American governing body do not alter Iran’s perception of the nature of US actions and policies,” adding:

“Obama and Trump both pursued a policy of sanctions against the Iranian nation. (Its) criterion for assessment is the actual policy and performance of the United States, especially its adherence to international obligations and removal of sanctions against the Iranian people.”

US war by other means rages against Iran, Venezuela, and other nations, along with its endless hot wars in multiple theaters.

On Wednesday, did Trump suggest he’d consider softening White House policies on Iran? Virtually nothing he says is credible, time and again saying one thing, then going another way.

At the same time, he said “(w)e cannot let Iran have nuclear weapons” he knows or should know they don’t seek and never did.

He also claimed sanctions on the country are working. So why lift them.

In two summits with North Korean leader Kim Jong-un, Trump refused to ease sanctions on the country even modestly as a good will gesture.

He demanded full denuclearization and elimination of DPRK ballistic missile capabilities — in return for empty promises, how the US always negotiates, why it can never be trusted.

Will Iran be treated differently, a nation on the US target list for regime change for 40 years? Trump’s suggestion otherwise fooled no one in Tehran.

According to the Daily Beast, Trump “is actively considering a French plan to extend a $15 billion credit line to the Iranians if Tehran comes back into compliance with the” JCPOA, “not…impede (Persian Gulf) maritime navigation, (and) commit to Middle East talks”  — citing unnamed sources.

Fact: Iran threatens no one. At peace with its neighbors, it never attacked another nation.

Fact: Its nuclear program has no military component, repeatedly affirmed by IAEA inspectors.

Fact: It wants Persian Gulf maritime traffic operating freely unimpeded. With its coastline extending hundreds of miles, Tehran considers itself the protector of navigation through its waters.

Fact: In good faith, Iran spent years engaged in nuclear talks, agreeing to the JCPOA in 2015, sacrificing more than got back when the deal was consummated — then was betrayed by the Trump regime’s pullout and Europe’s failure to fulfill its mandated obligations.

President Rouhani and other Iranian officials said they’re willing to meet with Trump and other White House officials if he rejoins the JCPOA he illegally abandoned and lifts unlawfully imposed sanctions.

Without a US show of good faith, talks with Trump regime officials will accomplish nothing — the North Korea betrayal scenario to repeat.

*

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

Award-winning author Stephen Lendman lives in Chicago. He can be reached at [email protected]. He is a Research Associate of the Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG)

His new book as editor and contributor is titled “Flashpoint in Ukraine: US Drive for Hegemony Risks WW III.”

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

Visit his blog site at sjlendman.blogspot.com.

18 years after NATO’s invasion and occupation of Afghanistan, the 9/11 and Al Qaeda lies that were used to justify the war have disappeared.

Now the truth about oil and gas, mineral wealth, opium and naked imperial ambition are all that remain.

The decision to wage war on Afghanistan was taken on September 12, 2001 on the grounds that Afghanistan had attacked America on September 11, 2001. It was presented to the public as a war of “self defense”. 

This GRTV Backgrounder on Global Research TV was first published in 2016. 

 

 

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Afghanistan: 18 Years of US-NATO Occupation. The Decision to Invade Afghanistan was Taken on 9/12

Observe 9/11 Anniversary by Calling for an End to the Afghan War

September 12th, 2019 by Prof. Marjorie Cohn

On the eve of the 18-year anniversary of the September 11, 2001, attacks and the illegal U.S. invasion of Afghanistan, the United States and the Taliban completed nine rounds of peace talks with no deal.

Although they had reportedly reached an agreement in principle, Donald Trump insisted on a secret meeting at Camp David with the Taliban and the puppet Afghan government so he could take credit as dealmaker-in-chief. The idea of finalizing the negotiations at Camp David was “a prospect that appealed to the president’s penchant for dramatic spectacle,” The New York Times reported.

Trump, however, abruptly canceled the meeting, slated to occur last weekend, citing a Taliban car bombing that killed an American.

There are “questions about the accuracy of [Trump’s] assertion that the Taliban had accepted his invitation to Camp David on Sunday, and that he was the one calling off the meeting,” according to The New York Times.

“Taliban negotiators said Sunday that they had agreed to come to the United States only after a deal was announced and only to meet with the American side, suggesting that Mr. Trump may have canceled a meeting that the key participants were not planning to attend.”

Trump’s excuse for calling off the Camp David meeting is also belied by Secretary of State Mike Pompeo’s claim that the United States was responsible for “over a thousand Taliban killed in just the last 10 days alone.”

Two days after cancelling the meeting, Trump told reporters the peace talks with the Taliban are “dead as far as I’m concerned.”

The Tentative Peace Deal Would Leave Thousands of U.S. Troops in Afghanistan

There are currently 14,000 U.S. troops in Afghanistan. Under the Trump administration’s tentative agreement with the Taliban, the U.S. would pull 5,400 troops out of Afghanistan within 135 days of signing, reducing the number to 8,600. This would still leave more U.S. troops in Afghanistan than the 8,400 who were there when Barack Obama left office. The remaining troops would be withdrawn gradually over a 16-month period.

In return, the Taliban would agree to not support international terrorist groups and would prevent terrorists from using Afghanistan to mount attacks. The Taliban would also conduct political negotiations with the Afghan government (although it’s unclear how these would fare, given that a senior Taliban leader told The New York Times, “we do not recognize the [U.S.’s] stooge government” in Kabul.)

However, even if a firm deal were negotiated, Trump stated, “we’re going to always have a presence” in Afghanistan. U.S. envoy Zalmay Khalilzad reportedly said the United States would reserve the right to help Afghan government forces in the event they are attacked by the Taliban. And senior White House advisers favor secretly increasing the CIA’s presence in Afghanistan as U.S. forces withdraw.

The Taliban, however, see little difference between U.S. military forces and CIA agents, and have repeatedly maintained that they will not agree to a ceasefire until all U.S. troops are withdrawn from Afghanistan.

Meanwhile, although many politicians are criticizing Trump for arranging the Camp David meeting with the Taliban, few are questioning the legality of the United States invading Afghanistan in the first place.

The U.S. Invasion of Afghanistan Was Illegal

The U.S. military invasion of Afghanistan violated the United Nations Charter, which mandates that countries settle their disputes peacefully. The Charter forbids the use of military force except in self-defense or with Security Council authorization. The invasion was not lawful self-defense, as it did not respond to an armed attack by Afghanistan. The 9/11 attacks were not carried out by the Afghan government. And although the Council passed Resolutions 1368 and 1373 in response to the 9/11 attacks, neither resolution authorized the United States to use military force against Afghanistan. Instead, the resolutions condemned the 9/11 attacks; ordered the freezing of assets and criminalization of terrorist activity; urged steps to prevent terrorist activity, including sharing of information; and advocated ratification and enforcement of international conventions against terrorism.

Since 9/11, under the guise of George W. Bush’s “war on terror,” the United States has illegally attacked, invaded and bombed several countries and tortured untold numbers of people, with no legal accountability.

At the end of 2018, The New York Times reported that regional Afghan forces led by the CIA “operated unconstrained by battlefield rules designed to protect civilians, conducting night raids, torture and killings with near impunity.”

The 18-year U.S. war in Afghanistan has claimed the lives of 139,000 Afghan civilians and combatants, and more than 6,300 U.S. soldiers and mercenaries.

And the carnage in Afghanistan is only getting worse. July 2019 was the deadliest month of the past two years, with 1,500 civilians killed or wounded. During the first half of 2019, nearly 4,000 civilians were killed in Afghanistan, and it was primarily the United States that caused most of the civilian deaths in that time period.

Furthermore, the United States has spent over $1 trillion on the war in Afghanistan since the U.S. invasion in 2001.

“Washington was politically defeated in Afghanistan long ago, and no shift in US tactics will change that — whether it is a troop surge, the renewed training of local soldiers, or a focus on counterterrorism,” Reese Erlich writes at Common Dreams. The U.S. lost because most Afghans see the U.S.A. as an occupying power,” he added.

Thus, the only acceptable course of action is a total end to the U.S. war in Afghanistan and reparations for its people.

The United States must withdraw all of its troops, CIA agents and mercenaries and close its military bases in Afghanistan. Moreover, the U.S. government should redirect a significant amount of money toward small international aid groups that can help rebuild the country, as suggested by Kathy Kelly, co-coordinator of Voices for Creative Nonviolence. Kelly told Erlich, “Reparations should be paid to the Afghan people, not the government.”

*

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

Copyright © Truthout. Reprinted with permission.

Marjorie Cohn is professor emerita at Thomas Jefferson School of Law, former president of the National Lawyers Guild, deputy secretary general of the International Association of Democratic Lawyers and a member of the advisory board of Veterans for Peace. Her most recent book is Drones and Targeted Killing: Legal, Moral, and Geopolitical Issues.

Featured image: U.S. soldiers fortify an Afghan highway police checkpoint with razor wire in Robat, Afghanistan, on March 19, 2010. (Source: TECH. SGT. FRANCISCO V. GOVEA II / U.S. AIR FORCE)

Video: Color Revolution Comes to Hong Kong

September 12th, 2019 by South Front

The Hong Kong protests represent a major challenge not only to the authorities of Hong Kong itself, but also to Beijing, due to both their protracted nature and a high level of organization resembling the Kiev Maidan of 2013/14.

The Hong Kong rioters have gone so far as to produce and disseminate a veritable urban warfare manual describing in detail the division of labor between the close-combat fighters, ranged-weapon fighters, as well as various support roles. Their “Plan A” appears to be, as cynical as this may sound, to provoke bloodshed by inducing local law enforcement to use firearms against the rioters.

Thus far this has not come to pass. On the one hand, Hong Kong police has displayed considerable self-restraint, and their rules of engagement seem to favor withdrawal and disengagement when faced with superior numbers of rioters. On the other hand, irrespective of the will of the riot planners, the actual rioters have, again thus far, displayed healthy self-preservation instincts. In the few cases where firearms were brandished by Hong Kong police, usually in cases of police officers finding themselves surrounded by the raging mob, the sight of weapons proved enough to compel the rioters to withdraw. That by itself, however, will not solve the problem of riots because there also seems to be a “Plan B.” Whereas, for example, the Kiev Maidan was largely confined to the Maidan Square itself, the geography of Hong Kong riots is much more extensive and unpredictable. Hong Kong rioters have not shrunk from attacking strategic infrastructure, including the now-infamous occupation of the Hong-Kong International Airport that caused massive air traffic disruptions.

Likewise the violent riots in popular malls and tourist destinations all over the Hong Kong area have had the effect of depressing tourism and even prompting fears of a capital flight. While so far there are no indications of a lasting effect on the enclave’s economy, this is due to the still-lingering perception the unrest is a temporary phenomenon. Should it continue with present intensity, or, worse, escalate in terms of numbers of participants and methods used, there will be severe negative effects. For these reasons, China’s authorities cannot hope to win through a war of attrition, or expect that an escalation of violence will somehow cure this problem. There are genuine underlying problems in Hong Kong which have made themselves visible through these demonstrations.

Watch the video here.

What ails Hong Kong?

As with other “color revolutions”, the Hong Kong protests have tapped into a deep vein of discontent within the population. In this instance, rather than poverty or corruption or even the institutional design of Hong Kong’s government, the banal problem facing the average Hong Kong resident is the extremely high cost of living combined with the highly visible class divisions. Since this “special administrative region” of People’s Republic of China represents a major concentration of financial industries, it is also home to massive wealth which, alas, does not appear to be trickling down. While there is also considerable wealth inequality in China proper which is expanding its list of billionaires at a steady pace, the less well-off Chinese urban-dwellers have the option of migrating from city to city in search of better opportunities. But that option is not one the average inhabitant of Hong-Kong is likely to adopt. Moving to China proper would run counter to the strong local Hong Kong identity, and moreover represent a move to a considerably less wealthy part of the world. Thus while the average Chinese citizen is unlikely to exhibit much sympathy for the plight of the protesters from the special administrative area, Hong Kong residents do not evaluate their well-being in comparison with mainland China. For them, the only relevant reference is Hong Kong itself.

One should also note that the violent component of Hong Kong protests is disproportionately composed of young men in their late teens and twenties suggesting the influence of a generation gap and the breakdown in the intergenerational social contract. While Hong Kong, if it were a sovereign state, would have one of the world’s highest life expectancies, its population is rapidly aging due to the low birth rates of the past several decades. A large age cohort is nearing the retirement age, placing a significant financial burden on the considerably smaller younger generation.

Pining for Tiananmen

Further complicating matters for Beijing is Western powers’, and principally the US, interest in using Hong Kong as an instrument in the gradually escalating confrontation between East and West. The rioters’ awareness of their foreign audience was made plain by the displays of US flags as well as the flags associated with Hong Kong’s British colonial past. From the US perspective, crippling Hong Kong economically would inflict serious damage to China’s economy and also badly dent its political image.  Entirely unsurprisingly, Western governments and media wholeheartedly endorsed the protests while turning a blind eye on the increasing violence perpetrated by Hong Kong’s urban warriors who make no bones their aim is to provoke security forces to spill demonstrators’ blood. It is not difficult to predict what kind of Western reaction would follow: sanctions on Hong Kong officials, financial institutions, perhaps even on top Chinese leadership.

The media outcry would be so large that countries thus far unwilling to jump on the anti-Huawei bandwagon would find it difficult to maintain that position. It is evident the Trump administration is raring for a pretext to break as many ties between United States and China as possible, and also to force third countries, most notably the states of the European Union, to choose continued economic integration with United States or with China—but not both.  Furthermore, Hong Kong’s financial institutions have played an important role in furthering China’s economic objectives in the last several decades. In addition to playing a role of a major supplier of financial investments, they also  are China’s “invisible hand of the market”. While today China’s economy is far less dependent on Hong Kong, thanks to several “special economic zones” such as Shenzhen located only a short distance from Hong Kong itself, a major crisis in Hong Kong would reverberate throughout China.

Fortunately, there appears to exist a key difference between the Kiev Maidan and the Hong Kong protests, namely the absence of a wealthy oligarch or oligarchs pursuing a reactionary political agenda. None of the Hong Kong business elite have given any indications of supporting the rioters’ more radical agenda, nor is there evidence of their contacts with Western diplomats or intelligence services. It is doubtful such contacts would escape the attention of China’s counter-intelligence services, and China’s political leadership is unlikely to show the sort of timidity Ukraine’s President Yanukovych did in a similar situation, to his own chagrin.

One Country, One System?

The current “one country, two systems” paradigm unfortunately lies at the core of Hong Kong’s current troubles. The establishment of an economic enclave, with little labor mobility across this veritable intra-Chinese border, turned Hong Kong into a political pressure cooker. Its political autonomy in turn meant policies that favored the economic elite, causing the growth of wealth inequality which contributes to the high level of the local government’s unpopularity, to the point it has become a liability for Beijing itself. In the short term, Beijing will likely be forced to funnel considerable financial resources into Hong Kong to relieve the social pressures. In the longer term, however, a lasting solution will require not only a more close oversight of Hong Kong’s social policies, but also promotion of two-way migration between China proper and Hong Kong.

*

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

Support South Front in its endeavors.

If you’re able, and if you like our content and approach, please support the project. Our work wouldn’t be possible without your help: PayPal: [email protected] or via: http://southfront.org/donate/ or via: https://www.patreon.com/southfront

Turkish President Tayyip Erdogan has called out the US for delivering more than 30,000 weapon-laden trucks to Syria to support the PKK-linked People’s Protection Units (YPG) terrorist group, reported Press Tv.

.

.

Speaking at the Justice and Development Party’s meeting in Eskişehir, a city in northwestern Turkey, Erdogan said he wouldn’t sit back in the shadows anymore about a superhighway of weapons supplied by the US, amounting to more than 30,000 truckloads of weapons, equipment, and ammunition to northern Syria to support YPG terrorists.

Erdogan further criticized the Trump administration for its “lack of commitment” to construct a safe zone in Syria along the Turkish border. He added that he would “sort out” the issue with President Trump at a meeting later this month.

“We must resolve this … There are differences between what is said and what has been done,” Erdogan said.

Washington and Ankara have been at odds with one another of who should control northeast Syria, where YPG terrorist and other Kurdish militias have had the luxury of receiving American weapons.

Ankara has viewed the YPG as an extension of its own Kurdish militancy, insisting the US needs to cut ties with the terrorist organization.

Erdogan also criticized the European Union for the lack of support regarding the millions of Syrian refugees.

He said Ankara has already spent $40 billion hosting four million Syrian refugees, adding that a new project could be announced momentarily to resettle one million refugees in northern Syria.

“Our goal is to settle at least one million Syrian brothers and sisters in our country in this safe zone,” said Erdogan. “If needed, with support from our friends, we can build new cities there and make it habitable for our Syrian siblings.”

The European Union has given Turkey $7 billion since 2015 to restrict the flow of migrants. But with Turkey granting millions of refugees asylum status, the migrant problem is worsening through 2019.

“If there is no safe zone we can’t overcome this,” Erdogan said.

Syrians have already begun traveling to Europe again. Turkish and international refugee officials warned about new waves of migrants headed towards the continent. Over 500 refugees landed by vessel in the Greek island of Lesbos earlier this month.

Erdogan also touched on falling interest rates and said they would also lead to lower inflation rates.

“Inflation is falling, so are interests and they will fall even further. The capital market board will convene on Thursday, and I believe interests will fall afterward,” Erdogan said.

Erdogan has just given the world a dose of reality of where some of the weapons used by terrorists in Syria are coming from.

*

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

Will there be a snap-election or not – that is the big question right now. The earliest date is now mid-November. Whatever happens, money needs to be raised for campaigning. Theresa May’s snap election cost over £18million and she lost – so she grabbed a few billion of taxpayers hard-earned cash to pay for a bunch of terrorist sympathisers to get on board and support her failed bid to achieve anything at all. One can assume Boris Johnson is going to need at least £20 million to have some sort of fighting chance, especially given the support from the DUP is falling away fast.

According to political betting and the polls, Johnson has to retain all the seats he currently has and add at least 35 for the majority he needs. He has to do some apologising in an attempt to encourage a few of those he unceremoniously sacked. Six have already declared they will not stand again.

It doesn’t bode well though for a Tory party who was funded by bankers and hedge funds that Jeremy Corbyn, widely regarded by the financial industry as a banker-baiting, old-school Marxist with big plans for nationalization and tax hikes has the likes of Citibank and Deutsche Bank behind him. “Is Corbyn as bad as no-deal? Perhaps no longer,” said Citi’s Christian Schulz.  Deutsche’s Oliver Harvey said –

A fiscally profligate no-deal Conservative government is no longer as enticing. We see the magnitude of economic damage caused by a no-deal Brexit as much higher than the policies proposed in the last Labour manifesto.”

Do the Tories have the right people in place to raise the money for a successful snap election that this time will be more akin to trench warfare than the usual nonsense we have become accustomed to? Well, they do have Dominic Cummings – the sociopath who dragged the Vote Leave campaign into financial crimes territory to get a Brexit result.

However, things are looking up, now that the Tories have got Ehud “Udi” Sheleg, the Conservatives’ largest current donor and now the party’s sole treasurer holding the purse-strings.

Sheleg is an ‘art dealer’ and he’s just given the Conservatives another £1m in the second quarter of this year, making him their most generous current benefactor by some margin. Arguably more important, however, is his recent appointment as sole Tory party treasurer.

Until July, Sheleg had been co-treasurer with party chief executive Sir Mick Davis. But with Davis’s resignation, his elevation has given him a senior role that includes no less than being – “responsible for all operational matters including fundraising, membership and candidates”.

First, you should know some background about Sheleg. His brother (and business partner) was involved in a company promoting an online investment industry that was later associated with serious fraud. An investigation by Finance Uncovered, Private Eye and The Times of Israel found that for three years, Ehud’s brother Ran was part of a company that marketed binary options – an industry largely run out of Israel. Binary options were promoted as a form of financial product to thousands of investors around the world, but their sale was halted by European and Israeli regulators last year when it was found that the industry was rife with fraud. It was a high-tech variant of boiler room scams.

Binary options cost UK investors (who reported their losses) some £60million but overall, losses to scamsters is considered to be much larger. When questioned – Ehud Sheleg said he had been completely unaware of the company in which his brother had been involved.

Ehud has ‘establishment’ connections too. His Mayfair-headquartered Halcyon Gallery, an exclusive art dealership boasts of close ties to the Royal Family and the Conservative Party. That company is located in a tax haven (of course). Finance Uncovered also reported that both the Halcyon Gallery and the binary options business were exposed in the huge Panama Papers scandal that exposed tax fraud on a global scale. In the meantime, the gallery sponsors events at Buckingham Palace and has co-hosted a party with Princess Eugenie. It also sponsors an annual charity polo match, where Princes William and Harry have played for the Halcyon Gallery team.

Private Eye also reports that:

Sheleg’s promotion doesn’t say much for the importance Boris Johnson as party leader and James Cleverly MP as co-chairman attach to financial probity in fundraising matters. Our special report earlier this year revealed not just Sheleg’s close relations with Moscow, hosting Russia’s ambassador at the height of post-Crimea-invasion sanctions in 2015, but also his major deal with organised-crime-connected figures in establishing a Cyprus outlet of Halcyon the same year. At a minimum, due diligence appears not to be Sheleg’s strong suit. The Eye’s report also showed how Sheleg’s Halcyon company had filed erroneous accounts (not great for a party treasurer), and how in 2009 it had liquidated one of its subsidiary companies (high street art chain Castle Galleries), walking away from £4m of debts and simply carrying on the business under a new company.

Private Eye also unearthed in an earlier edition, Sheleg’s previous track record of “unfiled accounts, unpaid suppliers, investigations and VAT penalties from HM Customs and Excise, along with millions of pounds in dodged tax”. So serious had his habit of dissolving companies and avoiding liabilities been, said Private Eye, that one businessman from the early 2000s said he’d acquired the nickname “Alka Seltzer”. Given a political party’s onerous accounting and reporting requirements, Sheleg is certainly an interesting choice to hold the finance brief in the Tory boardroom.

However, given the very shady nature of Tory party donations and supporters, it appears this choice of Treasurer is ideal.

Dodgy donors, illegal cash

The Tory party are now little more than anarchists. They have systematically gone about the destruction of political and economic stability in their quest for a new form of power.

During all the scandals that emanated from the EU referendum, a powerless Electoral Commission and a toothless (or frightened) National Crime Agency did nothing after discovering Conservative party donors had invested in the very company that spawned the election consultancy at the centre of a storm about the illegal use of data. Worse, we now know that these new technologies at this same organisation were in fact, designed for the British and American military as a propaganda tool, then used on the civilian population of Britain to achieve their goals. The scandals and lawbreaking were breathtaking in scale given the attack on Britain’s democratic traditions.

Theresa May faced questions in the House of Commons over Tory links to the company.

“As far as I’m aware the government has no current contracts with Cambridge Analytica or with the SCL Group,” the prime minister said.

Either her eyes and ears were looking the other way – or she lied.

Filings for SCL Group, which is at the top of a web of companies linked to Cambridge Analytica, show that since its conception in 2005 its shareholders and officers have included senior Tory MP’s (former and current), Tory insiders, Lords, military men and even a business minister under David Cameron.

The Guardian reported at the time –

From its outset as a UK-registered company, SCL Group had investors from the upper echelons of British life. Lord Marland, a successful businessman who became a minister in 2010, held shares personally. Sir Geoffrey Pattie, a former Conservative defence and industry minister, took a key role in the company for its first three years. Other big investors (of SCL) went on to make huge donations to the Tory party. For instance, Roger Gabb, introduced the Volvic water brand to the UK and property tycoon Vincent Tchenguiz donated large sums as well – both investors in SCL Group.

Then there’s Nigel Oakes, an old Etonian from a military family – his father is Major John Waddington Oakes – and a former boyfriend of Lady Helen Windsor. Oakes had previously set up a company called Behavioural Dynamics which made many similar claims to SCL about its ability to influence voters. He was involved with Alexander Nix – the fellow old Etonian at the heart of the SCL/Cambridge Analytica/Facebook scandal.

Brexit is one of Britain’s biggest crime scenes ever. Immersed in mass population data theft, unlawful invasions of privacy, illegal cash from obscure offshore entities, foreign actors, dodgy donors and a myriad of other scandals that would in normal times bring down any British government – the country is being driven over a political, economic and constitutional cliff for an ideology created by the rich and powerful.

Tory donors came out the woodwork again when Theresa May and her disastrous attempt to strike a deal with the EU sank and Boris Johnson ascended to the party throne. Up popped more ‘dodgy donors‘ such as Lubov Chernukhin, the wife of Russian oligarch Vladimir, who famously wrote a large cheque to play tennis with Johnson in 2014. Her donations had declined under Theresa May but suddenly became positively lavish after BJ arrives and a few thousand quid turns into a £200,000 handout. That amount is now believed to be £626,000 from another investigation. 

Subject to yet another lawsuit – The Times reported how “MI5 launched an investigation into a Russian lobbying campaign to infiltrate British politics that received advice and support from a senior Conservative MP.” Alexander Shchukin, a Russian oligarch who is under house arrest in Siberia over a string of corruption charges is involved. (Times article link). Have a look yourself, it’s not good reading when considering who is running the country.

Only six months ago, the Conservative Party was under fire after it was revealed that the party illegally accepted over £1 million in funds from individuals who are actually based in tax havens in the run-up to the last election. They ignored the investigation and illegality of those donations.

Twelve months ago, the Tories refused to assist a French investigation into suspected money laundering and tax fraud by the UK telecoms giant Lycamobile – citing the fact that the company is the “biggest corporate donor to the Conservative party” and gives money to a trust founded by Prince Charles.

Eighteen months ago, the Tory party refused to hand back over £800,000 in donations from Russian oligarchs and their associates.

When these people hand over such large sums of money – what exactly do they expect in return?

And just to provide an answer to that question, one Tory party donor Mohammed Shahid Khan, 55, of Wimbledon, gave a £20,000 donation to the Tory party. He also got a multimillion-pound “golden visa” to ensure he and his family could stay in the country. He has since been arrested for funding and equipping terrorist organisations, for illegal arms dealing, fraud and money-laundering in Bangladesh and was using Britain and the Conservative party as cover. In the raid in his home country, the police found detonators, weapons, radical literature linked to Al Qaeda and counterfeit money along with 54 bank accounts. Why was Khan not vetted? Where were MI5 and MI6?

In the background, the list of the rich and powerful usurping democracy in favour of reshaping Britain into an offshore tax-free plaything also goes on.

Tax advisers to the super-rich also stand to gain much from Brexit-era Britain becoming a happy tax-planning hunting ground. When they hand over donations of £50,000 they want results. There are many others too and they all want something in return.

In the meantime, dark money is pouring into Boris Johnson’s snap election campaign machine. Cash from think tanks linked to some of the hardest of hard right-wing free-market jihadists on the planet is filling Dominic Cummings war-chest. Matthew Elliot is there at the centre of this continuing attack against democracy. Both were at the heart of the crime scene that was the Vote Leave/SCL/Cambridge Analytica/Facebook scandal. Their tactics will be the same. Stolen data, voter manipulation, engagement and disengagement tactics, AB testing, micro-ad targeting. In other words – the illegal gaming of an electoral system unable to defend itself.

The Tories are already at it again – targeting millions with micro-ads. They say there’s nothing wrong with it – and there wouldn’t be if the data wasn’t stolen or gained without consent. It wouldn’t be if the technical delivery systems weren’t built around military structures to win ‘hearts and minds’ on the battlefield and it wouldn’t be if the tactics used weren’t just unethical or immoral but downright sinister. But they are.

This dark money – what is it? It’s illegal cash stuffed into third-party organisations to beat antiquated electoral laws in Britain and keep private the donors. For example, one trail of dodgy cash leads from American so-called think tanks such as the Heritage Foundation, the Cato Institute and the all-powerful Atlas Network – the same organisations who surround Donald Trump. Another involved in the UK is the Taxpayers Alliance and Insitute of Economic Affairs. The former was caught stuffing its bank account with hundreds of thousands of US dollars in money from undeclared American donors, the latter caught on videooffering American donors access to Tory MP’s inside the Brexit negotiations. Of course, none of this seems to be illegal or even immoral nowadays. Somehow, none of these organisations have been properly reprimanded as the pitiful fines dished out are minuscule to their budgets.

Going back to the Tory party treasurer, what do you now see?

It’s a party immersed in dirty money, much of it laundered through the City of London. Its origins come mainly from billionaires, many are foreign, but also from opaque think tanks and front charities. Charlatans, crooks and con-artists whose money comes comes from tax evasion, financial crime and more – are represented by the establishment, just as much as they are at the very heart of the British government.

And those extreme Brexit fanboys, the far-right thugs on Britain’s streets, such as the followers of Tommy Robinson, (himself funded by American far-right organisations), the loudmouths with big shiny boots and green bomber jackets don’t realise whose side they are fighting for. Do they really think that the likes of old Etonians, billionaires, bankers and oligarch’s are somehow going to reward them for being fellow travellers of an ideology designed to benefit the rich?

*

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

Featured image is from TP

Trump the Russian Puppet. A Story That Just Will Not Die

September 12th, 2019 by Philip Giraldi

Certainly, there are many things that President Donald Trump can rightly be criticized for, but it is interesting to note how the media and chattering classes continue to be in the grip of the highly emotional but ultimately irrational “Trump derangement syndrome (TDS).” TDS means that even the most ridiculous claims about Trump behavior can be regurgitated by prominent journalists without anyone in the media even daring to observe that they are both professional dissemblers of truth who lie regularly to enhance their professional resumes.

There are two persistent bogus narratives about Donald Trump that are, in fact, related. The first is that his campaign and transition teams collaborated with the Russian government to defeat Hillary Clinton. Even Robert Mueller, he of the famous fact-finding commission, had to admit that that was not demonstrable. The only government that succeeded in collaborating with the incoming Trumpsters was that of Israel, but Mueller forgot to mention that or even look into it.

Nevertheless, Russia as a major contributing element in the Trump victory continues to be cited in the mainstream media, seemingly whenever Trump is mentioned, as if it were demonstrated fact. The fact is that whatever Russia did was miniscule and did not in any way alter the outcome of the election. Similarly, allegations that the Kremlin will again be at it in 2020 are essentially baseless fearmongering and are a reflection of the TDS desire to see the president constantly diminished in any way possible.

The other narrative that will not die is the suggestion that Donald Trump is either a Russian spy or is in some other, possibly psychological fashion, controlled by Russian President Vladimir Putin. That spy story was first floated by several former senior CIA officers who were closely tied to the Hillary Clinton campaign, apparently because they believed they would benefit materially if she were elected.

Former CIA Acting Director Michael Morell was the most aggressive promoter of Trump as Russian spy narrative. In August 2016, he wrote a New York Times op-ed entitled “I Ran the CIA. Now I’m endorsing Hillary Clinton.” Morell’s story began with the flat assertion that

“Mrs. Clinton is highly qualified to be commander in chief. I trust she will deliver on the most important duty of a president – keeping our nation safe… Donald J. Trump is not only unqualified for the job, but he may well pose a threat to our national security.”

In his op-ed, Morell ran through the litany of then GOP candidate Trump’s observed personality and character failings while also citing his lack of experience, but he delivered what he thought to be his most crushing blow when he introduced Vladimir Putin into the discussion. Putin, it seems, a wily ex-career intelligence officer, is “trained to identify vulnerabilities in an individual and to exploit them. That is exactly what he did early in the primaries. Mr. Putin played upon Mr. Trump’s vulnerabilities… In the intelligence business, we would say that Mr. Putin had recruited Mr. Trump as an unwitting agent of the Russian Federation.”

How can one be both unwitting and a recruited agent? Some might roll their eyes at that bit of hyperbole, but Morell, who was a top analyst at the Agency but never acquired or ran an actual spy in his entire career, goes on to explain how Moscow is some kind of eternal enemy. For Morell that meant that Trump’s often stated willingness to work with Putin and the nuclear armed state he headed was somehow the act of a Manchurian Candidate, seen by Morell as a Russian interest, not an American one. So much for the presumed insider knowledge that came from the man who “ran the CIA.”

The most recent “former intelligence agents’” blast against Trump appeared in the Business Insider last month in an article entitled “US spies say Trump’s G7 performance suggests he’s either a ‘Russian asset’ or a ‘useful idiot’ for Putin.” The article cites a number of former government officials, including several from the CIA and FBI, who claimed that Trump’s participation at the recent G7 summit in Biarritz France was marked by pandering to Putin and the Kremlin’s interests, including a push to re-include Russia in the G-7, from which it was expelled after the annexation of Crimea.

One current anonymous FBI source cited in the article described the Trump performance as a “new low,” while a former senior Justice Department official, labeled Trump’s behavior as “directly out of the Putin playbook. We have a Russian asset sitting in the Oval Office.” An ex-CIA officer speculated that the president’s “intent and odd personal fascination with President Putin is worth serious scrutiny,” concluding that the evidence is “overwhelming” that Trump is a Russian asset, while other CIA and NSA veterans suggested that Trump might be flattering Putin in exchange for future business concessions in Moscow.

Another recently retired FBI special agent opined that Trump was little more than “useful idiot” for the Russians, though he added that it would not surprise him if there were also Russian spies in Trump’s inner circle.

The comments in the article are almost incoherent. They come from carefully selected current and former government employees who suffer from an excess of TDS, or possibly pathological paranoia, and hate the president for various reasons. What they are suggesting is little more than speculation and not one of them was able to cite any actual evidence to support their contentions. And, on the contrary, there is considerable evidence that points the other way. The US-Russia relationship is at its lowest point ever according to some observers and that has all been due to policies promoted by the Trump Administration to include the continuing threats over Crimea, sanctions against numerous Russian officials, abrogation of existing arms treaties, and the expansion of aggressive NATO activity right up to the borders with Russia.

Just this past week, the United States warned Russia against continuing its aerial support for the Syrian Army advance to eliminate the last major terrorist pocket in Idlib province. Once against, Washington is operating on the side of terrorists in Syria and against Russia, a conflict that the United States entered into illegally in the first place. Either Donald Trump acting as “the Russian agent” actually thinks threatening a Moscow that is pursuing its legitimate interests is a good idea or the labeling of the president as a “Putin puppet” or “useful idiot” is seriously misguided.

*

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

Philip M. Giraldi, Ph.D., is Executive Director of the Council for the National Interest, a 501(c)3 tax deductible educational foundation (Federal ID Number #52-1739023) that seeks a more interests-based U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East. Website is councilforthenationalinterest.org, address is P.O. Box 2157, Purcellville VA 20134 and its email is [email protected]. He is a frequent contributor to Global Research.

Featured image is from Wikimedia Commons

Activists Follow the Money Fueling Amazon Fires

September 12th, 2019 by Negin Owliaei

While the world watches in horror as fires rage on in the Amazon, activists are shining a light on the big businesses destroying what’s popularly known as the “lungs of the Earth.” On September 5, people around the globe stood in solidarity with the rainforest’s indigenous communities by partaking in the Global Day of Action for the Amazon, staging protests and singling out the bad actors profiting off deforestation. 

In Washington, D.C. protesters chanted “Put out the flames, we name your names — politicians, corporate vultures, you’re the ones we blame,” as they marched from the White House to the Brazilian Consulate. Activists around the world have been protesting Brazilian President Jair Bolsonaro, who has steadily rolled back indigenous land rights and environmental protections from his very first hours in office. A coalition — which includes Amazon Watch and Friends of the Earth, among others — is also putting pressure on the multinational corporations turning a profit off the destruction of the Amazon.

Amazon Watch, a California-based organization that works in concert with indigenous and environmental groups, issued a report earlier this year documenting the dozens of companies that stand to make money as Bolsonaro strips regulations in Brazil. The report, titled Complicity in Destruction, highlights the main drivers of deforestation — from soy and beef commodity traders like Cargill and JBS, to their financiers in North America and Europe, like BlackRock, Santander, and JP Morgan Chase. And research from Mighty Earth has documented the retailers most associated with those traders, like Costco, Walmart, and Ahold Delhaize — which owns Stop & Shop, Giant, and Food Lion.

Protesters in D.C. took aim at the U.S.-based companies highlighted in the campaign to defund deforestation.

“There are many, many large corporations in the United States — including Cargill, ADM and BlackRock — who all have a hand in the destruction of the Amazon and we encourage all Americans to use their economic power to put pressure on these companies to do the right thing,” Todd Larsen, the Executive Co-Director for Consumer & Corporate Engagement at Green America told Inequality.org.

Green America is encouraging Americans to use their investments to put economic pressure on the companies profiting off deforestation.

“The only reason these companies are able to keep burning down the forest year over year is because their customers keep paying them to do so,”  Bárbara Amaral of Brazilians for Democracy and Social Justice told the crowd in D.C. “It’s time for supermarket giants like Costco, Walmart, Ahold, to immediately suspend contacts with Cargill and JBS, and for the public to show up at the front doors of Cargill headquarters and yell that it’s time to protect the Amazon.”

Protecting the environment must include structural changes to the economy that keep companies from making a quick buck off climate disaster, protesters said.

“I came out today because I am in support of changing the climate debate into a debate that is critical about the current economic system that exists in the world that is perpetuating climate change,” Gabby Rosazza, a campaigner with the International Labor Rights Forum told Inequality.org. “In particular, I’m tired of hearing about how individual actions can address climate change such as buying metal straws versus plastic straws. I’m more interested in learning about who is profiting from climate change.”

One of the companies profiting the most? BlackRock — the largest asset manager in the world. A report released last month by Amazon Watch and Friends of the Earth found BlackRock to be among the top three shareholders in 25 of the largest publicly-traded deforestation-risk companies. And the asset manager’s deforestation presence grew by more than $500 million between 2014 and 2018. Activists in London, Stockholm, San Francisco, Boston and Hong Kong targeted BlackRock during Thursday’s Global Day of Action, holding protests and die-ins outside the asset manager’s offices.

The recent report and protests are the latest addition to a pressure campaign mounting on BlackRock for continuously profiting off climate destruction, from the Amazon to the Alberta tar sands to Arctic oil reserves. Indigenous and environmental activists held protests at BlackRock’s annual general meeting earlier this year. Luiz Eloy Terena, legal counsel for the National Indigenous Organization of Brazil (also known as APIB) and a member of Brazil’s indigenous Terena community, expressed her criticism to BlackRock CEO Larry Fink directly during the meeting and demanded an audit of BlackRock investees operating on Brazilian indigenous territories.

 “Brazilian indigenous peoples and lands are under immense threat from the beef and soy industries working hand in glove with the Bolsonaro regime to undermine protections that keep our forests standing and our climate stable,” Terena said in a statement released after his conversation with Fink.

“When BlackRock funnels investments to these bad actors in Brazil, it is complicit in the destruction of tropical forests and violation of human rights. BlackRock must use its significant influence over these companies to signal that it will not tolerate policies that violate indigenous rights and damage the climate.”

*

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

Negin Owliaei co-edits Inequality.org.

Kelsey Hawkins-Johnson is a Landau Fellow at the Institute for Policy Studies.

Featured image is from Greenpeace

“USA Pretend” Unmasked

September 12th, 2019 by S. Brian Willson

Viet Nam – Epiphany for the USA

There was a moment in Viet Nam when I questioned whether everything I had been taught about “America” was one big fabricated lie – a huge pretend. It was April 1969, and I had just experienced witnessing the aftermath of a series of bombings of supposed military targets. They were in fact inhabited, undefended villages where virtually everyone in those villages perished from low flying bombings, that included napalming. The majority of dead – murdered – were young burned children. On several occasions I observed those bodies up close, sickened by the sight, now burdened by the criminal nature of the US war. The policy of accumulating massive numbers of body counts was an inkling of the Grand Lie. Reading the entrance sign to my squadron in-country headquarters, “Welcome to Indian Country,” was a first clue.

