Israeli State Sponsored Torture of Young non-Jewish children, an Australian documentary film.

This documentary film is laying bare what the Israeli supporting media always tries to cover up. There are a lot of upsetting scenes in this film so viewer discretion is advised.

All rights belong to Four Corners Program,  Australia.

.

.

*

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 TruePublica

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Video: Israeli State Sponsored Torture of Young Non-Jewish Children
  • Tags: ,

Ambassador Matjila, South Africa:

“It is indeed deeply troubling that a long-established arms control instrument such as the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces (INF) Treaty has unraveled, placing not only the region of Europe but the whole world at risk of a nuclear war and catastrophe.”

On Thursday, August 22, 2019, Russia and China called a UN Security Council meeting to address the perils resulting from the US withdrawal from the INF treaty. The High Representative on Disarmament Affairs, Ms. Izumi Nakamitsu noted:

“The recent collapse of the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces (INF) Treaty removed one of the few constraints on the development and deployment of destabilizing and dangerous classes of missiles.”

Dmitri Polyanskiy, Deputy Permanent Representative of the Russian Federation stated:

“On August 2, a very sad and important event took place—the United States withdrew from the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces (INF) Treaty, which, in no small measure, played a key role in building both the regional and global security architecture. …The INF Treaty was crucial for international détente…..With time it became increasingly clear that the Treaty, like other disarmament and arms-control agreements, had become inconvenient for our American partners, who were convinced of their exceptionalism and became increasingly determined to impose their inequitable unilateral schemes of international relations on others….To be frank, today it is not our American partners that we are primarily addressing, because their views are clear. But we are very surprised by the stubborn position that is being adopted by our European colleagues… Are they aware that, because of the geopolitical ambitions of the United States, we are all just one step away from an uncontrolled, unregulated arms race?….. according to publically available data, the US military budget is about $700 billion, while the budget of NATO amounts to $1.4 trillion. These are just approximate figures. For reference, the military budget of Russia, which is allegedly a threat to us all, is about $60 billion, that is, more than 20 times lower than that of NATO….Just think about how much we could have done if the money that our Western colleagues have been allocating for military purposes had been spent to achieve the Sustainable Development Goals and help less developed and developing countries.”“

There is a sense of déjà vu about this development of a new arms race, which seems to be an inexorable component of capitalist economies. Several years ago both China and Russia were alarmed by the US threat to deploy THAAD (Terminal High Altitude Area Defense) missiles in the Republic of Korea. THAAD posed an existential threat to both Russia and China. On August 22, 2019 Chinese Ambassador Zhang Jun described the current threat resulting from the US withdrawal from the INF treaty in terms clearly reminiscent of the dangers and alarm expressed by Russia and China regarding THAAD:

Ambassador Zhang:

“The United States withdrawal from the INF treaty is another negative act in the pursuit of unilateralism and the shirking of international obligations by the United States. Its true intention is to render the Treaty no longer binding and seek a unilateral, absolute military advantage. China has always pursued a national defense policy that is defensive in nature. China’s land-based intermediate-range missiles are all deployed within Chinese territory. They are for defence purposes only and pose no threat to any other country. China firmly opposes the United States attempts to deploy land-based intermediate-range missiles in the Asia-Pacific region and hopes that the United States will exercise restraint and be rational in that regard.”

The US seems to have an irresistible attraction to the Asia-Pacific region (among others regions, including Latin America) and an uncontrollable desire to place missiles on the territory of that region, which would facilitate dominance over the entire area, its peoples, and its resources. Decision seems to remain with Japan and the Republic of Korea, theoretically staunch allies of the US and NATO, as to whether or not to permit their territories to host placement of these missiles, which contain the potential to exterminate all living creatures in that area of the world – and, inevitably, beyond. This is the among the greatest of all threats to international peace and security.

*

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

Carla Stea is Global Research’s correspondent at United Nations Headquarters, New York, N.Y.

Featured image is from Alternet

The telecom industry’s pr campaign describes 5G as the next generation of ’ultra fast wireless technology that has the potential to connect everything from smart phones to self driving cars to virtual worlds” as if the added amenities will make a benign contribution to American life or that the American public has been in eager anticipation of its arrival – neither of which is true.

There is, however, a far more sinister side to 5G that is being driven by a weapons-grade millimeter wave radiation that remains hidden from the American public as all the basic 5G components (especially the AIs and Directed Energy Weapons (DEWs) are totally dependent on the electro magnetic Spectrum. What is new to the American public is 5Gs connection with the menacing MK Ultra and Dews as examples of the nefarious radio frequency weapons which were in experimental stages since at least 1985.  All of the US radio frequency projects have been based on Nikola Tesla’s research utilizing an abundant supply of free wireless energy on the EM Spectrum.   In other words, 5G’s speedier mode is the window dressing in order to expand its current stock and expedite a new generation of sophisticated radio frequency weapons, presumably for interstellar military application.

It was Tesla’s famed Coil which provided the first awareness of an unlimited potent source of energy that exists within the radio frequency range of the Spectrum and that that energy could be utilized to create radio frequency weapons. In 1934, Tesla revealed the first particle beam projector that he referred to as the ‘peace ray’, a defensive weapon generating an intense targeted beam of energy to take down any enemy airplane.   Today those weapons are known as Directed Energy Weapons (DEWs) and MK Ultra, all of which rely on electro magnetic waves.

Since 5G is dependent on the electro magnetic Spectrum for functioning and as details of 5G’s more comprehensive agenda eke out, the need for a particular radio frequency is indicative of 5G’s most essential priorities.  As the Spectrum is broken into bands, each bandwidth and its physical characteristics differentiate the low and mid band from the higher, more specialized millimeter band.  It is the specific location on the Spectrum that makes each band suitable for a different purpose as they move up the scale of radio frequency.

For instance, 4G networks use frequencies below 6 GHz while 5G will use extremely high wave frequencies from 24 GHz and up to 90 GHz known as millimeter wave bands with some predictions up to the 300 GHz range.  The millimeter bands are required for the Massive Internet of Things (MIOT), Artificial Intelligence and Directed Energy Weapons (DEWs), all of which require the highest end of the Spectrum scale which also represents increasingly higher levels of radiation exposure.

The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) has already held two auctions in the 24 GHz– 28 GHz range with Auction 102 in the 24 GHz range arousing much controversy regarding the deleterious effects on NASA and NOAA’s weather prediction and forecasting ability.  Auction 103 (37 GHz, 39 GHz and 47 GHz) is scheduled for December, 2019 as the largest amount of Spectrum ever auctioned.  All three auctions will utilize the millimeter band of Spectrum thereby allowing for accelerated development of those 5G specialized elements previously mentioned.  

It is only a demented mind that can conceive of an experimental, dangerous technology like 5G with no independent safety or health analysis that threatens the biosphere and all its living creatures. Instead the public is being presented with a new era of useless, high tech harmful gadgetry as the end product from a generation of crazed scientists and feeble politicians who have lost their grip on reality.

With a pervasive radio frequency and electromagnetic radiation defined as progress, inanimate objects like artificial intelligence are deliberately confused with humanity as if trans-human robots offer a new paradigm of deep evolutionary consciousness.

In what now seems like an eerily prescient documentary, a 1985 CNN Special Report on “Electromagnetic Frequency Weapons,” described the state of  US military experiments on DEWs and mind control weaponry utilizing the electro magnetic field.

The following was from CNN Special Assignment reporter Chuck deCaro in the 1985 video:

Imagine the implications of a weapon with no visible trace.  A weapon that could knock out  ships, tanks and planes as fast as the speed of light” and ”Scientists have succeeded in creating limited types of artificial lightening and some think these could be the forerunner of a new type of directed energy weapon; part of a family of weapons which operate within the radio frequency segment of electro magnetic spectrum and are thus referred to as radio frequency weapons.”

“Highly computerized planes and even new models of  cars might be enough to force a plane out of sky or cause an auto to crash. 

Dr, Larissa Vilenskaya, a Russian research scientist working in the US said

I was surprised after coming  here that the (health) influence of electro magnetic fields was almost completely ignored here” with deCaro inquiring whether the US military was working in the field of electronic mind control.

deCaro:

Over the past year, CNN has repeatedly asked the Department of Defense and Air Force about radio frequency weapons.  After much resistance, DOD finally said the subject was “too sensitive to discuss.”

Dr. Robert Bass, a  physicist and PhD in mathematics is working on US weapons research said

We are behind the Soviet Union in directed energy weapons based on 60 GHz microwave beams.

Bass described Soviet weaponry as high powered microwaves (HPM) similar to a “focused ultra high intensity radar beam” that would literally cook humans, knock out computers, electronic surveillance and communications gear.  An operational radio frequency weapon, reasonably cheap and reusable, could devastate sophisticated and expensive war machinery.”

Bass cited “The $20 million F16 fighter for example is totally controlled by electronic sensors and computers, with no manual flight controls, the plane would literally fall out of the sky after being hit with a high intensity pulse of microwave radiation” which sounds eerily like one of the Malaysian flights.  Scientists say that micro wave or other types of radio frequency pulses operating at specific frequency can be transmitted with little or no loss of power.  

De Caro reported on his participation in a “real life experiment of a prototype device designed to project images into the mind without electrodes” not unlike what became known as MK Ultra.“The prototype machine developed from Soviet scientific data could have a profound effect as a weapon of war.  Electronic mind control research is not new.

In the 1960s, Dr. Jose Delgado demonstrated remote control over a charging bull by connecting a radio antenna to electrodes inserted in the bull’s brain which proved that the animal’s aggressive impulses could be thwarted by electronically manipulating the bull‘s muscle reflexes.”  Delgado said “do you realizefantastic possibility if on the outside, we could modify the inside…could we give messages to the inside. but the beauty is that we are not using electrodes.” Delgado explained that by using low pulsating magnetic fields “any functions in the brain, emotions, intellect, personality could be perhaps modified by this noninvasive technology.”

DeCaro further reported on a scientist employed by the US government who refused to be identified and has done secret radio frequency weapon research stating that tests prove humans are susceptible to remote alteration of mood and awareness. “Certain kinds of weak electro magnetic signals work exactly like drugs.  So the promise is that anything you can do with drugs, you could do with the right electro magnetic signals.  Apparently there are specific sites involved, specific functions involved, it is a matter of matching up just like a pill or a drug to cause and effect. You could have a cause and effect relationship between a magnetic field and a biological function.”