My duty station was the “home” of the fighter-bombers and pilots who followed orders to destroy those “enemy targets”, i.e., villages. I was the USAF night security commander following orders to protect those soldiers and planes from mortar and sapper attacks.

A few days later I was reading an article in Stars and Stripes, an official, independent newspaper for soldiers, reporting on a recent Supreme Court decision (Street v. New York, 1969) that upheld the right of desecrating our “sacred” symbol – the US flag. During a period of increased burnings of the US American flag in protests of the US wars against African-Americans at home, and Asians abroad, an African-American veteran recipient of a Bronze Star, Sidney Street, publicly burned his personal flag on a New York City street corner for which he was arrested and convicted.

Depressed, I pondered how it is that one could be arrested for burning a piece of cloth – even a national symbol – that represented an official policy of criminally burning innocent human beings, including large numbers of young children, while the pilot-perpetrators were commended, and whom, in my duties I was protecting? Initially suicidal, I had difficulty wrapping my head around this dystopian nightmare. I was in psychic shock from extreme cognitive dissonance.

Our behavior against the Vietnamese, a nation of peasants with one-sixth the population of the USA, one-thirtieth its size, certainly must rank as one of the worst of a number of barbarisms in the 20th Century. The US left 26 million bomb craters, sprayed 21 million gallons of DNA-altering chemical warfare on the landscape and people, murdered some 6 million Southeast Asians, destroyed by bombing over 13,000 of Viet Nam’s 21,000 villages, 950 churches and pagodas, 350 clearly marked hospitals, 3,000 high schools and universities, 15,000 bridges, etc.

Why all this overwhelming firepower and destruction? Incredulously, to prevent the Vietnamese from enjoying their self-determination, absurdly touted as necessary to stop “communism.” Does there in fact exist a kind of psychopathy in our cultural DNA? Though I hadn’t fired a bullet myself, or dropped a bomb, I had been a compliant participant in a mindless murder machine. Viet Nam was not an aberration, but consistent with a long history of arrogant interventions revealing something very dark about who we are. Was I part of a savage culture of unthinking sadists, I wondered?

VNWarMontage.png

Clockwise, from top left: U.S. combat operations in Ia Đrăng, ARVN Rangers defending Saigon during the 1968 Tết Offensive, two A-4C Skyhawks after the Gulf of Tonkin incident, ARVN recapture Quảng Trị during the 1972 Easter Offensive, civilians fleeing the 1972 Battle of Quảng Trị, and burial of 300 victims of the 1968 Huế Massacre. (Source: Wikimedia Commons)

Learning Real People’s Versus Fake, Kool Aid US History

I have spent countless hours studying a more comprehensive people’s version of world and US history. Study of US history of course is part of the Eurocentric globalization/colonization over the past 500 years. The 20 percent Eurocentric “developed-world” is a product of self-proclaimed “superiors” violently and deceitfully stealing resources and labor from the other 80 percent, all cloaked in the conceited rhetoric of spreading “civilization.” This patriarchal policy is totally unsustainable from a social, political, ecological, psychological, and moral perspective.

It is instructive to learn that the “Founding Fathers” chose, not democracy, but oligarchy/plutocracy “to protect the minority of the opulent against the majority.” Jefferson’s “empire of liberty” was a vision to expand private property for large landowners. Our Constitution is more a document to preserve freedom of “property” and commercial transactions, than it is to preserve human liberty, of which free speech is the most fundamental. Historian Staughton Lynd summarized it thus: inherited land replaced inherited government. Recently the highest court of the land ruled the legal fiction that property (money) is a person with free speech rights, as preposterous as the earlier legal fiction that a person (slave) is property.

A fear-laden gun culture originating in violent settler-colonialism and white nationalism-supremacy serve as a basis for the founding ideology and military strategy of the United States. Slave patrols and Indian fighters were our first “special operations,” establishing the essential White character of our militarized culture. As the systematic dispossession project continued, the US government signed over 400 treaties with Indigenous nations, violating every oneof them, establishing deceit and outright lying as part of our cultural DNA.

The politics of violence based on classism and racism has been incessant throughout our history. Examining the US criminal injustice system housing a quarter of all the world’s prisoners reveals brutal truth when comparing extreme disparities in punishments by race, and class. Justice?

I studied the history of the city of my birth – Geneva, New York, which in the 1700s was Kanadesaga, capitol of the Seneca nation. On September 8, 1779, Major General John Sullivan and his forty-five hundred soldiers eradicated these “merciless Indian Savages” in the largest Revolutionary War battle of 1779 – a terrorist, scorched-earth campaign massacring civilians while destroying all forty of the well-established Seneca towns, including Kanadesaga. By 1788, the European settlers renamed it Geneva, as if nothing had happened, a deserved reward for superiors.

All those arrowheads I enjoyed collecting as a child possessed a profound dark secret about the nature and character of my ancestors. However, I would only discover their secret after deep reflections from my Viet Nam awakening.

Official US military interventionism began with the US Marine invasion of the Dominican Republic in 1798 during the undeclared naval war with France. However, hundreds of settler paramilitary units had been killing Indians since the 1620s. But imperialism has been explicit policy since the late 1890s to assure domestic prosperity. In 1907, Woodrow Wilson while president of Princeton University (six years before being elected US president) lectured:

“Since trade ignores national boundaries and the manufacturer insists on having the world as a market, the flag of his nation must follow him, and the doors of the nations which are closed against him must be battered down.….Colonies must be obtained or planted, in order that no useful corner of the world may be overlooked or left unused.”

President McKinley, and various Senators continued to advocate “a foreign market for our surplus products.” US meddling, both “soft,” and hard, has never stopped.

Traveling to a number of nations in Latin America, Asia, and the Middle East have exposed me to details of hundreds of US overt interventions, and thousands of covert destabilization actions. These policies have caused the murders of millions, 20 to 30 million alone since WWII during the so-called “Cold War”. Only five of these nearly 600 military interventions have been declared wars as required by the Constitution, clearly indicating our sacred document is not taken seriously. This also tells us the system has no interest in being accountable to its own Constitution, or international law. Speaking with peasants in these victim-countries invariably reveals the horrendous cruelty of US interveners and their surrogates. Does the US possess any intentions to be law-abiding? Does the US possess any feelings for others, or only selfish imperial ambitions? And does anyone care?

Violence against even White citizens has matched violence we have carried out in foreign policy. The Alien and Sedition Acts of 1917-18 were enacted to suppress anti-war dissent against US entrance into World War I. Thousands of US Americans were deported and imprisoned following World War I for “radical” anti-war expressions, including labor leaders and socialists. Some were tortured in US prisons. Ironically, free speech dissent is most critical when a government decides to go to war. The original Alien and Sedition Acts of 1798 stifled free speech of US citizens, including elected officials, who objected to the undeclared war against France. Free speech?  Huh?

While the US was locking up and deporting citizens for opposing World War I, the FBI was ignoring extremely violent KKK supremacist groups whose six million members – nearly 25 percent of the white male population at the time – were lynching with impunity an average of six African-Americans a month. Equal protection?

The first known use of air power against civilians was committed by US Marines in Haiti in 1919. But, the second known use of US air power against civilians occurred in Tulsa, Oklahoma, May 31-June 1, 1921, when hundreds of economically successful Black residents living in a 36-square block community were murdered, including from low flying white-piloted planes dropping incendiaries, destroying nearly 1,300 buildings. How many US Americans know about this abomination?

Walter White, a longtime leader in the National Association for Advancement of Colored People (NAACP), concluded that southerners fear of Negro progress offends the intangible feeling of racial superiority, explaining the intensity of White savagery. The sense of established White superiority (or anyone possessing those feelings) often leads to an insecure character from lack of practicing accountability with others in a world of varied, challenging relationships. Those feelings easily morph into paranoia of others, and delusions of self grandeur – one of the most difficult psychological orders to treat, as the persistent pathology of racism (and classism) so attests.

The third known use of US bombing civilians occurred at Blair Mountain, West Virginia, August-September 1921. As many as 15,000 striking coal miners attempting to unionize were attacked by 2,000 armed sheriff’s deputies, coal company paramilitaries, US troops, and US Army Martin MB-1 bombers, killing as many as 100 miners, with many more wounded. Before the battles had ended, more than a million ammunition rounds had been fired. Nearly 1,000 miners were ironically indicted for murder of the nearly 30 deaths among the miner’s attackers. Over 700 union organizers have been murdered in our history. Is this known by many?

We continue to be obsessed with personal and government guns (police and military) as a guarantor of our security. Those who question easy access to guns, even assault weapons, or the ridiculously wasteful military spending, are thought of as nearly traitorous. US citizens personally own nearly 400 million firearms, or 40 percent of all private guns in the world. On average, three US citizens are killed every day by police, disproportionately African-Americans. So far in 2019, the US has experienced more than one mass shooting (4 or more shot) everyday. Our gun death rate is ten times above that of other high income countries. Using violence as a default position historically ends in disaster, as it has been proven over and over that violence spirals out of control into more violence, while distracting from serious discourse. Why the incredible record of violence? Insecurity?

Under its doctrine of Full Spectrum Dominance, the US government routinely dispatches military ships to every sea space, military planes to every airspace, hundreds of satellites into outer space, while ordering Special Forces units to operate clandestinely in nearly three-fourths of the world’s countries. Additionally, of the 1.4 million US soldiers in the world, nearly 200,000 are positioned in as many as 150 countries, most stationed at 800 major military bases in 80 nations. The US also possesses a large percentage of the world’s weapons of mass destruction, and recently has dispensed with any genuine effort at containing the spread of nuclear weapons. The annual military budget, including hidden costs, amounts to an exorbitant $1.25 trillion a year, more money than the next seven countries combined spend on their militaries. If you want to be guaranteed health care and a modest house, join the Army. Otherwise these human rights are “unaffordable.” If you want gun control, start at the top.

How to explain the extent and breadth of our violent militarism and global imperialism? Paranoia? It seems that our sense of superiority justifies hurtful dispossession from others to acquire and preserve undeserved privilege.

After exiting the military in 1970, my opinions about the US war against the Vietnamese were affirmed with the 1971 release of the Pentagon Papers revealing the more than 20 years of criminal intentions, and deceit, to thwart Vietnamese aspirations for self-determination. Earlier in 1971, January 31-February 2, Vietnam Veterans Against the War conducted the “Winter Soldier Investigation: An Inquiry into American War Crimes” when nearly 120 veterans testified about the war crimes and atrocities they committed or witnessed in Viet Nam. I was aghast when learning about Nixon’s intended Huston plan to criminally interrupt antiwar activities, the FBI’s sixteen-year COINTELPRO of more than 2,000 illegal actions against innocent US citizens, the CIA’s Operation CHAOS keeping tabs on 300,000 citizens opposed to the Viet Nam war, and the National Security Agency’s Operation SHAMROCK watch lists of those communicating with people overseas. Respect for the law? Huh? Further research revealed that as early as 1934 President Roosevelt instituted a long-standing joint FBI-military program to conduct domestic intelligence with broad investigative scope. The “American” Kool Aid indeed has sedated us.

Today our freedoms are further curtailed, for example, as the National Security Agency (NSA) spies on everyUS American, the Authorization of Military Force Act (AUFA) allows warrantless electronic surveillance of anyone suspected of aiding terrorism, and the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) enables indefinite detention of US citizens, even arrest by the military. Where is the Constitution when we need it? Or was it ever really there for us?

One of the most revealing chapters in our history is the incredible sympathy the US possessed for authoritarian Nazi Germany. Even though the Soviet military was most critical in defeating the Nazis in World War II, deep fear of the Bolsheviks (the emergence of an alternative social-economic system to capitalism) motivated US America’s wealthy class, with complicity of the US government, to support the rise of Nazi Germany from the mid-1930s into the war years themselves. The US capitalists supported the Nazi capitalists to defeat the “threat” of socialism. Elite power brokers included leaders of Wall Street and wealthy “barons” such as the Rockefellers and Andrew Mellon, and businesses such as Ford Motor, IBM (tabulating daily location of Jews in the Holocaust), General Motors, General Electric, Standard Oil, Texaco, ITT, International Harvester, Chase Manhattan Bank, the House of Morgan banking dynasty, DuPont, United Aircraft, etc., who enjoyed huge profits from the war. And following the war, the US’s “Operation Gladio” systematically defeated popular anti-Nazi groups throughout Europe, while “Operation Paperclip” secretly brought Nazi scientists and other professionals to the US.Our affinity for fascism has been established.

Psychologically, it is important to note that our national identity has consistently been markedly defined by demonizing others – “merciless savages”, “uppity ni**ers”, “anarchists”, “radicals”, “communists”, “Russians”, “alien filth”, “narco-traffickers”, “terrorists”, “shithole countries”, “vermin”, etc., echoing psychologist Carl Jung’s principle of “shadow projection.” Jung described a cowardly trick we play on ourselves: avoid looking in the mirror so as not to take responsibility for seeing our own demons. We “see” the evil in others, perpetuating a nation addicted to war against them, obscenely profiting as we self-righteously deny our own severe pathologies. If we had looked in the mirror we would have learned what Pogo told us, “We have met the enemy and he is us.”

Eco-psychologist Chellis Glendinning suggests that modern humans suffer from deep insecurity that emerged from collective traumas hundreds of generations ago. A serious disconnect from intimacy with the earth occurred when our ancient ancestors began controlling nature through agriculture and animal domestication. Evolutionary philosopher Gregory Bateson concludes that addictive behavior is consistent with the Western approach to life that pits mind against body, while behaving as if the natural world is a commodity. We seek various distractions to numb our pain from this feeling of aloofness. Technology, not Nature, has become our God.

Recognizing the Lie

Could it be that virtually everything I was taught by my parents, community, school, church, and political leaders in terms of factual history, morality, ethics, and rational thinking about “America” was the opposite of what had been represented? How could that be?

Yes, I have been conditioned by an incredibly comfortable fairy tale, a massive cultural system denying or distorting historic realities, founded on shameful genocides. I had been betrayed. We are told we are the greatest, even as we (s)elect imperial Presidents and Congresspeople in an orgy of fantastic fiction about “democracy.” The US Senate is a millionaire’s club, with many members of the US House also in that class. Indian author Arundhati Roy describes “democracy” and “pro-democracy” as the “Free World’s whores”, hollow words satisfying a whole range of tastes, available to be used and abused at will where facts don’t matter.

US America loves its myth of being committed to justice for all, but in fact it is a society ruled and funded by a wealthy elite. This is not a government of, by and for the people! It is a ruthless oligarchy sanctioned by a majority of the people believing their vote counts. Money has always mattered, severely rigging the game in many ways toward an upper class (obscenely bribing candidates, corporate personhood power, gerrymandering, proprietary election software, hacking capacity to effect results, Jim Crow laws, voter suppression, etc.). The oligarchy approves “acceptable” candidates, while contrived rhetoric, propaganda, and our education system keep us faithful to our political system comprised of one party with two right wings, the winner ruling by tyranny of its majority. But the bottom line is that (s)elected representatives obey their large donors who thrive on war-making against vulnerable others.

Nonetheless, these facts do not preclude existence of individual conscientious politicians. However, the political economic system itself is fixed, it is not broken, a dilemma every honest politician must face. This delicious Kool Aid has in fact concealed a delusional madness, a Kafkaesque, Orwellian nightmare. Our political leaders have consistently and collectively acted outside the Constitution, while selectively applying laws that preserve the cabal in power. It has always been this way, though the social revolution of the 1960s threatened to overturn the oligopoly. This revolution was unfortunately unsuccessful but the fearful system’s repressive reaction is now in its fifth decade. In the end, we are in fact a nation of men, not laws.

So, in effect, our mythological story made me functionally stupid, a “good kid” who became complicit in mindless, mass murder. And I am suggesting that it has created a society comprised of millions of functionally stupid people. This is different from intelligence. This is not idiocy. This is serious non-thinking of intellectually capable people who, in effect, have suspended their autonomous critical thinking, basking in an intoxicated spell of our sense of national invincibility. It has enhanced the Friedman era of neoliberal privatization, worshipping greed, while millions are without health care and homeless. This is mass psychopathy, a dangerous cultural mental illness.

German Lutheran theologian Dietrich Bonhoeffer, while a prisoner in one of Hitler’s jails, wrote about the role of stupidity in the German people that substantially contributed to the rise of Nazism and worship of savior Hitler. He argued that it is very separate from intellectual capacity but occurs when a cult-like belief system dangerously suspends critical thinking, bringing collective relief to an emotionally anxious population. It is a form of voluntary servitude more dangerous than malice, an entrenched belief system that makes genuine dialogue and education almost impossible. (Bonhoeffer was hung in April 1945).

As US Americans we possess no visceral memory of the two unspeakable genocides our ancestors shamefully committed, forcefully dispossessing Indigenous Africans of their labor, and genuine Americans of their land, murdering millions with impunity. Even though we are superficially taught about slavery and conquering the Indigenous, their egregious suffering has been outsourced outside our feeling fields for 25 generations. Thus, was established our cultural “DNA” of achieving expansion benefitting a few (mostly White males and those who think like them) through any means while escaping any accountability whatsoever. Now nearly 600 overt, and thousands of covert interventions later, US Americans still know little or nothing about our unspeakable imperialism. Why not? Isn’t it critically important that we seriously grapple with our diabolical history?

In 2019, the President, US military, CIA, and other “regime change” entities like the National Endowment for Democracy (NED), and their funders in Congress, continue to intervene almost everywhere, destabilizing with crippling sanctions, sadistically causing suffering, causing chaos, creating kill lists, murdering, bombing, etc. Does any of this criminal insanity even happen? Has it ever? Does it matter to most people? I believe there is a deep shame that burdens us. It is understandable to avoid looking at shame, but the cost is perpetual war for perpetual peace until we are all dead. The era of privilege is over, as we enter the terrifying era of consequences, bringing fear, insecurity and anxiety to many heretofore privileged folks. Denial becomes a lethal seduction.

Our amnesia has precluded emotional intelligence, a depth of character, so necessary for mature development, with little understanding of historical context. We are effectively emotionally retarded, blocking the universal embedded human feeling of empathy, and the collective solidarity that emerges therefrom. Thus, “America” is very insecure having been conveniently wrapped in a fake, pretend narrative, convincing us of our “exceptional” nature, ignoring both our systemic pattern of domestic violence, and global imperialism. The corporate media, and corporate-owned social media platforms, serve as stenographers for our oligarchic policies and values. They create an agenda-driven narrative that inoculates our minds with constant group think untruths of neo-liberal capitalism.

We now live in a post-truth world, where narcissistic life is experienced as virtual, not real. Do we feel the pain of the Afghani, Yemeni, the Syrian, Iraqi, Iranian, Libyan, Somali, the Russian, the Venezuelan, Nicaraguan, Honduran, Guatemalan, Mexican, Palestinian in Gaza, or our neighbor down the street whose cancer left her homeless due to foreclosure? How much do we care? Answering these questions can tell us a lot about our own survival, including yours and mine.

Serious discussion and debate of a broad range and depth of ideas is virtually nonexistent. Mention of “socialism” is considered traitorous to the religion of neoliberal corporatism. In reality, we promote individualism over community, competition over cooperation, and acquisitiveness over inquisitiveness. These capitalist characteristics condition human development in a way that is diametrically opposed to our inherent, genetic nature as a social species requiring for survival cooperation in all our relations.

The economy and political system is now virtually dependent upon what Eisenhower proclaimed as the military/security industrial complex, and that complex thrives on creation of endless “enemies” which produce obscene war profits for a very few. Community and family units have disintegrated, and citizenship is less engaged as life is increasingly defined in terms of commodities. Everything and everybody is for sale to the highest bidder. This leads to anomie, violence and madness. And yet, we continue to enjoy shopping as the government conducts its daily bombing. How can this be? How can we pay taxes and go about our business as usual when so many people in the world are being impoverished or eliminated by US policies facilitating the wealthy getting richer?

The Deep Divide – 1959 – 2019

Having graduated from a rural upstate New York high school in 1959 at the height of post-WWII Cold War euphoria, in the midst of the short historic blip of aspiring consumerism, the “American” Kool Aid I and my 28 fellow graduates drank at that time was delicious. I was raised in a lower middle class home by conservative, religious parents, not dissimilar to the upbringings of many of my classmates. Life seemed great, and simple. However, my Viet Nam experience rudely exposed the poisonous nature of this delicious drink and its true ingredients.

Discovering information about my former classmates finds several still living in the same area we grew up, possessing similar views to that which we believed in 1959 – religiously and politically conservative, but now supporters of MAGA, Trump and Israel. One classmate who had been a basketball cheerleader, still married to her high school sweetheart after 60 years, read my Facebook postings from Nicaragua, then declared me “a fool” admonishing me to “stay there.” This same cheerleader chanted for each starter before games, such as “Brian, Brian, he’s our man, if he can’t do it, nobody can.”

Being raised in and conditioned by US America instills a desire to preserve a fantasy of post-WWII euphoria for many, at least until President Reagan. But experiential reality painfully destroys make-believe. I argue that the USA has never been great, but suspect many of my 1959 classmates would vehemently disagree.

Trump Exposes the Pretend Society

The phenomenon of the Presidency of Donald John Trump disturbingly “offers” our culture, and the world, an overdue undisguised photo of our real culture and its politics. Some say Trump brings out the worst in people – hatred, self-centeredness, cruelty, insensitivity, crassness, racism, insulting language, poisonous divisiveness, adolescent delinquency, etc. But is it possible that his language and demeanor are validating expressions of historically suppressed feelings and values which have never been sufficiently addressed or openly acknowledged in our Eurocentric, capitalist, money-oriented, nature-defying, often mean-spirited culture? These censored feelings once unleashed, no matter how adolescent they seem, are capable of manifesting in a vicious authoritarian and neo-fascist state, as they did in Germany nearly 100 years ago. It seems we are at that point again.

The “developed” world, now led by the United States of America, has historically been built on egregious exploitation and violence hidden under fanciful rhetoric. Inevitably, the chickens will come home to roost. As Eurocentrics we have been lying to ourselves and the world with our highly touted economic system and “democracy,” fooling ourselves by myths and lies we have long believed about our “superiority” built on the suffering of others. As stated above, we have (s)elected leaders who are to varying degrees corrupted by money who use politically “correct” language and a finessed demeanor to gain approval. In fact, they have consistently been imperial and oligarchic, selfishly stealing to assure an insatiably consumptive lifestyle for under 5 percent of the world’s population (but only benefitting a minority of its own people), while gobbling up anywhere from 25 to 50 percent of the globe’s resources (depending on the resource and era examined). We ad nauseum excuse our interventions using “national security” or “humanitarian justice.” We have followed in the footsteps of our imperial teachers in the United Kingdom. Fair? Sustainable? Ever thought about the structural unfairness and gross arrogance that has enabled 500 years of colonization? Trump’s Presidency reveals a lot about us that we have not wanted to recognize. Scary? Our historical chronic complicity in this horror story cannot be ignored.

Trump serves as an avatar, or caricature, of a collective, creepy, violent, disgusting, mean-spirited, immature culture, at least as experienced by large numbers of people both in the US and the world. Trump’s appeal can largely be attributed to the fact that he has taken the clothes off of Pretend. His childish nature of lying, tweeting and exaggerating, ironically reveals an ugly “truth” about our modern selves that has been drowned under incredible “public relations” – education, the media, Hollywood, sports, the State Department, etc. His extreme personal narcissism matches well our extreme collective exceptionalism. Is it clearer now just how big the LIE has been, protected by our comfortable 500-year myths? Welcome to dystopia, Kafka, and Orwell.

Conclusion

The 400-year history of Western dualistic Cartesian thinking (named after French philosopher Rene Descartes’ view of reductionist mind-body dualism) divorcing human beings from study of observable nature, has produced a terribly flawed epistemology. The opposite basis for knowledge is holism, a framework that enables comprehension of multiple interconnections and historical context. Dispensing with any serious concern for consequences, the insatiably consumer-driven materialistic Western Way of Life has ironically and blissfully been destroying life itself by its addiction to burning finite fossil fuels. The harsh truth is that a capitalist system is on a direct collision course with sustainable societies that require conserving healthy interconnected relationships with each other and the earth’s eco-system. We have become accustomed to wishful thinking that resources are infinite, and that they belong to us. This theft can only happen, of course, by force or its threat, and deceit, while living in the toxic illusion we are better than others. Does this suggest a kind of arrogant collective stupidity?

Nature bats last, something our cortex apparently chose to fatally ignore. We now face the greatest existential crisis as Nature bats last humbling modern humans into extinction, or near so. We somehow forgot the most critical truth of all – that we all part of the One. If we can now recognize our various levels of “stupidity”, we have an adrenaline opportunity to leap out of our heretofore seductive comfortable fantasy, choosing instead to access our buried human characteristic of interconnection with everything and everybody, i.e., mutual respect and accountability. This leap now must be of a revolutionary nature, rocketing us out of our historic arrogant pleasureableness. Our survival foundation: embracing the evolutionary feeling of empathy. Saving ourselves is pretty damn important, and that means saving life for all. Let’s do it! We are not worth more; they are not worth less.

*

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

Brian Willson, Viet Nam veteran and trained lawyer, has been a lifelong critic of US domestic and foreign policy. His essays and biography are found at his website: brianwillson.com. His recent book, “Don’t Thank Me for My Service: My Viet Nam Awakening to the Long History of US Lies” is published by Clarity Press (2018). His psycho-historical memoir, “Blood on the Tracks: The Life and Times of S. Brian Willson” was published by PM Press (2011). A documentary, “Paying the Price for Peace: The Story of S. Brian Willson” was produced in 2016 by Bo Boudart Productions.

Assad Government Saves Christianity in Syria

September 12th, 2019 by Mark Taliano

Syria is being reborn, and its religious pluralism is being resurrected, sometimes literally from the ashes.

The ancient town of Maaloula, where Aramaic, the language of Christ, is still spoken, where St. Takla miraculously cured the sick, where NATO’s takfiri terrorists committed massacres, and destroyed shrines, churches, and mosques, is yet again an example of the religious pluralism typical of the Levant.

Yet again it is attracting people from Syria, Lebanon, and beyond to its sacred sites, ensconced, in the “land of the prophets.”

The twisted ideology and barbarity of the West’s terrorist proxies is gone now.

The Syrian Arab Army defeated Western imperialism here, and the Syrian government promises to continue its righteous fight until every inch of Syria has been liberated.

*

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

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

Featured image is from the author


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

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

Voices from Syria 

ISBN: 978-0-9879389-1-6

Author: Mark Taliano

Year: 2017

Pages: 128 (Expanded edition: 1 new chapter)

List Price: $17.95

Special Price: $9.95 

Click to order

Trump Replaces Bolton with Fringe Neocon

September 12th, 2019 by Kurt Nimmo

It was too good to be true. For a moment, I actually thought Trump had come to his senses and decided to scour the neocons from his administration.

I was overly optimistic. I should have known better.

.

.

Back in 2016, I wrote a small ebook about the neocons giving Trump advice during his presidential campaign. I focused on the influence of Frank Gaffney, founder of the Islamophobic Center for Security Policy (CSP).

Trump’s interim national security adviser, Charles Kupperman, was John Bolton’s sidekick. He is associated with CSP and its pro-Israel, anti-Iran, Islamophobic agenda. 

Kupperman is neck-deep in the military-industrial complex. He held senior positions at Lockheed Martin and Boeing. I’m sure Trump approves, having acted as a salesman for the death merchants. He used the ineffectual and illegal missile strike on Syria as a PR event. 

For now, Kupperman is interim national security adviser. Trump is looking at equally unqualified warmongers to eventually fill the slot. For instance, Brian Hook, Trump’s Special Representative for Iran and Senior Policy Advisor to Secretary of State Mike Pompeo. 

Hook co-founded the John Hay Initiative—named after President Theodore Roosevelt’s chief diplomat—a concerted effort to brainwash politicians and their staffs in the neocon way of doing things. Advisers include the high-level neocon Robert Kagan, former Dick Cheney adviser Eric Edelman, “the most influential neocon in academe,” Eliot Cohen, former Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security, Michael Chertoff, former NSA director Michael Hayden, and a host of others.

The list of insiders and neocons considered to replace Bolton is lengthy. The list of potentials includes Frederick Fleitz, a former CIA analyst and the president and CEO of CSP. He served as chief of staff to Undersecretaries of State for Arms Control John Bolton during the Bush regime. 

Trump is clueless. At first glance, it appeared the president may have tried to dampen the influence of the neocons on his disastrous foreign policy, but this assessment is far too optimistic. He fired Bolton—who said he resigned—because the mustachioed neocon disagreed and argued with Trump over hosting the Taliban at Camp David. Bolton and the neocons are not interested in peace, they’re masters of forever war. 

It was personal for Trump, as always. 

The neocons will continue to leverage their influence within the administration and Trump will continue to fire those who argue too vociferously. 

*

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

Kurt Nimmo writes on his blog, Another Day in the Empire, where this article was originally published. He is a frequent contributor to Global Research.

Featured image is from the author

A National Disgrace: A Review of the 9/11 Commission Report

September 12th, 2019 by David Ray Griffin

Many people have said that this Report “reads like a novel.” It is indeed surprisingly good when judged in terms of criteria appropriate to works of fiction. But the 9/11 Commission was supposed to conduct a serious investigation into the question of who was responsible for the attacks of 9/11. Instead, it simply presupposed the official conspiracy theory, according to which the attacks were planned and carried out solely by al-Qaeda. The Commission entirely ignored all evidence for the alternative conspiracy theory, according to which the attacks succeeded only because of complicity by members of the US government.

Having written a book that summarizes much of the evidence supportive of this alternative theory (“The New Pearl Harbor: Disturbing Questions about the Bush Administration and 9/11”), I read “The 9/11 Commission Report” to see how it handled this evidence. I found that it simply omitted most of it and distorted the rest.

For example, the Report simply repeats the official story about the 19 Arab hijackers, failing to mention that at least six of the named men have shown up alive. It even suggests that Waleed al-Shehri, who visited the US embassy in Morocco after 9/11, stabbed a flight attendant on AA 11 before it hit the North Tower (page 5). This sloppy scholarship proves to be no aberration.

With regard to why jet fighters failed to intercept any of the flights, the Report provides a radically revisionist account of 9/11. Claiming–in contradiction to the timeline provided by NORAD on September 18, 2001–that the FAA never notified the military about Flights 175, 77, and 93 until after they crashed, the Report fails to explain why NORAD had earlier said otherwise. This new timeline also changes the starting times of all the teleconferences, in order to claim that they could not have been the means for the military to have learned about the hijackings from the FAA. Also, to bolster the claim that the shootdown order was not given until after Flight 93 had crashed, the Report also contradicts by 45 minutes all prior testimony–including Secretary of Transportation Norman Mineta’s eyewitness testimony to the Commission itself–as to when Vice President Cheney descended to the Presidential Emergency Operations Center.

With regard to the World Trade Center, the Report fails to mention that fire had never caused steel-frame high-rise buildings to collapse. It also, by way of suggesting why the Twin Towers could have collapsed so easily, says that the core of each building consisted of “a hollow steel shaft” (541n1), whereas in reality the core of each consisted of 47 massive steel columns. While mentioning that the South Tower collapsed in 10 seconds (305), the Report otherwise fails to mention the fact that the collapses manifested 10 standard features of controlled demolitions. The Report handles the collapse of Building 7, which even FEMA admitted it could not explain, by simply failing to mention it.

With regard to the Pentagon, the Report fails to mention that the West Wing would have been the least likely target for terrorists, that its facade did not collapse until 30 minutes after the strike, and other facts in tension with the idea that the Pentagon was struck by Flight 77. And while claiming that al-Qaeda operatives did not strike a nuclear plant for fear that their plane would be shot down (245), the Report fails to point out that the Pentagon is even better protected, so that any aircraft without a military transponder would have been automatically shot down.

With regard to the FBI, the Report fails to mention many stories that are damaging to the official account of 9/11. These omitted stories include attorney David Schippers’ report that several FBI agents told him of their advance knowledge of the New York attacks, the complaint by Coleen Rowley (Time magazine person of the year) that FBI headquarters sabotaged the Moussaoui investigation, and the damning allegations made by FBI translator Sibel Edmonds in her 3.5-hour testimony to the Commission.

What about the allegation by Craig Unger (popularized in Michael Moore’s “Fahrenheit 9/11”) that the White House authorized a private flight carrying Saudis on September 13, before private flights were otherwise allowed? The Report “refutes” this allegation by simply saying that US airspace had been reopened at 11 AM that day (329, 556n25), thereby ignoring the crucial distinction between commercial flights, which were then allowed, and private flights, which were not.

The Report also provides radically ahistorical accounts of the attacks on Afghanistan and Iraq, ignoring all the evidence that these attacks were motivated by desires to establish military bases and to take over the oil (rather than by desires to protect human rights and promote democracy). In this and other ways, the Report omits all evidence that the Bush administration had plans of the sort that could have provided motives for allowing or even engineering the attacks of 9/11.

I have documented these and dozens of other problems in my book The 9/11 Commission Report: Omissions and Distortions . These problems are so great that the Report, instead of being nominated for a National Book Award, should be designated a National Disgrace.

David R. Griffin is author of The New Pearl Harbor – Disturbing Questions about the Bush Administration and 9/11 and The 9/11 Commission Report: Omissions and Distortions — A Critique of the Kean-Zelikow Report

y

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on A National Disgrace: A Review of the 9/11 Commission Report

For background, read this and this.

Excerpt:

An Iranian parliamentary faction has come up with the idea of establishing a club of sanctioned countries for concerted action against the US economic terrorism.

The chairman of the Parliament’s faction on countering sanctions, Poormokhtar, gave a report on the formation of the faction and its activities, as well as the ongoing efforts to establish the club of sanctioned countries. Iran’s FM, Zaraf, said this would be enhancing the already existing alliance of Russia, China, Syria, Iran, Cuba, Venezuela against US economic terrorism.

***

PressTV: Russia, China, Iran, Syria, Cuba, and Venezuela are among the nations that have come out against the United States’ use of sanctions to enforce its foreign policy around the world. In what ways can they fight these US sanctions as a group?

Peter Koenig: Brilliant idea. Solidarity makes stronger and eventually will attract other countries who are sick and tired of the US sanction regime, and since they have the backing of Russia and China – that’s a very strong alliance, especially an economic alliance. The sanction regime can only be broken through economics, meaning decoupling from the western monetary system. I said this before and say it again, at the risk of repeating myself.

After all, China is the world’s largest and strongest economy in Purchasing Power GDP measures – which is the only comparison that really counts. I believe this solidarity alliance against US sanctions is certainly worth a trial.

And personally, I think it will be a successful trial, as more countries will join, possibly even non-sanctioned ones, out of solidarity against a common tyrant.

The countries in solidarity against sanctions, in addition to ignoring them – and the more they ignore them, the more other countries will follow-suit, that’s logical as fear disappears and solidarity grows.

For example, Iran and Venezuela, oil exporting countries, could accompany their tankers by war ships. Yes, it’s an extra cost, but think of it as temporary and as a long-term gain. Would “Grace I” have been accompanied by an Iranian war ship – the Brits would not have dared confiscating it. That’s for sure.

PressTV: Many of the US sanctions have led to death of civilians in those particular countries. At the same time, sanctions have also led to the improvement of these countries to the point where domestic production in various fields advanced. Don’t sanctions become country-productive to US aims?’

PK: Of course, the sanctions are counter-productive. They have helped Russia to become food-self-sufficient, for example. That was not Washington’s intention and less so the intention of the EU, who followed Washington’s dictate like puppets.

Sanctions are like a last effort before the fall of the empire, to cause as much human damage as possible, to pull other nations down with the dying beast. It has always been like that – starting with the Romans through the Ottoman’s. They realize their time has come – but can’t see a world living in peace. So, they must plant as much unrest and misery as possible before they disappear.

That’s precisely what’s happening with the US.

Intimidation, building more and more military bases, all with fake money, as we know the dollar is worth nothing – FIATmoney – that the world still accepts – but less and less so, therefore military bases, deadly sanctions – and trade wars –
Trump knows that a trade war against China is a lost cause. Still, he can intimidate other countries by insisting on a trade war with China – or that’s what he thinks.

PressTV: The more countries US sanctions, illegally, more people turn against the US: doesn’t that defeat the US so-called fight against terrorism and violence?

PK: Well, US sanction and the entire scheme of US aggression has nothing to do with fighting terrorism, as you know. It’s nothing but expanding US hegemony over the world, and if needed, and more often than not, the US finances terrorism to fight proxy wars against their so-called enemies, meaning anybody not conforming to their wishes and not wanting to submit to their orders and not letting them exploit – or rather steal – their natural resources.

Syria is a case in point. ISIL is funded and armed by the Pentagon, who buys Serbian produced weapon to channel them through the Mid-East allies to Syrian terrorists, the ISIL or similar kinds with different names -just to confuse.

Venezuela too – the opposition consist basically of US trained, financed and armed opposition “leaders” – who do not want to participate in totally democratic elections – order of the US – boycott them. But as we have seen as of this day, the various coup attempts by the US against their legitimate and democratically elected President, Nicolás Maduro, have failed bitterly – and this despite the most severe sanctions regime South American has known, except for Cuba, against whom the US crime has been perpetuated for 60 years.

So, nobody should have the illusion that Washington’s wars are against terrorism. Washington is THE terrorist regime that fights for world hegemony.

*

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

Peter Koenig is an economist and geopolitical analyst. He is also a water resources and environmental specialist. He worked for over 30 years with the World Bank and the World Health Organization around the world in the fields of environment and water. He lectures at universities in the US, Europe and South America. He writes regularly for Global Research; ICH; RT; Sputnik; PressTV; The 21st Century; TeleSUR; The Saker Blog, the New Eastern Outlook (NEO); and other internet sites. He is the author of Implosion – An Economic Thriller about War, Environmental Destruction and Corporate Greed – fiction based on facts and on 30 years of World Bank experience around the globe. He is also a co-author of The World Order and Revolution! – Essays from the Resistance. He is a Research Associate of the Centre for Research on Globalization.

Featured image: Trump reinstate sanctions against Iran (White House photo by Shealah Craighead)

The Iranian Ambassador to India shocked his host nation by announcing that his country was considering building a CPEC-parallel LNG pipeline to China in response to New Delhi’s submission to the US’ unilateral sanctions regime, which could completely ruin India’s regional vision if this ambitious plan comes to pass and especially if Russia decides to actively participate in it.

Exciting News About E-CPEC+

India’s zero-sum plans of using its reinvigorated strategic partnership with Russia to “balance” China in the region of “Greater South Asia” are at risk of being ruined if Iran goes through with its recently announced interest in building a CPEC-parallel LNG pipeline to China (E-CPEC+, with the “E” standing for “energy”) and receives Moscow’s world-class support in constructing this game-changing piece of integrational infrastructure. The Iranian Ambassador to India shocked his host nation by declaring that “Iran is now discussing an LNG pipeline to China along the China-Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC), as India is not expected to retain its prior interest in LNG imports from Iran”, according to The Hindu’s report about his comments made to members of the Indian Association of Foreign Affairs Correspondents on Monday. His words are especially significant for the fact that they represent his country’s first public recognition that India submitted to the US’ sanctions regime and also signify a bold endorsement of the Belt & Road Initiative’s (BRI) flagship project of CPEC that India is adamantly against because of its maximalist claims in the Kashmir Conflict.

The Meek Shall Rise 

India already humiliatingly made a fool out of Iran on the world stage by complying with the US’ sanctions demands, victimizing its partner through blowback from the Hybrid War on CPEC, and entering into informal military alliances with its hated American and “Israeli” enemies, but the proverbial straw that broke the camel’s back and got Iran to stop behaving as India’s “junior partner” and finally become serious about changing its approach to it was likely the brutal use of force that was inflicted earlier this week upon the Kashmiris who were commemorating the matrydom of Imam Hussein. Publicly funded Iranian international media outlet Press TV extensively covered the wanton human rights abuses committed by the occupying Indian forces during this time and specifically pointed out to anyone who was unaware that Imam Hussein was also the third Shia Imam as well as the grandson of Prophet Muhammad, which is exceptionally important because the Islamic Republic of Iran is first and foremost an ideologically driven state constitutionally beholden per Article 154 to “support the struggles of the oppressed for their rights against the oppressors anywhere in the world.”

It is therefore absolutely unacceptable for Iran to not at the very least respond in an asymmetrical way while its co-confessionals are being visibly oppressed by occupying forces while attempting to commemorate the martyrdom of such an important Islamic figure, which explains why Tehran decided to cross the Rubicon and have its Ambassador to India publicly talk about its plans to construct E-CPEC+ despite knowing that his words would indelibly alter the dynamics of the Iranian-Indian Strategic Partnership. The Ambassador wisely referenced India’s decision to discontinue purchasing his country’s resources as the reason for his government exploring such a game-changing move, thereby ensuring that it can’t be interpreted as anything “hostile” or “anti-Indian” and indirectly laying the blame for any repercussions it could have on the regional balance of power solely at the feet of India’s political leadership. This is crucial to mention because the outcome could very realistically ruin India’s regional plans if the pipeline is ever constructed.

“Energy Diplomacy”

Not only would it naturally strengthen China and Pakistan’s joint regional position, but it might also do the same for Russia’s as well if Moscow decides to get involved in this promising project by bidding to construct it and then pairing its offshore gas reserves in Iran with the rest of the Islamic Republic’s available reserves in order to ensure that the pipeline is truly transformational in the geopolitical sense. Russia already signed a $10 billion memorandum of understanding with Pakistan last October to build an undersea pipeline connecting Iran and India via that nation’s territorial waters, but with New Delhi no longer buying Tehran’s resources, it makes sense for Moscow to modify the proposed project to end in the People’s Republic instead. While India might have thought that it bought Russia’s eternal geopolitical allegiance through the multibillion-dollar deals that were struck in exchange for its full support on Kashmir during Modi’s visit as the guest of honor at the recent Eastern Economic Forum in Vladivostok, it could very well soon find out that there are limits to its influence.

Russia and India are indeed on the same page as regards their grand strategic interest in jointly leading a new Non-Aligned Movement (Neo-NAM), which was elaborated upon by the author in his latest piece about Moscow’s “New Detente” with the West and importantly given an indirect endorsement by the Valdai Club in its latest publication about “The Eurasian Chord and the Oceanic Ring: Russia and India as the Third Force in a New World Order“, in which Moscow’s top think tank toyed with rebranding this concept as the “Peaceful Development Movement”. That said, Russia is sincere in its desire to become the supreme “balancing” force in Afro-Eurasia and isn’t hiding behind euphemisms to disguise any zero-sum ambitions like India is, so it’s entirely feasible that Moscow might seriously consider resuming the original “balancing” intentions of its “Return to South Asia” (prior to them having been offset by its partisan support of India on Kashmir).

Back To “Balancing”?

By doing so, not only would Russia prove its neutrality in the New Cold War, but it would also be advancing the “Golden Ring” geopolitical concept of strengthening ties between itself, Iran, Pakistan, and China, as well as preempting the possibility of becoming too strategically dependent on India (seeing as how its “Pivot to India” in Vladivostok was due in part to similar concerns vis-a-vis China). These interconnected outcomes would reassure Russia’s partners that its joint leadership of the Neo-NAM isn’t against any of them but is instead intended simply to maintain “balance” in the hemisphere. The resultant goodwill that Russia would receive from them, and especially the global pivot state of Pakistan, might even give it the edge over India in this nascent “balancing” structure that it’s jointly building with it and therefore enable Moscow to keep New Delhi’s pro-Western leanings towards the US’ so-called “Indo-Pacific” strategy of “containing” China in check.

In other words, although Russia’s leading participation in E-CPEC+ would be driven mostly by economic interests, it would nevertheless also have a strategic impact in maintaining the intra-Neo-NAM “balance” between itself and India, which would in turn allow it to avoid becoming the latter’s “junior partner” in this informal organization by providing it with the possibility of leveraging its future regional influence with other partners through this project’s successful completion in order to “re-balance” their relationship if the need ever arose. The very thought of this happening would hang over the head of Indian strategists like a Damocles’ sword in a way that’s impossible for India to ever reciprocally do to Russia even if it throws its full weight behind the US’ “Indo-Pacific” vision since that decision wouldn’t have any direct impact on Russia like its partner’s growing relations with the “Golden Ring” and the global pivot state of Pakistan would have on India.

Concluding Thoughts

The balance of power in the transregional space between West, Central, and South Asia was on the brink of being redefined had Trump not unexpectedly called off his country’s peace talks with the Taliban, but while the scenario predicted by the author in his recent analysis on the topic could still unfold if a deal is ultimately struck sometime in the future, it might have to be greatly modified to account for Iran’s abrupt change of approach towards India after its Ambassador there just announced his country’s interest in exploring the possibility of building E-CPEC+. The unforeseen timing of this development could change the grand strategic calculus at play by providing Russia with the much-needed opportunity to show the rest of Eurasia that it wasn’t “bought off” as India’s “junior partner” for “balancing” China through the jointly pursued Neo-NAM after the outcome of last week’s Eastern Economic Forum. Russia can put to rest any suspicions about its long-term intentions by actively participating in the construction of E-CPEC+ and strengthening its ties with each of the three other involved countries as a result, which could also enable it to keep India’s pro-Western leanings in check too.

*

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

This article was originally published on Eurasia Future.

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

We Are All Hostages of 9/11

September 12th, 2019 by Pepe Escobar

Afghanistan was bombed and invaded because of 9/11. I was there from the start, even before 9/11. On August 20, 2001, I interviewed commander Ahmad Shah Massoud, the “Lion of the Panjshir,” who told me about an “unholy alliance” of the Taliban, al-Qaeda and the ISI (Pakistani intel).

Back in Peshawar, I learned that something really big was coming: my article was published by Asia Times on August 30. Commander Massoud was killed on September 9: I received a terse email from a Panjshir source, only stating, “the commander has been shot.” Two days later, 9/11 happened.

And yet, the day before, none other than Osama bin Laden, in person, was in a Pakistani hospital in Rawalpindi, receiving treatment, as CBS reported. Bin Laden was proclaimed the perpetrator already at 11am on 9/11 – with no investigation whatsoever. It should have been not exactly hard to locate him in Pakistan and “bring him to justice.”

In December 2001 I was in Tora Bora tracking bin Laden – under B-52 bombers and side by side with Pashtun mujahideen. Later, in 2011, I would revisit the day bin Laden vanished forever.

One year after 9/11, I was back in Afghanistan for an in-depth investigation of the killing of Massoud. By then it was possible to establish a Saudi connection: the letter of introduction for Massoud’s killers, who posed as journalists, was facilitated by commander Sayyaf, a Saudi asset.

For three years my life revolved around the Global War on Terror; most of the time I lived literally on the road, in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iran, Iraq, the Persian Gulf and Brussels. At the start of ‘Shock and Awe’ on Iraq, in March 2003, Asia Times published my in-depth investigation of which neo-cons concocted the war on Iraq.

In 2004, roving across the US, I re-traced the Taliban’s trip to Texas, and how a top priority, since the Clinton years all the way to the neo-cons, was about what I had baptized as “Pipelineistan” – in this case how to build the Turkmenistan-Afghanistan-Pakistan-India (TAPI) gas pipeline, bypassing Iran and Russia, and extending US control of Central and South Asia.

Later on, I delved into the hard questions the 9/11 Commission never asked, and how Bush’s 2004 reelection campaign was totally conditioned by and dependent on 9/11.

Michael Ruppert, a CIA whistleblower, who may – or may not – have committed suicide in 2014, was a top 9/11 analyst. We exchanged a lot of information, and always emphasized the same points: Afghanistan was all about (existent) heroin and (non-existent) pipelines.

In 2011, the late, great Bob Parry would debunk more Afghanistan lies. And in 2017, I would detail a top reason why the US will never leave Afghanistan: the heroin rat line.

US troops at an opium field in Afghanistan

Now, President Trump may have identified a possible Afghan deal – which the Taliban, who control two-thirds of the country, are bound to refuse, as it allows withdrawal of only 5,000 out of 13,000 US troops. Moreover, the US ‘Deep State’ is absolutely against any deal, as well as India and the rickety government in Kabul.

But Pakistan and China are in favor, especially because Beijing plans to incorporate Kabul into the China-Pakistan Economic Corridor and have Afghanistan admitted as a member of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization, thus attaching the Hindu Kush and the Khyber Pass to the ongoing Eurasia integration process.

Praying for a Pearl

Eighteen years after the game-changing fact, we all remain hostages of 9/11. US neocons, gathered at the Project for the New American Century, had been praying for a “Pearl Harbor” to reorient US foreign policy since 1997. Their prayers were answered beyond their wildest dreams.

Already in The Grand Chessboard, also published in 1997, former National Security Adviser and Trilateral Commission co-founder Zbigniew Brzezinski, nominally not a neocon, had pointed out that the American public “supported America’s engagement in World War II largely because of the shock effect of the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor.”

So, Brzezinski added,

America “may find it more difficult to fashion a consensus on foreign policy issues, except in the circumstance of a truly massive and widely perceived direct external threat.” HREEEEE

As an attack on the homeland, 9/11 generated the Global War on Terror, launched at 11pm on the same day, initially christened “The Long War” by the Pentagon, later sanitized as Overseas Contingency Operations by the Obama administration. This cost trillions of dollars, killed over half a million people and branched out into illegal wars against seven Muslim nations – all justified on “humanitarian grounds” and allegedly supported by the “international community.”

Year after year, 9/11 is essentially a You Have The Right to Accept Only The Official Version ritual ceremony, even as widespread evidence suggests the US government knew 9/11 would happen and did not stop it.

Three days after 9/11, the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung reported that in June 2001, German intelligence warned the CIA that Middle East terrorists were “planning to hijack commercial aircraft to use as weapons to attack important symbols of American and Israeli culture.”

In August 2001, President Putin ordered Russian intel to tell the US government “in the strongest possible terms” of imminent attacks on airports and government buildings, MSNBC revealed in an interview with Putin that was broadcast on September 15 that year.

No US government agency has released any information on who used foreknowledge of 9/11 in the financial markets. The US Congress did not even raise the issue. In Germany, investigative financial journalist Lars Schall has been working for years on a massive study detailing to a great extent insider trading before 9/11.

While NORAD sleeps

Discrediting the official, immutable 9/11 narrative remains the ultimate taboo. Hundreds of architects and engineers engaged in meticulous technical debunking of all aspects of 9/11’s official story are summarily dismissed as “conspiracy theorists.”

In contrast, skepticism rooted in Greek and Latin tradition came up with arguably the best documentary on 9/11: Zero, an Italian production. Just as arguably the most stimulating book on 9/11 is also Italian: The Myth of September 11, by Roberto Quaglia, which offers a delicately nuanced narrative of 9/11 as a myth structured as a movie. The book became a huge hit in Eastern Europe.

Serious questions suggest quite plausible suspects to be investigated regarding 9/11, far more than 19 Arabs with box cutters. Ten years ago, in Asia Times, I asked 50 questions, some of them extremely detailed, about 9/11. After reader demand and suggestions, I added 20 more. None of these questions were convincingly addressed – not to mention answered – by the official narrative.

World public opinion is directed to believe that on the morning of 9/11 four airliners, presumably hijacked by 19 Arabs with box cutters, traveled undisturbed – for two hours – across the most controlled airspace on the planet, which is supervised by the most devastating military apparatus ever.

American Airlines Flight 11 deviated from its path at 8.13am and crashed into the first World Trade Center tower at 8.57am. Only at 8.46am did NORAD – the North American Aerospace Defense Command – order that two intercepting F-15s take off from Otis military base.

By a curious coincidence a Pentagon war game was in effect on the morning of 9/11 – so air-controllers’ radars may have registered only ‘ghost signals’ of nonexistent aircraft simulating an air attack. Well, it was much more complicated than that, as demonstrated by professional pilots.

‘Angel was next’

World public opinion is also directed to believe that a Boeing 757 – with a wingspan of 38 meters – managed to penetrate the Pentagon through a six-meter-wide hole and at the height of the first floor. A Boeing 757 with landing gear is 13 meters high. Airliners electronically refuse to crash – so it’s quite a feat to convince one to fly five to 10 meters above the ground, landing gear on, at a lightning speed of 800 kilometers an hour.

According to the official narrative, the Boeing 757 literally pulverized itself. Yet even after pulverization, it managed to perforate six walls of three rings of the Pentagon, leaving a two-meter wide hole in the last wall but only slightly damaging the second and third rings. The official narrative is that the hole was caused by the plane’s nose – still quite hard even after pulverization. Yet the rest of the plane – a mass of 100 tons traveling at 800 kilometers an hour – miraculously stopped at the first ring.

All that happened under the stewardship of one Hani Hanjour, who three weeks before had been judged by his flight instructors to be incapable of piloting a Cessna. Hanjour, nonetheless, managed to accomplish an ultra-fast spiral descent at 270 degrees, aligning at a maximum 10 meters above ground, minutely calibrating the trajectory, and keeping a cruise speed of roughly 800 kilometers an hour.

At 9.37am, Hanjour hit precisely the Pentagon’s budget analysts’ office, where everyone was busy working on the mysterious disappearance of no less than $2.3 trillion that Defense Secretary Donald “Known Unknowns” Rumsfeld, in a press conference the day before, said could not be tracked. So, it’s not only Boeings that get pulverized inside the Pentagon.

World public opinion is also directed to believe that Newtonian physics was suspended as a special bonus for WTC 1 and 2 on 9/11 (not to mention WTC 7, which was not even hit by any plane). The slower WTC tower took 10 seconds to fall 411 meters, starting from immobility. So it fell at 148 kilometers an hour. Considering the initial acceleration time, it was a free fall, not the least impeded by 47 massive, vertical steel beams that composed the tower’s structural heart.

World public opinion is also directed to believe that United Airlines Flight 93 – 150 tons of aircraft with 45 people, 200 seats, luggage, a wingspan of 38 meters – crashed in a field in Pennsylvania and also literally pulverized itself, totally disappearing inside a hole six meters by three meters wide and only two meters deep.

Suddenly, Air Force One was “the only plane in the sky.” Colonel Mark Tillman, who was on board, recalled:

“We get this report that there’s a call saying ‘Angel’ was next. No one really knows now where the comment came from – it got mistranslated or garbled amid the White House, the Situation Room, the radio operators. ‘Angel’ was our code name. The fact that they knew about ‘Angel,’ well, you had to be in the inner circle.”

This means that 19 Arabs with box cutters, and most of all their handlers, surely must have been “in the inner circle.” Inevitably, this was never fully investigated.

Already in 1997, Brzezinski had warned,

“it is imperative that no Eurasian challenger emerges capable of dominating Eurasia and thus of also challenging America.”

In the end, much to the despair of US neocons, all the combined sound and fury of 9/11 and the Global War on Terror/Overseas Contingency Operations, in less than two decades, ended up metastasized into not only a challenger but a Russia-China strategic partnership. This is the real “enemy” – not al-Qaeda, a flimsy figment of the CIA’s imagination, rehabilitated and sanitized as “moderate rebels” in Syria.

*

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

This article was originally published on Asia Times.

Pepe Escobar is a frequent contributor to Global Research.

9/11: You Weren’t Stupid, Mr. Brown!

September 12th, 2019 by Prof. Graeme MacQueen

Aaron Brown, news anchor during most of CNN’s coverage on September 11, 2001, was interviewed on the 15th anniversary of the event. He said in that interview that he had felt “profoundly stupid” when he was reporting the destruction of the first Tower (the South Tower) on that morning.

I…I will tell you…that a million things had been running through my mind about what might happen. About the effect of a jet plane hitting people above where the impact was, what might be going on in those buildings. And it just never occurred to me that they’d come down. And I thought…it’s the only time I thought, maybe you just don’t have what it takes to do a story like this. Because it just had never occurred to me.” (CNN, Sept. 11, 2016, interviewer Brian Stelter)

Is it not remarkable that Brown was made to feel stupid, and to feel inadequate as a news anchor, during the precise moments of his coverage of that day when his senses and his mind were fully engaged and on the right track?

Shortly after 9:59 a.m. Brown had been standing on a roof in New York City about 30 blocks from the World Trade Center. He was looking directly at the South Tower as it was destroyed. He was not just a journalist and not just a news anchor: he was an eyewitness.

He immediately interrupted a journalist who was reporting live about the Pentagon:

Wow! Jamie. Jamie, I need you to stop for a second. There has just been a huge explosion…we can see a billowing smoke rising…and I can’t…I’ll tell you that I can’t see that second Tower. But there was a cascade of sparks and fire and now this…it looks almost like a mushroom cloud, explosion, this huge, billowing smoke in the second Tower…” (9:59:07 a.m.)

Having reported honestly what he saw with his own eyes, Brown next did exactly what he should have done as a responsible news anchor. He let his audience know that while he did not know what had happened it was clear that there were two hypotheses in play, the explosion hypothesis and the structural failure hypothesis. And then he went to his reporters on the scene, as well as to authorities, to try and sort out which hypothesis was correct.

Here are examples of his setting forth—after the first building was destroyed and again after the second was destroyed—the rival hypotheses:

and then just in the last several minutes there has been a second explosion or, at least, perhaps not an explosion, perhaps part of the building simply collapsed. And that’s what we saw and that’s what we’re looking at.” (10:03:47)

This is just a few minutes ago…we don’t know if…something happened, another explosion, or if the building was so weakened…it just collapsed.” (10:04:36 a.m.)

we believe now that we can say that both, that portions of both Towers of the World Trade Centre, have collapsed. Whether there were second explosions, that is to say, explosions other than the planes hitting them, that caused this to happen we cannot tell you.” (10:29:21 a.m.)

Our reporters in the area say they heard loud noises when that happened. It is unclear to them and to us whether those were explosions going on in the building or if that was simply the sound of the collapse of the buildings as they collapsed, making these huge noises as they came down.” (11:17:45 a.m.)

Brown’s honest reporting of his perceptions was balanced repeatedly by his caution. Here is an example:

it almost looks…it almost looks like one of those implosions of buildings that you see except there is nothing controlled about this…this is devastation.” (10:53:10 a.m.)

His next move, having set forth the two hypotheses, was to ask his reporters on the scene, who were choking on pulverized debris and witnessing gruesome scenes, what they perceived.

Reporter Brian Palmer said honestly that he was not in a position to resolve the issue.

Brown: Was there…Brian, did it sound like there was an explosion before the second collapse, or was the noise the collapse itself?” (10:41:08 a.m.)

Palmer: “Well, from our distance…I was not able to distinguish between an explosion and the collapse. We were several hundred yards away. But we clearly saw the building come down. I heard your report of a fourth explosion: I can’t confirm that. But we heard some “boom” and then the building fold in on itself.”

Two others were more definite about what they perceived.

Brown: Rose, whadya got? (10:29:43 a.m.)

Rose Arce: I’m about a block away. And there were several people that were hanging out the windows right below where the plane crashed, when suddenly you saw the top of the building start to shake, and people began leaping from the windows in the north side of the building. You saw two people at first plummet and then a third one, and then the entire top of the building just blew up…

Brown: Who do we have on the phone, guys? Just help me out here. Patty, are you there? (10:57:51 a.m.)

Patty: Yes, I am here.

Brown: Whaddya got?

Patty: About an hour ago I was on the corner of Broadway and Park Place—that’s about a thousand yards from the World Trade Center—when the first Tower collapsed. It was a massive explosion. At the time the police were trying desperately to evacuate people from the area. When that explosion occurred it was like a scene out of a horror film.

As can be seen, the explosion hypothesis was flourishing. Even the news caption at the bottom of the screen shortly after the destruction of the South Tower (10:03:12 a.m.) is striking to read today:

“THIRD EXPLOSION SHATTERS WORLD TRADE CENTER IN NEW YORK”

After checking with his reporters, Brown continued to explore his hypotheses, this time by consulting authorities. This was where he was led astray. “Authorities” are less securely tied to evidence than witnesses and may, in fact, be implicated in high level deception.

First Brown consulted a political authority. He got the Mayor of New York City on the line.

Brown: Sir, do you believe that…was there another set of explosions that caused the buildings to collapse, or was it the structural damage caused by the planes?” (12:31:45 p.m.)

Giuliani: I don’t, I don’t know, I, uh, I, uh…I, I saw the first collapse and heard the second ‘cause I was in a building when the second took place. I think it was structural but I cannot be sure.”

Later in the afternoon Giuliani got his script right and was more definite in ruling out explosions. But, of course, Giuliani had no right to pronounce on the science of building destruction. Brown should have persisted in his questioning.

Finally, Brown brought in an engineer, Jim DeStefano–associated, we were told, with the National Council of Structural Engineers. DeStefano’s brief comments put an end to Brown’s explosion hypothesis and rendered CNN’s news coverage safe for public consumption.

Brown: Jim De Stefano is a structural engineer. He knows about big buildings and what happens in these sort of catastrophic moments. He joins us from Deerfield, Connecticut on the phone. Jim, the plane hits…what…and I hope this isn’t a terribly oversimplified question, but what happens to the building itself? (04:20:45 p.m.)

DeStefano: …It’s a tremendous impact that’s applied to the building when a collision like this occurs. And it’s clear that that impact was sufficient to do damage to the columns and the bracing system supporting the building. That coupled with the fire raging and the high temperatures softening the structural steel then precipitated a destabilization of the columns and clearly the columns buckled at the lower floors causing the building to collapse.

I am not in a position to call DeStefano a fake or to claim he was reading from a script given to him by others, but I am prepared to say he was extremely irresponsible. He did not say “here is one hypothesis.” He said, in effect, “this is what happened.” He was in no position to make this claim. There had been no photographic or video analysis of the building destruction, no analysis of the remains of the WTC, no cataloguing of eyewitnesses, nor any of the other methods of evidence gathering. He was shooting in the dark. He was silencing a journalist who was sincerely trying to discover the truth. As we have known for years now, DeStefano not only could have been wrong: he was wrong.[1]

And let us remember that the entire War on Terror, with its suffering and oppression, has depended on this false structural failure hypothesis. No structural failure hypothesis, no guilty Muslim fanatics. No guilty Muslim fanatics, no War on Terror.

Some readers will feel I am too generous with Brown and with CNN. But I am not interested in portraying them as broadly “dissident” or as on the political Left. I am simply interested in calling things as I see them and giving credit where credit is due. Anyone who wants a contrast to Brown’s performance is free to watch the work of Fox News anchor, Jon Scott, on September 11, 2001. The same confidence that allowed him to name Bin Laden as a suspect 42 seconds after the impact of the second plane allowed him to proclaim the structural failure hypothesis directly after the destruction of the South Tower. He persisted even when his reporters in the field clearly spoke of explosions.

David Lee Miller reported:

we heard a very loud blast, an explosion. We looked up, and the building literally began to collapse before us…” (10:01:17 a.m.)

Rick Leventhal said:

The FBI is here, as you can see. They had roped this area off. They were taking photographs and securing this area just prior to that huge explosion that we all heard and felt.” (10:06:39 a.m.)

News anchor Scott was troubled by none of this. He overrode, silenced and patronized Fox reporters. At no point did he even acknowledge the existence of a second reasonable hypothesis for the Trade Center destruction.

Of course, it is true that by the end of the day of September 11, 2001 CNN and Fox were singing from the same hymnbook. But I believe we ought to acknowledge Brown’s brief, shining moment and consider what might happen if journalists found their courage and trusted their senses and their minds.

*

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

This article was originally published on OffGuardian.

Graeme MacQueen is the former director of the Centre for Peace Studies at McMaster University. He is a member of the 9/11 Consensus Panel, former co-editor of the Journal of 9/11 Studies, and an organizer of the 2011 Toronto Hearings, the results of which have been published in book form as The 9/11 Toronto Report. He is a Research Associate of the Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG).

Sources

Same-day coverage by CNN and Fox for September 11, 2001 has been sporadically available on the Internet. My notes are from my own previously downloaded files. Times should be accurate to within two seconds.

Notes

[1] Many works have appeared over the years refuting the account of the destruction of the World Trade Center Towers released by the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST). But special note should be taken of two sources:

Ted Walter, Beyond Misinformation: What Science Says About the Destruction of World Trade Center Buildings 1, 2, and 7. Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth, 2015.

https://www.ae911truth.org/images/BeyondMisinfo/Beyond-Misinformation-2015.pdf

Lawyers’ Committee for 9/11 Inquiry, First Amended Grand Jury Petition, filed July 30, 2018 at the office of the U.S. Attorney in Manhattan, N.Y.

https://www.lawyerscommitteefor9-11inquiry.org/lc-doj-first-amended-grand-jury-petition/

In addition, a recent academic report on the related destruction of World Trade Center 7 destroys whatever confidence we might have in NIST’s accounts:

J. L. Hulsey, et al, A Structural Reevaluation of the Collapse of World Trade Center 7 (draft), University of Alaska Fairbanks, Sept. 2019.

https://salsa3.salsalabs.com/o/50694/signup_page/uaf-wtc7-draft-report?killorg=True&loggedOut=True

Featured image is from OffGuardian

Many who oppose the aggressive foreign policy of the United States under President Donald Trump, which has resulted in record numbers of bombs dropped, regime change operations against Venezuela, Nicaragua, Iran and Hong Kong, the abusive use of unilateral coercive measures (sanctions) and record military budgets, cheered when uber-hawk, John Bolton was removed as the National Security Advisor.

Bolton undermined Trump numerous times such as when Trump wanted to get out of Syria and sought negotiations with North Korea and Iran. Bolton led Trump into regime-change operations in Nicaragua and Venezuela, both of which backfired.

The firing of Bolton is an opportunity for Trump to make a major course correction on foreign policy as the 2020 election heats up. The escalation of military aggression and regime-change actions that have occurred in the Trump era have been inconsistent with his previous campaign statements, which indicated he opposed never-ending wars, nation-building, and interventions abroad and wanted to focus on fixing problems at home in the United States.

Trump has long expressed skepticism about US foreign intervention in activities that he has labeled as “nation-building.” During the presidential election campaign, Trump criticized the war in Iraq, claiming he opposed George W. Bush’s Iraq War at the time and accused Bush of lying about the presence of weapons of mass destruction. In October 2015, he criticized US interventions saying,

“We’re nation-building. We can’t do it. We have to build our own nation. We’re nation-building, trying to tell people who have [had] dictators or worse for centuries how to run their own countries.”

In December 2016, before his inauguration, Trump said that the policy of “intervention and chaos” must come to an end. He pledged to “build up our military not as an act of aggression, but as an act of prevention. In short, we seek peace through strength.”

Trump has opportunities to take another course, one that is more consistent with his rhetoric. Chairman Kim of North Korea said he was open to another meeting with President Trump on September 10, the next day, Bolton was fired. Shortly after the firing of Bolton, Secretary of State Pompeo gave the green light for Trump to meet with the President of Iran without preconditions at the United Nations General Assembly meeting in a few weeks. The firing of Bolton may not be enough, Iranian officials have refused any meeting until sanctions are lifted. After Bolton’s firing, President Hassan Rouhani said Trump “should distance itself from ‘warmongers’” after the dismissal of Bolton.

When it comes to Latin America, Trump has been silent, especially about his failed coup in Venezuela. Trump’s previous National Security Advisor, H. R. McMaster, strongly recommended to President Trump not to pursue a military option in Venezuela when Trump suggested it in 2017. He explained that Latin American governments were against foreign intervention in the region. John Bolton gave contrary advice when he dubbed Venezuela, Nicaragua, and Cuba the “Troika of Tyranny” and gave Trump bad advice by urging a strategy of escalating intervention in Venezuela, recognition of a failed coup government and military threats.

When Bolton was fired, the New York Times reported:

 “Mr. Trump also grew disenchanted with Mr. Bolton over the failed effort to push out President Nicolás Maduro of Venezuela. Rather than the easy victory he was led to anticipate, the president has found himself bogged down in a conflict over which he has less influence than he had assumed. The political opposition backed by the White House could not turn Venezuela’s military against Mr. Maduro and has been stuck in a stalemate for months.”

President Maduro has consistently expressed his willingness to meet with President Trump, despite the brutal economic war, military threats and recognition of the fraudulent Juan Guaido. Trump knows that Maduro is solidly in place as the president of Venezuela. US efforts to undermine his re-election in May of 2018 failed, the multiple coup efforts with Juan Guaido have failed, Venezuela exposed a series of terrorist plots the US was backing and there is little support for military intervention. In addition, because of Trump’s threats, Venezuela has strengthened its relationships with China and Russia, bringing them into Latin America in ways they have never happened before and squeezing out US interests.

John Bolton has put Trump in a trap in Venezuela. Trump has two choices: continued his failed strategy of regime change which has become a quagmire or stop interfering in the internal affairs of the sovereign nation of Venezuela. Once Trump recognizes that Venezuela is an independent nation he can have a diplomatic relationship with the country as exits between most nations. It is time to give up on the embarrassing failed Bolton strategy and pursue a new approach of non-interference and diplomacy.

For most of its history, the US and Venezuela have been allies. It has only been during the eras of Clinton through Obama and the Bolton-era during the Trump administration that the US has been in conflict with Venezuela. Trump can now reverse those mistaken policies and put the United States back on a constructive track.

*

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

Kevin Zeese and Margaret Flowers co-direct Popular Resistance where this article was originally published.

Farewelling Dr No: The Sacking of John Bolton

September 12th, 2019 by Dr. Binoy Kampmark

“Every time the president, or Pompeo, or anyone in the [Trump] administration came up with an idea, they had to face Dr No.” — Cliff Kupchan, Chairman of the Eurasia Group, The Washington Post, Sep 11, 2011. 

It was compelling viewing (one does not so much read Twitter as see it as a series of violent flashes).  John Bolton, the armed-and-ready national security adviser who has been tiring of the US President’s jerks and adjustments, had floated the prospect of resignation. 

“I offered to resign last night and President Trump said, ‘Let’s talk about it tomorrow.’” 

To the New York Times, Bolton reiterated the account. 

“Offered last night without [Trump] asking.  Slept on it and gave it to him this morning.”

Hours are lethal in Trumpland; entire worlds can implode at that time, and new ones grow with equal violence.  President Donald Trump was keen to set the record crooked. 

“I informed John Bolton last night that his services are no longer needed in the White House.  I disagreed strongly with many of his suggestions, as did others in the Administration”. 

US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo was certainly one of them. 

“There were many times Ambassador Bolton and I disagreed; that’s for sure.” 

It pays, however, to qualify: “But that’s true for lots of people with whom I interact.”

What matters in a Trump sacking is less the normality of its occurrence but its manner of execution.  The axe is always held aloft, and, as with any court run by a fickle despot, may fall at any given time.  On Tuesday morning, the signs of any movement regarding Bolton were entirely absent.  At 11, a news briefing was announced by the White House for 1.30 that afternoon.  Bolton would keep company with Pompeo and Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin in a chat on terrorism.  Bolton never appeared, leaving Pompeo and Mnuchin to chuckle before the cameras.

Pompeo, unlike Bolton, has certainly found it easier keeping up appearances.  Disagreements with the President are kept close to his broad chest.  He is the manager of Trump’s ever changing approach to policy, and capable articulating foreign policy swerves.  But do not be fooled, suggest the talking heads. 

“Pompeo is as much a hawk on Iran as Bolton,” claims John Glaser, director of foreign policy studies at the Cato Institute.  Glaser’s diagnosis of it all?  “It mostly boils down to Bolton’s reputation as a bureaucratic manipulator who makes enemies within the executive branch as a matter of habit.”

The manipulation had been placed in another register over the US-Taliban peace agreement.  Trump was happy with the detail; Bolton wanted the agreement sunk as textbook example of capitulation.  Trump’s circle of aides had gotten irate as Bolton’s public dissatisfaction grew.  There were leaks into the atmosphere, and not very pleasant ones at that. 

The decision to evict Bolton could easily have been caused by something else, the straw that tantalisingly, and destructively, broke the camel’s back.  On Monday, the possibility of easing sanctions against Iran as part of a preliminary step to meeting Iran’s president Hassan Rouhani, was mooted by the President and aides.  Treasury Secretary Mnuchin was certainly open to the suggestion.  Trump tested the water and concluded that “they’d like to make a deal.”  A far cry from June, when Bolton’s apocalyptic fantasy was being entertained: a possible airstrike on Iran.  With 10 minutes to spare, Trump called it off.

On Wednesday, the president attempted to add more light and shine to the canvas.  Areas of disagreement with Bolton were articulated.  The former adviser had not been “getting along with people” in the administration; he had been “way out of line” on Venezuela.  Such points merely underscore the difficulties Bolton was always going to face: from his moustache, which Trump detests, to his priestly dogmatism in international relations. 

North Korea was always a case in point: for Trump, a moment for the picture books, the firm handshake for history, and promises for rosy readjustments; for Bolton, a chance to cause a flutter of terror in Pyongyang, airing the view that a “Libya” solution for nuclear disarmament might be in the offing.  (That corker eventually assisted the toppling of the Qaddafi regime, hardly a recipe for smooth talking and deal making.) 

The point was something Trump did not miss

“We were set back very badly when John Bolton talked about the Libyan model!  And he made a mistake!  As soon as he mentioned that, the Libyan model, what a disaster!  Take a look at what happened to Qaddafi with the Libyan model.”

Bolton’s sabre-rattling enthusiasts were bound to see things differently.  “While John Bolton was national security adviser for the last 17 months, there have been no bad deals,” claimed a Bolton confidante.  In another take, Bolton has been portrayed as the less mad of the two.  Jay Nordlinger, senior editor at The National Review, saw JB as a model of consistency. Trump, on the other hand, had been dancing merrily off queue, breaking much fine china on the way. Certainly on Russia; certainly on Ukraine.  At the last G7 meeting in Biarritz, Trump expressed his desire that Russia be readmitted to the club. He sported a curious account of Crimea, which was “sort of taken away from President Obama”.  It was “embarrassing” for him, being “outsmarted by Putin” as he was.

Trump had put a halt on military aid to Ukraine and shown a coldness to the newly elected president, Volodymyr Zelensky.  His idea here is to push for a Ukrainian investigation of Joe Biden, the stuff of side-splitting hilarity.  Bolton, on the other hand, was in Kiev paying respect to Ukrainians felled “in the defence of their nation against Russian aggression.”  In saluting “the Stache” Nordlinger was hoping for his return.  The chicken hawks will have their day.

Such shuffling and bloodletting is normally the stuff that thrills political wonks and media vultures.  Engineered in-house political assassinations are manna from heaven, and supply good copy in bureaucratic hot houses like Washington.  But Trump has made political sacking the stuff of banal ritual, ceremonial inevitability made that much duller for its frequency.  Bolton came in praise, worked in disagreement and discomfort, and was ejected.  Time for the next mug to take his place.

*

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

Dr. Binoy Kampmark was a Commonwealth Scholar at Selwyn College, Cambridge.  He lectures at RMIT University, Melbourne.  He is a frequent contributor to Global Research and Asia-Pacific Research. Email: [email protected]

Featured image is from Christopher Halloran via Shutterstock

Netanyahu Repeated His Vow to Annex West Bank Land if Reelected

September 12th, 2019 by Stephen Lendman

Israel is the only nation without official borders. Its longstanding policy calls for redrawing the Middle East map.

It aims to annex more territory, including from neighboring states and all valued parts of Judea and Samaria.

Ahead of last April’s Israeli elections, Netanyahu said the following:

“A Palestinian state will endanger our existence (sic), and I withstood huge pressure over the past eight years (sic). No prime minister has withstood such pressure (sic). We must control our destiny,” adding:

“Will we move ahead to the next stage? Yes. I will extend sovereignty, but I don’t distinguish between the settlement blocs and the isolated ones, because each settlement is Israeli, and I will not hand it over to Palestinian sovereignty.”

“I will not divide Jerusalem. I will not evacuate any community, and I will make sure we control the territory west of Jordan…I promised and it will happen at the soonest opportunity.”

At the time, Israel’s Channel 13 said Netanyahu is “more ready than ever” to annex and extend Israeli law to the settlements.

Israel controls the entire West Bank and East Jerusalem, annexation if occurs to formalize what already exists.

On Tuesday, feeding red meat to his base pre-election next week, Netanyahu said if reelected he’ll annex the Jordan Valley.

It’s around 30% of West Bank territory. He called Trump’s no-peace/peace plan a “historic opportunity” to annex Palestinian land, adding:

“…I want to apply sovereignty in the communities and other areas with maximum coordination with the US.”

“But there is one place where it is possible to apply Israeli sovereignty immediately after the election.”

“Today I am announcing my intention to apply, with the formation of the next government, Israeli sovereignty on the Jordan Valley and northern Dead Sea.”

Netanyahu wants all settlements annexed, earlier saying:

“All the settlements, without exception, those that are in blocs and those that aren’t, need to remain under Israeli sovereignty. This will happen.”

On Tuesday, a Trump regime statement said

“(t)here is no change in United States policy at this time. We will release our vision for peace (sic) after the Israeli election and work to determine the best path forward to bring long sought security, opportunity and stability to the region (sic).”

Joint (Arab) List chairman Ayman Odeh called Netanyahu’s campaign propaganda his “vision of apartheid.”

Israel controls the entire West Bank and East Jerusalem, including illegal settlements, outposts, military areas, no-go zones, checkpoints and other barriers, nature reserves, commercial areas, by-pass roads, and the separation wall — constructed more for land theft than security.

According to StoptheWall.org:

“The Wall is an integral part of the Zionist project to remove Palestinians from Palestine.”

It’s being built on 10% or more of Palestinian land. B’Tselem said its construction “la(id) the groundwork for” annexing the settlements, including “much land for their future expansion.”

It’s part of Israel’s plan to isolate Palestinian communities from each other. Still under construction, its 712 km route is double the Green Line’s length — the 1949 armistice lines established between Israel and neighboring Arab states.

Israel seized West Jerusalem in 1948, the remainder in 1967, formally and illegally annexing the UN-designated international city in 1980.

Years earlier, a two-state solution was possible, no longer. Netanyahu and majority hardline MKs reject the idea.

Israel has virtual control over the entire West Bank, Jerusalem, and Gaza by blockading and isolating the Strip.

Whether Netanyahu is reelected or defeated next week won’t matter for Palestinians.

Their fundamental rights are denied no matter what ruling coalition is formed — including no chance for self-determination, free from repressive occupation.