In 2004, the Encyclopedia of Espionage, Intelligence and Security confirmed the role of radio frequency weapons (also known as DEWs) and HPM weapons in their ability to disrupt plane or vehicle safety systems.  In addition, scientists at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory developed an HPM weapon for the Department of Justice aimed at a moving vehicle:  the HPM could shut off the electronic ignition, thus bringing a high-speed car chase to an abrupt end.

In summation, it is no secret that there is an all pervasive, out-of-control element within our government that no one in authority, not any President, not any Member of Congress can limit or control their power and influence – we now know that 5G will provide them with the ultimate neural remote-control weapons to sublimate the population.

*

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

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 A Weapons-grade Millimeter Wave Radiation: 5G’s Role and Its Trans-human Agenda
  • Tags:

On August 18, Senator Bernie Sanders, a leading 2020 presidential candidate, unveiled a sweeping criminal-justice reform initiative that aims to cut the unprecedentedly huge U.S. prison population in half, end all mandatory minimum sentences, and root out unabashed corporate profiteering and greed in what the Independent senator from Vermont had previously called “the American Gulag.” So far, the only reaction among other politicians in Washington, D.C. has been to shrug off his idea of reforming our penal system: “If it ain’t broke, why fix it?” But why is Senator Sanders so worried (and angry) about America’s prison system?

Some sobering statistics

The U.S. locks up more people per capita than any other nation on earth. According to the latest statistics released by the U.S. Bureau of Justice (BJS), our country boasts by far the world’s most populated prison system. Close to 2.3 million adults are currently incarcerated in America’s 102 federal prisons, 1,719 state prisons, 3,163 local jails, 1,852 juvenile correctional facilities, and 80 Indian Country jails. The number of prisoners equates about 700 adults behind bars for every 100,000 people residing in our country. In addition, nearly 5 million adults are on probation or parole. In toto, approximately 7 million adults are under some kind of correctional supervision (prison, jail, probation or parole)—equaling about 3% of all adults in the entire resident population. Over 540,000 Americans are locked up without even having been convicted or sentenced. Many people are detained in local jails simply because they cannot afford to pay the bail set by the courts to secure their release—with the median bail for felonies being at least $10,000. More than 63 thousand confined youth are held in our juvenile detention system—often for non-violent offenses or even no crime at all. (Wendy Sawyer and Peter Wagner, “Mass Incarceration: The Whole Pie 2019,” Prison Policy Initiative, March 19, 2019)

The only country that comes close to the U.S. in this respect is Turkmenistan in Central Asia, given its incarceration rate of 552 adults per 100,000 population (yet Turkmenistan has only about 30 thousand adult offenders in its prisons and jails). In comparison, our neighbor to the north, Canada, has a prison population of around 41 thousand, translating into an incarceration rate of 114 adults per 100,000 population. Mexico, our southern neighbor, has a prison population of about 200 thousand, translating into an incarceration rate of 164 adults per 100,000 population. Holland has an incarceration rate of just 59 adults per 100,000 population, while Japan has an even lower documented incarceration rate of only 41 adults per 100,000 population. (Peter Wagner and Wendy Sawyer, “States of Incarceration: The Global Context 2018,” Prison Policy Initiative, June 2018)

The racial and ethnic makeup of the U.S. prison population continues to be significantly different from the demographics of the nation as a whole. In 2017, blacks represented 12% of the U.S. adult population but 33% of the sentenced prison inmates. Whites accounted for 64% of all adults but 30% of the prison population. And while Hispanics represented 16% of the adult population, they accounted for 23% of all inmates. Compared to the past, the gap between the number of blacks and whites behind bars seems to be shrinking. (John Gramlich, “The Gap Between the Number of Blacks and Whites in Prison is Shrinking,” FactTank: News in the Numbers, April 30, 2019)

For-profit private prisons

For-profit private prisons and jails have become very popular of late, especially among GOP-controlled state and local governments, most of which have at the same time passed measures designed to maintain high levels of local incarceration, while simultaneously slashing their spending on penal institutions. While only 8% of all incarcerated people are currently held in America’s private prisons, by “privatizing services like phone calls, medical care and commissary, prisons and jails are unloading the costs of incarceration onto incarcerated people and their families, trimming their budgets at an unconscionable social cost.” (Wendy Sawyer and Peter Wagner, “Mass Incarceration: The Whole Pie 2019,” Prison Policy Initiative, March 19, 2019)

In at least 20 states, probation and parole are also privatized and profit-driven. In Georgia, for instance, privatized probation alone represents a $40 million-a-year industry. In Florida, private probation officials are charging a 40% collections surcharge on probationers’ debts to the “Sunshine state.” (Chandra Bozelko and Ryan Lo, “You’ve Served Your Time. Now Here’s Your Bill,” HuffPost News, September 16, 2018)

Another, more widespread “innovation” involving “offender funded” justice, which is also very popular with state and local governments is pay-to-stay imprisonment. This is the barbaric practice of charging prisoners for the costs of their accommodation behind bars. In 49 states, prisons and jails can charge inmates up to $66 per day or more (depending on the maximum amount allowed under state law), which can leave locked-up individuals with thousands of dollars of debt upon release, further impoverishing those who already lack material resources and making it practically impossible for even the most well-intentioned ex-prisoners to become once again productive members of society. In this form of modern-day slavery, people who are incarcerated are served with an itemized bill upon release, including hefty booking and release fees as well as the inflated costs of their imprisonment—from bed, (often inedible) food and telephone calls to other necessities such as personal hygiene products and medical bills. Should you also lose your job as a result of spending time in jail—and this is your sole source of income—you are in big-time trouble:

“If you fail to pay the fee when you are released, it may end up on your credit report. When you apply for a new job, they may do a credit check and you could be denied employment because of the pay-to-stay fees’ impact on your credit. You’ve lost your job and you cannot get a new one…all of this keeps you from work, earning an honest check, and paying your bills and your accumulated fees.” (American Civil Liberties Union of Ohio, “In Jail & in Debt: Ohio’s Pay-to-Stay Fees,” Fall 2015, www.acluohio.org: p. 8)

Departments of corrections at the state and county level have reportedly filed countless lawsuits against former inmates seeking to collect their imprisonment-related debts often ranging up to tens of thousands and even hundreds of thousands of dollars. Prison officials appear to go after employed people whose income they can verify through financial disclosure forms, mail, bank or brokerage statements. In other words, Department of Correction bureaucrats are hounding former prisoners with enough personal income to pay for the skyrocketing and inflated costs of their own incarceration. (Jean Trounstine, “Fighting the Fees that Force Prisoners to Pay for Their Incarceration,” Prison Policy Initiative, August 18, 2019)

“Prison slave labor”

While the U.S. news media have been lambasting foreign countries like China for employing “prison slave labor,” our own prisons and jails are supplying a large, cheap but invisible labor force. Domestic critics have blasted the practice of economic exploitation of prison laborers as being a modern form of slavery. Prisoners are either employed by private companies selected through the federal Prison Industry Enhancement Certification Program (PIECP) or by state-owned businesses called “correctional industries.” While the for-profit prison industry has lobbied for even more “factories behind fences,” most inmates still work for the prison or jail where they happen to be serving time simply because:

“…prisons do rely on the labor of incarcerated people for food service, laundry and other operations, and they pay incarcerated workers unconscionably low wages: our 2017 study found that on average, incarcerated people earn between 86 cents and $3.45 per day for the most common prison jobs. In at least five states, those jobs pay nothing at all. Moreover, work in prison is compulsory, with little regulation or oversight, and incarcerated workers have few rights and protections. Forcing people to work for low or no pay and no benefits allows prisons to shift the costs of incarceration to incarcerated people—hiding the true cost of running prisons from most Americans.” (Wendy Sawyer and Peter Wagner, “Mass Incarceration: The Whole Pie 2019,” Prison Policy Initiative, March 19, 2019)

Our prisons and jails are paying prisoners employed inside their places of incarceration much less today than they were paying them in the recent past. The national average of the wages paid to incarcerated workers in regular non-industry prison jobs range from 14 to 63 cents per hour. And the national average wages paid to incarcerated workers in prison jobs for state-owned businesses (“correctional industries”) range from 33 cents to $1.41 per hour. Regular prison jobs are still unpaid in Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, South Carolina and Texas. (Wendy Sawyer, “How Much Do Incarcerated People Earn in Each State,” Prison Policy Initiative, April 10, 2017) Given such inhumanely paltry wages for incarcerated people who are forced to work while in prison, it is hardly surprising that

“the economic exploitation of prisoners doesn’t end when they’re released. In 49 states, inmates are charged for the costs of their own incarceration…. No inmate can earn enough inside to cover the costs of their incarceration; each one will necessarily leave with a bill. The state of Florida, which pays inmate workers a maximum of $0.55 per hour, billed former inmate Dee Taylor $55,000 for his three-year sentence…. Ex-offenders in the United States owe about $50 billion for various criminal justice costs like pretrial detention, court fees and incarceration costs…. These debts can make it even harder for a returning citizen to rebuild their life after incarceration, because in 46 states, failure to repay them is an offense punishable by yet more incarceration.” (Chandra Bozelko and Ryan Lo, “You’ve Served Your Time. Now Here’s Your Bill,” HuffPost News, September 16, 2018)

Neither liberal Holland (which is, in fact, shutting down some of its prisons), nor Japan, nor even the far less liberal Canada have had much use for private prisons or cheap prison labor designed to punish and exploit the incarcerated, rather than reforming them.

Drugs and America’s imprisonment rate

Just how much of this mass incarceration is a result of our “war on drugs”? It is not entirely clear if a country’s drug policy contributes overwhelmingly to the size of its prison population, but many believe that the war on drugs has filled American prisons and jails to the brim with non-violent offenders, most of whom have done little more than being caught in possession of small amounts of soft drugs like marijuana. Currently, around 451,000 Americans are imprisoned for non-violent drug offenses. That is, 1 in 5 incarcerated people is locked up for committing a non-violent drug offense. The “war on drugs” was launched officially in the early 1970s by President Richard Nixon who believed that psychedelic drugs, “free love,” and rock-and-roll music were turning patriotic crew-cut Americans into long-haired, antiwar hippies and anti-establishment radicals (an example of such presumed radical transformation would be the very popular 1970s movie-musical Hair). Through shrill or hypocritical presidential slogans like Ronnie Reagan’s “Just Say No!” or Bill Clinton’s “Don’t Inhale! I Know I Didn’t…”, our policy of criminalizing the possession (rather than just the production, transportation, and sale) of all drugs, soft or hard, including even tiny amounts of pot for personal use, has contributed to swelling the ranks of inmates in the big house.