In response to Netanyahu’s Tuesday remarks, PLO executive committee member Hanan Ashrawi tweeted the following:

“Netanyahu’s cheap pandering to his extremist racist base exposes his real political agenda of superimposing ‘greater Israel’ on all of historical Palestine & carrying out an ethnic cleansing agenda. All bets are off! Dangerous aggression. Perpetual conflict.”

That’s how it’s always been since creation of the Jewish state on stolen Palestinian land.

*

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

Award-winning author Stephen Lendman lives in Chicago. He can be reached at [email protected]. He is a Research Associate of the Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG)

His new book as editor and contributor is titled “Flashpoint in Ukraine: US Drive for Hegemony Risks WW III.”

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

Visit his blog site at sjlendman.blogspot.com.

Executive summary

“In 2018 and early 2019, the performance of the Palestinian economy and humanitarian conditions reached an all-time low. Per capita income fell, mass unemployment increased, poverty deepened and the environmental toll of occupation has been rising in both the Gaza Strip and the West Bank.

The Palestinian people are denied the right to exploit oil and natural gas resources and thereby deprived of billions of dollars in revenue.

The international community should help the Palestinian people to secure their right to oil and gas in the Occupied Palestinian Territory and ascertain their legitimate share in the natural resources collectively owned by several neighbouring States in the region.

In March 2019, the Government of Israel started to deduct $11.5 million monthly (equivalent to $138 million annually) from Palestinian clearance revenues.

The Palestinian National Authority responded that it would not accept anything less than the full amount of its rightful clearance revenues, which represent two thirds of Palestinian fiscal revenue. This fiscal shock is compounded by declining donor support.

UNCTAD continues to respond positively to the needs of the Palestinian people. However, securing extrabudgetary resources remains critical to fulfilling the requests in the Nairobi Maafikiano and in General Assembly resolutions for UNCTAD to report on the economic costs of occupation for the Palestinian people,”

***

The UNCTAD report focusses on the impoverishment of the Palestinian population: “Falling per capita income and worsening depression-level unemployment”

It also examines in length how Israel took control of Palestine’s offshore oil and natural gas reserves in derogation of both Israeli and international law.

This constitutes an act of outright theft by Israel of billions of dollars of revenue, which is barely acknowledged by the Western media.

Below are selected excerpts of the UNCTAD Report pertaining to the theft of oil and gas revenues (emphasis added by Global Research):

Studies by geologists and natural resources economists have separately confirmed that the Occupied Palestinian Territory lies above considerable reservoirs of oil and natural gas wealth off the coast of Gaza and in the West Bank. Within this context, UNCTAD (2019) prepared a study to sketch preliminary outlines of the economic loss incurred by the Palestinian people as a result of being denied their right to develop and exploit their oil and natural gas resources.

… In 1999, the BG Group (BGG) discovered a large gas field (Gaza Marine) at a distance of 17 to 21 nautical miles off the Gaza coast. In November 1999, within the bounds of the Oslo Accords, which give PNA maritime jurisdiction over its waters up to 20 nautical miles from the coast, PNA signed a 25-year contract for gas exploration with BGG. In 2000, BGG drilled two wells in the field and carried out feasibility studies with good results.

… With reserves estimated at 1 trillion cubic feet of good quality natural gas, it was envisioned that the Palestinian people would be able to satisfy domestic demand and export the remainder. The 25-year contract gave BGG 90 per cent of the licence shares and PNA, 10 per cent, until production began. Subsequently, the PNA share was slated to increase to 40 per cent.

In July 2000, the Government of Israel granted BGG authorization to drill the first well, Marine 1. The authorization to drill the second well and the successful gas strikes at the two wells promised a potential windfall for the Palestinian people. In September 2000, the head of PNA, accompanied by Palestinian businesspeople and the media, lit the flame proving the presence of gas at the BGG offshore exploration platform. The PNA agreement with BGG included field development and the construction of a gas pipeline and the licence covered the entire Gaza offshore marine area, which is contiguous to several Israeli offshore gas facilities.

In May 2002, the Government of Israel agreed to negotiate an agreement for an annual supply of 0.05 trillion cubic feet of Palestinian gas for a period of 10 to 15 years. Yet in 2003, the Government of Israel reversed its position, stating that funds flowing to PNA could be used to support terrorism. However, in April 2007, the Government of Israel approved a proposal to renew discussions with BGG, whereby Israel would purchase 0.05 trillion cubic feet of Palestinian natural gas for $4 billion annually, starting in 2009, with profits in the order of $2 billion, of which $1 billion was to go to Palestinians. It was argued that this would generate mutual benefits deemed to foster a good atmosphere for peace.

The Government of Israel, however, had different plans for sharing revenues with Palestinians. An Israeli team of negotiators was set up to formulate a deal with BGG, bypassing Palestinians. It appeared that the Israeli team wanted the Palestinians to be paid in goods and services and insisted that no money should go to the Hamas-controlled government in Gaza. The effect was essentially to nullify the contract signed in 1999 between PNA and BGG.

In November 2008, the Ministry of Finance and the Ministry of National Infrastructures, Energy and Water Resources of Israel instructed the Israel Electric Corporation to enter into negotiations with BGG on the purchase of natural gas from the BGG offshore concession in Gaza. However, a new territorial arrangement emerged subsequent to the Israeli military operation in Gaza in December 2008, featuring the militarization and control of the entire Gaza coastline and maritime areas and the de facto confiscation of Palestinian natural gas fields and their integration into Israel’s contiguous offshore installations.

Nineteen years have passed since the drilling of Marine 1 and Marine 2. Since PNA has not been able to exploit these fields, the accumulated losses are in the billions of dollars and the Palestinian people have been denied the benefits of using this natural resource to finance socioeconomic development and meet their fiscal and energy needs.

 

Read the full UNCTAD report here.(pdf)

*

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

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on How Israel Steals Palestine’s Offshore Oil and Gas Revenues. Outright Theft. Billions of Dollars Stolen
  • Tags: , , ,

Question. What leader saw his country’s military dropping 26,171 bombs in one year?

That works out at every day of that year, the country’s military dropped 72 bombs, or 3 bombs every hour, 24 hours a day, according to the Council on Foreign Relations. He was a Nobel peace prize winner.

Answer: Barack Obama. That same year, 2016, special operators from the United States could be found in 70 percent of the world’s nations.

One last question. What UN Security Council member has not fired a shot in anger outside its borders for 30 years but is nonetheless being accused of military expansionism?

Answer: China.

They see things differently in China. What we in the West refer to as the Middle East, they call the Middle West.

There are many in the West who view China as a military threat, a clear and present danger. China, needless to say, see things from a different perspective.

The United States occupies prime global real estate. It has two friendly neighbors in Canada and Mexico. China has strained relations stretching back centuries with many of its neighbors. These include India, Japan, South Korea, and Vietnam. Of the five permanent members of the UN Security Council (China, France, Russia, the United States, and the United Kingdom), China is the only one that has not fired a single military shot outside its border in thirty years. A naval clash with Vietnam in 1988 was the last time a shot was fired in anger.

The collapse of the Soviet Union was, in the West, viewed as a victory for human rights. In China it was viewed as a damming indictment of poor economic planning. China learned its lesson. Economic growth must come before military expenditure. The Chinese economy may not be as strong as official figures suggest. No one here really believes that the economy is growing at 6.5 per cent annually.

But there can be no doubting the economic growth over the last four decades or so.

By comparison after adjusting for inflation, workers’ wages in the US are only 10 percent higher in 2017 than they were in 1973 when Nixon was in the White House. Annual real wage growth is just below 0.2 percent. The US economy has experienced long-term wage stagnation.

Trade between the US and China grew from $5 billion in 1980 to $660 billion in 2018. A communist run country is the largest foreign holder of US Treasury securities. This funds the federal debt and keeps US interest rates low.

China is also the largest US merchandise trading partner, biggest source of imports, and third-largest US export market.

Have the Chinese played fast and loose with global trade rules? Probably. Do they try to use their money to buy political influence overseas? Probably. Does China use unfair trade practices (such as an undervalued currency and subsidies given to domestic producers) to flood US markets with low-cost goods? Yes. But China is not to blame for the stagnation in US wages. That was apparent long before China was a factor.

Since 1978 China has lifted 800 million people out of poverty and created the largest middle class in the world.

The Chinese people are not blind to the inequalities, injustices and brutality in their own society. The Chinese people admire much about the US. Many send their children to be educated there.

The Chinese people would relish the opportunity to have a greater say in the running of their affairs.

But history and its lessons are important in China.

They have learned from bitter experience over several thousand years of history that they suffer most when the central government is weak and divided.

After the Opium War of 1842 the country was torn asunder by invasions, civil wars and famines. Since 1949 its borders have been secure and after the disaster of the Mao years, its people have a standard of living unimaginable when Nixon was in the White House in 1973 reflecting on meeting Mao the previous year and wondering how best to deal with a word that was entering the political lexicon; Watergate.

*

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

Tom Clifford is an Irish journalist based in China. He is a frequent contributor to Global Research

As Hurricane Dorian approached the Bahamas, the mainstream media  “scared the hell” out of thousands of Floridians as they trembled with the forecast of a calamitous weather scenario about to ravage the entire east coast.  Intimidated by the power of the storm and their own lack of hurricane smarts, their trepidation was understandable since the MSM can take credit for assorted faulty disasters like WMD’s in Iraq, Russian collusion influencing the 2016 election and the complexity of 9/11 was accomplished by unemployed Saudi Arabian wanna-be pilots armed with box cutters.

In other words, since only 6% of the American public have confidence in the MSM to provide  objective factual reporting, can we realistically expect the media to report on whether an extreme weather disturbance is geo-engineered by pulsing microwave transmissions or a true phenomena of Mother Nature and how would the public know the difference?

Before the next potential weather cataclysm is upon us, it would behoove citizens to do their own due diligence to determine for themselves if a hurricane’s path is a real threat, the result of media hoopla or one meant to frighten the public into fear and submission.

With their storm shutters firmly screwed on, thousands of Florida’s east coast residents lived in a cave for the first few days of September before they realized that Hurricane Dorian’s category 5 storm was not going to materialize as the Weather Channel and MSM meteorologists predicted.  Dorian’s assault on the Bahamas notwithstanding, the Greatest Hurricane Ever was down graded to a category 3 and then to a tropical storm avoiding landfall along the Florida coast.

As it turned out, there was no need to suffer through the ad nauseam media hubris and bluster as stressed out residents could have tuned into the National Hurricane Center (NHC) maps or the Hurricane.Terrapin.com (HT) storm track plot.  Both sites provided accurate detailed information  clarifying some of the MSM’s problematic predictions and demonstrated that Dorian’s ‘Eye’; that is the Eye wall, potentially the most damaging part of any hurricane, was never directly threatening the Florida coast.  

Barring a last minute shift in direction, theEye wall was not going to make landfall and instead would take its treacherous low pressure area out to sea. The Saffir-Simpson Hurricane Wind Scale identifies an ‘absolute devastation” event as “in the path of the Eye of a landfall Category 5 In the case of Dorian, Category 5 was not traveling the same path as the Eye as the NHC and HT clearly demonstrated.

However, little, if any, of that crucial information was conveyed to millions of anxious Floridians who were left with the belief that an ominous Category 5 was imminently about to destroy their homes along with the entire coastline.  It is true that hurricanes, like the weather and climate in general, may be notoriously unpredictable, always shifting and changing but both of the aforementioned websites offered alternative factual basis for the storm’s evolution into a less threatening tropical storm.

Nor was any mainstream  explanation offered that as Category 5 is identified as one band of weather, it naturally follows that there will be a downgrade to Cat 4 and so on down the line as both NHC and NT provided estimates of how and when those downgrades were expected to occur.

When the storm stalled, just after passing through the Bahamas, the media continued to report on the stall as “dangerous” while weather professionals confirmed that Dorian’s stall was indicative of an imminent northward shift which is exactly what happened; thus changing the entire forecast for the coasts of Florida, Georgia and South Carolina. None of that made it into the mainstream news until it was embarrassingly obvious that Dorian was not cooperating in fulfilling its earlier pessimistic predictions.

In the future, would-be meteorologists might be interested in tracking a storm’s direction by monitoring its longitude and latitude comparing Dorian in the Bahamas to those potentially threatened communities.  For instance, if Dorian had stayed on a westward track after the Bahamas, it would have come in at the Jupiter Inlet but it stalled out in preparation for its northward shift, just as the HT’s track plot had always predicted.

Here are two examples of ‘fake news’ broadcast on live tv by the mainstream media hyperventilating on a storm’s local impacts:

  • In 2011 NBC’s Matt Lauer was interviewing a reporter about Hurricane Irene’s ‘severe flooding’ along the Passaic River in NJ as she was paddling a canoe when two men wearing waders nonchalantly ambled through the interview scene with the alleged flooded river barely up to their ankles.
  • In 2018 during Hurricane Florence, the Weather Channel’s Mike Seidel was allegedly braving   furious winds and struggling to stay upright  as he proclaimed “this is about as nasty as it’s been when two men in bermuda shorts casually strolled into view behind Seidel.

If the mainstream media will deceive the American public on weather forecasting, why should they be trusted to truthfully report on issues of greater magnitude?

So how did the establishment media get the forecast so consistently askew when they had access to the same information that any inquisitive Floridian had access to?  You already know the answer:  a bevy of television personalities (aka meteorologists) were scripted to present a version of extreme weather events in order to enhance audience ratings and thereby assure an increase in advertising revenue. as well as exhibit how easily an emergency can be used to control the population.

It is not a stretch that long time Floridians who have experienced multiple hurricane threats over the years may exhibit PTSD symptoms with an irrational anxiety or an overwhelming sense of panic as living through a real robust hurricane is not a normal life experience – all of which makes it easier to negatively influence those vulnerable citizens.

It is interesting to note that the Weather Channel television network (formerly owned by Bain Capitol, Comcast et al) was sold recently to Entertainment Studios which focuses on lifestyle programming such as pets, recipes and cars rather than science.  That sale says something about the commitment to provide scientifically authenticated weather forecasts.   Inexplicably the Weather Channel’s digital assets, its app and website, were not included in the Entertainment Studios $300 million purchase as they were acquired by IBM in 2016.  Separate corporate ownership using the same Weather Channel name leaves open the question as how each entity serves the greater public good as they compete for headlines, ratings and advertising revenue.

In case you had not noticed, there is a concerted effort to dominate an unsuspecting and unquestioning American public with a very specific reality that requires a consistent unanimity of thought.  That reality is necessary to continue the wars and global military dominance,  to create severe economic disturbance and disparities; a reality that relies on disinformation and hypocrisy while stirring citizens into a frenzied level of confusion, worry and anxiety about the future.  A distracted population living on the edge is more easily stage managed to accept a further loss of civil liberties than a politically informed, diligent population of infinite consciousness.

*

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

Renee Parsons has been a member of the ACLU’s Florida State Board of Directors and president of the ACLU Treasure Coast Chapter. She has been an elected public official in Colorado, an environmental lobbyist with Friends of the Earth and staff member of the US House of Representatives in Washington DC. She can be found on Twitter @reneedove31

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on “Forecasting” Hurricane Dorian. Relentless Media Disinformation. “Scripting of Extreme Weather Events”
  • Tags:

Below is a video showing several film sequences taken from different locations and documenting multiple angles of World Trade Center Building 7 collapsing at freefall speed eighteen years ago on September 11, 2001.

The four words “Building Seven Freefall Speed” provide all the evidence needed to conclude that the so-called “official narrative” promoted by the mainstream media for the past eighteen years is a lie, as is the fraudulent 9/11 Commission Report of 2004.

Building.

Seven.

Freefall.

Speed.

Earlier this month, a team of engineers at the University of Alaska published their draft findings from a five-year investigation into the collapse of Building 7, which was not hit by any airplane on September 11, 2001, and concluded that fires could not possibly have caused the collapse of that 47-story steel-frame building — rather, the collapse seen could have only been caused by the near-simultaneous failure of every support column (43 in number).

This damning report by a team of university engineers has received no attention from the mainstream media outlets which continue to promote the bankrupt “official” narrative of the events of September 11, 2001.

Various individuals at the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) tried to argue that the collapse of Building 7 was slower than freefall speed, but its rate of collapse can be measured and found to be indistinguishable from freefall speed, as physics teacher David Chandler explains in an interview here (and as he eventually forced NIST to admit), beginning at around 0:43:00 in the interview.

Although the collapse of the 47-story steel-beam building World Trade Center 7 into its own footprint at freefall speed is all the evidence needed to reveal extensive and deliberate premeditated criminal activity by powerful forces that had the ability to prepare pre-positioned demolition charges in that building prior to the flight of the aircraft into the Twin Towers of the World Trade Center (Buildings One and Two), as well as the power to cover up the evidence of this criminal activity and to deflect questioning by government agencies and suppress the story in the mainstream news, the collapse of Building 7 is by no means the only evidence which points to the same conclusion.

Indeed, the evidence is overwhelming, to the point that no one can any longer be excused for accepting the official story. Certainly during the first few days and weeks after the attacks, or even during the first few years, men and women could be excused for accepting the official story (particularly given the level to which the mainstream media controls opinion in the united states).

However, eighteen years later there is simply no excuse anymore — except for the fact that the ramifications of the admission that the official story is a flagrant fraud and a lie are so distressing that many people cannot actually bring themselves to consciously admit what they in fact already know subconsciously.

For additional evidence, I strongly recommend the work of the indefatigable Kevin Robert Ryan, whose blog at Dig Within should be required reading for every man and woman in the united states — as well as those in the rest of the world, since the ramifications of the murders of innocent men, women and children on September 11, 2001 have led to the murders of literally millions of other innocent men, women and children around the world since that day, and the consequences of the failure to absorb the truth of what actually took place, and the consequences of the failure to address the lies that are built upon the fraudulent explanation of what took place on September 11, continue to negatively impact men and women everywhere on our planet.

Additionally, I would also recommend the interviews which are archived at the website of Visibility 9-11, which includes valuable interviews with Kevin Ryan but also numerous important interviews with former military officers who explain that the failure of the military to scramble fighters to intercept the hijacked airplanes, and the failure of air defense weapons to stop a jet from hitting the Pentagon (if indeed a jet did hit the Pentagon), are also completely inexplicable to anyone who knows anything at all about military operations, unless the official story is completely false and something else was going on that day.

I would also strongly recommend listening very carefully to the series of five interviews with Kevin Ryan on Guns and Butter with Bonnie Faulkner, which can be found in the Guns and Butter podcast archive here. These interviews, from 2013, are numbered 287, 288, 289, 290, and 291 in the archive.

I would in fact recommend listening to nearly every interview in that archive of Bonnie Faulkner’s show, even though I do not of course agree with every single guest nor with every single view expressed in every single interview. Indeed, if you carefully read Kevin Ryan’s blog which was linked above, you will find a blog post by Kevin Ryan dated June 24, 2018 in which he explicitly names James Fetzer along with Judy Woods as likely disinformation agents working to discredit and divert the efforts of 9/11 researchers. James Fetzer appears on Guns and Butter several times in the archived interview page linked above.

In addition to these interviews and the Dig Within blog of Kevin Ryan, I would also strongly recommend everybody read the article by Dr. Gary G. Kohls entitled “Why Do Good People Become Silent About the Documented Facts that Disprove the Official 9/11 Narrative?” which was published on Global Research a few days ago, on September 6, 2019.

That article contains a number of stunning quotations about the ongoing failure to address the now-obvious lies we are being told about the attacks of September 11. One of these quotations, by astronomer Carl Sagan (1934 – 1996), is particularly noteworthy — even though I certainly do not agree with everything Carl Sagan ever said or wrote. Regarding our propensity to refuse to acknowledge what we already know deep down to be true, Carl Sagan said:

One of the saddest lessons of history is this: If we’ve been bamboozled long enough, we tend to reject any evidence of the bamboozle. We’re no longer interested in finding out the truth. The bamboozle has captured us. It’s simply too painful to acknowledge, even to ourselves, that we’ve been taken.

This quotation is from Sagan’s 1995 text, The Demon-Haunted World (with which I have points of disagreement, but which is extremely valuable for that quotation alone, and which I might suggest turning around on some of the points that Sagan was arguing as well, as a cautionary warning to those who have accepted too wholeheartedly some of Sagan’s teachings and opinions).

This quotation shows that on some level, we already know we have been bamboozled, even if our conscious mind refuses to accept what we already know. This internal division is actually addressed in the world’s ancient myths, which consistently illustrate that our egoic mind often refuses to acknowledge the higher wisdom we have available to us through the reality of our authentic self, sometimes called our Higher Self. Previous posts have compared this tendency of the egoic mind to the blissfully ignorant character of Michael Scott in the television series The Office (US version): see here for example, and also here.

The important author Peter Kingsley has noted that in ancient myth, the role of the prophet was to bring awareness and acknowledgement of that which the egoic mind refuses to see — which is consistent with the observation that it is through our authentic self (which already knows) that we have access to the realm of the gods. In the Iliad, for example, Dr. Kingsley notes that Apollo sends disaster upon the Achaean forces until the prophet Calchas reveals the source of the god’s anger: Agamemnon’s refusal to free the young woman Chryseis, whom Agamemnon has seized in the course of the fighting during the Trojan War, and who is the daughter of a priest of Apollo. Until Agamemnon atones for this insult to the god, Apollo will continue to visit destruction upon those following Agamemnon.

Until we acknowledge and correct what our Higher Self already knows to be the problem, we ourselves will be out of step with the divine realm.

If we look the other way at the murder of thousands of innocent men, women and children on September 11, 2001, and deliberately refuse to see the truth that we already know deep down in our subconscious, then we will face the displeasure of the Invisible Realm. Just as we are shown in the ancient myths, the truth must be acknowledged and admitted, and then the wrong that has been done must be corrected.

In the case of the mass murder perpetrated on September 11, eighteen years ago, that admission requires us to face the fact that the “terrorists” who were blamed for that attack were not the actual terrorists that we need to be focusing on.

Please note that I am very careful not to say that “the government” is the source of the problem: I would argue that the government is the lawful expression of the will of the people and that the government, rightly understood, is exactly what these criminal perpetrators actually fear the most, if the people ever become aware of what is going on. The government, which is established by the Constitution, forbids the perpetration of murder upon innocent men, women and children in order to initiate wars of aggression against countries that never invaded or attacked us (under the false pretense that they did so). Those who do so are actually opposed to our government under the Constitution and can be dealt with within the framework of the law as established by the Constitution,  which establishes a very clear penalty for treason.

When the people acknowledge and admit the complete bankruptcy of the lie we have been told about the attacks of September 11, the correction of that lie will involve demanding the immediate repeal and dismantling of the so-called “USA PATRIOT Act” which was enacted in the weeks immediately following September 11, 2001 and which clearly violates the Constitution and Bill of Rights.

Additionally, the correction of that lie will involve demanding the immediate cessation of the military operations which were initiated based upon the fraudulent narrative of the attacks of that day, and which have led to invasion and overthrow of the nations that were falsely blamed as being the perpetrators of those attacks and the seizure of their natural resources.

The imposition of a vast surveillance mechanism upon the people of this country (and of other countries) based on the fraudulent pretext of “preventing terrorism” (and the lying narrative that has been perpetuated with the full complicity of the mainstream media for the past eighteen years) is in complete violation of the human rights which are enumerated in the Bill of Rights and which declare:

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

That human right has been grievously trampled upon under the false description of what actually took place during the September 11 attacks. Numerous technology companies have been allowed and even encouraged (and paid, with public moneys) to create technologies which flagrantly and shamelessly violate “the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects” and which track their every move and even enable secret eavesdropping upon their conversation and the secret capture of video within their homes and private settings, without any probable cause whatsoever.

When we admit and acknowledge that we have been lied to about the events of September 11, which has been falsely used as a supposed justification for the violation of these human rights (with complete disregard for the supreme law of the land as established in the Constitution), then we will also demand the immediate cessation of any such intrusion upon the right of the people to “be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects” — including the cessation of any business models which involve spying on men and women.

Companies which cannot find a business model that does not violate the Bill of Rights should lose their corporate charter and the privilege of limited liability, which are extended to them by the people (through the government of the people, by the people and for the people) only upon the condition that their behavior as corporations do not violate the inherent rights of men and women as acknowledged in the Bill of Rights and the Constitution.

It is well beyond the time when we must acknowledge and admit that we have been lied to about the events of September 11, 2001 — and that we continue to be lied to about the events of that awful day. September 11, 2001 is in fact only one such event in a long history which stretches back prior to 2001, to other events which should have awakened the people to the presence of a very powerful and very dangerous criminal cabal acting in direct contravention to the Constitution long before we ever got to 2001 — but the events of September 11 are so blatant, so violent, and so full of evidence which contradicts the fraudulent narrative that they actually cannot be believed by anyone who spends even the slightest amount of time looking at that evidence.

Indeed, we already know deep down that we have been bamboozled by the lie of the so-called “official narrative” of September 11.

But until we admit to ourselves and acknowledge to others that we’ve ignored the truth that we already know, then the bamboozle still has us.

*

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

David Warner Mathisen graduated from the US Military Academy at West Point and became an Infantry officer in the 82nd Airborne Division and the 4th Infantry Division. He is a graduate of the US Army’s Ranger School and the 82nd Airborne Division’s Jumpmaster Course, among many other awards and decorations. He was later selected to become an instructor in the Department of English Literature and Philosophy at West Point and has a Masters degree from Texas A&M University.

The Alleged Cell Phone Calls from the 9/11 Flights

September 11th, 2019 by Consensus911.org

An unpublished manuscript investigating the alleged cell phone calls from the 9/11 flights has recently been released by the well-known British writer and Consensus 9/11 panelist, Rowland Morgan.

Morgan, a former columnist for London’s The Guardian and The Independent, undertook an in-depth investigation of the 9/11 phone calls in his extraordinary manuscript, Voices, researched from 2008 to 2010.  (He also co-authored, with Ian Henshall, Flight 93 Revealed, Carroll and Graf, 2006).

Voices cites an Associated Press report on April 6th, 2006, that “much of what happened aboard Flight 93 is known because passengers used cell phones in flight to call their loved ones.”

However, the US government’s own telephone data presented at the Moussaoui trial in 2006 showed that Moussaoui prosecutor David Raskin “had not studied his own evidence, which claimed only two cellular telephone calls out of some 35 ostensibly heard from Flight 93.”

Morgan goes on to reveal:

“The telephone data contained more bombshells of which Moussaoui’s prosecutors apparently were unaware:

  • The world-famous 9/11 telephone calls from TV-pundit Barbara Olson to her husband Theodore Olson at his office in the Department of Justice had never occurred. The U.S government’s call data said she made a call but did not get through. This meant that the U.S. Solicitor-General, a key member of the Bush administration, had connived at, or been deluded about, a crucial deception, one that had placed “hijackers” armed with “cardboard-cutters” aboard Flight 77 ostensibly speeding towards the Pentagon.
  • The world-famous 9/11 in-flight telephone call from Todd Beamer, the one in which an Airfone operator heard him shout the Pentagon’s recruitment slogan “Let’s Roll”, had never occurred. The U.S. government’s fudged data said Beamer had made separate calls in the same second.

Because the existence of hijackers aboard the rogue planes partly relied on them, the collapse of these two vital telephone calls alone badly damaged the U.S. Government’s 9/11 conspiracy theory.”

The full manuscript for Rowland Morgan’s brilliant study of all the alleged 9/11 cell phone calls, Voices, is available on the 9/11 Consensus Panel’s website.

*

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

The 9/11 Legend Lives On. The “Official Story” Prevails

September 11th, 2019 by Dr. Ludwig Watzal

The 18th anniversary of the attacks on 11 September 2001 (9/11) will be commemorated in the US and worldwide by the corporate media to keep the legend about 9/11 alive.

The official 9/11 narrative, however, is not only riddled with contradictions and outright lies, but any deviation from this fairy tale will cost any detractor his existence. “Conspiracy theorists” works like a weapon of mass destruction, meaning, nobody of the ruling class and their moral mainstream media enforcer will deviate one inch from the official story.

After 13 minutes, Osama bin Laden surfaced as the guy responsible for the attacks. President George W. Bush declared shortly after America is under attack”. The official account emerged within days and goes the following:

“On the morning of 11 September 2001 four civilian airlines with dozens of passengers and crew, designated as flights AA11, UA175, AA77 and UA93, were hijacked by teams of four or five Muslim fanatics. Each team included one trained pilot. The hijackers took control of the airliners and flew a Boeing 767 assigned to flight AA11 into the North Tower of the World Trade Center (WTC) in New York, another Boeing 767 assigned to flight UA175 into the South Tower and a Boeing 757 assigned to flight AA77 into the Pentagon. The fourth airliner, a Boeing 757 assigned to flight UA93, presumed to have been destined to crash on the White House, did not reach its target. It crashed in an empty field in Pennsylvania after the passengers rose up and tried to seize control of the aircraft. As a result of the impact of the aircraft on the Twin Towers and the ensuing fires, both towers collapsed soon afterwards onto their own footprint, causing massive deaths. Almost 3,000 people died in the attacks. Osama bin Laden and his al-Qa’eda network were shortly thereafter blamed for conceiving, planning, financing and coordinating the attacks.”

The swiftness of the fabricated account is remarkable; such is everything surrounding the context of 9/11. One can state with confidence that the story the peoples are made to believe is false from start to finish.

To start with the alleged hijackers for whom there is not a shred of evidence that they did it. The collapse of the Twin Towers caused by fire has been repudiated a thousand times. The Towers were brought down by controlled demolition, which pulverized the two 110 stories high-rises. Also, WTC 7 that wasn’t hit by a plane came down in free fall. Another airplane crashed into the Pentagon. This aerial maneuver couldn’t even be undertaken by the well-experienced pilot not to speak of amateurs who could hardly navigate a Cessna. Even more implausible was the disappearance of the United-Airlines flight 93 on a field near Shanksville, Pennsylvania. There was just a whole, no debris, only nothing.

Within a month, the contaminated wreckage was sold abroad to prevent an investigation. From the beginning, the Bush/Cheney administration sabotaged any inquiry and curtailed its authorities. The cover-up, however, overseen by then FBI Director Robert Mueller, the infamous guy responsible for the solution of the Russian hoax against President Donald Trump. Bush was pressured by Congress and the public to appoint a commission of inquiry. He came up with the most dubious figure in US politics; Henry Kissinger. The outrage was long in the coming and Kissinger had to resign. On 17 December 2002, appointed former New Jersey Governor Thomas Kean as chairman of the commission. The Democrats nominated Lee H. Hamilton. The executive director of the 9/11 Commission was Philip Zelikow, the most untrustworthy figure Bush could find. He was involved in Bush’s preemptive war strategy. Accordingly, the 9/11 Commission Report is not worth the paper it’s written on. This storybook didn’t waste a single word on the collapse of WTC 7.

Neither the witnesses who reported explosions during the collapse of the Twin Towers nor the witnesses who didn’t see any debris in Shanksville were heart. Instead Zelikow ramp his premeditated report down the throat of the commission members. Finally, the commission was set up to fail and to cover up what really happened on 9/11. This report is just a joke but the world has no other choice than to believe in it.

9/11 was a propaganda-coup, unprecedented in history. “When the sun rose on New York and Washington on 11 September 2001, the official legend of 9/11 lay ready to be promoted worldwide. It was conceived before the events and confirmed by the U.S. Congress – give or take minor details – within 24 hours of the deadly incidents.“ Within hours, the entire world was led astray into believing what can be labeled an absurd tale. The author can’t understand that the Western world swallowed “this legend hook, line, and sinker.“

The main suspects of the heinous crime committed on 9/11 are not found in the caves of Afghanistan but in government offices in Washington. Elias Davidsson writes in his book “The Betrayal of America”:

“Had the crime of 9/11 been carried out by rogue elements of the U.S. government or by a foreign state against the real interests of the ruling class of the United States and its allies, the plotters and perpetrators would have been exposed and punished long ago.“

The disgusting spectacle designed as a horror show lasted 90 minutes just like an ordinary movie. The incident was intended to rally the Americans behind the flag and their President. And the media promoted the official account day in, day out. And even the leftists capitulated before this brainwashing. No one of the so-called left asked for evidence that Afghanistan or the Taliban had anything to do with 9/11. Even when counter-evidence surmounted against the legend of 9/11, the left kept mum and stuck to Bush’s fairy tale. They also slandered respectable critics.

Instead of celebrating the myth about 9/11, the American public and peoples around the world should demand an independent investigation into 9/11. The curtain of lies about this organized crime, which plunged the world into an endless war on terror aimed at the peoples of the so-called Third World, must be lifted.

As long as military, intelligence and law enforcement officials worldwide cooperate with the rulers of the murderous U.S. regime or its stooges in other countries the physical security of ordinary citizens is in danger.

*

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

Dr. Ludwig Watzal is a frequent contributor to Global Research.

In spite of online censorship efforts directed against the independent media, we are happy to say that readership on globalresearch.ca has recently increased. We wish to thank all of you who share our articles far and wide.

We cover a diversity of key issues you would be hard pressed to find on any other single online news source. This is truly independent news and analysis, a dying breed.

Our costs have increased and our revenue has gone down over the past year. We are running a monthly deficit. Help us keep the independent voice alive by becoming a member or making a donation today!

*     *     *

Trump Sacks Bolton. Who is the Next National Security Advisor?

By Stephen Lendman, September 11, 2019

It’s a good start, way short of what’s needed — cleaning house of all Trump regime far-right extremists, notably Pompeo and likeminded hardliners.

The Whitewashing of the Nazis

By Christopher Black, September 11, 2019

On June 30 1934, Hitler ordered the unit to arrest the members of the SA organisation, led by Ernst Rohm, that was vying for power with him in the overall Nazi organisation. The arrests were carried out in Munich and that night men of the unit murdered several leaders of the SA including five generals and a colonel.

9/11 Truth: Foreknowledge of WTC 7’s Collapse

By wtc7.net, September 11, 2019

Witness reports show that officials who controlled the streets around WTC 7 evacuated the area in the hour before the 5:20 PM collapse, and that various officials forwarded verbal warnings conveying certainty that the collapse would occur. Network television broadcasts contain announcements of the collapse at least 23 minutes before the event.

Will Iran be a Full Nuclear Power by the End of 2020? No Return to the 2015 Agreement

By Elijah J. Magnier, September 11, 2019

Iran has been following a “strategy of patience” since US President Donald Trump unlawfully revoked the nuclear deal. Tehran allowed Europe, for an entire year, to think about a way to tempt Iran to stay within the nuclear deal on the basis of 4 (France, Russia, China, UK) + 1 (Germany), excluding the US.

9/11 “Justice”: The Pentagon’s Upcoming Kangaroo Show Trial in Cuba

By Jacob G. Hornberger, September 11, 2019

After 18 years, there is a possibility that the Pentagon is finally going to permit a “trial” of five men who are accused of conspiracy to commit the 9/11 attacks. If so, the proceedings will prove what a charade the Pentagon’s entire “judicial system” at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, has been and continues to be.

The Bill of Rights Turns 230, and What Do We Have to Show for It? Nothing Good

By John W. Whitehead, September 11, 2019

We can pretend that the Constitution, which was written to hold the government accountable, is still our governing document, but the reality of life in the American police state tells a different story.

Western Media Portrays Hong Kong Hooligans as Heroes. But Are They?

By Andre Vltchek, September 11, 2019

On Sunday, huge US flags were waving in the air. A massive demonstration, consisting of mainly young people, was moving up from the old British-built downtown area of the city towards the US Consulate General, often erroneously called the “embassy.”

*

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

  • Posted in NO READ MORE LINK
  • Comments Off on Selected Articles: Trump Sacks Bolton. Who Is the Next National Security Advisor?

Trump Sacks Bolton. Who is the Next National Security Advisor?

September 11th, 2019 by Stephen Lendman

It’s a good start, way short of what’s needed — cleaning house of all Trump regime far-right extremists, notably Pompeo and likeminded hardliners.

Chance for positive change is virtually nil. Dirty business as usual in Washington won’t miss a beat — other than perhaps somewhat less toxic rhetoric with Bolton gone, short of enough to matter.

From inception, the US has been a culture of violence. Throughout most of its history, it’s been at war at home and/or abroad.

Since attacking North Korea preemptively in June 1950, it’s been permanently at war against one or more nonthreatening states, waging them endlessly today in multiple theaters.

Democracy is its deadliest export, a notion it deplores, tolerating it nowhere, especially at home.

US post-WW II history isn’t pretty. Its record includes assassinations of foreign leaders, staging color revolutions and coups, along with meddling in elections worldwide — what imperialism is all about.

Trump announced the news on Bolton, tweeting:

“I informed (him) last night that his services are no longer needed at the White House. I disagreed strongly with many of his suggestions, as did others in the Administration, and therefore I asked John for his resignation, which was given to me this morning.”

Trump added that he’ll name a new national security advisor next week. Bolton’s deputy Charles Kupperman replaced him on an interim basis — perhaps to remain in the post.

Hold the cheers. He’s closely tied to US military, industrial, security interests, earlier holding senior Lockheed Martin and Boeing positions.

From 2001 – 2010, he was a board member of neocon/Islamophobe Frank Gaffney’s Center for Security Policy, a far-right figure The American Conservative called an “uber-foreign policy hawk…re-ascendent in Trump’s orbit” through his connection to Kupperman.

Bolton earlier praised his deputy, saying

he “has been an advisor to me for more than thirty years, including during my tenure as National Security Advisor to President Trump,” adding:

“Charlie’s extensive expertise in defense, arms control and aerospace will help further President Trump’s national security agenda.”

Iranian Foreign Minister Zarif accused Bolton and Netanyahu of “lur(ing) Donald Trump into killing (the) JCPOA (by) delu(ding)” him.

On Tuesday, Russia’s envoy to the IAEA Mikhail Ulyanov said Iran’s “full cooperation with the” agency confirms its nuclear program is peaceful.

Bolton’s announced sacking came shortly before a press conference with Pompeo and Treasury Secretary Mnuchin he was scheduled to attend.

In office since April 9, 2018, he proved his raging hawk reputation time and again — one critic saying “(h)e never met a country he didn’t want to destroy.”

Another said he’s far more than “a run-of-the-mill hawk…He’s never seen a foreign policy problem that couldn’t be solved by bombing.”

He earlier called for military action against North Korea and Iran.

On the DPRK, he said  “the only longterm way to deal with (its) nuclear weapons program is to end (the) regime,” adding:

“It’s not enough…to impose sanctions…(North Korea) poses a threat to stability in the region that undermines security…”

“I think further discussions with North Korea, further efforts to pressure North Korea, are basically a waste of time. The way to end the North’s nuclear program is to end the North.”

He falsely said “Iran’s steady progress toward nuclear weapons has long been evident,” adding:

“The inescapable conclusion is that Iran will not negotiate away its nuclear program. Nor will sanctions block its building a broad and deep weapons infrastructure.”

“The inconvenient truth is that only military action like Israel’s 1981 attack on Saddam Hussein’s Osirak reactor in Iraq or its 2007 destruction of a Syrian reactor, designed and built by North Korea, can accomplish what is required.”

Iran’s legitimate nuclear program has no military component — confirmed time and again by the IAEA. The US intelligence community found no evidence of Iran seeking the bomb because none exists.

Pyongyang called Bolton a “war maniac,” adding:

“(I)t will be fit to call (him) not a security adviser striving for security but a security-destroying adviser who is wrecking peace and security” worldwide.

He earlier said

“(t)here is no United Nations. There is a international community that occasionally can be led by the only real power left in the world (the US) when it suits our interest, and when we can get others to go along.”