According to a Washington Post news story, the number of federal inmates alone has grown tenfold since 1980 due to “…steep mandatory minimum-prison sentences for many low-level non-violent drug offenders” and is threatening to unravel the Justice Department budget. (Brad Plumer, “The War on Drugs Is Breaking the Justice Department Budget,” WP, August 12, 2013) In contrast, Holland’s far more enlightened drug policy has separated soft drugs from hard drugs, tolerating the former while criminalizing only the latter. In Holland, the possession of marijuana (which they call “hashish”) is ostensibly illegal, but is widely tolerated by the cops as evidenced by the numerous so-called “cafes” selling nothing else but pot all over the capital city of Amsterdam. Perhaps that’s the reason why they have a much lower incarceration rate than us.

Canada’s incarceration rate is rather similar to that of the U.S. This is hardly surprising, when one reads that “Canada has the dubious honour of having the highest number of drug arrests per capita of any nation other than the United States….” (Diane Riley, “Drugs and Drug Policy in Canada,” Canadian Foundation for Drug Policy, November 1998) All drugs, soft and hard, including pot (cannabis), are illegal under Canadian law and the penalty for being caught is often imprisonment—although no automatic drug-related sentences are imposed like in our own country. Japan is not that different from either the U.S. or Canada in terms of drug policy but has a much lower incarceration rate (lower than even Holland’s):

“Japanese law is among the harshest in the world…. Japanese law and society at large usually view drug possession as almost an unconscionable act. Japanese citizens who are caught growing, possessing, or using illegal drugs of pretty much any kind find themselves in deep trouble. Not only do drug offenders face up to five years in prison for their first offense…. People who get caught with drugs can be fired from their jobs, expelled from school, and have their life flipped, turned upside-down…. Tokyo sure ain’t Amsterdam.” (Hashi, “Drug Laws in Japan: You Better Have a Prescription,” Tofugu.com, December 2, 2011)

Sounds a lot like Saudi Arabia, the medieval kingdom in the Arabian Peninsula where they chop off the heads of first-time drug offenders (I could not find out what the Saudis do when they catch you doing drugs for a second time). So, the relationship between Japan’s drug policy and incarceration rate may not be as straightforward as in America’s case.

This article will not deal with the cruel physical, sexual and mental violence and abuse which are reportedly pervasive and endemic in America’s penal institutions, including military prisons, immigration detention facilities, civil commitment centers, and state psychiatric hospitals. A fact which is very well-known to American judges, which has not deterred them from meting out unjustifiably harsh and lengthy sentences “like giving away candy”—in the words of Henry Hill, the real-life protagonist of GoodFellas, the 1990 biographical crime movie directed by Hollywood filmmaker Martin Scorsese.

*

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.

Rossen Vassilev Jr. is a journalism senior at the Ohio University in Athens, Ohio.

In response to the “Stop the Coup” call made by the “Another Europe is Possible” movement, thousands of people took to the streets in London, Manchester, Oxford, Glasgow, Birmingham, Brighton, Swansea, Bristol, Liverpool and other cities to reject the five-weeks closure of the Parliament prompted by Prime Minister Boris Johnson.

In Central London, near Downing Street where the PM’s official residence is located, the British “shouted ‘What do we want? Democracy! When do we want it? Now!’, ‘Boris Johnson, shame on you’ and ‘Hey, hey, ho, ho, Boris Johnson’s got to go’,” The Guardian reported.

“The public outrage at Boris Johnson shutting down democracy has been deafening. People are right to take to the streets,” the Labour Party leader Jeremy Corbyn said and encouraged “everyone to join the demonstrations in London and across the country.”

Consequently with such widespread feeling, demonstrations in at least 32 cities, in Britain and Northern Ireland, were reported by local media until Saturday noon.

This massive response was expected to be accompanied by other unusual actions in this country: Momentum, a left-wing organization attached to the Labor Party, called to occupy bridges and block roads.

“Disruption is the only form of leverage protesters can rely on,” said Michael Chessum, the former president of the University of London students’ union, who describes himself as “hard left,” The Telegraph reported.

​​​“Ultimately we are not going to persuade Boris Johnson to change his mind through some intellectual exercise… this process needs to force the government to change its course,” he added.

As part of his offers to his supporters, PM Johnson pledged to take Britain out of the European Union (EU) on Oct. 31. In order to do so, he asked Queen Elizabeth to shut the British parliament for around three weeks.

This move is aimed at hindering efforts by his political opponents to stop him from performing a “Hard Brexit”, whereby the U.K. will leave not only the EU institutions but also the EU single market and customs union.

“A Hard Brexit would still require the U.K. to pay a divorce settlement to the EU as part of a withdrawal treaty, but it would not require the U.K. to sign up to the free movement of EU nationals or be subject to the European Court of Justice,” the Investec Bank’s webpage explained.

“The U.K. would also be able to sign independent free-trade deals with any country without any restrictions.”​​​​​​​

The Hard Brexit option might be, however, accompanied by sensitive economic and political problems. If the British parliament were not closed, opposition lawmakers could discuss them and pass legislation to avoid a no-deal Brexit, when they return from their summer recess on Sep. 3.

Among the most worrying issues of a hard departure is the so-called “Irish Backstop”, which is part of the withdrawal agreement negotiated between the EU and former PM Theresa May. According to this safeguard, the U.K will commit to keep its border with the Republic of Ireland open.

PM Johnson wants the backstop removed, for it could leave Northern Ireland operating under different regulatory rules than the rest of the U.K. The EU and Ireland say Britain has yet to come up with acceptable alternatives.

*

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

Featured image is from Wikimedia Commons

The Israeli army was well able to hide its soldiers along the Lebanese-Israeli border. Hezbollah defeated the Israeli army without firing a shot by forcing the army to disappear and leave puppets behind in its military vehicles. That is to prevent any opportunity for Hezbollah to avenge the killing of its members in Syria, for sending booby-trapped drones to the southern suburb of Beirut and for attacking a Palestinian military officer in the Bekaa. Along the border with Lebanon, from the coastal city of Naqoura to the occupied town of the Shebaa Farms, for about 60 kilometres, Hezbollah is searching for Israeli military targets without finding any apparent soldier. That means Hezbollah would be obliged to target a non-visible object inland. Hezbollah’s bank of objectives is rich and selecting an Israeli target will not be very difficult. It is not forced to reveal the exact time of revenge, happy to keep Israel on its toes, spreading fear and continuous anxiety over the entire country.

Hezbollah is not in a hurry to close the account and may not really need to jump the gun. Striking a far-flung target would reveal Hezbollah’s capabilities: better to keep its special arsenal unrevealed for a more serious, wider military confrontation. Hezbollah is therefore in favour of using laser missiles, snipers or camouflaged booby-traps, or precision missiles and suicide drones that can inflict heavy casualties on Israeli soldiers as they gather together (if and when possible!).

For the first time since 2006 (the third war on Lebanon), a whole week has gone by without any Israeli ground violations. The number of these violations was up to five per week and about 167 per month (air, land and sea), rebuffing the UN Resolution 1701. Israel continues to violate Lebanese airspace every day, dozens of times a day.

Hezbollah succeeded in its psychological warfare, according to the Israeli press. Naturally, the Israelis are closely monitoring any movement on the border, any open source information or any intelligence material that could help thwart an attack. However, the theory that “Israel is an invincible army” has been ended : it was irrevocably subdued by a television threat from Hezbollah’s Secretary-General Hassan Nasrallah.

The Israeli army is on high alert, it cancelled leave for a large number of combat units, and asked settlers not to approach any fields near the border. The commander of Israel’s northern front, General Amir Baram, paradoxically rejected the settlers’ request to open shelters so as not to make them even more nervous while waiting for the deadly response from Hezbollah.

For the first time it seems that Israeli soldiers along the border would even be pleased if three or four of their comrades were killed because it would mean that death had not knocked at their own door. Israeli soldiers would breathe a sigh of relief and return to their daily work with greater peace of mind once Hezbollah’s attack were concluded.

From Israeli military and political statements, it seems that the winds of war are far from blowing that strongly: that neither side favours a wider confrontation. But it is too early to speculate because will be up to Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to decide whether to really drag Israel into war or not.

Israel will not be able to hide for long behind the barricades and the IDF will not be able to remain in its hideouts for long. Time is getting short:  closer and closer every day to the hit that Hezbollah promised. Then the pressure will be lifted but not on Netanyahu who knows that the psychological war has damaged him despite his public boasting about achievements in Syria and Iraq. But he certainly cannot boast of striking Lebanon or Hezbollah, precisely because he has already lost his first battle. Israel awakened the Shiite genie in the 1982 war when it invaded Lebanon and brought Sayyed Nasrallah to Hezbollah leadership in 1992 by assassinating Sayyed Abbas al-Moussawi, the former Hezbollah leader. Israel apparently has once more failed to learn from history and from its previous mistakes.

*

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

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Israel Is Hiding Its Soldiers and Hezbollah Is Winning Without Firing a Shot – So Far
  • Tags: , ,

The Queen’s Active Role in Britain’s Right Wing Coup

September 2nd, 2019 by Craig Murray

Our obsequious media is actively perpetuating the myth that the monarch can do no wrong, and is apolitical. In fact the monarchy has been active and absolutely central to the seizure of power from the Westminster parliament in a right wing coup. Yesterday’s collaboration at Balmoral between the Queen and Jacob Rees Mogg is only the latest phase.

The monarch appoints the UK Prime Minister. The convention is that this must be the person who can command the support of the majority in the House of Commons. That does not necessarily have to be from a single party, it can be via a coalition or pact with other parties, but the essential point, established since Hanoverian times, is that the individual must have a majority in the Commons.

The very appointment of Boris Johnson by  Elizabeth Saxe Coburg Gotha was a constitutional outrage. Johnson may have been selected by Conservative Party members, but that is not the qualification to be PM. Johnson very plainly did not command a majority in the House of Commons, proven by the fact that still at no stage has he demonstrated that he does. I do not write merely with hindsight.

Johnson’s flagship policy was always No Deal Brexit. Contrary to the monarchist propaganda spewed out across the entire MSM, not only is it untrue that the Queen had “no constitutional choice” but to appoint Johnson, the Queen had a clear constitutional duty not to appoint a Prime Minister whose flagship policy had already been specifically voted down time and again by the House of Commons.

The Queen has now doubled down on this original outrage by proroguing the Westminster parliament in conspiracy with old Etonians Rees Mogg and Johnson, specifically so that the House of Commons cannot vote down Johnson.