Center for Arms Control and Non-Proliferation director Alexandra Bell said

“(b)etween Pompeo and Bolton, you’re looking at a neocon foreign policy (team) jacked up on steroids.”

They and their henchmen are militantly hostile toward Russia, China, Iran, North Korea, Syria, Cuba, Nicaragua, and other countries unwilling to subordinate their sovereign rights to US interests.

They never met a conflict resolution plan they didn’t want to undermine — notably against Trump’s announced troop pullout from Syria, rapprochement steps with North Korea, and cutting a deal with the Taliban.

They sabotaged Obama’s Cuba agenda by Trump’s imposition of new illegal sanctions on the country. They orchestrated a color revolution attempt in Nicaragua that failed — so far.

They planned and got Trump to go along with all-out war by other means on Venezuelan social democracy and nonbelligerent Iran — both countries threatening no one, seeking cooperative relations with other nations.

They got Trump to veto a congressional measure to end US involvement in Yemen. They convinced him to escalate hot wars he inherited, wage trade war on China, and helped prevent improved relations with Russia.

In Washington, names and faces change. Dirty business as usual continues under both right wings of the US war party — waging endless wars at home and abroad, serving privileged interests exclusively at the expense of ordinary people everywhere.

Bolton’s departure won’t change a thing with Pompeo at state, Abrams as White House envoy for regime change in Venezuela, Brian Hook in the same capacity against Iran, along with numerous other Trump regime hardliners in place, and a hornet’s nest of likeminded bipartisan congressional members.

Commenting on Bolton’s ouster, Iranian President Rouhani advisor Hesameddin Ashena  mistakenly said it’s a “sign of the failure of US ‘maximum pressure’ strategy.

Last week, Brian Hook said more Trump regime sanctions on Iran are coming, indicating no letup in its “maximum pressure” policy.

Through his spokesman Abbas Mousavi, Iranian Foreign Minister Zarif said

“(w(e) will not be issuing any statement on US internal affairs” — referring to Bolton’s sacking.

Iran’s UN envoy Majid Takht-e Ravanchi stressed that

“there is no room for talks as long as the US administration’s economic terrorism and cruel sanctions against the Iranian people are in place.”

“The topic could be discussed only when they lift the sanctions,” adding: Possible future talks will only occur through the P5+1, indicating they also depend on the Trump regime returning to the JCPOA it illegally abandoned, breaching international law.

In Washington and the West, everything changes but stays the same.

Since the neoliberal 90s, it’s been for the worse with no prospect for positive change.

*

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

Award-winning author Stephen Lendman lives in Chicago. He can be reached at [email protected]. He is a Research Associate of the Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG)

His new book as editor and contributor is titled “Flashpoint in Ukraine: US Drive for Hegemony Risks WW III.”

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

Visit his blog site at sjlendman.blogspot.com.

The Whitewashing of the Nazis

September 11th, 2019 by Christopher Black

I was going to write about Iraq and the American control of that tragic nation that has been, like many others, destroyed by the American war machine, but it is difficult to find out any real facts about anything in Iraq. All the news and reports are controlled, events are unexplained, the politics unclear, the American influence hidden in the dark shadows of their crimes, so I decided to write about the whitewashing of Nazis.

For while pondering what to write I watched a film on Netflix, a film that exposes just what the NATO countries are, the roots of their present foreign policies and treatment of their peoples. It’s a film that really excuses the barbarity of the US and NATO war machine, and their objective of revisiting World War II, which never ended for them and their Nazi friends, but was transformed into the Cold War, and the new Operation Barbarossa they are preparing against Russia, as the American withdrawal from the intermediate nuclear missile control treaty proves to be their intent.

The film bears the title, “My Honour Was My Glory.” It sounds like it could be the title of any war film, but it has a special meaning because that phrase was the motto of the Waffen SS unit, Der LiebstandarteSS-Adolf Hitler Panzergrenadier Division, the elite unit of the Waffen SS, the military formation of the Nazi Party of Germany and fascists from across Europe. It was this unit that was Hitler’s personal bodyguard.

So, is this film an expose of the many war crimes committed by that unit in World War Two? Does it show what they did in Russia, in Italy, in France? No. Instead, it is a portrayal designed to raise our sympathies, to see these criminals as heroes fighting for “home and hearth,” lost souls ultimately betrayed by their leaders, whose crimes are no worse than the crimes of other armies. Vivid battle scenes are connected by sad reflections of the SS men about their lives, their wives, their hopes, their fears. Hitler would have loved every second of it.

But what is the truth about this unit that the Italian director, Alessandro Pepe, now living in the USA, has turned into a group of lovable heroes? What did he erase from history?

The truth begins with the formation of the unit as Hitler’s personal bodyguard in the 1920s. In 1933, on the tenth anniversary of the Beer Hall Putsch, in which Hitler tried to seize power in a coup that failed, the men of the unit swore a personal oath of loyalty to Adolf Hitler and were made into a military formation. On swearing allegiance to Hitler the unit received the name Liebstandarte Adolf Hitler, or, personal bodyguard of Hitler. A year later the head of the SS, Heinrich Himmler, added the initials SS to the name of the unit to make it clear it was not part of the regular army or the still existing SA. Under its commander, Sepp Dietrich, it vaunted itself as a Nazi unit and then, in its first action, declared what it was going to be from then on, an organised gang of thugs and murderers.

On June 30 1934, Hitler ordered the unit to arrest the members of the SA organisation, led by Ernst Rohm, that was vying for power with him in the overall Nazi organisation. The arrests were carried out in Munich and that night men of the unit murdered several leaders of the SA including five generals and a colonel. Others were shot in Berlin. On July 1, 1934 on what is known as the Night of the Long Knives, Hitler ordered the unit to act as a death squad and its men murdered well over a hundred other people connected to the SA.

Having proved that it was willing to commit murder on his behalf, the unit was then expanded in size and became the honour guard at many of Hitler rallies and took part in the seizure of a number of lands Hitler desired, including the Saarland, and Sudetenland. In the invasion of Poland in 1939, the unit became famous for burning whole villages to terrorise the population, for murdering 50 Jews in the town of Blonie, for machine-gunning over 200 men, women and children at Zloczew, and for committing atrocities in a number of other towns.

During the operations in France in May 1940, in the fighting around Dunkirk, the unit murdered 80 prisoners of the Royal Warwickshire Regiment and some French soldiers in a barn at Wormhoudt.

In April 1941 they were the lead German unit in the invasion and occupation of Greece, then were transferred to join other units for the invasion of the USSR, in Operation Barbarossa. According to reports of its staff journalist, the unit murdered 4,000 Soviet prisoners of war on August 18, 1941. During the fighting around and in Kharkov in March 1943 it became notorious for murdering wounded Soviet soldiers found in a military hospital. Several hundred Soviet wounded were killed in that hospital and other prisoners were routinely executed during its operations.

On February 17, 1943 its men burned down the two villages of Yefremovka and Semyonovka, killing 872 men, women and children, with 240 of those burned alive in a church at Yefremovka. The battalion that committed this atrocity was given the name the “Blowtorch Battalion.” During this same period it and its reserve units in Germany rounded up Jews and took their property.

Transferred to Italy in September, 1943 the unit murdered 49 Jewish refugees near Lake Maggiore and killed 34 civilians in the village of Bove. Some victims at the lake were thrown into the water with their hands and feet tied. Then transferred to France in 1944 they murdered French civilians in the villages of Tavaux and Plomion. During the Ardennes fighting near Malmedy, the unit executed 84 American prisoners. They also captured eleven black US soldiers of the 333rd Artillery Battalion in another engagement. When their bodies were found, their fingers had been cut off and legs broken.

This is the unit that Alessandro Pepe wants us to connect with. The film references the Jews being massacred in the death camps, but the stories are dismissed by the men as unbelievable; quite a distortion since we know these men massacred Jews in Russia and Germany. Shooting of prisoners is excused because, well the Americans were worse and the Soviets deserved it. The killing of civilians is never mentioned. Instead we watch as these young men walk through beautiful fields in Ukraine and comment on how war scars the beauty of nature, or in Italy sigh at the beauty of the Tuscan landscape and in France the French countryside, rhapsodising like poets. But in Russia, what do we see? The Red Army soldiers are “Bolshevik scum” and prisoners are savagely beaten to death with rifle butts.

This is a film that makes heroes out of murderers, poets out of Nazis, a film designed to distort history, in fact to erase history and recreate it so that Nazis are lovable and even desirable to have around. Yet, in Germany and Austria it is illegal to use the motto of this unit and to use it to promote Nazism, But that is what Pepe does, what Netflix does.

But how is it possible that such a film could be financed and produced today and then shown on a major network? Because the governments of the NATO countries are composed of people who share the beliefs of the Nazis; anti-communist, anti-worker, anti-Semitic, despite their pretending otherwise so long as Israel does their bidding, sharing the same lust for world domination as Hitler, willing to use the same barbarism to terrorise and dominate the world.

We have seen the savagery of the Nazis, the same propaganda in the NATO attacks on Yugoslavia, on Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, Syria, Iran, Venezuela, Russia and China; the same savagery, the same contempt for law and civilised behaviour. And for the same objectives, to make money by stealing and murdering.

The NATO countries installed and support a regime in Ukraine that is heavily infected with Nazis. Canada has a foreign minister who denies that her grandfather was a Nazi collaborator who helped the SS round up Jews in Ukraine. Nazi sympathisers are routinely discovered in Nato army units. Far right parties, fascist parties are gaining influence all over Europe. In Britain, France and the USA, right wing parties have been in control for a long time. And though there are fake expressions of dismay at this, these same governments encourage the rise of the far right by suppressing left parties, pushing people to essentially right wing social democratic parties, putting out false histories of socialism in those countries, and making sure the far right gets lots of media coverage that the left parties are denied. They ban and slander communist parties and their leaders, and all the while foster hatred against foreigners, telling the people that their enemies are the Jews, the Muslims, the Russians, the Chinese and to instil fear in the people tell them that ever tighter surveillance and security are needed to protect them from the “enemy,” and if that does not convince them, there is always a bombing or two or a mass shooting to make the point, along with the constant drone of “you are being watched,” repeated over and over again, to try to keep us in line.

Watched is not the right word; more like gloated over, as the far right leaders, masquerading as liberals, watch us drift into despair at our conditions, knowing that people are seeking any answer, but are told not to look to the left, but to look to the far right to find. We see the black shirts in action again in Hong Kong, supported by the black shirts of the right in the west who hold power over us.

The British and Canadian prime ministers stated on the anniversary of the Nazi invasion of Poland in 1939 that the Soviet Union was the aggressor against Poland when German armies invaded, that Poland was caught between “two tyrannies,” the big lie since the British, French and Americans refused Soviet requests to form an alliance against Hitler since they were encouraging Hitler to attack the Soviet Union. The USSR was forced to protect itself against the fascists, to protect the revolution that raised the workers and peasants of Russia out of poverty into a new life, a struggle so vividly described in Ilya Ehrenburg’s account of the resistance of the Soviet peoples to the Nazi invasion described so well in his novel, The Storm. Yet all across eastern Europe, monuments to the men and women of the Red Army who died fighting the Nazi armies are desecrated or demolished while statues to Nazi thugs are raised. And never are the people told that the Nazis were capitalists on a rampage, that they were and are the face of capitalism with the gloves off. No, there is no monument to the crimes of the capitalists. And so now we have films praising the SS shown to millions of people and not a word said, until now.

We thought the Red Army defeated fascism in 1945. It looks like we going to have fight them again.

*

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

Christopher Black is an international criminal lawyer based in Toronto. He is known for a number of high-profile war crimes cases and recently published his novel “Beneath the Clouds. He writes essays on international law, politics and world events, especially for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook.”  He is a frequent contributor to Global Research.

Featured image is from NEO

9/11 Truth: Foreknowledge of WTC 7’s Collapse

September 11th, 2019 by wtc7.net

Of the two principal theories of WTC 7’s collapse — one being global structural failure due to prior debris impact and ongoing fire damage, and the other being controlled demolition — the second is favored by foreknowledge of the collapse. This is particularly true given the lack of precedent of total collapses of steel framed structures during fires. So unprecedented was the collapse of Building 7 that the government has yet to explain it, in 2007.

That would probably be lost on most responders on the site, who would have the fresh memories of the Twin Towers’ explosions to help them accept the notion that the total of collapse of smoking skyscrapers is a natural and even predictable occurrence.

Witness reports show that officials who controlled the streets around WTC 7 evacuated the area in the hour before the 5:20 PM collapse, and that various officials forwarded verbal warnings conveying certainty that the collapse would occur. Network television broadcasts contain announcements of the collapse at least 23 minutes before the event.

Witness Accounts of Foreknowledge

This overview of witness accounts shows that the evacuation of the area surrounding WTC 7 started sometime around 4 PM, and was completed only a few minutes before the 5:20 collapse. The warnings of the collapse, which are recalled in dozens of accounts by emergency responders, show a striking consistency of conviction that the collapse would occur.

Premature Announcements on Television Broadcasts

At least two television networks made premature announcements of the collapse of WTC 7. The BBC unequivocally announced the collapse about 23 minutes before the fact, and even featured a New York correspondent speaking of the collapse in past tense with the still-erect skyscraper standing behind her.

CNN anchor Aaron Brown announced that the building “has either collapsed or is collapsing” about an hour before the event. Unlike the BBC correspondent, Brown seemed to be able to read the skyline and see that Building 7 was still standing — perhaps accounting for the muddled announcement.

These premature reports were uncovered in the wake of the publication of URLS of a vast archive of television footage.

The following pages contain partial transcripts of these premature reports.

Vast Archive of Footage

The premature announcements of the collapse of WTC by television networks went unnoticed until researchers discovered a vast archive of television broadcast footage from the day of the attack. On February 22, 2007, a post on 911Blogger.com listed the URLs on Archive.org of 417 mpeg recordings capturing about 60 hours broadcast coverage starting on the morning of 9/11/01 from each of six different television stations. Each of the high-quality recordings covering about 41 minutes of broadcast.

The coverage included the following television stations and time spans:

Unfortunately, Archive.org made the footage archive inaccessible to the public shortly after the BBC foreknowledge story was publicized.

*

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

Read the Irish Independent article here.

***

Dear Adrian,

I read with dismay your article in Saturdays Independent on the safety of 5G. I think you do a huge disservice to Ireland Inc but in particular to Irish Children and Pregnant Mothers. These people should be warned on the adverse effects of Pulsed Polarised Modulated Microwave Radiation on their health and wellbeing.

The Irish Government has consistently failed to meet its obligations from the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe with Resolution 1815 in (2011), the Phone manufacturers are totally disingenuous, in that they bury the Warnings six deep in their T+C and an Oireachtas Bill No 24 of 2011, The Mobile Phone Radiation Warning Act 2011 which fell because of the government change was never followed up.

As result of this huge vacuum in reliable health and safety information, nobody in authority is telling our children and pregnant mothers about the dangers of their exposure to this ubiquitous sea of Pulsed Polarised Modulated Microwave Radiation.

It is respected technical journalists like you that need to reinforce and amplify these responsible warnings.

When you say the following in today’s article I would think that a huge number of Independent Scientists Worldwide will strongly disagree with your dated assertions.

“According to Ireland’s regulator, this type of radiation only has sufficient energy for “excitation” and can’t “break bonds that hold molecules in cells together”.

This is just 100% Wrong / Incorrect / Scientifically Not Correct / it is also a Disingenuous Lie and shame on Comreg for repeating and perpetuating a misconception of classical physics.

There are two main issues that confound and amplify the widespread misunderstandings that we are facing today. The first is a misassumption of Classical Physics in a Biological System, the famous “Non-Ionizing Radiation Story” and the second is the historical mistake of using a totally inappropriate “Thermal Effects Safety Guidelines” from ICNIRP to the assess safety of the mobile phone microwave radiation.

Physical science tells us that Non-Ionising Radiation (NIR) does not possess the energy to damage Chemical Covalent Bonds, so it could not damage DNA and is therefore perfectly safe!

This is part of the official disinformation that industry and regulators buy and sell.

The disinformation comes because Microwave Radiation energy is classified in the Electro-Magnetic Spectrum as a Non-Ionising Radiation (NIR) and by definition the energy of this  radiation is not strong enough to ionise a molecule by breaking a covalent chemical bond.

The typical energy of a covalent bond is in the order of 1 electronVolt (1 eV = 1.6 .10-19 Joules). The force required to break a covalent bond is in the order of 1 eV/0.1 nm ~ 1600 pN. (pico Newtons)

The energy in the microwave radiation is well below this level. At 3 GHz it is 1.8*10⁻²⁴Joules.

See this.

So, this is the science that lays out the impossibility of Microwave radiation being able to damage DNA because it is too weak in energy terms to rip the electrons off and break any of the bonds present in DNA.  And this is the “rock-solid classical physics” that the whole disinformation story rests on.

So, most Engineers will spout out this story, almost as religious Dogma and poo-poo the whole idea of Microwaves causing any negative health effects.

The only problem with the story is the horrible fact that microwave radiation at the levels present in mobile phones does in fact damage DNA. Not expected, but sadly true. So, this is the reason why there is so much deliberate confusion, from an Engineering standpoint it is not going to happen, yet in Biology it happens!

This short reference summarises the science that attests to the reality that the biologists are correct. It is known as the 2004 EU Reflex Study and the following link gives a summary.

See this.

If you read the last paragraph of the article you will see the skulduggery the industry resorted to try to discredit this work.

This is the study that showed 24 hours of mobile phone radiation did the same amount of DNA damage as 60 CT Scans in or 250 years of The Earth’s background radiation.  

How many people would voluntarily submit to 60 CT scans in 24 hours?

Science is getting better as time goes by and there are thousands of studies that back up the fact that NIR effects our biology and can in fact damage DNA. One theory of how this may happen is that NIR in living systems can create “Free Radicals” which in turn can damage DNA. But even if there is some debate as to the nature of the mechanisms that can cause the damage to occur, there is absolutely no debate that DNA damage does take place.

See this and this.

But Adrian don’t take my word for this, you have a simple choice, listen to compromised regulators in Comreg dishing out 30-year-old myths about Non-Ionising Radiation or just Google and see they don’t make any sense.

Try to Google (“Microwave Radiation” “DNA Damage”) you may see that there are approx. 53,300 hits on Google.  Now that’s not bad for something that can’t happen!

And guess what there is even a field of Science called Bio-electromagnetics dedicated to this type of research with many tens of thousands of peer reviewed articles from Scientists all over the world that all working on something COMREG says can’t happen.

However even with science on the side of the Biologists, being right is not enough to upset the whole NIR house of cards story that is supported by a multi trillion-euro global business.

Thermal Based Standards Irish (cut and paste) ICNIRP guidelines are not a measure of the damage the radiation may be doing to our bodies they are simply a measure of the amount of heat absorbed by a body. The ICNIRP thermal-only exposure limit is not safe.

Microwave Radiation Affects our Biology, it has an effect which varies between people but it does have deleterious effects on all life forms.

There are many well documented Bio-effects on our health and well-being, related to mobile phone and wireless technology. Bioeffects are clearly established and occur even at very low levels of exposure to electromagnetic fields and radiofrequency radiation.

Just look at these two web sites which are up to date (2019) with the latest information on these Bioeffects.

See this and this.

  • Evidence for fertility and reproduction effects: Human sperm and DNA damaged
  • Foetal and Neonatal effects of EMF
  • EMF is a plausible biological mechanism for autism (ASD)
  • The opening up of the Blood Brain Barrier
  • Epidemiology studies consistently show elevations in risk of Brain Cancers
  • Evidence for Genetic Effects.
  • Evidence for Childhood Cancers (Leukaemia)
  • Significant disruption of our Voltage Gated Calcium Channels (VGCC)
  • Decreased Melatonin levels, Breast Cancer and Alzheimer’s

If you want to learn more about the 8 Bioeffects caused by exposure to RF please read Prof Martin Pall’s 91-page review article (or even just read the two-page summary) here.

The work that Martin Pall has highlighted on VGCC’s and the very simple lab experiments showing direct effect of RF on live cells in a flask with an electrode measuring the reactive nitrogen species when exposed to RF are so clear, RF at the levels present in mobile phones rapidly releases oxidative species.

Every living entity is different and will react differently to external and internal EMF stimuli.

We know that RF has biological effects what we don’t know well enough are the consequences for living creatures.

I have tried to convey to you the complexity of the effects of EMF’s on living creatures, we are only beginning to see a little of what goes on at the molecular and cellular levels.

With respect your reporting on 5G is incomplete.

At present the five Irish operations have purchased spectrum only in the 600 MHz to 3.6 GHz frequencies. These are similar type of frequencies being used in LTE 4G. One of the big worries for people is that the use of higher frequencies which are planned for future 5G installations (already in the US) have had no safety testing according to the US Telecom’s trade organisation CTIA.

Couple that with the evisceration of the Irish planning laws (S.I. No. 31 of 2018) which means that Telecom Operators can decide when and where the thousands of mini-cell antennae are placed not the local planners.

Your 5G hype tells us ….Aside from speed, 5G is being touted as infrastructure that may be necessary for new types of emergency healthcare and, eventually, autonomous vehicles. This is partly due to its instantaneous connection capability, otherwise referred to as ‘low latency’.

What you don’t tell us is that there is nothing wireless can do that fibre cannot do in terms of speed or low latency.

You also fail to mention that “Wireless broadband” is more profitable for the operators. So instead of supplying safe wired / fibre broadband to all our citizens, we hear from you that their profits are more important than citizens health.

When 5G is fully rolled out there will be hundreds of thousands of antennae in our homes, streets, factories, offices, schools and hospitals it will be impossible to escape this Untested 5G Weaponised Radiation.

The 5G hype is: It will deliver 1000 times the download speed (full length movie in 1 to 2 seconds), 1000 times the data transfer, thanks to using the Higher Energy 5G Frequency spectrum (Millimetre Waves).

Now take a moment and think about it !  Will the electricity usage be 1000 time higher ? Or even just 100 times higher or even just 10 times higher ? No-body in authority really knows at this moment.

5G promises 1000-time faster speeds because of the higher frequencies (higher energy). Unfortunately, this will come at a high cost in electrical energy usage and the corresponding Carbon Footprint.

See this.

Questions need to be asked on who is driving this 5G madness, who stands to benefit and who stands to lose. The people of Ireland will definitely be the biggest losers, more EU fines, increasing Carbon Footprint meaning severe reductions in other vital areas that really need to use the carbon.

Paraphrasing what Susan Pockett says about New Zealand, can easily be extended into the Irish context. See this.

Our DCCAE and Comreg are not presently credible sources of information. On the contrary, these government department appears to be firmly and unshakably committed to the ICNIRP thermal-only dogma, exactly because that dogma allows unbridled expansion of the wireless and telecommunications industries.

  • It is time to stop believing ICNIRP spin. Tissue heating is not the only biological effect of radiofrequency radiation. The ICNIRP thermal-only exposure limit is not safe.
  • Like tobacco smoke, low intensity radiofrequency radiation has multiple harmful effects on human health. Unlike second-hand smoke, second-hand radiation is fast becoming inescapable. The present situation is thus worse than the Big Tobacco story.
  • Elected politicians should stop accepting biased reports from individuals with blatant conflicts of interest and start taking seriously the health and safety of their constituents; or at least of their own children and grandchildren.
  • The unchecked expansion of Big Wireless permitted by ICNIRP’s thermal-only guidelines is actively harmful to all biological inhabitants of planet Earth. Further expansion to 5G technology will inevitably involve yet more radiation exposure. The fact that this exposure will not breach the ludicrously high ICNIRP-based standard is no defence at all.

The people of Ireland deserve to hear the truth about 5G from our information sources such as the Press / TV / Web and not modulated hype and 30-year-old misinformation.

Thank you,

David Sullivan

*

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

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on People Should be Warned of the Adverse Health Effects of 5G Mobile Phone Microwave Radiation Technology
  • Tags:

French President Emmanuel Macron failed to promote successfully his Iranian initiative with the US administration despite the initial blessing of his US counterpart. This failure led Iran to make a third gradual withdrawal from its JCPOA nuclear deal commitment, raising two main issues. Iran has become a regional power to be reckoned with, so we can now scrap from reactions to its policies the words “submit,” or “bow to the international community”. Moreover, since Europe is apparently no longer in a position to fulfil its commitments, Iran will now be headed towards a total pull-out following further gradual withdrawal steps. Just before the US elections due in November 2020, Iran is expected to become a nuclear country with the full capability of producing uranium enriched to more than 20% uranium-235, weapons-usable and therefore in a position to manufacture dozens of nuclear bombs (for which uranium must be enriched to about 90%). However, this does not necessarily mean that this is Iran’s ultimate objective.

Industry data shows that half of the effort goes into enriching from 0.7% to 4%. If Iran reaches the level of 20%, the journey towards 90% is almost done. A few thousand centrifuges are needed to reach 20% enrichment while a few hundred are enough to cross from 20% to the 90% needed for a nuclear bomb. When Iran announces it is reaching a level which is considered critical by the west, there is the possibility that Israel might act militarily against Iran’s capability as it did in Iraq in 1981, in Syria in 2009, and in assassinating nuclear scientists. If this happens, the Middle East will be exposed to a mega earthquake whose outcome is unpredictable. But if Israel and the US are not in a position to react against Iran’s total withdrawal from the JCPOA (nuclear deal), Iran will no longer accept a return to the 2015 deal. Its position will become much stronger and any deal would be difficult to reach.

Sources within the decision-making circle have said

“Iran will become a state with full nuclear capability. It is also aiming for self-sufficiency and is planning to move away from counting solely on its oil exports for its annual budget. It is starting to generate and manufacture in many sectors and it will certainly increase its missile development and production. Missile technology has proved to be the most efficient and cheapest deterrent weapon for Iran and its allies in Lebanon, Syria, Iraq and the Yemen”.

Iran has been following a “strategy of patience” since US President Donald Trump unlawfully revoked the nuclear deal. Tehran allowed Europe, for an entire year, to think about a way to tempt Iran to stay within the nuclear deal on the basis of 4 (France, Russia, China, UK) + 1 (Germany), excluding the US. After that long waiting period, Iran has taken the initiative into its own hands and is gradually pulling out of the deal. It seems Trump did not learn from President Obama who signed the deal, convinced that US sanctions would be ineffective.

But Iran is not missing an opportunity worth trying to make its case. At the G7 in France, Iran Foreign Minister Jawad Zarif cut short his visit to Beijing to meet European leaders and ministers at the request of President Macron. It was hinted that there were chances for Iran to sell its oil and that Macron had managed to break through the US-Iran tension.

Iran President Hassan Rouhani thought there was a real opportunity to smooth over tensions and that Trump, according to the source in Tehran, was ready to ease the sanctions in exchange for a meeting and the beginning of discussion. This is why Rouhani overtly stated his readiness to meet any person if that helped. But Zarif was surprised to learn that Macron didn’t fulfil his promises- because Trump had changed his mind. The initiative was stillborn and all are back at square one.

Macron understood that the problem doesn’t lie with the US President but in his consigliere Prime Minister Benyamin Netanyahu and his neo-con team Pompeo-Bolton. The meeting between the French Minister of Armed Forces Florence Parly and the Pentagon Chief Mark Esper was an attempt to convince the US Secretary of Defence to distance himself from the Pompeo-Bolton team before the situation gets out of control and Iran became unstoppable.

“Trump rejected the French idea to offer Iran a line of credit of 15 billions of Euros (not Dollars). This credit is part of Iran’s acquired right since it has agreed with Europe to sell 700,000 barrels of oil daily as part of a signed deal. Following the US sanctions on any country or company buying Iranian oil, Europe refrained from honouring the agreement. Vice Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi calculated the amount at stake of 15 billion euros with European representatives. The agreement was that Iran would sell oil to Europe for this amount in the future, and that Iran could buy any product, not limited to food and medicine which were originally excluded from the US sanctions. Iran, according to the deal with European partners, would have had the right to take the money in cash and transfer it to any other country, including Iran”, said the source.

All this has been thrown to the winds. The result is simple: Iran will continue its nuclear programme but will allow the International Atomic Energy Agency to monitor development. It is relying on the nuclear deal articles 26 and 36 to partially withdraw, a deal that was not signed based on trust, but on respect for law. This is the reason why Iran announced its third withdrawal step, increasing its stockpile of enriched uranium and replacing its IR-1 and IR-2m with IR-6 centrifuges (supposed to happen in 2026, as stated in paragraph 39).

Europe has used all its resources to persuade Iran from taking withdrawal steps, but to no avail. Iran has moved from a “patience strategy” to an “aggressive strategy” and will no longer accept a soft approach. It has undergone sanctions since 1979 and though it has learned to live with them, its patience is exhausted.

The US has nothing to offer to Iran but further sanctions and additional pressure on Europe, so the old continent follows its withdrawal path. The US administration planned to form various coalitions, including an Arab NATO, but failed so far to pull off any such alliance. US officials believed the Iranian regime would fall in months and that the population would turn against their leaders. Nothing of the sort happened. On the contrary: Trump and his neo-cons brought Iranian pragmatists and hardliners together for the same cause. The US destroyed the possibility of any moderate argument with people like Rouhani and Zarif, and showed that it was too untrustworthy for any reliable deal or agreement.

Iran is feeling stronger: it has downed a US drone, sabotaged several tankers and confiscated a British-flagged tanker despite the presence of the Royal Navy nearby. It has shown its readiness for war without pushing for it. Iran knows its allies in Lebanon, Syria, Iraq, Yemen and Palestine will be united as one in the case of war. The Iranian officials did not use revolutionary or sectarian slogans to face down US sanctions but instead managed to create national solidarity behind its firm policy of confrontation with the US. Washington, largely responsible for the status quo in the Gulf, failed to weaken Iran’s resolve and has so far been unsuccessful in undermining the Iranian economy. It is putting about the idea that its “suffocation policy” has been successful, but Iran is not giving the submission signals the US administration wants and needs, to justify the tension it has created in the Middle East and the Gulf.

Iran is handling its policy towards the US and Europe in the same way Iranians weave carpets. It takes several years to finish an artisanal carpet and many more years to sell it. The nuclear deal needed several years of preparation but even more time for establishing acceptance and the bona fides of the signatories. Trump’s simple-minded decision destroyed all that work. The US and Europe have lost the initiative. Europe is not politically in any position to stand against the US sanctions, nor does it have sufficient tools or standing to offer Iran and thus force it to the negotiating table.

Iran is becoming stronger and much more difficult to tame than in the past. It is imposing itself as a regional power and a challenge to the west. It has advanced nuclear technology and capabilities, a self-sufficient armament programme and it is strengthening its allies in the Middle East.

It is difficult to foresee any negotiation between Iran and the West before November 2020, the date of the US elections. Iran is no longer willing to accept in 2019 what it signed in 2015; Trump is responsible for the new scenario. Destroying the nuclear deal now redounds to the benefit of Iran. There will be a time when the US administration, due to the realisation of its ignorance in Iranian affairs, will feel regret, and will ask to return to the negotiating table- perhaps after Trump? But conditions will definitely no longer be the same and it may very well come too late to see Iran accepting what it signed for in 2015.

*

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

Featured image is from the author

After 18 years, there is a possibility that the Pentagon is finally going to permit a “trial” of five men who are accused of conspiracy to commit the 9/11 attacks. If so, the proceedings will prove what a charade the Pentagon’s entire “judicial system” at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, has been and continues to be. In fact, the trial, if it is even permitted to take place, will serve as a mirror for how “trials” are conducted in communist China or, for matter, in communist Cuba.

Let’s review how the Pentagon’s “judicial” system got established in the first place. After the 9/11 attacks, the Pentagon decided to establish a prison, torture center, and “judicial” system for accused terrorists that it would be capturing and kidnapping around the world. It decided to locate this center in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.

Why Cuba rather than somewhere in the United States? The Pentagon wanted to make certain that it would have omnipotent power to run its center any way it wanted, without having to bother with the rights and guarantees enumerated in the Constitution, especially in the Bill of Rights. It also didn’t want any interference with its operation from the U.S. Supreme Court and the rest of the federal judiciary. In other words, the Pentagon wanted a Constitution-free zone in which to operate its prison, torture center, and “judicial” system.

Ultimately, much to the Pentagon’s chagrin, the Supreme Court ruled that it did have ultimate jurisdiction over the Guantanamo operations. However, while the federal judiciary has accepted some petitions for writ of habeas corpus from Guantanamo inmates, overall it has followed its longtime policy of deference to the national-security establishment when it comes to matters of “national security.”

What the Supreme Court should have done from the very beginning was to order a complete shutdown of the Pentagon’s prison, torture center, and “judicial” system at Guantanamo Bay. There is a simple reason for that: the Constitution, which is the higher law that controls the actions of federal officials, including the Pentagon, does not authorize the Pentagon to operate such a center.

It is critically important to keep in mind that terrorism is not an act of war. Instead, it is a federal criminal offense. That is why there are terrorism trials in federal courts in New York, Washington, D.C., Virginia, and elsewhere. Terrorism is listed among federal crimes in the U.S. Code. In fact, the Pentagon’s upcoming “trial” in Cuba is itself an acknowledgement that terrorism is, in fact, a criminal offense, one that here is being prosecuted by the Pentagon in Cuba rather than by the U.S. Justice Department in federal district court here in the United States.

Two different systems

It is also critically important to recognize that the Constitution does not provide for two separate judicial systems to try criminal cases, one run by the military and the other run by the federal courts. The Constitution provides for only one judicial system for all criminal offenses, including terrorism cases.

It is also critically important to recognize that the principles being followed in both systems — the federal court system and the military system — are as different as night and day.

In the federal court system, people who are accused of terrorism or any other crimes are presumed innocent. Judges and law-enforcement personnel are prohibited from torturing people or inflicting other “cruel and unusual” punishments on them. An accused has the right to remain silent — i.e., no forced confessions. Communications between attorney and client are confidential. The accused has the right to confront his accusers — i.e., hearsay evidence is inadmissible. Trials can be by jury, where ordinary citizens, not a judge, decide the facts of the case and the guilt or innocence of the accused. Trials must be speedy — i.e., no 18-year delay, as there has been in the Pentagon’s system.

Things are the exact opposite in the Pentagon’s system, which is precisely why it established its system in Cuba rather than the United States. Remember: the Pentagon’s goal is establishing its center in Cuba was to avoid the principles of the Constitution and the interference of the Supreme Court.

Why would the military want to avoid the principles of the Constitution, especially given that military personnel take oaths to support and defend the Constitution? The answer lies in the conservative military mindset that has long held that the Bill of Rights consists of constitutional “technicalities” that permit guilty people to go free. By establishing an independent prison, torture center, and “judicial” system at Gitmo, the Pentagon was going to show the American people and the world what a “real” judicial system should look like, one where “the guilty” got what was coming to them and where there was no possibility of an acquittal by some ignorant jury.

Thus, under the Pentagon’s system, the accused are presumed guilty. They are subject to being brutally tortured, not only to secure information but also confessions. Forced confessions are admissible at trial. There is no right of trial by jury. A tribunal of military personnel, all of whom are answerable to the President, decide the facts in the case and the guilt or innocence of the accused. Communications between attorney and client are secretly monitored. Hearsay evidence is admissible. Trials can be delayed indefinitely. The outcome of the “trial” is not in doubt.

There is something else that is of critical importance to recognize: When an accused terrorist is taken into custody, U.S. officials have the discretionary authority to decide into which system to send him. They can select the federal court system, which protects the rights of the accused through the Bill of Rights and where he could possibly win an acquittal. Or they can send him into the military system, where no such rights exist and where the outcome is preordained. There is no way that that type of discretionary and dual system of justice can possibly be reconciled with “the rule of law,” which requires everyone in similar circumstances to be treated in the same manner. There is also no way to reconcile such a dual, competing system with the U.S. Constitution. Finally, there is no way to reconcile such a system with any reasonable definition of the term “justice.”

The Pentagon’s upcoming “trial” at Gitmo won’t be a trial at all. It will be a kangaroo proceeding, one that is no different from those in totalitarian regimes. Along with the Pentagon’s prison and torture center in Cuba, its upcoming kangaroo proceeding will only bring more shame and ignominy to our country.

*

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

Jacob G. Hornberger is founder and president of The Future of Freedom Foundation. He was born and raised in Laredo, Texas, and received his B.A. in economics from Virginia Military Institute and his law degree from the University of Texas. He was a trial attorney for twelve years in Texas. He also was an adjunct professor at the University of Dallas, where he taught law and economics.

Brexit Threatens UK Food Regulations

September 11th, 2019 by Brendan Montague

The UK public faces the prospect of watered-down food regulations after Brexit with Parliament having little say, the UK Trade Policy Observatory (UK TPO) is warning.

New analysis by legal experts at the University of Sussex-based UK TPO warns that stringent regulation, which currently restricts some of the more controversial US food produce from UK supermarket shelves, could be stripped away with minimal Parliamentary scrutiny through Statutory Instruments (SIs).

The EU Withdrawal Act 2018 allowed the creation of over 10,000 pages of new legislation to retain EU rules, including on food safety.

Risk

Some of these provide extensive scope for ministers to make future changes to food safety legislation, notably potentially significant concessions to the US over GM crops and pesticides, in the pursuit of a headline-grabbing trade deal, without the level of scrutiny that primary legislation would provide.

The use of SIs would give a UK prime minister determined to overcome opposition to loosening UK food safety legislation a relatively clear path to ratifying a US-UK FTA – particularly as the UK Parliament has a much weaker influence on treaty negotiation in comparison to both the US or EU.

Such a move could prove extremely unpopular with the UK public, 82 per cent of the UK public favour retaining high food standards over a US trade agreement, and could damage future food trade with the EU, which accounts for around 70 per cent of UK food exports.

This risk is most applicable in the event of no deal or in a scenario of a basic free trade agreement (FTA) with the EU. Parliament would have only limited means of opposition through blocking ratification of an FTA or specific SIs.

Revoke

Dr Emily Lydgate, Senior Lecturer in Environmental Law at the University of Sussex and Fellow of the UK Trade Policy Observatory, said:

“In the event of no deal, or a basic EU-UK Free Trade Agreement, the UK Government will be under pressure to make a success of Brexit through new trade agreements.

“The concern is that ministers have extensive scope to make significant food safety concessions in order to reach an agreement with the US potentially in the face of opposition from consumers or food producers who would worry about losing access to the EU market.

“The US has long complained about the EU’s hazard-based approach to banning some pesticides categorically, rather than permitting their residues, and also over the lengthy EU process for approving new genetically modified crops, which the US Trade Representative (USTR) estimates costs US agriculture $2 billion/year.”

Chloe Anthony, a LLM student at the University of Sussex, said:

“The real risk is that there are SIs giving ministers a lot of power on controversial policy areas which the US will be pushing very hard to reform.

“Through SIs, UK ministers have the ability to amend, revoke and make regulations on how active ingredients in pesticides are authorised, the maximum residue levels permitted in food and to the GMO application and authorisation process.”

*

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

Brendan Montague is editor of The Ecologist.

When Americans Fell for the 9/11 Deception They Lost Their Country

September 11th, 2019 by Dr. Paul Craig Roberts

Today is the 18 anniversary of 9/11, an event that has turned a once free America into a domestic police state and an international warmonger during the 21st century.  America’s reputation has been shattered along with the Constitution, international law, and seven nations in whole or part.  The massive crimes against the Bill of Rights and the population of seven nations are the direct consequence of 9/11.