The monarchy will always be an extremely useful institution in promoting the political aims of the upper classes, not least because of the ludicrous media promulgation of its infallibility. When you have former Prime Minister John Major, senior Tories like Philip Hammond and Michael Heseltine, and the Speaker of the House of Commons himself all talking of “consitutional outrage”, it is plainly preposterous to insist that the monarchy cannot, by definition, have done anything wrong.

The Queen has appointed a Prime Minister who does not have the support of the House of Commons and then has conspired to prevent the House of Commons from obstructing her Prime Minister. That is not the action of a politically neutral monarchy. The institution should have been abolished decades ago. I do hope that all those who recognise the constitutional outrage, will acknowledge the role of the monarchy and that the institution needs to be swiftly abolished.

*

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.

Time to Liberate Afghanistan

September 1st, 2019 by Eric Margolis

After 18 years of war in Afghanistan– America’s longest – US and Taliban negotiators are said to be close to an agreement that may see the withdrawal of many of the 14,000 US soldiers in that remote nation.

That’s the official version. President Donald Trump keeps changing his mind about the number of US troops to be withdrawn. The latest version from the White House has 5,000 US troops remaining in Afghanistan as a permanent garrison to guard the major air bases at Bagram and Kandahar and protect the US-installed puppet Afghan government in Kabul.

Without US troops to defend it, the Afghan regime of Ashraf Ghani would be swept away in days. Even Trump has admitted this. Keeping the Ghani regime safe in Kabul would at least provide a fig leaf to claim the US-backed government was still in charge.

The pro-war right in Washington is crying to high heaven at this prospect. Senators and congressmen who never heard a shot fired in anger are ready to fight to the last 18-year-old American soldier and keep the trillion-dollar war sputtering on.

To date, 2,426 American soldiers have been killed in combat in Afghanistan, with some 20,000 wounded, many of them permanently maimed. Thousands of US-paid mercenaries and foreign troops dragooned into this conflict have been killed or wounded. Heavy Afghan civilian casualties, mostly caused by air strikes, are covered up by US occupation authorities. Without 24/7 US air support, American forces would have long ago been driven from Afghanistan, as were their British and Soviet predecessors.

Proponents of the Afghan War insist that ‘terrorists’ will take over if US troops withdraw. By now, it’s unclear who the so-called ‘terrorists’ really are. Previously, the US branded Taliban as terrorists. But now that the US is negotiating with Taliban to end the war, Washington claims the threats are the Islamic State from Iraq and something called ‘the Khorasan Group,’ a figment of Washington’s imagination.

The US warns that if Taliban wins, it will turn Afghanistan into a base for international terrorism. This is absurd. Taliban today controls more than half the nation by day, and 80% by night. There is plenty of room left for anti-US groups.

Contrary to US claims, Taliban was never a terrorist group. I was in Afghanistan and Pakistan when Taliban was created. Civil war in Afghanistan after the Soviets pulled out led to wide scale banditry, rapine and anarchy. A preacher named Mullah Omar, a veteran of the anti-Soviet war, cobbled together a force of ethnic Pashtun (Pathan) fighters and students to attack the bandits, rapists, and opium-producing Communist forces causing mayhem. This rag-tag movement came to be known as ‘talibs,’ or religious students. Thus was born Taliban.

Mullah Omar and his Pashtun fighters went on to drive the Communists from Kabul and take most of the country. According to the UN, Taliban eliminated 90% of Afghanistan’s opium production and brought a rough justice to the nation.

But then came the 9/11 attacks on the United States. Caught sleeping on guard duty, the embarrassed Bush administration claimed Taliban was somehow behind 9/11 because it had given refuge to Afghan war hero Osama bin Laden. There was no hard evidence against bin Laden but he became the target of America’s wrath and desire for revenge.

Washington demanded Taliban turn over bin Laden. But the Afghan mountain warriors held to their tradition of defending guests and refused, claiming bin Laden would never have gotten a fair trial in the US. But they offered to send him for trial in another Muslim nation like Turkey or Egypt. The US spurned this offer and invaded Afghanistan, oblivious to its title ‘Graveyard of Empires.’

And so, under the banner of the faux War on Terrorism, the US bombed and rocketed Afghanistan, one of the world’s poorest but proudest nations, for 18 years, using B-1 heavy bombers and fleets of killer drones against mountain tribesmen armed with old rifles and fierce courage.

America faces historic defeat in Afghanistan. By not winning, it loses. How this loss would affect the rest of America’s empire remains to be seen. But the sooner America ends this shameful colonial war the better.

*

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


150115 Long War Cover hi-res finalv2 copy3.jpg

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

Michel Chossudovsky

The “globalization of war” is a hegemonic project. Major military and covert intelligence operations are being undertaken simultaneously in the Middle East, Eastern Europe, sub-Saharan Africa, Central Asia and the Far East. The U.S. military agenda combines both major theater operations as well as covert actions geared towards destabilizing sovereign states.

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

List Price: $22.95

Special Price: $15.00

Click here to order.

Timor-Leste and Australia: A Loveless Affair at Twenty

September 1st, 2019 by Dr. Binoy Kampmark

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Timor-Leste and Australia: A Loveless Affair at Twenty

For all the people who follow the MH17 case, Max van der Werff is an outstanding analyst. After spending thousands of hours of investigation on the crash of the Malaysian airline, Max has become an expert on this case.

His blog, ironically called ‘Kremlin troll‘, is really a gold mine, containing a lot of useful information about what happened to the MH17, the available information, and what are the problems with the official investigation.

Recently, he gave an interview for the Philippine television about the status of the investigation, how he works on this case, what pushed him to investigate on the MH17, his doubts about the conclusion of the JIT, and how he hopes this case will end.

Watch the full interview in English (you can skip the three minutes which are in Filipino):

*

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 Video: The Malaysian Airlines MH17 Tragedy. What is Real, What is Fake? “Highly Likely” Can Mean Anything
  • Tags: , ,

Costumava ser feito regularmente e funcionava: o Ocidente identificava um país como seu inimigo, desencadeava sua propaganda profissional contra ele, a seguir administrava uma série de sanções, esfaimando e assassinando crianças, idosos e outros grupos vulneráveis. Se o país não entrasse em colapso num prazo de meses, ou num par de anos, começaria o bombardeamento. E a nação, totalmente abalada, em sofrimento e em desordem entraria em colapso como um castelo de cartas, antes que as primeiras botas da NATO pisassem seu terreno.

Tais cenários foram reencenados, múltiplas vezes, desde a Jugoslávia até o Iraque.

Mas subitamente algo significativo aconteceu. Este horrendo desrespeito à lei, este caos, cessou; foi travado.

O Ocidente continua a utilizar as mesmas tácticas, mantém-se a aterrorizar países independentes, a assustar os povos, a derrubar o que ele define como “regimes”, mas o seu poder monstruosamente destrutivo subitamente tornou-se ineficaz.

Ele ataca e a nação atacada treme, chora, sangra, mas mantém-se de pé, orgulhosamente erecta.

*

Vivemos um grande momento da história da humanidade. O imperialismo ainda não foi derrotado, mas está a perder potência como domínio mundial.

Agora temos de entender claramente o “porque”, de modo a que possamos continuar a nossa luta com ainda maior determinação, com ainda maior eficácia.

Acima de tudo, agora sabemos que o ocidente não pode combater. Pode gastar triliões em “defesa”, pode construir bombas nucleares, “mísseis inteligentes” e aviões de guerra estratégicos. Mas é demasiado cobarde, demasiado mimado para arriscar as vidas dos seus soldados. Ele ou mata remotamente ou através da utilização de mercenários regionais. Sempre que se torna evidente a necessidade das suas tropas, recua.

Em segundo lugar, ele, o Ocidente, está totalmente horrorizado perante o facto de que agora existem dois países super-potência – China e Rússia – os quais estão relutantes em abandonar os seus aliados. Washington e Londres fazem tudo o que podem para enlamear a Rússia e intimidar a China. A Rússia está a ser provocada continuamente: pela propaganda, pelas bases militares, sanções e pelas novas e cada vez mais bizarras invenções dos mass media que as pintam como o vilão em todas as circunstâncias imagináveis. A China tem sido provocada praticamente e de modo insano em todas as frentes – desde a Formosa, Hong Kong, Tibete e na assim chamada “questão uighur”, até no comércio.

Qualquer estratégia que possa enfraquecer estes países é aplicada. Mas a Rússia e a China não sucumbem. Não se rendem. E não abandonam os seus amigos. Estão, ao invés, a construir grandes ferrovias na África e na Ásia, educam pessoas de quase todos os países pobres e desesperados, e apoiam aqueles que estão a ser aterrorizados pela América do Norte e pela Europa.

Em terceiro lugar, todos os países do mundo agora estão claramente conscientes do que lhes aconteceria se abandonassem e se “libertassem” do império ocidental. O Iraque, as Honduras, a Indonésia, a Líbia e o Afeganistão são os “melhores” exemplos. Ao submeterem-se ao ocidente, os países não podem esperar senão a miséria, o colapso absoluto e a extracção implacável dos seus recursos. O país mais pobre da Ásia – o Afeganistão – está totalmente afundado sob a ocupação da NATO.

O sofrimento e a dor do povo afegão e iraquiano é muito bem conhecido pelos cidadãos do Irão e da Venezuela. Eles não desistem, porque não importa quão dura seja a sua vida sob sanções e o terror administrado pelo Ocidente, estão bem conscientes do facto de que as coisas podiam ficar pior, muito pior, se os seus países fossem ocupados e governados pelos maníacos injectados por Washington e Londres.

E todos sabem o destino do povo que vive na Palestina ou no alto das Golã, lugares invadidos pelo mais estreito aliado do Ocidente no Médio Oriente, Israel.

*

É claro que há outras razões porque o ocidente não consegue por de joelhos os seus adversários.

Uma delas é que os mais resilientes são deixados em paz. A Rússia, Cuba, China, Coreia do Norte (RPDC), Irão, Síria e Venezuela não vão fugir do campo de batalha. Trata-se de países que já perderam milhares, milhões, mesmo dezenas de milhões de pessoas, no combate contra o imperialismo e o colonialismo ocidental.

Se alguém acompanhar cuidadosamente os mais recentes ataques do Ocidente, o cenário é patético, quase grotesco: Washington e muitas vezes também a UE fazem grandes esforços, golpeiam, gastam milhares de milhões de dólares, utilizando os mercenários locais (que apodam de “oposição local”, depois retiram-se rapidamente após uma derrota miserável, mas expectável. Até agora a Venezuela tem sobrevivido. A Síria sobreviveu. O Irão sobreviveu. A China luta contra horríveis subversões apoiadas pelo Ocidente, mas sobrevive altivamente. A Rússia mantém-se sempre de pé.