Global Research has assembled some articles that indicate that not only Americans but the people of the world have been massively deceived about that event.  

Over the years I have reported the findings of scientists, engineers, and architects that indicate that the official story is false.  I had an open mind for two reasons.  One is that having been an engineering student, I could tell the difference from a building falling down from asymmetrical structural damage and a building blowing up.  The other is that having been involved in policy issues in Washington for a quarter century I knew that such a humiliating defeat suffered by the world’s only superpower at the hands of a few Muslim terrorists would have brought instant demands from the White House, Congress, and media for investigation into how every aspect of the American national security state failed simultaneously on one morning.  Instead the White House resisted the 9/11 families demands for an investigation for one year and never delivered a forensic intestigation.  Instead, the country was given a 9/11 Commission Report that was merely the government’s official story of what happened.  No heads rolled.  No one was fired or even reprimanded.  To hold no one accountable for such a massive failure and humiliating defeat is not a believable response if the official 9/11 story is true.

It is much easier for government to deceive people in a democracy where people assume everything is above board than in a dictatorship where they know it is not.  

*

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

Dr. Paul Craig Roberts writes on his blog, Paul Craig Roberts Institute for Political Economy, where this article was originally published. He is a frequent contributor to Global Research.

Video: Hezbollah Shoots Down Israeli Drone over Lebanon

September 11th, 2019 by South Front

On September 9, Hezbollah announced that it had shot down an Israeli unmanned aerial vehicle over the village of Ramyeh in southern Lebanon. Hezbollah added that the UAV is now in its hands.

The Israeli Defense Forces (IDF) confirmed in a statement that the UAV had been lost claiming that it was “on a routine mission in northern Israel” but somehow “fell into Lebanese territory.” Lt. Col. Jonathan Conricus, a spokesperson for the IDF, declined to comment on the specific nature of the UAV’s activities. However, he said that “there is no risk of breach of information”.

The development followed claims by the IDF that overnight into September 9 Shia militias operating under command of the Qods Force of Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps launched several rockets towards Israel from the countryside of the Syrian capital, Damascus.

Watch the video here.

On September 8, several explosions rocked near the Syrian city of Al Bukamal, located on the border with Iraq. The incident reportedly happened in the area where Iranian-backed militias are deployed. Pro-Israeli media outlets immediately speculated that the explosions were a result of Israeli strikes and killed at least 18 Iranian-backed fighters. No evidence to confirm these claims was provided. The situation remains unclear.

The Israeli military political leadership openly exploits the current tensions across the Middle East to achieve own political goals. In fact, Tel Aviv is interested in the existence of the so-called Iranian-Hezbollah threat because it helps to justify Israeli regional policy and gain more and more financial and military support from the Trump administration. In own turn, the Israeli attitude serves as a direct confirmation of the official rhetoric of Hezbollah and Iran regarding ‘the Zionist aggression’ in the region. Therefore, Iranian and Hezbollah influence on Shia groups across the Middle East are growing.

This may be compared to the conflict Syria, in which the US and Israel played an anti-Iranian card backing various radical groups and even striking supposed Iranian targets. Nonetheless, Iranian and Hezbollah positions in Syria were strengthened because of this policy. A new round of limited escalation in the region may lead to similar consequences.

*

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

Support South Front in its endeavors.

If you’re able, and if you like our content and approach, please support the project. Our work wouldn’t be possible without your help: PayPal: [email protected] or via: http://southfront.org/donate/ or via: https://www.patreon.com/southfront

“That was when they suspended the Constitution. They said it would be temporary. There wasn’t even any rioting in the streets. People stayed home at night, watching television, looking for some direction. There wasn’t even an enemy you could put your finger on.”—Margaret Atwood, The Handmaid’s Tale

It’s been 230 years since James Madison drafted the Bill of Rights—the first ten amendments to the Constitution—as a means of protecting the people against government tyranny, and what do we have to show for it?

Nothing good.

In America today, the government does whatever it wants, freedom be damned.

We can pretend that the Constitution, which was written to hold the government accountable, is still our governing document, but the reality of life in the American police state tells a different story.

“We the people” have been terrorized, traumatized, and tricked into a semi-permanent state of compliance by a government that cares nothing for our lives or our liberties.

The bogeyman’s names and faces have changed over time (terrorism, the war on drugs, illegal immigration, etc.), but the end result remains the same: in the so-called named of national security, the Constitution has been steadily chipped away at, undermined, eroded, whittled down, and generally discarded to such an extent that what we are left with today is but a shadow of the robust document adopted more than two centuries ago.

Most of the damage has been inflicted upon the Bill of Rights.

A recitation of the Bill of Rights—set against a backdrop of government surveillance, militarized police, SWAT team raids, asset forfeiture, eminent domain, overcriminalization, armed surveillance drones, whole body scanners, stop and frisk searches (all sanctioned by Congress, the White House, the courts and the like)—would understandably sound more like a eulogy to freedoms lost than an affirmation of rights we truly possess.

Here is what it means to live under the Constitution today.

The First Amendment is supposed to protect the freedom to speak your mind, assemble and protest nonviolently without being bridled by the government. It also protects the freedom of the media, as well as the right to worship and pray without interference. In other words, Americans should not be silenced by the government. To the founders, all of America was a free speech zone.

Despite the clear protections found in the First Amendment, the freedoms described therein are under constant assault. Increasingly, Americans are being arrested and charged with bogus “contempt of cop” charges such as “disrupting the peace” or “resisting arrest” for daring to film police officers engaged in harassment or abusive practices. Journalists are being prosecuted for reporting on whistleblowers. States are passing legislation to muzzle reporting on cruel and abusive corporate practices. Religious ministries are being fined for attempting to feed and house the homeless. Protesters are being tear-gassed, beaten, arrested and forced into “free speech zones.” And under the guise of “government speech,” the courts have reasoned that the government can discriminate freely against any First Amendment activity that takes place within a government forum.

The Second Amendment was intended to guarantee “the right of the people to keep and bear arms.” Essentially, this amendment was intended to give the citizenry the means to resist tyrannical government. Yet while gun ownership has been recognized by the U.S. Supreme Court as an individual citizen right, Americans remain powerless to defend themselves against SWAT team raids and government agents armed to the teeth with military weapons better suited for the battlefield. As such, this amendment has been rendered null and void.

The Third Amendment reinforces the principle that civilian-elected officials are superior to the military by prohibiting the military from entering any citizen’s home without “the consent of the owner.” With the police increasingly training like the military, acting like the military, and posing as military forces—complete with heavily armed SWAT teams, military weapons, assault vehicles, etc.—it is clear that we now have what the founders feared most—a standing army on American soil.

The Fourth Amendment prohibits government agents from conducting surveillance on you or touching you or invading you, unless they have some evidence that you’re up to something criminal. In other words, the Fourth Amendment ensures privacy and bodily integrity. Unfortunately, the Fourth Amendment has suffered the greatest damage in recent years and has been all but eviscerated by an unwarranted expansion of police powers that include strip searches and even anal and vaginal searches of citizens, surveillance (corporate and otherwise) and intrusions justified in the name of fighting terrorism, as well as the outsourcing of otherwise illegal activities to private contractors.

The Fifth Amendment and the Sixth Amendment work in tandem. These amendments supposedly ensure that you are innocent until proven guilty, and government authorities cannot deprive you of your life, your liberty or your property without the right to an attorney and a fair trial before a civilian judge. However, in the new suspect society in which we live, where surveillance is the norm, these fundamental principles have been upended. Certainly, if the government can arbitrarily freeze, seize or lay claim to your property (money, land or possessions) under government asset forfeiture schemes, you have no true rights.

The Seventh Amendment guarantees citizens the right to a jury trial. Yet when the populace has no idea of what’s in the Constitution—civic education has virtually disappeared from most school curriculums—that inevitably translates to an ignorant jury incapable of distinguishing justice and the law from their own preconceived notions and fears. However, as a growing number of citizens are coming to realize, the power of the jury to nullify the government’s actions—and thereby help balance the scales of justice—is not to be underestimated. Jury nullification reminds the government that “we the people” retain the power to ultimately determine what laws are just.

The Eighth Amendment is similar to the Sixth in that it is supposed to protect the rights of the accused and forbid the use of cruel and unusual punishment. However, the Supreme Court’s determination that what constitutes “cruel and unusual” should be dependent on the “evolving standards of decency that mark the progress of a maturing society” leaves us with little protection in the face of a society lacking in morals altogether.

The Ninth Amendment provides that other rights not enumerated in the Constitution are nonetheless retained by the people. Popular sovereignty—the belief that the power to govern flows upward from the people rather than downward from the rulers—is clearly evident in this amendment. However, it has since been turned on its head by a centralized federal government that sees itself as supreme and which continues to pass more and more laws that restrict our freedoms under the pretext that it has an “important government interest” in doing so.

As for the Tenth Amendment’s reminder that the people and the states retain every authority that is not otherwise mentioned in the Constitution, that assurance of a system of government in which power is divided among local, state and national entities has long since been rendered moot by the centralized Washington, DC, power elite—the president, Congress and the courts. Indeed, the federal governmental bureaucracy has grown so large that it has made local and state legislatures relatively irrelevant. Through its many agencies and regulations, the federal government has stripped states of the right to regulate countless issues that were originally governed at the local level.

If there is any sense to be made from this recitation of freedoms lost, it is simply this: our individual freedoms have been eviscerated so that the government’s powers could be expanded.

Yet those who gave us the Constitution and the Bill of Rights believed that the government exists at the behest of its citizens. It is there to protect, defend and even enhance our freedoms, not violate them.

It was no idle happenstance that the Constitution opens with these three powerful words: “We the people.” As the Preamble proclaims:

We, the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect Union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this CONSTITUTION for the United States of America.

In other words, we have the power to make and break the government. We are the masters and they are the servants. We the American people—the citizenry—are the arbiters and ultimate guardians of America’s welfare, defense, liberty, laws and prosperity.

Still, it’s hard to be a good citizen if you don’t know anything about your rights or how the government is supposed to operate.

As the National Review rightly asks, “How can Americans possibly make intelligent and informed political choices if they don’t understand the fundamental structure of their government? American citizens have the right to self-government, but it seems that we increasingly lack the capacity for it.”

Americans are constitutionally illiterate.

Most citizens have little, if any, knowledge about their basic rights. And our educational system does a poor job of teaching the basic freedoms guaranteed in the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. For instance, when Newsweek asked 1,000 adult U.S. citizens to take America’s official citizenship test, 44% were unable to define the Bill of Rights.

A survey by the Annenberg Public Policy Center found that a little more than one-third of respondents (36 percent) could name all three branches of the U.S. government, while another one-third (35 percent) could not name a single one. Only a quarter of Americans (27 percent) know it takes a two-thirds vote of the House and Senate to override a presidential veto. One in five Americans (21 percent) incorrectly thinks that a 5-4 Supreme Court decision is sent back to Congress for reconsideration. And more than half of Americans do not know which party controls the House and Senate.

A survey by the McCormick Tribune Freedom Museum found that only one out of a thousand adults could identify the five rights protected by the First Amendment. On the other hand, more than half (52%) of the respondents could name at least two of the characters in the animated Simpsons television family, and 20% could name all five. And although half could name none of the freedoms in the First Amendment, a majority (54%) could name at least one of the three judges on the TV program American Idol, 41% could name two and one-fourth could name all three.
It gets worse.

Many who responded to the survey had a strange conception of what was in the First Amendment. For example, 21% said the “right to own a pet” was listed someplace between “Congress shall make no law” and “redress of grievances.” Some 17% said that the First Amendment contained the “right to drive a car,” and 38% believed that “taking the Fifth” was part of the First Amendment.

Teachers and school administrators do not fare much better. A study conducted by the Center for Survey Research and Analysis found that one educator in five was unable to name any of the freedoms in the First Amendment.

In fact, while some educators want students to learn about freedom, they do not necessarily want them to exercise their freedoms in school. As the researchers conclude, “Most educators think that students already have enough freedom, and that restrictions on freedom in the school are necessary. Many support filtering the Internet, censoring T-shirts, disallowing student distribution of political or religious material, and conducting prior review of school newspapers.”

Government leaders and politicians are also ill-informed. Although they take an oath to uphold, support and defend the Constitution against “enemies foreign and domestic,” their lack of education about our fundamental rights often causes them to be enemies of the Bill of Rights.

So what’s the solution?
Thomas Jefferson recognized that a citizenry educated on “their rights, interests, and duties”  is the only real assurance that freedom will survive.

As Jefferson wrote in 1820: “I know no safe depository of the ultimate powers of our society but the people themselves; and if we think them not enlightened enough to exercise their control with a wholesome discretion, the remedy is not to take it from them, but to inform their discretion by education. This is the true corrective of abuses of constitutional power.”

From the President on down, anyone taking public office should have a working knowledge of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights and should be held accountable for upholding their precepts. One way to ensure this would be to require government leaders to take a course on the Constitution and pass a thorough examination thereof before being allowed to take office.

Some critics are advocating that students pass the United States citizenship exam in order to graduate from high school. Others recommend that it must be a prerequisite for attending college. I’d go so far as to argue that students should have to pass the citizenship exam before graduating from grade school.

Here’s an idea to get educated and take a stand for freedom: anyone who signs up to become a member of The Rutherford Institute gets a wallet-sized Bill of Rights card and a Know Your Rights card. Use this card to teach your children the freedoms found in the Bill of Rights.

If this constitutional illiteracy is not remedied and soon, freedom in America will be doomed.

As I make clear in my book Battlefield America: The War on the American People, we have managed to keep the wolf at bay so far. Barely.

Our national priorities need to be re-prioritized. For instance, some argue that we need to make America great again. I, for one, would prefer to make America free again.

As actor-turned-activist Richard Dreyfuss warned:

Unless we teach the ideas that make America a miracle of government, it will go away in your kids’ lifetimes, and we will be a fable. You have to find the time and creativity to teach it in schools, and if you don’t, you will lose it. You will lose it to the darkness, and what this country represents is a tiny twinkle of light in a history of oppression and darkness and cruelty. If it lasts for more than our lifetime, for more than our kids’ lifetime, it is only because we put some effort into teaching what it is, the ideas of America: the idea of opportunity, mobility, freedom of thought, freedom of assembly.”

*

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

This article was originally published on The Rutherford Institute.

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

Whenever Hong Kong protesters are destroying public property, there are no cameras of Western media outlets in sight. But when police decide to intervene, protecting their city, Western media crusaders emerge in full force.

On Sunday, huge US flags were waving in the air. A massive demonstration, consisting of mainly young people, was moving up from the old British-built downtown area of the city towards the US Consulate General, often erroneously called the “embassy.”

The temperature was well over 30 degrees Celsius, but the number of ‘protesters’ kept growing. Many of the main arteries in Hong Kong were entirely blocked.

Western media were there in full force, wearing yellow fluorescent vests, their ‘Press’ insignia, helmets and masks. They mingled with the crowd, filming US flags, clearly enjoying the show.

President Trump, Please Liberate Hong Kong,” I read on several posters.

Liberate from whom?” I asked a cluster of protesters, all of them in ninja outfits, metal bars in their hands, black scarves covering their faces.

Several of them replied, mumbling something incomprehensible. One girl shouted defiantly:

From Beijing!

But Hong Kong is China, isn’t it?” I asked. “How could it be liberated from itself?

No! Hong Kong is Hong Kong!” came a ready-made reply.

Nearby, I spotted British Union Jack, with old colonial-era Hong Kong coat of arms.

The big demonstration was clearly treasonous. Its members delivered a petition to the US consulate general, demanding that the US Congress pass legislation that would require its government to monitor and decide whether Hong Kong is ‘autonomous enough’ from the PRC, and whether it should then qualify for US trade and economic benefits.

All over the downtown area, hundreds of ‘ninjas’ were shouting pro-Western slogans. Here British-era HK flags were being waved, alongside the US flags.

I approached a young couple among the protesters, who were resting on a bench:

Do your friends realize how brutal, undemocratic and oppressive was British rule? Do they know in what misery many Hong Kong citizens had to live in that era? And about censorship, humiliation…?”

“No!” They shouted at me, outraged. “It is all propaganda!

Whose propaganda?” I wondered.

The propaganda of Beijing!

At least they spoke some English. A bizarre thing about Hong Kong is that, while some people here would like to (or are perhaps paid to say that they’d want to?) have the British colonial administration back, a great majority of the people hardly speak any English now, while also refusing to speak Mandarin. Little wonder that Hong Kong is quickly losing its edge to the pro-Chinese and highly cosmopolitan Singapore!

But the demonstration was not where ‘the action’ really was and I knew it, intuitively.

The flag-waving march was a big staged event for the Western mass media. There, ‘pro-democracy’ slogans were chanted in an orderly manner. Nothing was burned, vandalized or dismantled wherever Western press cameras were present!

A few blocks away, however, I witnessed monstrous vandalizing, of one of the entrances to the Central subway (MTR) station. Hooligans who call themselves ‘protesters’ were ruining public property, a transportation system used by millions of citizens every day.

While they were at it, they also dismantled public metal railings that separate sidewalks from roadways. Metal bars from this railing were later utilized for further attacks against the city infrastructure, as well as against the police.

Before burning the store

Umbrellas in the hands of ‘protesters’ were covering the crime scene. Umbrellas similar to those used in 2014, during the previous, so-called ‘Umbrella Uprising.’

No foreign reporters were in sight! This was not for the world. This was raw, real, and brutal.

Don’t film!” covered mouths began shouting at me.

I kept filming and photographing. I was not wearing any press jacket or helmet or Press insignia. I never do, anywhere in the world.

They left me alone; too busy destroying the street. As they were dismantling public property, their backpacks, stuffed with portable players, were regurgitating the US national anthem.

My friend from Beijing wrote me a brief message:

They are selling their own nation and people. We have very bad words for them in Chinese.

But it is not only mainland China that is disgusted with what is happening in Hong Kong. Three major Hong Kong-based newspapers, Wen Wei Po, Ta Kung Pao and Hong Kong Commercial Daily, are all pro-Beijing, pro-police and are defining ‘protesters’ as “rioters” or “troublemakers” (in Chinese).

Among the big ones, only Ming Pao and Apple Daily, which are traditionally anti-Beijing, are defining ‘protesters’ as ‘gatherers’, ‘protesters’ and even “liberators.”

Local citizens are mainly (as they’d been during the 2014 riots) hostile to the ‘protests’ but are scared to confront the mainly young, covered and armed (with metal bars and clubs) gangs. Some tried to, even in a luxury mall in the center of the city, and were brutally beaten.

‘Protesters’ seem to be on adrenalin, and in a highly militant mood. They gather and move in hordes. Most of them refuse to speak.

What is important to understand is that, while the rioters are trying to spread the message that they are ‘fighting for democracy,’ they are actually highly intolerant to all those who disagree with their goals. In fact, they are violently attacking those with different opinions.

Attack on сentral station

Furthermore, and this I have to spell out, after covering protests in literally hundreds of cities worldwide, from Beirut to Lima, Buenos Aires, Istanbul, Paris, Cairo, Bangkok and Jakarta: what is happening in Hong Kong is extremely mild when it comes to police responses! Hong Kong police run well and fast. It created human chains, flashed a lot of light and sporadically used tear gas. It defends itself when attacked. But violence?

If you compare police actions here to those in Paris, it is all politeness and softness. Hardly any rubber bullets. Tear gas is ‘honest’ and not mixed with deadly chemicals, like it is in many other places, and administered in small doses. No water cannon spitting liquid full of urine and excrement, as in many other cities of the world. Trust me: I am an expert in tear gas. In Istanbul, during the Gezi Park uprising, protesters had to use gas masks, so did I. Otherwise you’d faint or end up in a hospital. People are also fainting in Paris. No one is fainting here; this is mild stuff.

Western press in action

As for the ‘other side,’ the level of violence from the protesters is extreme. They are paralyzing the city, ruining millions of lives. The number of foreign arrivals in Hong Kong is down 40 percent. Reception at the Mandarin Oriental Hotel, which is right next to Sunday’s battles, told me that most of the rooms are now empty, and during the ‘events’, the hotel is cut off from the world.

And what about their traitorous demands? Would this be accepted anywhere in the world? Flying flags of a foreign country (in this case, of the USA) and demanding intervention?

Hong Kong “pro-democracy activist leaders” like Joshua Wong are clearly colluding with Western interests and governments. He and others are spreading, constantly, what anywhere else would be described as fake news. For instance, “My town is the new Cold War’s Berlin,” he recently declared. Yes, perhaps, but not because of the HK government, but because of his own actions and the actions of people like himself.

Coverage of events by Western mass media is clearly selective and that is putting it mildly. Actually, many media outlets from Europe and North America are ‘adding fuel to the fire.’ They are encouraging rioters while exaggerating the actions of local police. I am monitoring and filming their work and what I see is outrageous!

I am writing this report in Tai Kwun Center. Now world-famous art complex (of  the “new, Chinese Hong Kong”), this used to be the Central Police Station under the British occupation, as well as so-called Victoria Prison Compound.

Mr. Edmond, who works for the center, explains:

If there was a referendum now, the so-called protesters would not win. They would lose. This is an internal issue of China, and it should be treated as such. A continuation of the 2014 events. What changed this time is that the protesters are opting for extreme violence now. People of Hong Kong are scared; scared of them, not of the authorities.

British prison сells

Here, prisoners were confined and executed, during British rule. Not far away from here, monstrous slums were housing deprived subjects of the queen. After the Brits left, those slums were converted to public parks.

Life in Hong Kong improved. Not as fast as in neighboring Shenzhen or Guangzhou, but it improved. The reason Hong Kong is being ‘left behind’ is because of its antiquated British-era laws, rules and regulations, its extreme capitalist system; because of “too little of Beijing”, not “because of too much of it.”

These hooligans are going against the interests of their own people, and their own people are now cursing them. Not loudly, yet, as rioters have clubs and metal bars, but cursing.

Western media chooses not to hear these curses. But China knows. It hears. I hear Hong Kong people, too.

Chinese curses are terrifying, powerful. And they do not dissolve in thin air.

*

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

This article was originally published on RT.

Andre Vltchek is a philosopher, novelist, filmmaker and investigative journalist. He has covered wars and conflicts in dozens of countries. Four of his latest books are China and Ecological Civilizationwith John B. Cobb, Jr., Revolutionary Optimism, Western Nihilism, a revolutionary novel “Aurora” and a bestselling work of political non-fiction: “Exposing Lies Of The Empire”. View his other books here. Watch Rwanda Gambit, his groundbreaking documentary about Rwanda and DRCongo and his film/dialogue with Noam Chomsky “On Western Terrorism”. Vltchek presently resides in East Asia and the Middle East, and continues to work around the world. He can be reached through his website and his Twitter. His Patreon. He is a frequent contributor to Global Research.

All images in this article are from the author

First published on April 4, 2008

The official story of 9/11 is riddled with internal contradictions. One of these contradictions involves the question of how long President Bush remained in classroom in Sarasota, Florida, on the morning of 9/11.

Bush was there to publicize his education policy by being photographed listening to students read. He arrived at the school at 8:55 AM, at which time he reportedly first learned that a plane had struck one of the Twin Towers. Dismissing the crash as an accident, Bush said that they would go ahead and “do the reading thing anyway.”

Bush entered the second-grade classroom of teacher Sandra Kay Daniels at about 9:03. At about 9:06, the president’s chief of staff, Andrew Card, came in and whispered in Bush’s ear, telling him, Card later reported, “A second plane hit the second Tower. America is under attack.”

What Happened Next

Thanks to Michael Moore’s film Fahrenheit 9/11, which came out in 2004, the world knows what happened next: Bush remained sitting there minute after minute after minute.

Journalists, however, had reported Bush’s strange behavior much earlier. On September 1, 2002, for example, Jennifer Barrs had reported in the Tampa Tribune that, after Card whispered in Bush’s ear, the president picked up his book and read with the children “for eight or nine minutes.” In his 2002 book Fighting Back, Bill Sammon, the White House correspondent for the Washington Times, said that even after the reading lesson was over, Bush continued to linger, leading Sammon to dub him “the dawdler in chief.”

The White House’s First Anniversary Account

On the first anniversary of 9/11, however, the White House, with Andrew Card taking the lead, started giving a radically different account. On September 9, 2002, Card told Brian Williams on NBC News: “I pulled away from the president, and not that many seconds later, the president excused himself from the classroom, and we gathered in the holding room and talked about the situation.” In an article in the San Francisco Chronicle on September 11, Card said that, after he had informed Bush about the second attack, the president “looked up—it was only a matter of seconds, but it seemed like minutes. . . . And he just excused himself very politely to the teacher and to the students and he left.”

That same day, Karl Rove told Campbell Brown of NBC News:

Andy Card walked in to tell the President, and you can remember the famous photograph of him whispering in the President’s ear. And the President was a little—you know, he didn’t want to alarm the children. He knew the drill was coming to a close. So he waited for a few moments just to—literally—not very long at all before he came to the close, and he came into the staff room.

Also that same day, Card and Rove got ABC News, during another program that aired on the first anniversary of 9/11, to endorse their revisionist account. This program contained the following segment:

Andrew Card: I think there was a, a moment of shock and he did stare off maybe for just a second.

Charles Gibson: The President stays calm and lets the students finish.

Karl Rove: The President thought for a second or two about getting up and walking out of the room. But the drill was coming to a close and he didn’t want to alarm the children.

Gibson: Instead Bush pauses, thanks the children. . . and heads for the empty classroom next door.

Help from Mrs. Daniels

Besides putting out this revisionist account, the Bush-Cheney White House also evidently enlisted support from Sandra Kay Daniels, the teacher of the second grade class at the Sarasota school. In a Los Angeles Times story published on September 11, 2002, she said:

I knew something was up when President Bush didn’t pick up the book and participate in the lesson…. He said, ‘Mrs. Daniels, I have to leave now. I am going to leave Lt. Gov. Frank Brogan here to do the speech for me.’ Looking at his face, you knew something was wrong. I said a little prayer for him. He shook my hand and left.

This account by Daniels was radically different from what she had said for the aforementioned article by Jennifer Barrs, which had appeared only ten days earlier. After saying that “Bush, obviously lost in thought, forgot about the book in his lap,” Barrs quoted Daniels as saying: “I couldn’t gently kick him. . . . I couldn’t say, ‘OK, Mr. President. Pick up your book, sir. The whole world is watching.’”

Given the fact that Mrs. Daniels had given this account just ten days earlier, her revisionist account cannot be explained in terms of a bad memory. The only possible explanation appears to be that the White House had convinced her to help spread its revisionist account. What would have been the White House’s motive for spreading a false account and even convincing Mrs. Daniels to help?

The Likely Motive

On the one hand, the Secret Service, which has the responsibility for protecting the president from any possible threat to his life, should have assumed, once it was clear that terrorists were going after high-value targets, that the president might have been one of those targets. As one article put it, “Bush’s presence made . . . the planned reading event a perceived target,” because “the well-publicized event at the school assured Bush’s location that day was no secret.” On the other hand, people observed that the Secret Service had not acted accordingly. The day after 9/11, Canada’s Globe and Mail commented: “For some reason, Secret Service agents did not bustle [Bush] away.”

The background for this comment was explained by Philip Melanson, the author of a book about the Secret Service. “With an unfolding terrorist attack,” Melanson said, “the procedure should have been to get the president to the closest secure location as quickly as possible.” That this indeed would have been standard operating procedure is illustrated by the fact that, as soon as the second strike on the World Trade Center was seen on television, one agent said to Sarasota County Sheriff Bill Balkwill: “We’re out of here. Can you get everybody ready?”

But this agent’s decision was obviously overridden by some higher-level Secret Service agent, as Bush was allowed not only to remain in the classroom for seven or more minutes, but also to remain at the school for another twenty minutes. He was even allowed to deliver a television address to the nation, thereby letting everyone know that he was still at the school.

This behavior seemed especially reckless in light of reports, issued at the time, that as many as eleven planes had been hijacked. The Secret Service should have feared that one of those planes was bearing down on the school at that very moment. The Secret Service’s behavior, however, suggested that it had no fear that the school would be attacked.

This behavior by the Secret Service contrasted strongly with the response, two months earlier, to a report that Islamic terrorists might crash an airliner into the summit of industrialized nations in Genoa, Italy, in an effort to kill President Bush. The Italian government closed the airspace above Genoa and installed anti-aircraft missiles at the airport (David Sanger, New York Times, September 25, 2001). Even with all this protection, Bush stayed overnight on an aircraft carrier, instead of staying, like the other leaders, on a luxury ship (CNN, July 18, 2001). Why so much concern about merely possible terrorist airplane attacks in Genoa in July but no such concern in Sarasota in September, when such attacks were actually in progress?

The Secret Service’s failure to hustle Bush away seemed even stranger in light of the reports that Vice President Cheney, Condoleezza Rice, and several congressional leaders were quickly taken to safe locations. Should not protecting President Bush have been an even higher priority? As Susan Taylor Martin of the St. Petersburg Times put it on July 4, 2004: “One of the many unanswered questions about that day is why the Secret Service did not immediately hustle Bush to a secure location, as it apparently did with Vice President Dick Cheney.”

The fact that this question was raised immediately after 9/11, then continued to be raised, could well have been perceived by the White House as dangerous. This question did, in fact, have dangerous implications, because it could—and in some circles did—lead to the inference that Bush was not evacuated from the school because the Secret Service knew that he would not be targeted. The desire to stop this kind of speculation was likely behind the White House’s attempts at getting a revisionist account of Bush’s behavior instilled into the public consciousness.

The 9/11 Commission’s Treatment of the Issue

The strange behavior of Bush and his Secret Service in Sarasota was of great concern to families of the 9/11 victims. One of the central questions raised by the Family Steering Committee for the 9/11 Commission was: “Why was President Bush permitted by the Secret Service to remain in the Sarasota elementary school where he was reading to children?” (That this question was asked was admitted by Thomas Kean and Lee Hamilton, the chair and vice-chair of the Commission, in their 2006 book, Without Precedent: The Inside Story of the 9/11 Commission, p. 54.) The 9/11 Commission, however, provided no answer. Its only response was to say: “The Secret Service told us they were anxious to move the President to a safer location, but did not think it imperative for him to run out the door” (The 9/11 Commission Report, p. 39). That response, however, implied that the Secret Service had only two options: (a) running the president out the door or (b) allowing him to remain at the school for another half hour. But there was a third option: The Secret Service could have simply walked the president out the door, put him in the presidential limo, and whisked him away.

The Treatment by Press

A Wall Street Journal story in March 2004, “Government Accounts of 9/11 Reveal Gaps, Inconsistencies,” was one of the few stories in the mainstream press to report on contradictions in the official story of 9/11. When the Journal asked the White House about the contradictions about the Sarasota event in particular, spokesman Dan Bartlett, not trying to defend the White House’s revisionist version, confirmed that Bush had remained in the classroom for at least seven minutes after receiving the report of the second crash. Bush did not leave immediately, Bartlett said, because his “instinct was not to frighten the children by rushing out of the room.”

However, even if Bartlett’s statement were an acceptable explanation of why Bush did not do what Card and Rove had claimed he did, the real question, which the WSJ article did not address, was why the White House, through Card, Rove, and Mrs. Daniels, had given a false account. Surely this is a question that the press in general should have explored. Especially ABC News, NBC News, the San Francisco Chronicle, and the Los Angeles Times, which had been used to spread the White House’s false account, should have demanded that the White House explain why it put out a completely false account. These papers and networks owed their readers and viewers a correction and an attempt to find out why the White House had used them to spread a lie.

While discovering why the White House lied, the press should also, of course, seek to discover the answer to the original question: why the Secret Service did not immediately rush Bush to a safe location.

This essay is an abbreviated version of Chapter 1 of David Ray Griffin, 9/11 Contradictions: An Open Letter to Congress and the Press (Northampton: Olive Branch, March, 2008.

 

Global Research Editor’s Note

Today, September 11, 2019. The anniversary of the tragic events of 9/11. 18 years laters, are we any closer to the truth about what really happened on that fateful day?

George Szamuely’s incisive article published more than 17 years ago raises some “uncomfortable questions” regarding Air Force Preparedness in the case of a national emergency: “Why were no fighter planes launched until after the Pentagon was hit?”

“Talk about a lack of urgency! Assuming Otis Air National Guard Base is about 180 miles away from Manhattan it should have taken the F-15s less than six minutes to get here. Moreover, since Washington, DC, is little more than 200 miles from New York, the two F-15 fighters would have had time to get to DC, intercept Flight 77 and grab breakfast on the way.”


Michel Chossudovsky, Global Research, September 11, 2019

Nothing Urgent

by George Szamuely 

 

New York Press, Vol. 15, No. 2

Centre for Research on Globalisation (CRG),  globalresearch.ca,   15  February 2002

 

Let’s revisit the curious lack of military action on the morning of September 11.

That morning, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Gen. Richard B. Myers, was having a routine meeting on Capitol Hill with Sen. Max Cleland. While the two men chatted away, a hijacked jet plowed into the World Trade Center’s north tower, another one plowed into the south tower and a third one into the Pentagon. And still they went on with their meeting. “[W]hen we came out,” Myers recounted to American Forces Radio and Television Service, “somebody said the Pentagon had been hit.” Myers claims no one had bothered to inform him about the attacks on the World Trade Center. Meanwhile, in Florida, just as President Bush was about to leave his hotel he was told about the attack on the first WTC tower. He was asked by a reporter if he knew what was going on in New York. He said he did, and then went to an elementary school in Sarasota to read to children.

No urgency. Why should there be? Who could possibly have realized then the calamitous nature of the events of that day? Besides, the hijackers had switched the transponders off. So how could anyone know what was going on?

Passenger jet hijackings are not uncommon and the U.S. government has prepared detailed plans to handle them. On Sept. 11 these plans were ignored in their entirety. According to The New York Times, air traffic controllers knew at 8:20 a.m. “that American Airlines Flight 11, bound from Boston to Los Angeles, had probably been hijacked. When the first news report was made at 8:48 a.m. that a plane might have hit the World Trade Center, they knew it was Flight 11.” There was little ambiguity on the matter. The pilot had pushed a button on the aircraft yoke that allowed controllers to hear the hijacker giving orders. Here are the FAA regulations concerning hijackings: “The FAA hijack coordinator…on duty at Washington headquarters will request the military to provide an escort aircraft for a confirmed hijacked aircraft… The escort service will be requested by the FAA hijack coordinator by direct contact with the National Military Command Center (NMCC).” Here are the instructions issued by the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff on June 1, 2001: “In the event of a hijacking, the NMCC will be notified by the most expeditious means by the FAA. The NMCC will…forward requests for DOD assistance to the Secretary of Defense for approval.”

In addition, as Vice President Cheney explained on Meet the Press on Sept. 16, only the president has the authority to order the shooting down of a civilian airliner.

The U.S. is supposed to scramble military aircraft the moment a hijacking is confirmed. Myers’ revelation to the Senate Armed Services Committee on Sept. 13 that no fighter planes had been launched until after the Pentagon was hit was therefore surprising. Senators and even some tv commentators were a little incredulous. Dan Rather asked: “These hijacked aircraft were in the air for quite a while… Why doesn’t the Pentagon have the kind of protection that they can get a fighter-interceptor aircraft up, and if someone is going to plow an aircraft into the Pentagon, that we have at least some…line of defense?”

Good question. Clearly another, more comforting, story was needed, and on the evening of Sept. 14 CBS launched it by revealing that the FAA had indeed alerted U.S. air defense units of a possible hijacking at 8:38 a.m. on Tuesday, that six minutes later two F-15s received a scramble order at Otis Air National Guard Base on Cape Cod and that by 8:56 the F-15s were racing toward New York. Unfortunately, the fighters were still 70 miles away when the second jet hit the south tower. Meanwhile, at 9:30 a.m., three F-16s were launched from Langley Air Force base, 150 miles south of Washington. But just seven minutes later, at 9:37 a.m., Flight 77 smashed into the Pentagon. The F-16s arrived in Washington just before 10 a.m.

This story, which has now become the “official” version, raises more questions than it answers. F-15s can travel at speeds of 1875 mph while F-16s can travel at 1500 mph. If it took the F-16s half an hour to cover 150 miles, they could not have been traveling at more than 300 mph–at 20 percent capability. Boeing 767s and 757s have cruising speeds of 530 mph. Talk about a lack of urgency! Assuming Otis Air National Guard Base is about 180 miles away from Manhattan it should have taken the F-15s less than six minutes to get here. Moreover, since Washington, DC, is little more than 200 miles from New York, the two F-15 fighters would have had time to get to DC, intercept Flight 77 and grab breakfast on the way.

Ah, but of course the transponders were turned off. So no one could keep track of the planes. If it were true that the moment a transponder is turned off a plane becomes invisible there would be no defense against enemy aircraft. Normal radar echo return from the metal surface of an aircraft would still identify it on the radar scope.

Luckily, we still have first-rate establishment media to make sure that we retain confidence in our government.

Copyright  New York  Press, Vol 15, Issue 2, 2002. The original URL of this article is: http://globalresearch.ca/articles/SZA202A.html

 

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on “Nothing Urgent” on 9/11: The Curious Lack of Military Action on the Morning of September 11, 2001

Trump’s decision to fire Bolton likely stemmed from the latter’s string of failures in Venezuela, Iran, Afghanistan, and Russia, with the American President finally realizing that enough is enough and that he needs to once again shuffle the “deep state” deck if he’s to start “winning” on the hard power foreign policy front ahead of next year’s elections.

***

Trump announced Bolton’s firing on Tuesday through his typical manner of sending out a tweet, remarking that he and his Administration “disagreed strongly with many of his suggestions” and therefore asked for his National Security Advisor’s resignation. This follows the latter’s string of failures in Venezuela, Iran, Afghanistan, and Russia, where the hawkish official lobbied hard for the most muscular approaches towards each of them. The American President dutifully complied when it came to the first two whereas he refused to follow Bolton’s advice when it came to the latter, dramatically tightening sanctions against the first-mentioned pair while seeking rapprochements with the second one. To elaborate a bit more in detail, the regime change operations against the Bolivarian and Islamic Republics have stalled, whereas Bolton’s efforts to sabotage Trump’s peacemaking outreaches to the Taliban and Moscow didn’t succeed.

The Hybrid War on Venezuela was promising at first but soon sputtered out as a result of “deep state” mismanagement due to an erroneous “wishful thinking” reading of the on-the-ground situation there, followed up by clumsy coup attempts that ultimately resulted in humiliating the US in its own hemisphere instead of showcasing its asymmetrical warfare capabilities like they were supposed to. The Hybrid War on Iran, meanwhile, has failed to achieve any tangible dividends either, which even Trump himself seems to tacitly acknowledge through his reported desire to meet President Rouhani on the sidelines of next week’s UN General Assembly meeting without any preconditions. That shouldn’t be seen as a sign of weakness, however, but as a pragmatic opening following the failure of Trump’s Bolton-inspired hardline policy towards the country and the need to achieve some sort of superficial success on that front ahead of next year’s elections.

Concerning Afghanistan, while the Taliban peace talks unexpectedly collapsed after last week’s Kabul attack, they could still conceivably be revived if Bolton’s exit is exploited as a “face-saving” compromise by Trump to do so behind the scenes. Regarding Russia, the “New Detente” is continuing to proceed apace as evidenced by President Putin’s successful trip to France last month, the recent Russian-Ukrainian prisoner swap that Trump himself enthusiastically commended as “perhaps a first giant step towards peace”, and the “deep state’s” efforts to sabotage everything by timing the release of its scandalous allegations about the CIA exfiltrating a high-level spy from Moscow to coincide with these strategic gains. It’s important to emphasize that Bolton was against both the Taliban peace talks and the rapprochement with Russia, so combined with his failures in Venezuela and Iran, Trump might have realized that it’s finally time to get rid of the proverbial “dead weight”.