Isto é um momento tremendo na história humana. Pela primeira vez, o imperialismo ocidental não só está a ser derrotado, mas plenamente desvelado e humilhado. Muitos agora riem-se dele, abertamente.

Mas não deveríamos celebrar, ainda. Deveríamos entender o que e porque isto está a acontecer, e então continuar a combater. Há muitas e muitas batalhas pela frente. Mas estamos no caminho certo.

Que tentem. Sabemos como combater. Sabemos como prevalecer. Já combatemos o fascismo, sob muitas das suas formas. Sabemos o que é a liberdade. A sua “liberdade” não é a nossa liberdade. Aquilo a que eles chamam “democracia” não é o modo como queremos que o nosso povo governe e seja governado. Deixem-nos partir, nós, o nosso povo, não os queremos!

Eles não podem derrubar os nossos sistemas, precisamente porque são nossos! Sistemas que queremos, que o nosso povo quer; sistemas pelos quais estamos prontos a combater e a morrer!

Andre Vltchek
 
*
 

Este artigo foi publicado originalmente na New Eastern Outlook.

Versão inglesa:

Suddenly the West Is Failing to Overthrow “Regimes”, o 23 de Agosto de 2019.

Tradução: Resistir.info
Andre Vltchek é jornalista de investigação, filósofo, romancista e cineasta. Já cobriu guerras e conflitos em dezenas de países. Entre as suas obras encontramos estas quatro: China and Ecological Civilization com John B. Cobb, Jr., Revolutionary Optimism, Western Nihilism, o romance revolucionário “Aurora” o e best seller de não ficção política, Exposing Lies Of The Empire”. Pode consultar aqui as restantes obras. Veja Rwanda Gambit, o seu documentário inovador sobre o Ruanda e a República Democrática do Congo e o seu filme/diálogo com Noam Chomsky “On Western Terrorism”. Vltchek reside actualmente no Oriente asiático e no Médio Oriente, continuando a trabalhar em todo o mundo. Pode ser contactado através do seu portal, do seu Twitter e do seu Patreon.
  • Posted in Português
  • Comments Off on Subitamente o Ocidente já não consegue derrubar “regimes”

On Tuesday, the biennial MAKS-2019 International Aviation and Space Show kicked off in Russia’s Zhukovsky International Airport. This important event has drawn spectators, journalists, and photographers from around the world every odd year since 1992. What began as an entertaining event has now become a marketplace for Russian aerospace companies to negotiate export contracts and for Russian air carriers to make foreign contacts.

This year by special invitation Turkey’s president Recep Tayyip Erdogan was given a personal tour by President Putin and other officials, to gain insight into Russia’s latest aviation developments. Turkey was recently ejected from the multinational, US-led F-35 industrial program after defiantly purchasing and receiving the first shipment of S-400 missile systems from Russia, earlier this summer. Erdogan has said that by April of next year the S-400 will be operational much to the dismay of the Washington.

On July 17th White House spokesperson Stephanie Grisham made an announcement stating,

“Unfortunately, Turkey’s decision to purchase Russian S-400 air defense systems renders its continued involvement with the F-35 impossible. Turkey has been a longstanding and trusted partner and NATO ally for over 65 years but accepting the S-400 undermines the commitments all NATO allies made to each other to move away from Russian systems.”

During the aviation show Erdogan said,

“We came here for more than just a sightseeing tour. We will make steps after learning about the final decision [from Washington on the F-35]. The market where Turkey can acquire everything it needs is large enough.” He also stated, “We want to proceed with the solidarity [with Russia] in many areas of the defense industry. This can be on passenger or fighter aircraft. We will continue with the spirit of solidarity.”

The head of Russia’s Federal Service for military-technical cooperation Dmitry Shugayev confirmed on Wednesday that Turkey was interested in procuring “either the Su-35 or Su-57.” Turkey’s Foreign minister Mevlüt Çavuşoğlu clarified that Turkey would prefer to search for alternatives to the F-35 but would look for a new source to procure combat jets if the U.S. follows through with canceling their F-35 shipments of which Turkey is not just a customer but a manufacturer as well.

On the way back to Turkey Erdogan was asked if Turkey was interested in Russian planes and he responded, “Why not? We didn’t come here for nothing.” Russia’s fifth-generation jet might but the answer to Erdogan’s F-35 problem. Erdogan asked Putin if the plane was airworthy and for sale to which Putin responded, yes you can buy it. This was the first time the export variant of the Su-57 was presented to the public and Erdogan was the first foreign world leader to see them up close and person. Earlier this year the Russian military started receiving its first serial-product models.

The United states has insisted that the F-35 is not compatible with the S-400 and that the two systems operating together might reveal intelligence which Russia can then use.

In addition to discussing fighter jets and being treated to ice cream, Erdogan and Putin also discussed Syria. Ankara has long supported the terrorist factions fighting against the Syrian army and has tried to protect them on multiple occasions. Both leaders have expressed interest in working together to ease tensions in Idlib province, however their views on how to solve those grievances are different. Russia supports Syria’s fight against terrorism and has taken an active role both politically and militarily to back the Syrian government alongside Iran, Hezbollah, and other forces of the Axis of Resistance.

Syrian forces are taking steps to liberate  Idlib the last terrorist stronghold.

“The situation in the Idlib de-escalation zone is of serious concern to us and our Turkish partners,” Putin said at a press conference with Erdogan on Russian state television. Putin also said Turkey had “legitimate interests” to protect on its southern borders and supported the creation of a security zone in the area.

The Syrian government has warned that Turkey is trying to change the demographics of areas by driving out diverse populations and replacing them with Syrian refugees that had fled to Turkey and are sympathetic to the Free Syrian Army and Al Qaeda.

Last year a de-escalation buffer zone around Idlib was negotiated between Putin and Erdogan to avert confrontation between the Syrian army and terrorist factions, but the ceasefire was not respected by the terrorist facts and the Syrian army continued with their military operations to liberate terrorist infested areas.

Erdogan has complained that his troops are in harm’s way, the simplest way to resolve this would be to stop supporting terrorist factions, pull out all Turkish forces on Syrian land, and close down all twelve observation posts.

On September 16th Turkey, Russia, and Iran’s presidents will be meeting at a summit to discuss Syria. Erdogan said the September meeting “should contribute to peace in the region”.

Although both Russia and Turkey’s leaders have stated that they support Syria’s territorial integrity Turkey has shown that behind their humanitarian façade is a plan to illegally expand their territory. Putin along with the Syrian government has emphasized the need to keep fighting terrorist factions in Idlib. “Terrorists continue shelling the positions of Syrian government forces, trying to attack Russian military installations,” Putin said. He also stated, “The de-escalation zone must not serve as a refuge for militants, let alone a bridgehead for new attacks.”

Putin’s role as political mediator between Syria and Turkey has become more complex due to Turkey’s interest in purchasing Russian jets.

“We have many opportunities, we demonstrated new weapons systems and new electronic warfare systems,” Putin said. “In my opinion there was a lot of interest from our Turkish partners.” It will be interesting to see if Syria’s sovereignty will become a bargaining chip in these war games.

*

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

This article was originally published on InfoBrics.

Sarah Abed is an independent journalist and political commentator. For media inquiries please email [email protected].

Featured image is from InfoBrics

Macedonia Is Macedonian – Common Sense Dictates It

August 31st, 2019 by Bill Nicholov

If an ethnic group told you that a certain name used to describe them is deeply offensive, would you continue to use that name and even try to convince them that it is not offensive?

No. So stop calling me a “North Macedonian” from “North Macedonia”. Stop trying to convince me that redefining my entire ethnic group and taking away our right to self-determination and self-identification is not offensive. Stop trying to tell me that the forced renaming of Macedonia, the mandated rewriting of our history (led by our most vocal oppressor, Greece!), and the redefinition of everything it ever meant to be Macedonian is not offensive. And stop telling me that stripping away my name and identity because our oppressors demand it solves a “diplomatic dispute”.

Our name is Macedonia and our identity, history, ethnicity and language are Macedonian – despite the current US-led forced renaming of our country in order to satisfy its misguided, racist foreign policy and to appease our oppressors. Interested in learning more? You should also be interested in preventing our eradication. See my op-ed in the Canadian Foreign Policy Journal detailing the brutal violation of Macedonians’ most basic of human rights, and Canada’s shocking support of our demise.

The disturbing messages I mentioned above are the exact messages that Macedonians are receiving from Western politicians, diplomats and journalists. My response is, “put yourselves in our shoes”: After hearing these outrageous claims from the people listed below, I personally asked them the following:

  • To Canadian Foreign Minister Chrystia Freeland,“If you were of Macedonian, instead of Ukrainian ethnic background, what would Canada’s policy be? Would you support the handing over of Ukraine’s name, identity and history to Russia?”
  • To Kati Csaba, Canada’s Ambassador to Macedonia, “Kati, you told me that you are of Hungarian descent. So what if Hungary was forcibly renamed “West Hungary” and the definition of “Hungarian” was suddenly given to Romania? What if Hungarian history was being rewritten by a group of Romanians, as Macedonian history is being rewritten by a panel of Greek diplomats (as per Article 8 (5) of the anti-Macedonian Prespa Agreement). What would you do if there was a 19-page document telling you that you and your ancestors suddenly have a new identity and that everything you ever knew about your ethnic group is now being changed?”
  • To Helene Laverdiere, the New Democratic Party’s Foreign Affairs Critic, “Did you even read the 19-page ‘agreement’ that eradicates our Macedonian ethnicity? What if the same agreement was rammed down Francophones’ throats and you were told that it solved a diplomatic dispute?”

This is what Macedonians are being forced to endure. And this is us:

In 1913, the entire region of Macedonia was partitioned among Serbia (now the independent Republic of Macedonia), Bulgaria, Greece and Albania. Macedonians have been fighting attempts at eradication, forcible assimilation and competing claims to our name since then. So how can Macedonia be Serbian, Bulgarian, Greek, and Albanian all at once? Macedonia is Macedonian. Let’s not forget the irony too, that Greece outlawed the term “Macedonia” in 1913 and denied its existence until a dramatic propaganda switch in 1988, when it began a campaign of trying to deceive the world into believing that Macedonia belonged to them.

Do not allow cultural misappropriation to be rewarded. Do not allow political games and corruption to erase an age-old nationality. Our name is Macedonia. Join us in defending it. We would do the same for you.

*

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

Bill Nicholov is President of Macedonian Human Rights Movement International.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Macedonia Is Macedonian – Common Sense Dictates It
  • Tags:

Video: Syrian Army Further Advances in Greater Idlib

August 31st, 2019 by South Front

The Syrian Arab Army (SAA) and its allies responded to recent militant attacks near Abu Dail with a limited offensive in the area.

In the first phase of the offensive, SAA units liberated Khuwayn al-Kabir, Ard al-Zurzur, the Aghir hilltop, and farms near al-Tamanah. After this, government troops attacked militants’ positions inside al-Tamanah itself.

Hayat Tahrir al-Sham, the al-Qaeda-affiliated Wa Harid al-Muminin operations room and the Turkish-backed National Front for Liberation are the main SAA opponents there. They carried out a counter-attack, involving a suicide bomber, but were not able to take the lost areas back.

It is expected that the Syrian Army could develop its advance even further. Despite declarations about the Assad regime’s aggression and the need to respect the Idlib ceasefire by mainstream media, militants continue to attack SAA positions in southern Idlib on a regular basis.

Watch the video here.

The Turkish military is preparing to establish new observation posts in Idlib. According to reports, new observation posts will be located near Saraqib, the Brick Factory, al-Shabibah camp on the Aleppo-Lattakia highway, in the area of Muhambal and near the city of Jisr al-Shughur.

By this move, Ankara is likely seeking to limit the expected SAA progress in the event of a large-scale advance on Idlib.

The Syrian Armed Forces have renamed the Tiger Forces, led by Brigadier General Suheil the Tiger al-Hassan, to the 25th Special Forces Division. Over the past few years, the Tiger Forces have participated in the most intense battles across Syria and become one of the most widely-known pro-government formation around the world. They will likely continue this tradition under the new name.

*

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

We call upon Global Research readers to 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

Monster Hurricane Dorian

August 31st, 2019 by Stephen Lendman

Currently at Category 4 strength, defined as having sustained winds of from 130 – 156 mph, gusts up to 30% stronger, Dorian is expected hit Florida’s Atlantic coast on Tuesday, precisely where unclear so far.

On August 31, the National Hurricane Center said the following:

“Life-threatening storm surge and devastating hurricane-force winds are still possible along portions of the Florida east coast by the early to middle part of next week…”

“Dorian is forecast to slow down and turn northward near (Florida’s) coast. (I)t is too soon to determine when or where the highest surge and winds will occur.”

“Residents (in potentially affected areas) should have their hurricane plan in place,” seek an evacuation zone if available, and follow advice from local emergency officials.

“Heavy rains (and) life-threatening flash floods are expected over portions…of the southeastern United States this weekend through much of next week.”

With its life-threatening winds and storm surge, Dorian is nothing to be taken lightly. Considerable damage, including extensive power outages, is expected along the US east coast.

States of emergency are in effect for Florida, Georgia and North Carolina — South Carolina on high alert. Dorian may be the severest hurricane to hit the US Atlantic coast since Andrew in 1992.

Millions of Americans will feel its impact. At 5:00AM Saturday, Dorian shifted slightly north. The Florida Keys and central Miami-Dade County are not in the cone of its latest forecast track.

At this time, Broward County and rest of Florida’s east coast are in it. On Saturday morning, senior hurricane specialist Jack Bevin said the following:

The latest “forecast track does not preclude Dorian making landfall on the Florida coast, as large portions of the coast remain in the track cone of uncertainty. Also, significant impacts could occur even if the center stays offshore.”

Winds currently at 140 mph may strengthen over the weekend into Monday, heading northwest at around 12 mph. Its slow speed makes it possible to intensify.

The storm is expected to slow Monday evening and make landfall Tuesday afternoon, possibly north of where it’s expected to hit now.

National Hurricane Center models show Dorian may come ashore anywhere along the US east coast north of Miami — a possible multi-day storm, adding:

“(A)ny small deviation in the track could bring the core of the powerful hurricane well inland over Florida, keep it near the coast, or offshore.”

Category 4 storms cause “devastating damage.” Scenarios for Florida’s east coast range from a direct hit to a glancing blow.

Miami National Weather Service meteorologist Robert Molleda said

“(t)here’s not a lot that we’re confident about this forecast scenario as it approaches Florida, but one of the things that we are confident about is that it will slow down,” adding:

“All weekend it’s going to be moving slowly but surely toward South Florida. The big question begins as it approaches the coastline. This is going to be a long event.”

National Hurricane Center’s director Ken Graham said:

“Slow is never our friend. Slow means more rain. Slow means a longer period of time to get those winds and saturate the soils. More trees down. More power outages.”

Rainfall in affected areas is expected to range from six to 15 inches.

Most hurricanes during the US storm season occur from mid-August to late October.

The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) warned that conditions are favorable for more dangerous storms than earlier projected.

Trump is a climate science denier, despite evidence of global warming, rising sea levels, melting ice caps, and likelihood of increasing numbers of hugely destructive hurricanes.

If Dorian slams his luxury Palm Beach, Florida Mar-a-Lago resort, causing extensive damage, reality may hit home harder than cold hard scientific evidence he ignores.

*

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 Ansar Allah movement carried out a new series of strikes on Saudi Arabia in the framework of their operations to oppose the Kingdom-led intervention of Yemen.

On August 25, Yemeni forces fired 10 short-range ballistic missiles at military sites in the Jizan International Airport in their “biggest” attack with such missiles on targets inside Saudi Arabia. Yemen’s al-Masirah TV reported that the missiles targeted the hangars of Saudi warplanes and Apache choppers as well as some military sites in the area.

On the same day, Ansar Allah launched a new “ballistic missile,” dubbed Nakal, at a gathering of the Saudi military in the Kingdom’s province of Najran.  Brig. Gen. Yahya Sari, a spokesman for Ansar Allah-led forces, said that the new missile stuck its target, killing and injuring “dozens” of coalition personnel.

Watch the video here.

On August 26, Ansar Allah, for the first time, used a squadron of its new Sammad-3 to strike an “important military target” in the Saudi capital of Riyadh.  Brig. Gen. Sari said that the drones struck the designated target with great precision emphasizing that the strikes were the answer to the Saudi aggression against Yemen.

Later, a Qassem medium-range ballistic missile hit positions of Saudi-backed forces in the Saqam area of Narjan Province.

On August 27, Qasef-2K loitering munitions targeted Saudi Arabia’s King Khalid Air Base in the province of Asir.

All these developments came amid continued border clashes between Ansar Allah fighters and Saudi-led forces. Ansar Allah regularly releases videos showing large equipment losses of coalition-backed troops in the area.

Taking into account a recent rift between Saudi-backed and UAE-backed forces in southern Yemen, it appears that the coalition is steadily losing more and more ground in the war-torn country and , that the war is moving to southern Saudi Arabia.

*

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

We call upon Global Research readers to 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

US/North Korea Talks Undermined by Pompeo and Bolton

August 31st, 2019 by Stephen Lendman

Trump’s “fire and fury like the world has never seen” remark about North Korea shifted to the appearance of friendship with Kim Jong-un, DJT saying “(h)e wrote me beautiful letters and we fell in love.”

Two summits and Trump’s meeting with Kim across the DMZ on North Korean soil, a first by a US sitting president, achieved nothing toward ending US hostility toward the country since the Korean peninsula was divided post-WW II.

Talks between Kim and Trump broke down because of unacceptable US demands in return for empty promises.

Its history is clear – a record of breached treaties, conventions and other deals, the US agreeing to one thing, then going another way – why it can never be trusted.

Pompeo and Bolton sabotaged talks between Kim and Trump. They got DJT to make Kim an offer to be refused — demanding the DPRK transfer its nuclear arsenal and bomb fuel to the US.

In writing, his regime also insisted that Pyongyang dismantle its nuclear and whatever chemical and biological infrastructure it may have, along with eliminating its ballistic missiles, launchers, and related facilities, as well as handing over to the US its dual-use technologies.

Almost everything hi-tech or close to it can be considered potentially dual-use.

Other unacceptable demands included North Korea providing the Trump regime with a full and comprehensive explanation of its nuclear program, giving US inspectors unimpeded access to its facilities, halting construction of everything related to its nuclear activities, along with shifting its scientists and technicians to non-nuclear activities.

The Trump regime demanded unilateral DRRK surrender to its will — in return for nothing, not even modest good faith gestures, just empty promises to be broken like countless times before.

Bolton earlier said “(w)e have very much in mind the Libya model from 2003, 2004” in dealings with North Korea.

Gaddafi abandoned his WMD development. In February 2011, US-dominated NATO launched naked aggression against the country, raping and destroying it, transforming Africa’s most developed country into a dystopian charnel house, sodomizing Gaddafi to death – things remaining violent and chaotic today.

Pyongyang has no intention of entrapping itself the same way. Its nuclear and other weapons are solely for defense by a nation that never attacked another state throughout its history.

It’s willing to abandon its nuclear arsenal only in return for iron-clad security guarantees, an end to decades of uneasy armistice, removal of unacceptable sanctions, and normalization of relations with the US and other countries.

Its nuclear deterrent was developed and remains maintained, fearing a repeat of what happened in the early 1950s — the rape and destruction of its country, massacring millions of its people by a hostile aggressor.

Perhaps US/DPRK rapprochement will never happen, surely not with hardliners in charge of US policymaking, needing enemies to advance their imperial agenda.

Since none exist, they’re invented, North Korea a key target because of its sovereign independence, not for any threat. Claiming it exists is fabricated, how the US operates against all nations it doesn’t control.

In summer 2018, North Korea’s Foreign Ministry accused the Trump regime of pursuing “unilateral and gangster-like demands for denuclearization,” calling its unacceptable actions “deeply regrettable,” sabotaging normalization efforts — hardliners Pompeo and Bolton to blame.

Last December, Pyongyang accused the Trump regime of “block(ing) the path to denuclearization on the Korean peninsula forever,” adding:

The US is “bent on bringing…relations back to the status of last year” when Trump demeaned Kim by calling him “little rocket man.”

Before June 2018 Kim/Trump summit talks in Singapore, Pompeo falsely claimed “American interests are held at risk by the existential threat posed by North Korea (sic)” — a bald-faced Big Lie. Throughout its history, the DPRK threatened no other nations.

Pompeo and Bolton run Trump’s geopolitical agenda, warmongers deploring world peace and stability, figures to be feared, never trusted.