Going forward, there’s reason for “cautious optimism” on all four fronts, but no one should get their hopes too unrealistically high. It was surprising that the US announced earlier on Tuesday that it won’t sanction Russia’s Rosneft for doing business with Venezuela, which gives Maduro a bit of a break for now but was likely a quid pro quo in the nascent “New Detente” with Russia more than anything else. The desire to meet with Rouhani is also welcome, but shouldn’t be interpreted as the US willing to scale back its sanctions, especially not with Netanyahu fearmongering about Iran’s supposedly secret nuclear sites. As for Afghanistan, there’s still heavy pressure on Trump to intensify attacks against the Taliban, but any move in this direction might be limited after the CENTCOM chief met with his Pakistani Army counterpart and likely realized the futility of doing so. Finally, while the “New Detente” is going well, Trump can’t remove the anti-Russian sanctions without Congress.

What this means is that those four countries might collectively breathe a sigh of relief for now, but they shouldn’t let their strategic guards down since Trump might be pressured by the “deep state” to lash out against one or some of them in order to set an example and show that the US isn’t “going soft” at this sensitive moment. Nevertheless, this “changing of the guard” veritably carries with it certain strategic opportunities, but only if they take the initiative to make the proper outreaches and not let this unexpected event tempt them to react arrogantly instead and thus risk provoking Trump’s vindictive ire in order to “save face”. It’s already an accomplishment in and of itself that Trump not only dumped Bolton but did so very dishonorably on Twitter, so none of the US’ rivals should try to “push their luck”. Instead, the best approach is to probe and see exactly how much this might influence American foreign policy, and then try to make the best of it.

*

 

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

This article was originally published on OneWorld.

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

Featured image is from Evan El-Amin/Shutterstock

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Bolton’s Failures in Venezuela, Iran, Afghanistan and Russia Proved to be His Downfall
  • Tags: ,

The Hong Kong Extradition Treaty No One Talks About

September 11th, 2019 by Eric Sommer

Here is a crucial fact which has escaped the notice, or been suppressed, in all of the media coverage and discussions regarding the current round of Hong Kong mass demonstrations.

Hong Kong currently has no extradition agreement with mainland China, and the proposal to create one was the initial trigger for the mass demonstrations. But Hong Kong has had an extradition agreement with the U.S. since December 20 1996! [adopted less than seven months prior to the Handover, or Return of Hong Kong to China, on 1 July 1997].

The proposed extradition treaty with the mainland was considered as a threat to the human rights of Hong kong people. But the U.S. extradition agreement, which is a “proven” threat to the human rights of Hong Kong people, has been passed over in silence.

When the courageous whistleblower Edward Snowden arrived in Hong Kong in 2013 with vital information related to Hong Kong peoples’ human rights, the U.S.-Hong Kong extradition agreement was immediately invoked by the U.S. in an attempt to ‘shut him up’.

What he provided to Hong Kong were documents from the U.S. National security agency showing its massive illegal pilfering of Hong Kong peoples online activities, including the covert “physical” intersection of the undersea cable which brings internet traffic into Hong Kong.

The U.S. governments immediate response was to invoke the extradition treaty and demand that Edward Snowden be returned to the U.S. to stand trial for having disclosed this massive assault on the privacy rights of Hong Kong people. Only because he was spirited quickly out of Hong Kong and onto an international air flight did he avoid the brutal treatment he would have received at the hands of U.S. authorities for exposing their crimes against Hong Kong.

It should be noted that the U.S. regime has never apologized for this gross infringement on the rights of Hong Kong people; nor to my knowledge has it even stated that it would not do so again. Yet the extradition treaty which was used against the man who awakened Hong Kong to the threat has “never” been questioned.

*

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

President Trump has finally fired his neocon national security adviser, John Bolton.

The decision to show Bolton the door came after Trump suggested a meeting between himself and the Taliban at Camp David. 

.

.

As should be expected, Bolton strongly disagreed—the idea runs counter to the neocon vision of US foreign policy—and Trump, being Trump, fired him. 

Rumor has it Trump will talk to Iran’s president, Hassan Rouhani, although the Iranians say they will not talk with Trump until sanctions are lifted. For the neocons, the mere idea of talking to the mullahs or engaging any kind of diplomacy with Iran is unacceptable heresy. They’d rather kill Iranians than talk with them. 

The latest game of musical chairs at the White House underscores the fact Donald Trump has absolutely no idea what he is doing. 

If, as claimed during the campaign, Trump wants to shut down the wars and bring home the troops, why did he hire one of the most violent and scurrilous of neocons to advise him on foreign policy, a guy who penned a New York Times op-ed calling for bombing Iran as a response to its nonexistent nuclear weapons program? 

The Taliban were created and nurtured into power by the CIA and Pakistan’s ISI. Phil Gasper writes: 

The U.S. government was well aware of the Taliban’s reactionary program, yet it chose to back their rise to power in the mid-1990s. The creation of the Taliban was “actively encouraged by the ISI and the CIA,” according to Selig Harrison, an expert on U.S. relations with Asia. “The United States encouraged Saudi Arabia and Pakistan to support the Taliban, certainly right up to their advance on Kabul,” adds respected journalist Ahmed Rashid. When the Taliban took power, State Department spokesperson Glyn Davies said that he saw “nothing objectionable” in the Taliban’s plans to impose strict Islamic law, and Senator Hank Brown, chair of the Senate Foreign Relations Subcommittee on the Near East and South Asia, welcomed the new regime: “The good part of what has happened is that one of the factions at last seems capable of developing a new government in Afghanistan.” “The Taliban will probably develop like the Saudis. There will be Aramco [the consortium of oil companies that controlled Saudi oil], pipelines, an emir, no parliament and lots of Sharia law. We can live with that,” said another U.S. diplomat in 1997.

That was before 9/11 and the creation of another CIA asset, Osama bin Laden. Neocons rife in the Bush administration decided the Taliban would represent in part the new face of radical Islamic evil, never mind the previous stance of the US government that the Taliban would become good friends like the Saudis. 

The Bush invasion of Afghanistan was planned before the 9/11 attack, as former Secretary of State, Condoleezza Rice admitted during testimony before the 9/11 commission.

Moreover, the US set aside terrorism investigations of al-Qaeda and the Taliban at the behest of transnational oil corporations. 

From Julio Godoy of Inter Press Service:

Under the influence of U.S. oil companies, the government of George W. Bush initially blocked U.S. secret service investigations on terrorism, while it bargained with the Taliban the delivery of Osama bin Laden in exchange for political recognition and economic aid, two French intelligence analysts claim… They affirm that until August [2001], the U.S. government saw the Taliban regime ”as a source of stability in Central Asia that would enable the construction of an oil pipeline across Central Asia”, from the rich oilfields in Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, and Kazakhstan, through Afghanistan and Pakistan, to the Indian Ocean.

The invasion of Afghanistan had little to do with Osama bin Laden—the Taliban said they would turn him over if his role in 9/11 could be proven—but rather the illegal invasion was part of a plan before 9/11 to secure the impoverished country for an oil pipeline and a hunt for minerals, thus the deal with the Taliban disappeared under a rain of bombs and a deadly fog of depleted uranium. 

It was reported that one US official proclaimed during negotiation with the Taliban: “either you accept our offer of a carpet of gold, or we bury you under a carpet of bombs.”

On October 14, 2001, The Guardian reported:

In Jalalabad, deputy prime minister Haji Abdul Kabir—the third most powerful figure in the ruling Taliban regime—told reporters that the Taliban would require evidence that Bin Laden was behind the September 11 terrorist attacks in the US, but added: “we would be ready to hand him over to a third country.” 

Prof. Michel Chossudovsky brings the real objective of the invasion into focus.

The economic dimensions of the “Global War on Terrorism” (GWOT) are rarely mentioned. The post 9/11 “counter-terrorism campaign” has served to obfuscate the real objectives of the US-NATO war.

The war on Afghanistan is part of a profit-driven agenda: a war of economic conquest and plunder,  “a resource war”.

While Afghanistan is acknowledged as a strategic hub in Central Asia, bordering on the former Soviet Union, China and Iran, at the crossroads of pipeline routes and major oil and gas reserves, its huge mineral wealth as well as its untapped natural gas reserves have remained, until June 2010, totally unknown to the American public.

According to a joint report by the Pentagon, the US Geological Survey (USGS) and USAID, Afghanistan is now said to possess “previously unknown” and untapped mineral reserves, estimated authoritatively to be of the order of one trillion dollars (New York Times, U.S. Identifies Vast Mineral Riches in Afghanistan – NYTimes.com, June 14, 2010, See also BBC, 14 June 2010).

John Bolton and the neocons are largely responsible for the numerous wars and violations of international law. They have managed to keep the US in what appears to be an endless war against Wahhabi-inspired fanatics (created by US and Pakistani intelligence). 

President Trump wants something else—to be at the center of a historic peace deal ending the longest war in American history—and Bolton was jettisoned due to his disagreement and sticking to his neocon principles, if they can be termed such. 

*

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

Kurt Nimmo writes on his blog, Another Day in the Empire, where this article was originally published. He is a frequent contributor to Global Research.

Featured image is from the author

Boris Johnson on the Ropes Suspends Parliament Until October 14

September 11th, 2019 by Stephen Lendman

Since becoming prime minister in late July, virtually everything he asked parliamentarians to support was rejected.

His tenure shaky, he may one day be remembered as Britain’s most unpopular PM — pushing all-out for what most Brits and majority parliamentarians oppose, a no-deal Brexit, despite its disruptiveness if happens.

He may end up being Britain’s shortest ever serving PM, the current record held by George Canning — in office from April 12, 1827 until his death on August 8, 119 days later.

On July 24, Johnson took office. His unparalleled parliamentary defeats, at least in modern times, may force his resignation or risk being voted out of office by parliamentarians or the electorate if snap elections are held in November which seems likely.

A self-promoting serial liar, an embarrassment to the office he holds, a Trump clone with an English accent, he’s a caricature of what leadership is supposed to be.

As London Telegraph’s political columnist in the mid-1990s, his reporting lacked credibility.

According to one critic, “Boris told such dreadful lies.” Another called him “a caricature” of what journalism is supposed to be.

He operated the same way in parliament as an MP, as London mayor, foreign secretary and now prime minister.

In office less than two months, he lost every no-deal Brexit/snap election vote, winning no support from majority MPs, including from some fellow Tories, expelling 21 party members for opposing his agenda, losing a parliamentary majority — maybe his job as PM after the body reconvenes.

The London Guardian said he lost six votes in six days ahead of proroguing parliament on Monday, suspending it for five weeks until October 14.

On Monday, Speaker John Bercow, stepping down from his post on October 31, said

“this is not a standard or normal prorogation. (It’s) an act of executive fiat.”

Others called his aim to ram through a no-deal Brexit a coup attempt. On Monday, legislation blocking a no-deal Brexit on October 31 became the law of the land.

MPs blocked another attempt for snap elections Johnson called for next month. With parliament suspended, it can’t be held until at least mid-November, perhaps coming before December 1, maybe Johnson’s coup de grace when votes are tallied — even if Tories retain power.

No majority for a no-deal Brexit exists, what Johnson pledged to deliver. Multiple parliamentary defeats and no triumphs left his tenure hanging by a thread, perhaps ending after MPs return if snap elections are held in November.

On Sunday, the Financial Times slammed Johnson, headlining: “A zombie government means an election must be held,” saying:

Johnson created a mess.

His “government is in meltdown. Through blunder and bullying, it has thrown away its majority and cannot govern,” adding:

“The prime minister has lost the political support of two dozen of the most distinguished Tories, including this weekend another cabinet minister (and) his own brother.”

If voters don’t oust him in snap elections, perhaps a parliamentary motion of no confidence will end his disastrous tenure.

*

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

Award-winning author Stephen Lendman lives in Chicago. He can be reached at [email protected]. He is a Research Associate of the Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG)

His new book as editor and contributor is titled “Flashpoint in Ukraine: US Drive for Hegemony Risks WW III.”

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

Visit his blog site at sjlendman.blogspot.com.

We bring to the attention of our readers the video transcript of Michel Chossudovsky’s presentation at the 2012 9/11 Conference organized by the Perdana Global Peace Foundation, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia

The tragic events of September 11, 2001 constitute a fundamental landmark in American history. a decisive watershed, a breaking point. Millions of people have been misled regarding the causes and consequences of 9/11. 

September 11 2001 opens up an era of crisis, upheaval and militarization of American society. 

A far-reaching overhaul of US military doctrine was launched in the wake of 9/11. Endless wars of aggression under the humanitarian cloak of “counter-terrorism” were set in motion.  

9/11 was also a stepping stone towards the relentless repeal of civil liberties, the militarization of law enforcement and the inauguration of “Police State USA”. 

September 11, 2001 marks the onslaught of the “Global War on Terrorism” (GWOT), used as a pretext and a justification by the US and its NATO allies to carry out a “war without borders”, a global war of conquest.  

At eleven o’clock, on the morning of September 11, the Bush administration had already announced that Al Qaeda was responsible for the attacks on the World Trade Center (WTC) and the Pentagon. This assertion was made prior to the conduct of an indepth police investigation.

VIDEO

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Video: 9/11 Opens up an Era of Crisis, Social Upheaval and Global Warfare. The Crimes Committed in the Name of 9/11

Video: 9/11 and the War on Terror

September 10th, 2019 by Prof Michel Chossudovsky

The tragic events of September 11, 2001 constitute a fundamental landmark in American history. a decisive watershed, a breaking point. Millions of people have been misled regarding the causes and consequences of 9/11.

September 11 2001 opens up an era of crisis, upheaval and militarization of American society.

A far-reaching overhaul of US military doctrine was launched in the wake of 9/11.

Endless wars of aggression under the humanitarian cloak of “counter-terrorism” were set in motion. 

9/11 was also a stepping stone towards the relentless repeal of civil liberties, the militarization of law enforcement and the inauguration of “Police State USA”.

September 11, 2001 marks the onslaught of the “Global War on Terrorism” (GWOT), used as a pretext and a justification by the US and its NATO allies to carry out a “war without borders”, a global war of conquest. 

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Video: 9/11 and the War on Terror

Onde está o empenho antinuclear de Luigi Di Maio?

September 10th, 2019 by Manlio Dinucci

Existe, finalmente, um Ministro dos Negócios Estrangeiros que se empenhará em fazer aderir a Itália ao Tratado ONU sobre a proibição das armas nucleares? O novo Ministro Luigi Di Maio assinou, em 2017, o Juramento Parlamentar do ICAN, a coligação internacional agraciada com o Prémio Nobel da Paz.

Deste modo, o líder político do Movimento 5 Estrelas – o actual Ministro dos Negócios Estrangeiros – empenhou-se em “promover a assinatura e a ratificação deste Tratado de relevância histórica” por parte da Itália. O Empenho ICAN também foi assinado por outros ministros actuais 5 estrelas – Alfonso Bonafede (Justiça), Federico D’Incà (Relações com o Parlamento), Fabiana Dadone (Administração Pública) – e outros parlamentares do M5S, como Roberto Fico e Manlio Di Stefano.

No entanto, há um problema. O Artigo 4 do Tratado estabelece: “Cada Estado Parte que tenha no seu território, armas nucleares, possuídas ou controladas por outro Estado, deve assegurar a rápida remoção de tais armas”. Para aderir ao Tratado ONU, a Itália deve, portanto, solicitar aos Estados Unidos para remover do nosso território as bombas nucleares B-61 (que já violam o Tratado de Não Proliferação) e de não instalar as novas B61-12, nem outras armas nucleares.

Aliás, como a Itália faz parte dos países que (como declara a própria NATO) “fornecem à Aliança aviões equipados para transportar bombas nucleares, sobre as quais os Estados Unidos mantêm controlo absoluto e pessoal treinado para esse fim”, para aderir ao Tratado ONU, a Itália deve pedir para estar isenta de tal função. Pedidos impensáveis da parte do segundo Governo Conte que, como o primeiro, considera os Estados Unidos um “aliado privilegiado”.

Aqui mostram-se as cartas. O Empenho ICAN foi assinado em Itália por mais de 200 parlamentares, a maior parte do Partido Democrata e do M5S (cerca de 90 cada um), os partidos actuais do governo. Com que resultado?

Em 19 de Setembro de 2017, um dia antes do Tratado ser aberto para assinatura, a Câmara aprovava uma moção PD (votada também por Forza Italia e Fratelli d’Italia) que empenhava o Governo Gentiloni a “avaliar a possibilidade de aderir ao Tratado ONU”.  Da sua parte, o M5S não pedia a adesão ao Tratado ONU e, portanto, a remoção de Itália, das armas nucleares USA, mas de “declarar a indisponibilidade da Itália utilizar armas nucleares e de não adquirir os componentes necessários para tornar os aviões F-35 adequados para o transporte de armas nucleares”. Ou seja, que os F-35, concebidos para ataques nucleares, especialmente com as B61-12, sejam usados pela Itália com uma espécie de segurança que impeça o uso de armas nucleares.

No dia seguinte, o Conselho do Atlântico Norte, com o pleno consenso italiano, rejeitou e atacou o Tratado ONU. Ele tinha sido assinado, até a esse momento, por 70 países, mas, devido à pressão USA/NATO, foi ratificado só por 26, se bem que sejam necessários 50 para que entre em vigor. O mesmo aconteceu com o Tratado sobre as Forças Nucleares Intermediárias, destruído por Washington. Tanto na NATO, como na UE e na ONU, o primeiro Governo Conte enfileirou com a decisão dos EUA, dando luz verde à instalação de novos mísseis nucleares dos EUA na Europa, incluindo em Itália.

O Empenho solene subscrito pelo PD, 5 estrelas e outros revelou-se assim, à prova dos factos, um expediente demagógico para recolher votos. Se para alguém não é assim, demonstre-o com factos.

Por causa do “vínculo imprescindível com os Estados Unidos”, reiterado ontem por Conte no seu discurso na Câmara, a Itália está privada da sua soberania e transformada na primeira linha da frente da estratégia nuclear USA. Com o consentimento e o silêncio cúmplice multipartidário.

Manlio Dinucci

 

Artigo original em italiano :

Dov’è l’Impegno antinucleare di Luigi Di Maio?

il manifesto, 10 de Setembro de 2019

 

Tradutora: Maria Luísa de Vasconcellos

  • Posted in Português
  • Comments Off on Onde está o empenho antinuclear de Luigi Di Maio?

“Hands Off Hong Kong” – The Cry that Seldom Is Heard

September 10th, 2019 by John V. Walsh

Through the summer the world has watched as protests shook Hong Kong. As early as April they began as peaceful demonstrations which peaked in early June, with hundreds of thousands, in protest of an extradition bill. That bill would have allowed Hong Kong, a Special Administrative Region of China, to return criminals to Taiwan, mainland China or Macau for crimes committed there – after approval by multiple layers of the Hong Kong judiciary. In the wake of those enormous nonviolent demonstrations, Carrie Lam, CEO of Hong Kong, “suspended” consideration of the extradition bill, a face-saving ploy. To make sure she was understood, she declared it “dead.” The large rallies, an undeniable expression of the peaceful will of a large segment of the Hong Kong population had won an impressive victory. The unpopular extradition bill was slain.

But that was not the end of the story. A smaller segment continued the protests. (The Hong Kong police at one point estimated 4,000 hard core protesters.) pressed on with other demands, beginning with a demand that the bill be “withdrawn,” not simply “suspended.” To this writer death by “suspension” is every bit as terminal as death by “withdrawal.” As this piece is sent to press, news comes that Corrie Lam has now formally withdrawn the bill.

As the summer passed, two iconic photos presented us with two human faces that captured two crucial features of the ongoing protests; they were not shown widely in the West.

First, Fu Guohao, a reporter for the Chinese mainland newspaper, Global Times, was attacked, bound and beaten by protesters during their takeover of the Hong Kong International Airport. When police and rescuers tried to free him, the protesters blocked them and also attempted to block the ambulance that eventually bore him off to the hospital. The photos and videos of this ugly sequence were seen by netizens across the globe even though given scant attention in Western media. Where were the stalwart defenders of the press in the US as this happened? As one example, DemocracyNow! (DN!) was completely silent as was the rest of the U.S. mainstream media.

Fu’s beating came after many weeks when the protesters threw up barriers to stop traffic; blocked closure of subway doors, in defiance of commuters and police, to shut down mass transit; sacked and vandalized the HK legislature building; assaulted bystanders who disagreed with them; attacked the police with Molotov cocktails; and stormed and defaced police stations. Fu’s ordeal and all these actions shown in photos on Hong Kong’s South China Morning Post, a paper leaning to the side of protesters, gave the lie to the image of these “democracy activists” as young Ghandis of East Asia. (The South China Morning Post is based in Hong Kong and its readership is concentrated there so it has to have some reasonable fidelity in reporting events; otherwise it loses credibility – and circulation. Similarly, much as the New York Times abhorred Occupy Wall Street, it could not fail to report on it.)

Which brings us to the second photo, much more important to U.S. citizens, that of a “Political Counselor” at the U.S. Consulate General in Hong Kong who in August was pictured meeting with, Joshua Long and Nathan Law, at a hotel there. The official was formerly a State Dept functionary in the Middle East – in Jerusalem, Riyadh, Beirut, Baghdad and Doha, certainly not an area lacking in imperial intrigues and regime change ops. That photo graphically contradicted the contention that there is no US “black hand,” as China calls it, in the Hong Kong riots. In fact, here the “black hand” was caught red-handed, leading Chen Weihua, a very perceptive China Daily columnist, to tweet the picture with the comment: “This is very very embarrassing. … a US diplomat in Hong Kong, was caught meeting HK protest leaders. It would be hard to imagine the US reaction if a Chinese diplomat were meeting leaders of Occupy Wall Street, Black Lives Matter or Never Trump protesters.”

And that photo with the protest leaders is just a snap shot of the ample evidence of the hand of the U.S. government and its subsidiaries in the Hong Kong events. Perhaps the best documentation of the U.S. “black hand” is to be found in Dan Cohen’s superb article of August 17 in The Greyzone entitled, “Behind a made-for-TV Hong Kong protest narrative, Washington is backing nativism and mob violence.” The article by Cohen deserves careful reading; it leaves little doubt that there is a very deep involvement of the US in the Hong Kong riots. Of special interest is the detailed role and funding, amounting to over $1.3 million, in Hong Kong alone in recent years, of the U.S. National Endowment for Democracy (NED), ever on the prowl for new regime change opportunities. Perhaps most important, the leaders of the “leaderless” protests have met with major US political figures such as John Bolton, Vice President Pence, Secretary Pompeo, Senator Marco Rubio, Democratic Rep. Eliot Engel, Nancy Pelosi and others, all of whom have heartily endorsed their efforts. This is not to deny that the protests were home grown at the outset in response to what was widely perceived as a legitimate grievance. But it would be equally absurd to deny that the U.S. is fishing in troubled Hong Kong waters to advance its anti-China crusade and regime change ambitions.

That said, where is the U.S. peace movement on the question of Hong Kong?

Let us be clear. One can sympathize with the demand of many citizens of Hong Kong to end the extradition bill or even the other four demands: an inquiry into police handling of their protests; the retraction of a government characterization of the demonstrations as riots; an amnesty for arrested protesters; and universal suffrage. (The first three all grow out of violence of the protests, be it noted.) But that is the business of the citizens of Hong Kong and all the rest of China. It is not the business of the U.S. government. Peace activists in the US should be hard at work documenting and denouncing the US government’s meddling in Hong Kong, which could set us on the road to war with China, potentially a nuclear war. And that is a mission for which we in the U.S. are uniquely suited since, at least in theory, we have some control over our government.

So, we should expect to hear the cry, “US Government, Hands Off Hong Kong”? Sadly, with a few principled exceptions it is nowhere to be heard on either the left or right.

Let’s take DemocracyNow! (DN!) as one example, a prominent one on the “progressive” end of the spectrum. From April through August 28, there have been 25 brief accounts (“headlines” as DN! calls them, each amounting to a few paragraphs) of the events in Hong Kong and 4 features, longer supposedly analytic pieces, on the same topic. Transcripts of the four features are here, here, here and here. There is not a single mention of possible US involvement or the meetings of the various leaders of the protest movement with Pompeo, Bolton, Pence, or the “Political Counselor” of the US Hong Kong consulate.

And this silence on US meddling is true not only of most progressive commentators but also most conservatives.

On the Left when someone cries “Democracy,” many forget all their pro-peace sentiment. And similarly on the Right when someone cries “Communism,” anti-interventionism too often goes down the tubes. Forgotten is John Quincy Adams’s 1823 dictum, endlessly quoted but little honored, “We do not go abroad in search of monsters to destroy.” Where does this lapse on the part of activists come from? Is it a deep-seated loyalty to Empire, the result of endless indoctrination? Is it U.S. Exceptionalism, ingrained to the point of unconsciousness? Or is it at bottom a question of who the paymasters are?

On both sides anti-interventionism takes an especially hard hit when it comes to major competitors of the US, powers that could actually stand in the way of US global hegemony, like Russia or China. In fact on its August 12 program, DN! managed a story taking a swipe at Russia right next to the one on Hong Kong – and DN! was in the forefront of advancing the now debunked and disgraced Russiagate Conspiracy Theory. In contrast, the anti-interventionist movement is front and center when it comes to weaker nations, for example Venezuela – and quite properly so. But when one puts this advocacy for weaker nations together with the New Cold War stance on China and Russia, one must ask what is going on here. Does it betoken a sort of imperial paternalism on the part of DN and like-minded outlets? It certainly gains DN!, and others like it, considerable credibility among anti-interventionists which can help win them to a position in favor of DN!’s New Cold War stance. And the masters of Empire certainly understand how valuable such credibility can be at crucial moments when support for their adventures is needed from every quarter.

Fortunately, there are a handful of exceptions to this New Cold War attitude. For example, on the left Popular Resistance has provided a view of the events in Hong Kong and a superb interview with K.J. Noh that go beyond the line of the State Department, the mainstream media and DN! And on the libertarian Right there is the Ron Paul Institute for Peace and Prosperity and the work of its Executive Director Dan McAdams.

We would all do well to follow the example of these organizations in rejecting a New Cold War mentality which is extremely dangerous, perhaps fatally so. A good beginning for us in the U.S. is to demand of our government, “Hands Off Hong Kong.”

*

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

John V. Walsh can be reached at [email protected].

Featured image is from The Unz Review

How the U.S. Created the Cold War

September 10th, 2019 by Eric Zuesse

There was a speech that the smug Harvard neoconservative Graham Allison presented at the US aristocracy’s TED Talks on 20 November 2018, and which is titled on youtube as “Is war between China and the US inevitable?” It currently has 1,217,326 views. The transcript is here.

His speech said that the US must continue being the world’s #1 power, or else persuade China’s Government to cooperate more with what America’s billionaires demand. He said that the model for the US regime’s supposed goodness in international affairs is The Marshall Plan after the end of World War II. He ended his speech with the following passage as pointing the way forward, to guide US foreign policies during the present era. Here is that concluding passage:

Let me remind you of what happened right after World War II. A remarkable group of Americans and Europeans and others, not just from government, but from the world of culture and business, engaged in a collective surge of imagination. And what they imagined and what they created was a new international order, the order that’s allowed you and me to live our lives, all of our lives, without great power war and with more prosperity than was ever seen before on the planet. So, a remarkable story. Interestingly, every pillar of this project that produced these results, when first proposed, was rejected by the foreign policy establishment as naive or unrealistic.

My favorite is the Marshall Plan. After World War II, Americans felt exhausted. They had demobilized 10 million troops, they were focused on an urgent domestic agenda. But as people began to appreciate how devastated Europe was and how aggressive Soviet communism was, Americans eventually decided to tax themselves a percent and a half of GDP every year for four years and send that money to Europe to help reconstruct these countries, including Germany and Italy, whose troops had just been killing Americans. Amazing. This also created the United Nations. Amazing. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights. The World Bank. NATO. All of these elements of an order for peace and prosperity. So, in a word, what we need to do is do it again.

The US did donate many billions of dollars to rebuild Europe. The Marshall Plan, however, excluded the Soviet Union. It excluded Belarus, which had suffered the largest losses of any nation in WWII, 25% of its population. It excluded Russia, which lost 13%. But those weren’t nations, they were states within the USSR, the nation that lost by far the highest percentage of its population of any nation, to the war: nearly 14%.

Russia had lost, to Germany’s Nazis, 13,950,000, or exactly 12.7% of its population. Another part of the Soviet Union, Belarus, lost 2.29 million, or exactly 25.3% of its population to Hitler. Another part of the USSR, Ukraine, lost 6.85 million, or 16.3%. The entire Soviet Union lost 26.6 million, exactly 13.7% of its population to Hitler. The US lost only 419,400, or 0.32% of its population. Furthermore, immediately after FDR died and Harry S. Truman became President, the US CIA (then as its predecessor organization the OSS) provided protection and employment in Germany for top members of Hitler’s equivalent to the CIA, the Gehlen Organization. (America’s CIA continues flagrantly to violate the law and hide from Congress and the American people crucial details of its relationship with the Gehlen Organization.) By contrast, the Soviet Union was unremitting in killing Nazis whom it captured. So: while the USSR was killing any ‘ex’-Nazis it could find, the USA. was hiring them either in West Germany or else into the US itself. It brought them to America whenever the US regime needed the person’s assistance in designing weapons to use against the USSR Right away, the US was looking for ‘ex’-Nazis who could help the US conquer the Soviet Union. The Cold War secretly started in the US as soon as WW II was over (the OSS-CIA’s “Operation Paperclip”). (There was no equivalent to “Operation Paperclip” in the USSR.)

The Soviet Union suffered vastly the brunt of the Allies’ losses from WWII, but the US, which suffered the least from the war, refused to help them out, and instead the US regime protected most of the ‘ex’-Nazis that were in its own area of control. Without nasty Joseph Stalin’s help, America would today be ruled by the Nazi regime instead of by America’s domestic aristocracy as it now is. And this is the way that our aristocracy thanked the Soviet people, for the immense sacrifices that they had made, really, on behalf of the entire future world. This happened right after WW II was over, and the US regime was already determined, right away, not to help those people, but instead to conquer them — to treat them as being the new enemy, so as to stoke the weapons-trade after the war (and the need for more weapons) ended. How ‘good’ was this behavior by the US rulers — the “Military Industrial Complex” or MIC — actually? (The MIC took over as soon as FDR died and Truman replaced him.)

Truman was unfortunately an extremely effective agent of America’s billionaires in advancing them first to continue their MIC (or, actually, the weapons-making firms), so that the billionaires who controlled them had no reason to fear the breakout of peace in the post-war era — America right away started its world-record-shattering number of coups and invasions, virtually as soon as Truman took over.

First was the coup in Thailand in 1948 — right at the CIA’s very start — in order to grab hold of Asia’s narcotics traffic so that the needed off-the-books funding for that spy-agency could be instituted (and its existence didn’t become public until the great investigative journalist Gary Webb uncovered its operations in Nicaragua during President Reagan’s Iran-Contra scandal, which entailed illegal funding — from cocaine-sales — of Reagan’s war against Nicaragua, a Soviet-friendly country) The heroic Gary Webb became blackballed from America’s ’news’-(actually propaganda)-media and plunged into poverty so that he (according to the government) committed suicide and “wasn’t murdered,” but (either way) his death was another of the CIA’s secret victories.

Hey, if this looks bad for the United States, then the truth looks bad. This is not the propaganda. Deceits such as Graham Allison’s slick distortions are the propaganda — and thus he and the others who do such work are enormously successful and highly honored by America’s billionaires and the rest of their retinues. People such as that, train the next generation of and for America’s aristocracy, so that they can become just as smug in their evil and self-deception as their trainers are. Their parents get vindicated by Allison and others of the billionaire-class’s propaganda-merchants (‘historians’ ‘journalists’, etc.). What’s not to like in this? It’s virtually a cult of the world’s most-powerful people and of their retinues. Lots of people would like to join it — and, “To hell with the truth.”

Even the U.N. has caved to the American behemoth. It offers an article “UN/DESA POLICY BRIEF #52: THE MARSHALL PLAN, IMF AND FIRST UN DEVELOPMENT DECADE IN THE GOLDEN AGE OF CAPITALISM: LESSONS FOR OUR TIME”, eulogizing what maybe its authors didn’t know was actually the very start of the Cold War:

Three events from the Golden Age that left significant lessons relevant for the implementation of the Sustainable Development Goals include: the contributions of the Marshall Plan, the experience leading to the achievement of current account convertibility under the IMF Articles of Agreement and the declaration of the First UN Development Decade. The Marshall Plan marked the very beginning of successful international cooperation in the post-war period.

No mention is made, there, either, that this was the start of the Cold War. The fact that this was the start of America’s war against Russia is simply ignored. Instead, all of this is celebrated. But even the CIA-edited and written Wikipedia acknowledges, in its (heavily propagandistic pro-US-regime) article “Molotov Plan”:

The Molotov Plan was the system created by the Soviet Union in 1947 in order to provide aid to rebuild the countries in Eastern Europe that were politically and economically aligned to the Soviet Union. It can be seen to be the Soviet Union’s version of the Marshall Plan, which for political reasons the Eastern European countries would not be able to join without leaving the Soviet sphere of influence. Soviet foreign minister Vyacheslav Molotov rejected the Marshall Plan (1947), proposing instead the Molotov Plan — the Soviet-sponsored economic grouping which was eventually expanded to become the Comecon.[1]

Just think about that, for a moment: The Soviet Union is being blamed there because it “rejected” the US regime’s demand upon all nations that accepted aid from The Marshall Plan, that they be “leaving the Soviet sphere of influence.” How stupid does the writer of that particular passage have to be? Wikipedia’s description of the Molotov Plan continues:

The Molotov Plan was symbolic of the Soviet Union’s refusal to accept aid from the Marshall Plan, or allow any of their satellite states to do so because of their belief that the Marshall Plan was an attempt to weaken Soviet interest in their satellite states through the conditions imposed and by making beneficiary countries economically dependent on the United States (Officially, one of the goals of the Marshall Plan was to prevent the spread of Communism).

The Marshall Plan wasn’t merely “an attempt to weaken Soviet interest in their satellite states” but was instead an actual lure, to draw into “leaving the Soviet sphere of influence,” the nations “that were politically and economically aligned to the Soviet Union.” This wasn’t really about “Soviet interest in their satellite states” but instead it was about the US regime’s policy, immediately after WW II, to take over not merely the nations that the US had helped in Europe to defeat Hitler, but also the nations that the Soviet Union had helped to defeat Hitler. It was, in short, a US grab, to control territory within the lands that the Soviet Union had saved from Nazism. This is the reality.

Look at these tables, again, of how much the US and the Soviet Union — and all other countries — had suffered losses from actually fighting against Hitler, and then consider that the nation which had lost the least was now so war-mongering as to immediately try to grab “sphere of influence” — the very border-nations which were crucial to the Soviet Union’s national security against that very same grabber — grabbing away from the one that had lost the most.

Here is another piece of US-regime propaganda about the Molotov Plan (which they say was the Soviet response to The Marshall Plan even though it wasn’t and the Soviet Union had been so destroyed by Hitler as to have made any such donations to their own satellites only minuscule by comparison):

The plan was a system of bilateral trade agreements that established COMECON to create an economic alliance of socialist countries. This aid allowed countries in Europe to stop relying on American aid, and therefore allowed Molotov Plan states to reorganize their trade to the USSR instead. The plan was in some ways contradictory, however, because at the same time the Soviets were giving aid to Eastern bloc countries, they were demanding that countries who were members of the Axis powers pay reparations to the USSR.

Those weren’t “socialist” countries; they were dictatorial socialist countries, as opposed to democratic socialist countries such as in Scandinavia — the proper term for what the Soviet alliance was is “communist,” not “socialist” — and there was a very big difference between the Scandinavian countries, versus the communist countries (though the US regime wants to slur one by the other so as to sucker fools against democratic socialism — progressivism).

And, by “they were demanding that countries who were members of the Axis powers pay reparations to the USSR,” we’re supposed to think that Germany, and Italy, and Japan, shouldn’t have compensated their victims? What? And yet we’re alsosupposed to believe that Germany should pay it for Jews who lived in Israel? What’s that about? Why?

Why ‘should’ Germany be funding Jews to grab land that for thousands of years has been populated almost entirely by Arabs and for perhaps a thousand years almost entirely by Muslims, thus subsidizing the theft of that land, the grabbing of that land, by Jews who had escaped Hitler’s Holocaust? What is all of this really about, and what is propaganda such as Graham Allison delivers, really about? America’s manufacturers of the machinery of mass-death need to “make a living,” don’t they? And isn’t that propaganda the most effective way to do it? So, that’s what it really is about.

There is the presumption by neoconservatives — American imperialists — that the US Government is both democratic and well-intentioned, but at least after the death of FDR, it hasn’t been either one. (Back in his time, it was a limited democracy, verylimited for Blacks.) And this is the reason why the US regime double-crossed Russia and shamed The West when the last Soviet leader, Mikhail Gorbachev, ended communism and ended the USSR and even ended its Warsaw Pact in 1991, but the US side secretly continued the Cold War, and does so increasingly today.

None of this fits the US regime’s propaganda-narrative, such as Graham Allison, and many other thousands of other regime-shills, present. Theirs is called ‘history’. The reality is called “history.” In the US and its vassal-nations, there is vastly more of a market for ‘history’ than for “history,” because the billionaires not only control the government — they also control the alleged news-media, history-publishers, and other means of ‘informing’ and ‘educating’ the public. So, it’s a self-selecting circle of deceivers that are at the top.

***

Post Scriptum. Truman’s Diary

To get to the beginning of the Cold War, Truman’s complete diary needs to be published. The excerpts that have been published do include information that contradicts and overrides his published statements, and that thereby helps researchers penetrate to what was really going on in his head at the time. What they show is a tragically unintelligent but well-intentioned person, who had some guiding prejudices and therefore thought in labels instead of trying actually to understand the other person’s real problems (such as FDR did).

For example, at the Potsdam Conference during 17 July to 2 August 1945, Stalin tried to explain why the Soviet Union needed to be surrounded by friendly countries just as much as the US and Britain did, but neither Truman nor Churchill would accept any such concern by Stalin. As the BBC summarized that, “Stalin wanted a buffer zone of friendly Communist countries to protect the USSR from further attack in the future.”

Truman got his views on such matters from his top generals and other advisors. His diary on 16 July 1945 said

“Talked to Mc Caffery about France. He is scared stiff of Communism, the Russian society which isn’t communism at all but just police government pure and simple. A few top hands just take clubs, pistols and concentration camps and rule the people on the lower levels.”

But Stalin actually had lots of reason to distrust both Truman and Churchill — just as they had lots of reason to distrust him. FDR hadn’t been so totally in thrall of his generals, nor as naive — nor as manipulable. Just a day after that entry on July 16th, came this on July 17th: “I can deal with Stalin. He is honest, but smart as hell.”