Bolton earlier said the only way to end North Korea’s nuclear program is “to end (the) regime,” adding: “It’s not enough…to impose sanctions.”

A Bolton critic earlier said he never met a sovereign independent country he didn’t want to bomb. Pompeo likely shares similar views.

Because of continued US hardline actions, North Korean Foreign Minister Ri Yong-ho called Pompeo the “diehard toxin of the US diplomacy,” adding:

“Nothing decent can be expected from Pompeo, a man subject to strong censure from many countries for adopting the most wicked methods of the Central Intelligence Agency as diplomatic means in every part of the world.”

He “los(t) face as” Washington’s top “diplomatic…He who has no shame has no conscience.”

“He is truly impudent enough to utter such thoughtless words which only leave us disappointed and skeptical as to whether we can solve any problem with such a guy.”

He’s “a trouble-maker bereft of sensible cogitative power and rational judgment as he only casts dark shadow over the prospect of the DPRK-US negotiations.”

“We are ready for both dialogue and stand-off” — never surrendering the nation’s sovereignty to another state.

North Korea’s official Rodong Sinmun broadsheet slammed the Trump regime’s “imperialistic behavior” and “double-dealing” for undermining denuclearization talks.

Interviewed by the Washington Examiner last week, Pompeo threatened North Korea, saying if its authorities don’t denuclearize, the Trump regime will “continue to keep on the sanctions that are the toughest in all of history…”

Addressing the American Legion’s national convention days earlier, Pompeo demeaned North Korea, saying its “rogue behavior (sic) could not be ignored.”

DPRK First Vice Foreign Minister Choe Son-hui responded, calling his remarks “thoughtless.”

He “provoked us once again by making an irrational remark. (He) severely insult(ed) us…mak(ing) it more difficult (to pursue) working-level negotiations.”

“Our expectations for dialogue with the US have been fading gradually, and it has been pushing us to the situation where we are compelled to review all the measures that we have taken until now.”

“The US had better not try to test our patience any longer with remarks that irritate us if it does not want to make horrendous regrets.”

Pompeo earlier suggested he has post-Trump presidential ambitions. The former congressman/CIA director ruled out a Senate run.

Those close to him say he’s weighing the possibility as a stepping-stone to higher office.

Politico said “(f)ew GOP politicians have more ambition or the prospect of upward mobility than Pompeo.”

Last March, Vanity Fair headlined in caps: “ ‘AMBITION BEYOND BEING SUCH A PATHETIC SECRETARY OF STATE:’ AS THE WORLD BURNS AND TRUMP UNRAVELS, MIKE POMPEO IS ACTING A LOT LIKE A GUY RUNNING FOR PRESIDENT.”

President Pompeo? The possibility should terrify everyone everywhere.

*

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

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

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

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

Visit his blog site at sjlendman.blogspot.com.

Featured image: Trump and Kim meet Sunday before Trump became first US president to step on North Korean territory. (White House photo)

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Australia’s Foreign Fighters: The Temporary Exclusion “Solution”

The Key to a Sustainable Economy Is 5,000 Years Old

August 31st, 2019 by Ellen Brown

We are again reaching the point in the business cycle known as “peak debt,” when debts have compounded to the point that their cumulative total cannot be paid. Student debt, credit card debt, auto loans, business debt and sovereign debt are all higher than they have ever been. As economist Michael Hudson writes in his provocative 2018 book, “…and forgive them their debts,” debts that can’t be paid won’t be paid. The question, he says, is how they won’t be paid.

Mainstream economic models leave this problem to “the invisible hand of the market,” assuming trends will self-correct over time. But while the market may indeed correct, it does so at the expense of the debtors, who become progressively poorer as the rich become richer. Borrowers go bankrupt and banks foreclose on the collateral, dispossessing the debtors of their homes and their livelihoods. The houses are bought by the rich at distress prices and are rented back at inflated prices to the debtors, who are then forced into wage peonage to survive. When the banks themselves go bankrupt, the government bails them out. Thus the market corrects, but not without government intervention. That intervention just comes at the end of the cycle to rescue the creditors, whose ability to buy politicians gives them the upper hand. According to free-market apologists, this is a natural cycle akin to the weather, which dates all the way back to the birth of modern economics in ancient Greece and Rome.

Hudson counters that those classical societies are not actually where our financial system began, and that capitalism did not evolve from bartering, as its ideologues assert. Rather, it devolved from a more functional, sophisticated, egalitarian credit system that was sustained for two millennia in ancient Mesopotamia (now parts of Iraq, Turkey, Kuwait and Iran). Money, banking, accounting and modern business enterprise originated not with gold and private trade, but in the public sector of Sumer’s palaces and temples in the third century B.C. Because it involved credit issued by the local government rather than private loans of gold, bad debts could be periodically forgiven rather than compounding until they took the whole system down, a critical feature that allowed for its remarkable longevity.

The True Roots of Money and Banking

Sumer was the first civilization for which we have written records. Its notable achievements included the wheel, the lunar calendar, our numerical system, law codes, an organized hierarchy of priest-kings, copper tools and weapons, irrigation, accounting and money. It also produced the first written language, which took the form of cuneiform figures impressed on clay. These tablets were largely just accounting tools, recording the flow of food and raw materials in the temple and palace workshops, as well as IOUs (mainly to these large public institutions) that had to be preserved in writing to be enforced. This temple accounting system allowed for the coordinated flow of credit to peasant farmers from planting to harvesting, and for advances to merchants to engage in foreign trade.

In fact, it was the need to manage accounts for a large labor force under bureaucratic control that is thought to have led to the development of writing. The people willingly accepted this bureaucratic control because they viewed the gods as having decreed it. According to their cuneiform writings, humans were created to work in the fields and the mines after certain lower gods tasked with that hard labor rebelled.

Usury, or the charging of interest on loans, was an accepted part of the Mesopotamian credit system. Interest rates were high and remained unchanged for two millennia. But Mesopotamian scholars were well aware of the problem of “debts that can’t be paid.” Unlike in today’s academic economic curriculum, Hudson writes:

Babylonian scribal students were trained already c. 2000 BC in the mathematics of compound interest. Their school exercises asked them to calculate how long it took a debt at interest of 1/60th per month to double. The answer is 60 months: five years. How long to quadruple? 10 years. How long to multiply 64 times? 30 years. It must’ve been obvious that no economy can grow in keeping with this rate of increase.

Sumerian kings solved the problem of “peak debt” by periodically declaring “clean slates,” in which agrarian debts were forgiven and debtors were released from servitude to work as tenants on their own plots of land. The land belonged to the gods under the stewardship of the temple and the palace and could not be sold, but farmers and their families maintained leaseholds to it in perpetuity by providing a share of their crops, service in the military and labor in building communal infrastructure. In this way, their homes and livelihoods were preserved, an arrangement that was mutually beneficial, since the kings needed their service.

Jewish scribes, who spent time in captivity in Babylon in the sixth century B.C, adapted these laws in the year or jubilee, which Hudson argues was added to Leviticus after the Babylonian captivity. According to Leviticus 25:8-13, a Jubilee Year was to be declared every 49 years, during which debts would be forgiven, slaves and prisoners freed and their property leaseholds restored. As in ancient Mesopotamia, property ownership remained with Yahweh and his earthly proxies. The Jubilee law effectively banned the outright sale of land, which could only be leased for up to 50 years (Leviticus 25:14-17). The Levitican Jubilee represented an advance over the Mesopotamian “clean slates,” Hudson says, in that it was codified into law rather than relying on the whim of the king. But its proclaimers lacked political power, and whether the law was ever enforced is unclear. It served as a moral rather than a legal prescription.

Ancient Greece and Rome adopted the Mesopotamian system of lending at interest, but without the safety valve of periodic “clean slates,” since the creditors were no longer the king or the temple, but private lenders. Unfettered usury resulted in debt bondage and forfeiture of properties, consolidation into large landholdings, a growing wedge between rich and poor, and the ultimate destruction of the Roman Empire.

As for the celebrated development of property rights and democracy in ancient Greece and Rome, Hudson argues that they did not actually serve the poor. They served the rich, who controlled elections, just as rich donors do today. Taking power away from local governments by privatizing once-communal lands allowed private creditors to pass laws by which they could legally confiscate property when their debtors could not pay. “Free markets” meant the freedom to accumulate massive wealth at the expense of the poor and the state.

Hudson maintains that when Jesus Christ preached “forgiveness of debts,” he was also talking about economic debt, not just moral transgressions. When he overturned the tables of the money changers, it was because they had turned a house of prayer into “a den of thieves.” But creditors’ rights had by then gained legal dominance, and Christian theologians lacked the power to override them. Rather than being a promise of economic redemption in this life, forgiveness of debts thus became a promise of spiritual redemption in the next.

How to Pull Off a Modern Debt Jubilee

Such has been the fate of debtors in modern Western economies. But in some modern non-Western economies, vestiges of the debt write-off solution remain. In China, for instance, nonperforming loans are often carried on the books of state-owned banks or canceled rather than putting insolvent debtors and banks into bankruptcy. As Dinny McMahon wrote in June in an article titled “China’s Bad Data Can Be a Good Thing”:

In China, the state stands behind the country’s banks. As long as authorities ensure those banks have sufficient liquidity to meet their obligations, they can trundle along with higher delinquency levels than would be regarded safe in a market economy.

China’s banking system, like that of ancient Mesopotamia, is largely in the public sector, so the state can back its banks with liquidity as needed. Interestingly, the Chinese state also preserves the ancient Near Eastern practice of retaining ownership of the land, which citizens can only lease for a period of time.

In Western economies, most banks are privately owned and heavily regulated, with high reserve and capital requirements. Bad loans mean debtors are put into foreclosure, jobs and capital infrastructure are lost, and austerity prevails. The Trump administration is now aggressively pursuing a trade war with China in an effort to level the playing field by forcing it into the same austerity regime, but a more productive and sustainable approach might be for the U.S. to engage in periodic debt jubilees itself.

The problem with that solution today is that most debts in Western economies are owed not to the government but to private creditors, who will insist on their contractual rights to payment. We need to find a way to pay the creditors while relieving the borrowers of their debt burden.

One possibility is to nationalize insolvent banks and sell their bad loans to the central bank, which can buy them with money created on its books. The loans can then be written down or voided out. Precedent for this policy was established with “QE1,” the Fed’s first round of quantitative easing, in which it bought unmarketable mortgage-backed securities from banks with liquidity problems.