The problem isn’t that Truman often misunderstood, but that he surrounded himself with people that his Party’s top donors liked. Truman wanted to be a progressive but ended up being only a liberal — which his Party’s wealthiest found to be acceptable. His main achievements were in foreign policy and amounted to leading Churchill’s Cold War, pretty much as Stalin had expected. For example, at Potsdam, as Steve Neal’s 2002 Harry and Ike says (p. 40),

“Truman was elated that Stalin was preparing to join the Allies in the war against Japan. [But] Eisenhower advised [Truman against that, because, Ike said,] ‘no power on earth could keep the Red Army out of that war unless victory came before they could get in.’”

So, Truman rejected the overwhelming opposition from the scientists, who favored doing only a public test-demonstration for Japan’s leaders, and nuked both Hiroshima and Nagasaki — in order to keep the Soviets out of Japan, not in order to win the war against Japan. (Then, of course, the very tactful Ike became Truman’s successor, and led for what at the end of his Presidency he famously named the “military industrial complex.”)

So: those bomb-drops were part of the Cold War against the Soviet Union, not really for the hot WW II to beat Japan. However, Truman could also have deceived himself about what his motives actually were, because his diary on 25 July 1945 said:

“This weapon is to be used against Japan between now and August 10th. I have told the Sec. of War, Mr. Stimson to 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 this terrible bomb on the old Capitol or the new.” The two bombings occurred on 6 and 9 August — right after Potsdam. Obviously, it wasn’t just “soldiers and sailors are the target and not women and children.” And, never, after he perpetrated that, did he express regret about all those “women and children.” He had no difficulty ignoring embarrassing realities.

Truman’s intentions were progressive — for example, his diary-entry on 16 July 1945said (in the context of damning the Soviet Government)

“It seems that Sweden, Norway, Denmark and perhaps Switzerland have the only real peoples government on the Continent of Europe. But the rest are as bad lot from the standpoint of the people who do not believe in tyrany.” (He routinely misspelled like that.) Unlike Republicans, who love to equate “socialism” with communism and simply to ignore the Scandinavian examples disproving that equation, he wasn’t quite stupid enough to fall for the billionaires’ line on it. He didn’t need to be: he was a Democrat. Even the billionaires in his Party don’t spout that line — it’s strictly Republicans who equate “socialism” with “communism.”

FDR was a leader. Truman didn’t know how to lead, because he didn’t even know himself. Himself was a puppet, and he didn’t even know it, much less know the strings (from Ike etc. — the billionaires’ knowing agents) (which were pulling his own brain).

And that’s how the road to today started.

And 200 years from now is, by now, virtually certain to be vastly worse.

If persons of FDR’s calibre had been America’s Presidents after his death, then none of this would likely have happened (at least not nearly as much); but none of them were.

Leadership matters. It really does. It really did.

*

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

Investigative historian Eric Zuesse is the author, most recently, of  They’re Not Even Close: The Democratic vs. Republican Economic Records, 1910-2010, and of  CHRIST’S VENTRILOQUISTS: The Event that Created Christianity.

Featured image is from Wikimedia Commons

Dov’è l’Impegno antinucleare di Luigi Di Maio?

September 10th, 2019 by Manlio Dinucci

C’è finalmente un ministro degli Esteri che si impegnerà a far aderire l’Italia al Trattato Onu sulla proibizione delle armi nucleari? Il neoministro Luigi Di Maio ha sottoscritto nel 2017 il Parliamentary Pledge dell’Ican, coalizione internazionale insignita del Premio Nobel per la Pace.

In tal modo il capo politico del Movimento 5 Stelle – attuale ministro degli Esteri – si è impegnato a «promuovere la firma e la ratifica di questo Trattato di rilevanza storica» da parte dell’Italia. L’Impegno Ican è stato sottoscritto anche da altri attuali ministri 5 Stelle – Alfonso Bonafede (Giustizia), Federico D’Incà (Rapporti con il Parlamento), Fabiana Dadone (Pubblica Amministrazione) – e da altri parlamentari del M5S, come Roberto Fico e Manlio Di Stefano.

C’è però un problema. All’Articolo 4 il Trattato stabilisce: «Ciascuno Stato parte che abbia sul proprio territorio armi nucleari, possedute o controllate da un altro Stato, deve assicurare la rapida rimozione di tali armi». Per aderire al Trattato Onu, l’Italia dovrebbe quindi richiedere agli Stati uniti di rimuovere  dal nostro territorio le bombe nucleari B-61 (che già violano il Trattato di non-proliferazione) e di non installarvi le nuove B61-12 né altre armi nucleari.

Inoltre, poiché l’Italia fa  parte dei paesi che (come dichiara la stessa Nato) «forniscono all’Alleanza aerei equipaggiati per trasportare bombe nucleari, su cui gli Stati uniti mantengono l’assoluto controllo, e personale addestrato a tale scopo», per aderire al Trattato Onu l’Italia dovrebbe chiedere di essere esentata da tale funzione. Richieste impensabili da parte del secondo governo Conte che, come il primo, considera gli Stati uniti «alleato privilegiato».

Qui si scoprono le carte. L’Impegno Ican è stato sottoscritto in Italia da oltre 200 parlamentari, per la maggior parte del Pd e del M5S (circa 90 ciascuno), gli attuali partiti di governo. Con quale risultato?

Il 19 settembre 2017, il giorno prima che il Trattato venisse aperto alla firma, la Camera approvava una mozione Pd (votata anche da Forza Italia e Fratelli d’Italia) che impegnava il governo Gentiloni a «valutare la possibilità di aderire al Trattato Onu». Da parte sua il M5S non chiedeva l’adesione al Trattato Onu, e quindi la rimozione dall’Italia delle armi nucleari Usa, ma di «dichiarare l’indisponibilità dell’Italia ad utilizzare armi nucleari, e a non acquisire le componenti necessarie per rendere gli aerei F-35 idonei al trasporto di armi nucleari». Ossia che gli F-35, concepiti per l’attacco nucleare soprattutto con le B61-12, siano usati dall’Italia con una sorta di sicura che impedisca l’uso di armi nucleari.

Il giorno dopo il Consiglio nord-atlantico, con il pieno consenso italiano, ha respinto e attaccato il Trattato Onu. Esso è stato finora firmato da 70 paesi ma, a causa delle pressioni Usa/Nato, ratificato solo da 26 mentre ne occorrono 50 perché entri in vigore. Lo stesso è  avvenuto con il Trattato sulle forze nucleari intermedie affossato da Washington. Sia in sede Nato, Ue e Onu, il primo governo Conte si è accodato alla decisione statunitense, dando luce verde alla installazione di nuovi missili nucleari Usa in Europa, Italia compresa.

Il solenne Impegno sottoscritto dai parlamentari Pd, 5 Stelle e altri si è rivelato dunque, alla prova dei fatti, un espediente demagogico per raccogliere voti. Se per qualcuno non è così, lo dimostri coi fatti.

A causa dell’«imprescindibile legame con gli Stati uniti», ribadito ieri da Conte nel discorso alla Camera, l’Italia viene privata della propria sovranità e trasformata in prima linea della strategia nucleare Usa. Con il consenso e il complice silenzio multipartisan.

Manlio Dinucci

  • Posted in Italiano
  • Comments Off on Dov’è l’Impegno antinucleare di Luigi Di Maio?

Selected Articles: 18 Years after 9/11 Attacks

September 10th, 2019 by Global Research News

Our objective at Global Research is to recruit one thousand committed “volunteers” among our more than 50,000 Newsletter subscribers to support the distribution of Global Research articles (email lists, social media, crossposts). 

Do not send us money. Under Plan A, we call upon our readers to donate 5 minutes a day to Global Research.

Global Research Volunteer Members can contact us at [email protected] for consultations and guidelines.

If, however, you are pressed for time in the course of a busy day, consider Plan B, Consider Making a Donation and/or becoming a Global Research Member

*     *     *

Where Was Osama bin Laden on September 10, 2001? One Day Before 9/11. His Whereabouts Were Known

By Prof Michel Chossudovsky, September 10, 2019

This CBS Report suggests that Osama bin Laden had been admitted to a Pakistani Military hospital in Rawalpindi on the 10th local time, less than 24 hours before the terrorist attacks.

9/11 after 18 Years. “Hard Evidence Cannot Prevail over a Transparent Official Lie”

By Dr. Paul Craig Roberts, September 09, 2019

The 9/11 Commission report was not an investigation and ignored all forensic evidence. The NIST simulation of Building 7’s collapse was rigged to get the desired result.  The only real investigations have been done by private scientists, engineers, and architects.

Who Is Osama Bin Laden?

By Prof Michel Chossudovsky, September 08, 2019

A few hours after the terrorist attacks on the World Trade Centre and the Pentagon, the Bush administration concluded without supporting evidence, that “Osama bin Laden and his al-Qaeda organisation were prime suspects”. CIA Director George Tenet stated that bin Laden has the capacity to plan “multiple attacks with little or no warning.” Secretary of State Colin Powell called the attacks “an act of war” and President Bush confirmed in an evening televised address to the Nation that he would “make no distinction between the terrorists who committed these acts and those who harbor them”.

9/11 Truth: Why Do Good People Become Silent About the Documented Facts that Disprove the Official 9/11 Narrative

By Dr. Gary G. Kohls, September 06, 2019

These “9/11 Truthers” have been unfairly labeled “conspiracy theorists” (a pejorative term invented by the CIA after the John F. Kennedy assassination in 1963 raised all sorts of skepticism doubting the official story blaming “the single shooter”).

9/11, Drug Money, Oil Resources and the Invasion of Afghanistan: Michael Ruppert Refutes the Official 9/11 Story

By Michael Welch and Michael Ruppert, September 05, 2019

Pertinent questions as to ulterior motives for a deadly military invasion of Afghanistan, or about the failure to scramble military aircraft to intercept the hijacked airplanes when they veered off course were never asked in the prominent newspapers, television networks and other major media organs of the day.

Another Official 9/11 Big Lie Exposed — Again

By Stephen Lendman, September 05, 2019

On September 10, 2001 (one day before 9/11), CBS News anchor Dan Rather reported his admittance to a Rawalpindi, Pakistan hospital. He was dying.

Fire Did Not Cause 3rd Tower’s Collapse on 9/11, New Study Finds

By AE911Truth, September 04, 2019

Despite calls for the evidence to be preserved, New York City officials had the building’s debris removed and destroyed in the ensuing weeks and months, preventing a proper forensic investigation from ever taking place. Seven years later, federal investigators concluded that WTC 7 was the first steel-framed high-rise ever to have collapsed solely as a result of normal office fires.

Call for New 9/11 Investigation: New York Area Fire Commissioners Make History

By Ted Walter, July 29, 2019

They started off by saying the Pledge of Allegiance. Ten minutes later, they were reading the text of a resolution claiming the existence of “overwhelming evidence” that “pre-planted explosives . . . caused the destruction of the three World Trade Center buildings.”

*

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

  • Posted in NO READ MORE LINK
  • Comments Off on Selected Articles: 18 Years after 9/11 Attacks

In 2020, the participants in the 1970 Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT) will congregate for the treaty’s 10th review conference. Which means that it may be a good time to re-examine the relevance of the NPT, and even consider the idea of dropping this treaty in its entirety, in favor of the new kid on the block: the 2017 Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons, also know as the Ban Treaty. At the risk of grossly oversimplifying, one treaty seeks to stop the further spread of nuclear weapons, while the other goes further and seeks to get rid of them entirely. This difference is reflected in their formal titles.

Why should we ditch the former in favor of the latter? To answer that, let us look at history.

In the half-century of its existence, the broader objective of the NPT—to restrict the spread of nuclear weapons—has been corrupted. Instead, states possessing nuclear weapons have used the NPT to legalize their own nuclear weapons and criminalize everyone else’s. The result is a one-sided and duplicitous nuclear order that is unstable, dangerous, and contrary to the expectations on which non-nuclear weapon states joined the NPT. The nuclear weapon states have squandered a number of opportunities to fulfill their end of the bargain embedded in the treaty. These include reneging on commitments given at the 1995 Review and Extension Conference, the 2000 and 2010 Review Conference conclusions, and boycotting the UN-mandated multilateral negotiations of a legal prohibition on nuclear weapons. These failures line up as proof that nuclear weapon states have no intention to give up their nuclear weapons.

Consequently, it may be time for states that are serious about nuclear disarmament to consider withdrawing from the NPT entirely. The only terms on which we see any use for these states to remain members would be if the NPT becomes a forum for an orderly and time-bound transfer from the old nuclear order—based on disingenuous and cynical interpretations of the NPT by the five nuclear weapon states (China, France, Russia, the United Kingdom, and the United States) to uphold the status quo—to a new nuclear order where the premise is that nuclear weapons are illegal for all.

A “cornerstone” of what? The NPT has often been described as the “cornerstone” of the nuclear non-proliferation and disarmament regime. This metaphor conjures up an image of a key building block securing a structure of sorts—let’s say a house. The intention with the NPT was to build a house where nuclear weapons would eventually become illegal and illegitimate. Accordingly, at key points in the NPT’s history, states without nuclear weapons were assured that the NPT is a blueprint for a world without nuclear weapons. Nuclear weapons’ so-called legality in the hands of those states which had conducted nuclear tests by 1967 was understood to be only a temporary measure—a means to an end, intended as a practical measure to make nuclear disarmament negotiations easier. It was based upon an earlier proposal, known as the Irish Resolution—the idea that by curbing the spread of nuclear weapons up front, it would ultimately be easier to negotiate disarmament down the road, because there would be fewer states with nuclear weapons to begin with.

Herein lies the problem: The house that was built (and continues to be built) on the NPT cornerstone is not the one that the architects promised. Instead, the nuclear weapon states have used this treaty to argue that their nuclear weapons are legal and a sovereign right. As a result, the NPT became the cornerstone of a severely hypocritical nuclear order where a few states regard wielding their nuclear weapons as legitimate while proscribing this sovereign right to other states—something which India dubbed “nuclear apartheid.”

The disingenuous interpretation of the NPT has led to and reinforced entrenched nuclear military-industrial complexes. Moreover, this order has structurally enabled proliferation, arms races, the continuation of conflicts that should long ago have been resolved politically (such as the Korean Peninsula and Kashmir), war under the pretence of counter-proliferation (Iraq in 2003 and likely against Iran in the near future) and unacceptable nuclear risks—from hair-trigger alerts and accidents to terrorism. Four out of the five nuclear weapon states are not even prepared anymore to endorse the Reagan-Gorbachev principle, which states that nuclear war cannot be won and must never be fought. This led observers such as former California governor Jerry Brown and nuclear expert William Potter to conclude that “it is hard to maintain faith in the future of the NPT.”

Put on the spot, defenders of the nuclear order have tried to convince us that although the house built over the last 50 years is not the one that the NPT promised, we should remain patient: The house, they claim, is simply just not finished yet. The slow pace of nuclear disarmament is attributed to the world not being safe for the elimination of nuclear weapons at the present time. The US initiative in the NPT forum, Creating an Environment for Nuclear Disarmament, is just the latest excuse to delay nuclear disarmament by postulating mythical prerequisites for its implementation.

A house of cards? Article 6 of the NPT demands that all signatories—both nuclear and non-nuclear weapon states—“pursue negotiations in good faith on effective measures relating to cessation of the nuclear arms race at an early date and to nuclear disarmament…” While the height of the (quantitative) nuclear arms race is hopefully behind us, there are still 14,000 nuclear weapons on Earth, each with a destruction capacity that is on average much larger than the Hiroshima bomb. The use of only a fraction of this worldwide arsenal is enough to destroy the world beyond recovery.

Multilateral nuclear disarmament negotiations by 124 states—which only started up in 2017—were boycotted by all the nuclear-armed states and most of their allies. Not one of the nuclear-armed states has signed the 2017 Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons. Instead, all the nuclear weapon states have gone the other direction, and are in the process of what they call “modernizing” their nuclear arsenals. The United States, for instance, is planning to spend $1.2 trillion (not counting inflation) over the next 30 years to modernize its nuclear weapons and their delivery vehicles. The United States and Russia, collectively possessing more than 90 percent of all nuclear weapons, are quick to point to bilateral arms control treaties as evidence of their step-by-step nuclear disarmament approach. However, they have no qualms about dismantling these treaties on a whim when it suits them, as was the case with the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty and the Intermediary Nuclear Forces Treaty. That makes a mockery of Article 6.

Furthermore, contradicting one of the agreed negotiation guidelines that the NPT must embody “an acceptable balance of mutual responsibilities and obligations of nuclear and non-nuclear powers,” there have been discriminatory extensions over time that tip the scales against non-nuclear weapons states. The establishment of the Zangger Committee and the Nuclear Suppliers Group, for instance, institute informal nuclear export controls on non-nuclear weapon states, while the IAEA Additional Protocol further lengthens the list of requirements for these states to prove their non-proliferation credentials.

The non-nuclear weapon states have been patient for a long time. Every five years, they reminded the nuclear weapon states about their disarmament promises. Sometimes, additional promises were made by the nuclear weapon states. In 1995, at the Extension Conference, a Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty (CTBT) and a fissile material ‘cut-off’ treaty were promised, as well as negotiations of a Middle East weapons of mass destruction free zone. Today, none of these has become a reality (the CTBT is in limbo as it has not entered into force). The same applies for similar promises made at the 2000 and the 2010 Review Conferences. The United States even backtracks on these earlier promises—something that was criticized at the 2019 NPT Prepcom by countries like Sweden, Switzerland, and NATO member state Latvia. The final outcome of this Prepcom was a strong signal from the non-nuclear weapon states to the nuclear weapon states that they are running out of patience.

Let’s also not forget that the “cornerstone” of the non-proliferation regime still does not contain the only nuclear proliferator in the Middle East (Israel). Nor does the non-proliferation regime contain three out of four nuclear armed states in Asia—India, Pakistan, and North Korea—as members. In sum, one third of all nuclear armed states are not at all covered by the NPT, and the prospects for bringing them in are nil. At the same time, these non-official nuclear armed states give permanent incentives to the further spread of nuclear weapons, especially in the Middle East and East Asia.

The nuclear order built on the infamous “cornerstone” therefore seems to be a house of cards, ready to topple with the next wave of proliferation, in all likelihood in the Middle East (Iran, Saudi Arabia, and maybe others like Turkey and Egypt). Former Canadian diplomat Paul Meyer concludes that

“it is a wonder that the NPT retains any credibility as a framework for global nuclear governance.”

Along the same lines, Harvard academic Rebecca Davis Gibbons fears that “without change, [the NPT] will likely suffer a slower but no less consequential death.”

A Hobbesian world after withdrawal? Many observers, like the Ukrainian scholar, Polina Sinovets, fear the end of the NPT, as it might lead us to “a truly Hobbesian nightmare” where the old rules are abandoned and the new ones have not been developed or have not been accepted by all.

That fear is unjustified for two reasons. First, as stated above, the NPT is not the cornerstone of the non-proliferation and disarmament regime anymore. It has become an obstacle to its own ideals, a farce of empty promises. The longer it persists (without fulfilment of Article 6), the less relevant and more politically void it becomes. We are reaching the moment where more states—perhaps many more states—will start leaving the treaty anyhow. Some may leave because they are tired of not being treated respectfully; others for fear of becoming targets of aggression under fabricated premises of nuclear proliferation.

Second—and this is something that many observers have not thought through—the NPT can and in all likelihood will be replaced by the Ban Treaty. Most states, at least if they sign the Ban Treaty, would be bound by the Ban Treaty’s prohibitions—which include NPT safeguards. The Ban Treaty embodies all that the NPT stood for originally and more. It provides the necessary framework for negotiating the verifiable elimination of nuclear weapons when nuclear armed states join.

What would states who withdraw from the NPT lose?

Nothing. On the contrary, we would end up living in a different world, that replaces a discriminatory regime with a regime in which all states are equal—at least with respect to the possession of nuclear weapons. It would be a world without a treaty that ends up legitimizing nuclear weapons for a small group of states while condemning their acquisition by most other states. It would be a world in which nuclear weapons and their possessors would be regarded as pariah states, possessing defense instruments that are not only inhumane, immoral and illegitimate, but also illegal once the Ban Treaty enters into force.

Is it possible to redeem the NPT? If the original intent of the NPT is followed through to its logical conclusion, the NPT must be superseded or amended. A world without nuclear weapons does not need an NPT, because there would be no (legal) nuclear weapon states. However, such a world has need for the system of safeguards and verification that the NPT has established.

The only way that we see any worth in states continuing to be members of the NPT is if the NPT becomes a dynamic and time-bound forum for the orderly transition to a new nuclear order where nuclear weapons are illegal for all. Such a transition would start with nuclear weapon states and their allies joining the Ban Treaty or initiating the negotiation of a Convention on the Elimination of Nuclear Weapons. The NPT Review Conferences could then be used to determine what aspects of the NPT must survive into the new nuclear order—such as safeguards and how to bring non-NPT nuclear armed states into the fold of nuclear disarmament. But, inevitably, the NPT must be replaced with another international agreement—be it the Ban Treaty or a newly negotiated instrument—that abolishes nuclear weapons, oversees their elimination, and institutes a universal system to ensure nuclear abstinence for all.

If the penny doesn’t drop soon for nuclear weapon states that this is the only way forward, then rationally there seems little else for states that are serious about a world without nuclear weapons to do, but to walk away from the NPT.

*

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

Joelien Pretorius is an associate professor in Political Studies at the University of the Western Cape, South Africa.

Tom Sauer is an associate professor in international politics at the Universiteit Antwerpen in Belgium. 

Featured image: UN/IAEA inspectors examine suspect equipment in Iraq following the 1991 Gulf War. Photo Credit: IAEA Action Team

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Is It Time to Ditch the NPT, in Favor of the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons (Ban Treaty)?
  • Tags: ,

Did South Africa need another high-profile reminder of climate chaos, after the Cape Town drought in 2015 to 2018; the two cyclones in March to April that ravaged Mozambique, Malawi and Zimbabwe and killed more than 1 000 of our neighbours; and Easter Monday’s “Durban Rain Bomb”, which dropped 170mm that day, leaving 71 people dead?

Unless we take action, extreme weather will be amplified further, by an extreme inferno. More than 72 000 fires are now raging across the Amazon, the world’s biggest and most biodiverse rainforest, which is 55-million years old. The lives of indigenous people who depend on the forest have received limited attention, with the world’s focus mainly on climate change.

The Amazon is a carbon sink that stores carbon dioxide, and destroying the forest releases massive amounts into the atmosphere.

Amazon deforestation had declined 70% between 2004 and 2012, thanks to the Brazilian Workers’ Party government’s clamp down on abusive plantations, logging and mining. Brazil adopted laws protecting half of the Amazon and its indigenous people, which means 80% of the forest is still standing. However, 30% of this area is not under legal protection.

Brazil’s new right-wing president, Jair Bolsanaro, is destroying the Amazon to benefit the elites who elected him on that platform. The result of this ecocide is an 84% increase in fires in 2019 compared to 2018. The fires have mainly been set intentionally to clear land for cattle ranches, soya bean farms and palm oil plantations.

This increases the likelihood of runaway climate change. If we lose another fifth of the Amazon, a loop of “die back” will be triggered: a cascade of collapse that is beyond human intervention. Overall, the Amazon forest holds about 90-billion tons of carbon, which would put the equivalent of a decade’s worth of global carbon emissions into the atmosphere.

The immediate task is to put out the fires. The growing intensity of global pressure is finally forcing Bolsanaro to act. He’s responding like a petulant child, typical of the new brand of extremely conservative leaders, accusing nongovernmental organisations of trying to make him look bad and world leaders of insulting him. He is claiming that the world is undermining Brazil’s sovereignty over the Amazon — not incorrectly given what is at stake — and has demanded an apology from French President Emmanuel Macron before accepting the G7’s paltry $20-million aid offer. Finally, last Friday, Bolsonaro called in 43 000 army troops and two aeroplanes to help to extinguish fires and stop illegal deforestation.

What can amplify the pressure further? On social media, people post pleas to boycott products produced on deforested land. We should stop eating meat fed by those soya plantations, and reduce consumption of paper products. The world needs to demonstrate a dramatic cut in demand, because it typically takes years for markets to adjust. Aside from widespread declarations of vegetarianism, another approach would be people’s sanctions against Brazilian products so as to punish the companies that support the Bolsonaro government. The Amazon inferno is just one reason, as Bolsonaro, like US President Donald Trump, deserves sanctions on many other grounds.

According to Maria Luísa Mendonça, director of the Network for Social Justice and Human Rights in Brazil,

“The international community needs to call for a boycott of the main commodities produced by agribusiness: beef, soy, sugarcane and timber. I think this is the only message that is going to have an effect in terms of pressuring the Bolsonaro administration, because he doesn’t believe in climate change and he is implementing policies that are giving a green light for deforestation.”

In mid-November, President Cyril Ramaphosa is due to join the Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa (Brics) summit, which Bolsonaro will host in Brasília — and what better time for a boycott, against a man who, in any case, prioritises his alliance with fellow climate-denialist Trump ahead of other considerations?

Those are some of the “sticks” we need to wield, but others suggest we give Bolsonaro more “carrots”. Some bankers, bureaucrats and even conservative nongovernmental organisations believe in “commodifying nature” by compensating the Brazilian government for protecting natural assets as “carbon offsets”. Could we pay Brazil not to destroy the world’s most important rainforest?

Misguided incentive schemes to protect the forest have sprouted up, such as the 2010 ‘Amazon Fund’ set up by governments in Norway and Germany, wasting millions in payments to large and medium-sized farmers. The United Nations’ so-called ‘Reducing Emissions through forest Degradation and Deforestation’ (‘REDD’) financing and similar offset schemes fall prey to all manner of scams, not to mention massive fires (as exposed here).

Asked her opinion on Democracy Now television, Mendonça responds, “Giving aid to the Bolsonaro administration? I don’t think that is going to help very much. I think we need to support indigenous communities, small farmers, that are protecting their land and who produce over 70% of the food for our internal markets.” One respected group that is doing just this is Amazon Watch.

More resources for — and solidarity with — climate defenders are vital to combat the economic logic driving the climate destroyers. Agri-corporate profits from the Amazon are worth an estimated $20-billion annually. Misguided incentive schemes have sprouted up, such as the 2010 “Amazon Fund” set up by governments in Norway and Germany, which wasted millions in payments to large and medium-sized farmers. The United Nations’ so-called Reducing Emissions through forest Degradation and Deforestation (Redd) financing and similar offset schemes fall prey to all manner of scams, not to mention massive fires, as exposed on Redd-Monitor.

Those in South Africa who care about climate and indigenous people’s rights have opportunities to join the struggle. September 5 is a global day of protest action, including vigils at Brazilian embassies, such as the one at 152 Dallas Avenue in Pretoria. The day before, the University of the Witwatersrand’s international relations department is hosting a People’s Climate Justice Charter workshop.

Then, on September 20, an unprecedented Fridays For Future climate strike is expected in every country, as children lead the world in demanding immediate emissions cuts and rapid adoption of 100% renewable energy, plus massive investments in a green economy and society. Protest sites across South Africa include the Sasol headquarters in Sandton, the Joburg City Council and the Gauteng provincial legislature, among others.

Because of the inherited reliance on apartheid’s coal-addicted “minerals energy complex”, the average South African is the 11th-highest polluter on earth among countries with more than 10-million people. In that category, our emissions per person per unit of economic output is third-highest on earth (trailing only Kazakhstan and the Czech Republic). So we have a special obligation to act.

The carbon tax that treasury applied to big industry in June was shamefully tokenistic, at $0.43 a tonne, compared to Sweden’s tax of $132 a tonne.

And because, owing to apartheid and patriarchy, the vast majority of benefits of coal, smelting and high-carbon industry have gone largely to South Africa’s tiny rich, white, male minority, this struggle is a logical extension of long-standing local campaigns for racial, gender and class equity.

But as the tireless 16 year-old activist Greta Thunberg reminds us, it’s now a matter of generational justice — and our children are absolutely correct to exhibit rage against adults for, as they put it, stealing our future.

The burning Amazon is the clearest sign that the capitalist search for profits — damn the environmental “externalities” — is at the root of the climate crisis. Instead of holding onto what we know and the comforts that we have or yearn for, those of us with a comfortable lifestyle need to question the corporate-dominated power structure and, in a personal way, commit to an existence that transcends materialist desire for consumer goodies.

But what about all the workers and communities dependent upon coal and high-carbon industry? All of us need to envisage and demand a genuine just transition from climate-threatening livelihoods, not just the empty rhetoric from politicians. An example of this is the Million Climate Jobs campaign, which, if it implemented properly, even the giant metalworkers union will support.

The burning Amazon is the clearest sign that the capitalist search for profits is at the root of the climate crisis. Instead of holding onto what we know and the comforts that we have or yearn for, those of us with a comfortable lifestyle need to question the corporate-dominated power structure, and in a personal way, commit to an existence that transcends materialist desire for consumer goodies.

For the sake of our common future, the response to the climate catastrophe must be urgent, rational and fair. South African leaders and society must take a particularly strong stand, because so much is at stake, because we owe so much “climate debt” to our children and neighbours, and because we have the ability to take meaningful action, personally and politically.

*

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

Mary Galvin and Patrick Bond are scholar-activists working on climate justice issues, based at the Department of Anthropology and Development Studies at the University of Johannesburg and at the Wits School of Governance respectively.

Featured image is from Greenpeace

In a small town in southern Mexico, a public square is decorated with the bust of Mariano Abarca Roblero, a beloved father whose violent death remains unsolved.

Abarca was shot dead in 2009 after organizing protests against Canadian mining company Blackfire Exploration Limited, which was operating in his hometown of Chicomuselo with political support from the Canadian Embassy in Mexico. Activists accused the mining company of damaging the environment and harming the surrounding communities.

For his family, the past decade has been one long struggle for justice, fraught with obstruction, dismissal, and impunity — obstacles that advocates say are all too common in places where Canadian mining companies plant their flags.

Mexican authorities have arrested several people in connection with Abarca’s murder, but all have been released either before trial or on appeal. Nothing has come of public allegations that high-ranking local government officials were involved in the killing.

Meanwhile, the Canadian mining lobby has successfully blocked Canadian legislation to improve accountability for Canadian natural resource companies that operate in developing countries.

Last year, the Justice and Corporate Accountability Project, a legal and advocacy organization representing the Abarca family, filed a request in Canada for a judicial review of the Canadian authorities’ decision not to investigate the actions embassy officials took while protesters were clashing with company representatives.

In July 2019, a federal judge rejected the family’s request, saying that embassy officials did not violate any laws. However, he added, “perhaps Mr. Abarca would not have been murdered” if the embassy had acted differently.

“This decision adversely impacts the ethical operation and accountability of not just embassies, but of the public service more broadly,” said Yavar Hameed, a lawyer who represented Abarca’s family.

Mountains of Chiapas

In the mid 2000s, Canadian brothers Brent and Brad Willis left their offices in Calgary and traveled to the southern Mexican state of Chiapas, where a local mining company was sitting on one of the largest barite deposits in North America. Within a few years, they would obtain permission to operate the mine named “Payback.”

Payback pierced the side of a lush mountain overlooking the forests of Chiapas. It was located on communal lands, known in Mexico as ejidos, near a small town of about 6,000 called Chicomuselo. Mexican law requires agreement from the largely indigenous communities residing on ejidos for any extractive projects to move forward.

Beginning in late 2007, Blackfire negotiated agreements with locals, but rifts quickly emerged within the small community. Some saw an opportunity to benefit from foreign money and welcomed the chance to work in the mine. Others opposed Blackfire’s operations for various reasons, including environmental risks and concerns that the community would not benefit economically.

Mariano Abarca, an organizer from Chicomuselo and founding member of an activist network, soon became a recognizable face of the resistance to Blackfire. Abarca helped spearhead major confrontations with the company, including protests and blockades.

In one instance, according to locals, Blackfire began extracting barite near a road, in an area not covered by an agreement between the company and the ejido. Activists blocked the road and demanded compensation. Another time, protesters blocked a narrow street where clay houses had been damaged after Blackfire’s ore-filled trucks drove through Chicomuselo.

One night in August 2008, three men who had worked for Blackfire came to Abarca’s home, beat him and his son, and held a gun to his wife’s head, according to testimony by his family. One of the men — a manager of personnel and security, and driver for the executive of the mine — was eventually sentenced to prison for the attack. A complaint to the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, filed by the Abarca family and supporting organizations, said the attacker was freed after paying a fine.

While activists accused individuals linked to Blackfire of intimidation and harassment, the company’s executives continued to enlist the help of the Canadian Embassy in Mexico City. Canadian officials lobbied Mexican authorities on behalf of Blackfire on a number of issues, even as violence erupted during protests, according to documents released in 2013 under a Freedom of Information request, which include internal emails.

“All of us at Blackfire really appreciate all that the embassy has done to help pressure the state government to get things going for us. We could not do it without your help,” a Blackfire employee wrote to embassy staff in September 2008.

In the midst of the turmoil in Chicomuselo, Blackfire began depositing money into the personal bank account of the town’s then-mayor, Julio Cesar Velasquez Calderon. According to deposit slips submitted in a 2018 court affidavit, multiple monthly payments of 10,000 pesos (US$750) were documented by the company as “tips” or “rewards” over the course of a year. Blackfire also paid for a trip to the resort town of Aguascalientes for the mayor, his family, and members of his entourage.

The payments came to a dramatic end when the mayor allegedly demanded a “sexual encounter” with Cuban singer Niurka Marcos, who was scheduled to perform at a town fair paid for by Blackfire. The allegation was made in a court complaint filed by Blackfire, which also described their monthly payments as extortion by the mayor and requested that the court remove him from his post.

Brent Willis, the former president of Blackfire, told OCCRP that only two payments were made to the mayor’s bank account, but claimed they were intended to compensate Chicomuselo for damage to sidewalks from mining work and to pay for the town fair. He said the money was paid to the mayor because no one else in the town had a bank account.

In a self-published LinkedIn article, Willis told a different story, claiming that the money was for an infrastructure project. He also said the mayor stole the funds, and that Blackfire was a victim of corruption and “anti-mining propaganda.”

The documented payments were investigated by the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, which raided Blackfire’s Calgary office in 2011, but the corruption probe was closed in 2015, citing a lack of evidence to support criminal charges.

As Blackfire squared off with the mayor of Chicomuselo, Abarca continued to organize protests.

When the runoff from the mine began polluting a river that locals relied on for fresh water, he led a delegation of activists and residents to the Canadian Embassy in Mexico City to challenge its support for Blackfire. In a video recorded at the time, Abarca accused Blackfire of using “shock troops” against protestors.

The following month, Blackfire filed a complaint with the Mexican authorities, accusing activists of criminal activity. The company also sent a letter to the Canadian embassy, outlining safety concerns for planned protests. According to embassy emails, officials shared the concerns with Mexican authorities.

During that period, Abarca was arrested for allegedly disturbing the peace, criminal association, organized delinquency, blocking roadways and damages, his lawyer said. Emails indicate that embassy officials sought information about Abarca’s detention by sending inquiries to various agencies in Mexico, the local human rights commission, as well as Blackfire. Abarca was released after eight days.

In the following months, Abarca reportedly filed a complaint claiming a Blackfire employee threatened to “pump lead” into him to prevent him from further obstructing the mine.

Four days later, on the evening of Nov. 27, 2009, Abarca was shot and killed in front of his home by an assassin who fled on a motorcycle.

Pointing Fingers

Four months after Abarca’s murder, Horacio Culebro Borrayas, a former lawyer for Blackfire who was himself detained in connection with the murder, gave a statement to the National Human Rights Commission saying he had attended a meeting between Blackfire Mexico’s general director and the sub-secretary of the state of Chiapas, Nemesio Ponce Sanchez.

According to Borrayas, at that meeting the Mexican official identified the amount of money that needed to be paid to officials and other interested parties to get the mine up and running. When the Blackfire director brought up the blockade of the road, Sanchez claimed that the only real problem was Abarca, and said he would “weed him out” and if necessary “eliminate” him.

In an interview with OCCRP, Borrayas detailed a surprise meeting with Sanchez shortly after he spoke out against the Chiapas government. According to Borrayas, Sanchez denied ordering the hit, and implicated a different high-ranking public official.

Borrayas also said he feared for his life as a result of his statement to the rights commission.

“They know I’m not going to give up on my conviction that it was the government who killed him.”

Multiple attempts by reporters to reach both former officials were unsuccessful.

Hundreds attended Abarca’s funeral. His coffin was carried down the streets of Chicomuselo, and the procession stopped in front of Blackfire’s local office before heading to the cemetery. Ten days after the murder, the state environment ministry closed the Payback mine, citing unauthorized road use and environmental violations.

When news of the activist’s murder broke, the Canadian Embassy in Mexico City crafted a strategy with press releases, talking points, and briefings that were circulated among the staff to solidify the official message: “This is a matter for Mexican Officials.”

Internally, Canadian officials discussed how Blackfire could file a claim under NAFTA’s dispute settlement clause, but the case never moved forward.

Mexican authorities initially arrested three people in connection with Abarca’s murder, all of whom were linked to Blackfire. One was convicted and spent time in prison, but was released on appeal when a court ruled that he did not receive due process. Others were later arrested and released, including Borrayas. The allegations that a Chiapas state official proposed “eliminating” Abarca for obstructing the mine remain unaddressed by officials and, according to the Abarca family, no one is currently being investigated for the murder.

The Chiapas state prosecutor did not respond to requests for comment.

The state of Chiapas granted Abarca’s widow and their four children a lifetime pension, the details of which remain undisclosed. The family, however, continues to demand justice and push for a thorough investigation into who is responsible for the murder, both in Mexico and in Canada, where a powerful mining lobby has been instrumental in protecting the country’s extractives industry from litigation.

In 2010, the Canadian parliament voted against a proposed law that would have provided an avenue for mining companies to be held accountable for allegations of human rights abuses abroad.

Liberal MP John McKay, the author of the bill, told OCCRP that a representative of Blackfire visited his office to explain that the situation in Chiapas was a labor dispute.

“I thought that was an interesting description of how you handle labor disputes,” McKay said.

Willis told OCCRP that he did not recall who met with McKay.

In the decade since Abarca’s murder, several other cases have been brought forward by foreign nationals in Canadian courts against mining companies for alleged corruption, environmental damage, and human rights violations. In a precedent-setting case in 2017, a judge ruled that British Columbia-based Tahoe Resources would have to answer complaints by Guatemalan activists in a Canadian court. The case is ongoing.

Last year the government created the Canadian Ombudsman for Responsible Enterprise, an oversight body charged with addressing human rights complaints against Canadian businesses abroad. The office has been criticized by activists as a “powerless advisory post” because it lacks the judicial power to compel evidence from companies accused of abuses. Furthermore, advocates said that the appointment of a former petroleum industry lobbyist as the first ombudsman was not a promising start.

The Mining Association of Canada told OCCRP in an email that it doesn’t support empowering the ombudsman’s office to investigate complaints of misconduct. Instead, the association believes the watchdog should engage in “collaborative dispute resolution,” working directly with accused mining companies and affected communities.

On Aug. 19, the Abarca family said in a public statement that they plan to appeal the recent decision in a Canadian court.

“This won’t bring my father back to life. The family knows that,” said Jose Luis Abarca. “But we can’t keep allowing Mexico to be a pantheon for foreign companies who pay money, contract killers, and we end up burying our loved ones.”

Additional reporting by Lilia Saúl and files from MiningWatch Canada.

*

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

Featured image: A memorial to Mariano Abarca Roblero. 2010. (Credit: Dawn Paley)