Another possibility would be to use money generated by the central bank to bail out debtors directly. This could be done selectively, by buying up student debt or credit card debt or car loans bundled as “asset-backed securities,” then writing the debts down or off, for example. Alternatively, debts could be relieved collectively with a periodic national dividend or universal basic income paid to everyone, again drawn from the deep pocket of the central bank.

Critics will object that this would dangerously inflate the money supply and consumer prices, but that need not be the case. Today, virtually all money is created as bank debt, and it is extinguished when the debt is repaid. That means dividends used to pay this debt down would be extinguished, along with the debt itself, without adding to the money supply. For the 80% of the U.S. population now carrying debt, loan repayments from their national dividends could be made mandatory and automatic. The remaining 20% would be likely to save or invest the funds, so this money too would contribute little to consumer price inflation; and to the extent that it did go into the consumer market, it could help generate the demand needed to stimulate productivity and employment. (For a fuller explanation, see Ellen Brown, “Banking on the People,” 2019).

In ancient Mesopotamia, writing off debts worked brilliantly well for two millennia. As Hudson concludes:

To insist that all debts must be paid ignores the contrast between the thousands of years of successful Near Eastern clean slates and the debt bondage into which [Greco-Roman] antiquity sank. … If this policy in many cases was more successful than today’s, it is because they recognized that insisting that all debts must be paid meant foreclosures, economic polarization and impoverishment of the economy at large.

*

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 first posted on Truthdig.com.

Ellen Brown chairs the Public Banking Institute and has written thirteen books, including her latest, Banking on the People: Democratizing Money in the Digital Age.  She also co-hosts a radio program on PRN.FM called “It’s Our Money.” Her 300+ blog articles are posted at EllenBrown.com. She is a frequent contributor to Global Research.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on The Key to a Sustainable Economy Is 5,000 Years Old

GOP Hardliners Want China Sanctioned

August 31st, 2019 by Stephen Lendman

Time and again, the US, its key NATO allies and Israel blame their victims for wrongdoing committed against them.

According to the Daily Beast, Republicans are pushing for sanctions on China over how Hong Kong authorities are handling months of protests — US dirty hands all over them the website failed to explain.

Trump regime and congressional hardliners are discussing ways “to officially punish China” over what’s going on in the city, said the Daily Beast (DB) — despite restraint shown by Hong Kong and mainland authorities, toughness used only in response to violence no governments tolerate.

Sino/US relations are already badly strained over Trump regime-initiated trade war. Upping the stakes further will make resolution all the harder.

According to an unnamed White House official,

“China (is) a national security concern (sic). The protests in Hong Kong are just another example of why we should be focusing our attention on finding ways to push back against Beijing,” adding:

“We’ve been taking other routes to confront China, especially economically. This would be another step in the game plan. The draft legislation is in a lot of ways going to look like some of the sanctions we implemented with Russia.”

Washington is threat to China and all other nations it doesn’t control — not the other way around.

The US uses illegal sanctions as weapons of war by other means. What’s going on in Hong Kong is a US color revolution attempt on China’s soft underbelly, aiming to destabilize the country.

On Monday, Beijing’s official People’s Daily slammed “(a)nti–China forces in the US (not only involved in) openly cheer(ing) the violent protesters on…but provid(ing) money, benefits, and advice to the rioters” — from the hostile to democracy National Endowment for Democracy, CIA dirty hands likely involved as well.

“(D)ata released by NED in 2018 revealed that of all the countries (it) allocated funds to, China topped the list at $6.5 million,” said the broadsheet, adding:

“These figures are just the tip of the iceberg, as it’s believed that most NED spending was not disclosed due to its ‘sensitivity.’ ”

“(T)he US (is) fanning the flames of the confrontation with advice, action and money.”

Earlier I explained that China’s emergence as a world power threatens Washington’s aim to control planet earth, its resources and populations.

Beijing’s successful economic model, producing sustained growth, embarrasses the US-led unfair, exploitive Western “free market” system.

The US eliminated the Japanese economic threat in the 1980s, a similar one from the Asian Tiger economies in the 1990s, and now it’s China’s turn to be taken down.

That’s what Trump’s war on the country by other means is all about, understood in Beijing, countering hostile US tactics its own way, taking a longterm approach to achieve its objectives.

Separately an “exclusive” DB report said elements involved in Hong Kong protests “flew to Montana last week for an under-the-radar meeting with US lawmakers…according to sources familiar with the meeting.”

Earlier they met with a US consulate official in Hong Kong, notably with US officials in Washington as well.

Orchestrated protests gripped Hong Kong since last March, turning violent weeks earlier, creating intolerable conditions for majority city residents wanting none of it.

On Thursday, an annual change of the guard occurred in Hong Kong. According to state-run Xinhua:

“The Hong Kong Garrison of the Chinese People’s Liberation Army conducted the 22nd rotation of its members in the wee hours of Thursday since it began garrisoning Hong Kong in 1997,” adding:

“Approved by the Central Military Commission, the move is normal routine annual rotation in line with the Law of the People’s Republic of China on Garrisoning the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region, which stipulates that ‘the Hong Kong Garrison shall practice a system of rotation of its members.’ ”

Troops underwent special training related to ongoing protests in Hong Kong so they’re able to defend the city and national sovereignty if needed.

China rotates troops in Macau the same way. The South China Morning Post said announcements of previous Hong Kong rotations were made after they occurred, this year in advance because of ongoing disruptive/violent protests.

NYT disinformation headlined: “Chinese Military Sends New Troops Into Hong Kong,” suggesting it was something other than a normal rotation.

The Times and other US establishment media ignore US dirty hands behind what’s going on.

In mid-August, Times editors falsely claimed “protesters in Hong Kong are not…pro-Western troublemakers,” adding:

“They are young people, a great many of them, who ardently don’t want to come further under the repressive rule of the Chinese Communists.”

So-called “Chinese Communists” have been capitalists for decades, their model superior to the Western one.

The US wants China transformed into a client state, the country exploited, its development as a world power checked, what Trump’s trade war aims to achieve, what Beijing is challenging to prevent.

The Times and other Western media fail to explain that Hong Kong residents are freer under Chinese rule since its 1997 takeover than as a UK crown colony from 1843 until that time.

Britain and France fought two opium wars against China — from 1839-1842 preceding UK annexation of Hong Kong, and from 1856 – 1860, exploiting the Chinese for profit-making.

A Final Comment

Sputnik International reported that US troops are training in Poland under harsh conditions for “possible war” against China or Russia — the only nations able to challenge US rage for global dominance.

According to US Col. Donn Yates, Pentagon forces are enduring (combat) field-like conditions — claiming “(t)he more it sucks out here…the higher the morale is.”

Having experienced a week of similar conditions in the 1950s during army training, I and others with me yearned for the ordeal to end.

There was nothing remotely related to morale uplifting about living in the field, sleeping on the ground, eating awful food, being pushed hard, and using slit trenches we dug to relieve ourselves.

*

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.

Amazon Fires Will Have Global Consequences. The UN Must Act.

August 31st, 2019 by Prof. Marjorie Cohn

The Amazon is burning. Nearly 75,000 fires have started in the iconic Brazilian rainforest this year to date, an 84 percent increase from the year before. Since August 10, a spate of intentionally set fires have been raging in the Amazon. But Brazil’s president Jair Bolsonaro, who took office in January, let them burn for two weeks before sending firefighters to put them out following an international outcry.

Fires ravaging the Amazon pose imminent peril to the 34 million people and 3 million species of animals and plants that live in the world’s largest rainforest, which covers 2 million square miles.

Damage from the raging fires will change the face of the planet. The rainforest is home to 10 percent of the species on Earth, including many types of plants and animals that cannot be found anywhere else.

“The loss of the Amazon’s biodiversity will be beyond devastating for the planet,” Dahr Jamail wrote in Truthout, noting that many scientists consider the Amazon to be the Earth’s most important site of biodiversity.

“An International Crisis”

French president Emmanuel Macron tweeted,

“Our house is burning. Literally,” and exhorted, “Members of the G7 Summit, let’s discuss this emergency first order in two days!”

Bristling at Macron’s exhortation, Bolsonaro wrote on Twitter,

“The French president’s suggestion that Amazon issues be discussed at the G-7 without participation by the countries in the region evokes a colonialist mentality that is out of place in the 21st century.”

In light of Bolsonaro’s refusal to provide resources to extinguish the fires, Macron threatened to block the Mercosur-European Union trade deal. Bolsonaro capitulated. He allocated $7 million and sent 44,000 troops and military aircraft to the burning areas.

But that falls short of what is needed to put out the fires and save the Amazon.

“We’re talking about battling what will be hundreds of fires burning simultaneously, beyond any road network, distributed across thousands of miles,” according to Douglas Morton, head of the Biospheric Sciences Laboratory at NASA’s Goddard Space Flight Center. “It’s quite a challenge to mobilize resources for one of these fires, but to simultaneously track down and put out a number of these sorts of fires … demands essentially a full press,” adding, “You really do need thousands of people.”

The countries in the G-7 – the U.S., Britain, France, Germany, Italy, Japan and Canada – donated $20 million to help fight the fires, but Bolsonaro refused to accept the money unless Macron apologizes. Bolsonaro is playing games while the Amazon burns.

Donald Trump, who skipped the climate meeting at the G-7 summit, later said he hadn’t agreed to contribute to the $20 million because of lack of coordination with Bolsonaro.

Moreover, even if accepted, this money would not be sufficient. Rick Swan, of the International Association of Fire Fighters, told The Washington Post that, by comparison, to extinguish the 2017 Tubbs Fire in Northern California, “the costs alone were $100 million.”

In other words, a massive international effort is needed to end the Amazon fires.

Bolsonaro’s Appeal to Anti-Colonial Politics Is Deeply Cynical

Those who are critical of ongoing colonial and neocolonial dynamics but who are not entirely familiar with the context of the fires in Brazil may at first be skittish about backing international efforts to pressure Bolsonaro to end the fires. In truth, however, Bolsonaro’s appeal to anti-colonial politics is deeply cynical and should not deter progressives with anti-colonial commitments from backing international endeavors to end the fires.

The cynicism of Bolsonaro’s anti-colonial appeal is evident in the context of widespread popular protests in which Brazilians have marched holding signs with messages, such as “The Amazon belongs to the world, and we need the world’s help right now” and “SOS.” Protesters took part in some 30 demonstrations across Brazil last weekend, and thousands of demonstrators marching in Rio chanted, “The Amazon stays, out with Bolsonaro.”

Indigenous peoples in Brazil have also made clear that they hold Bolsonaro’s government responsible for the destruction of the Amazon. The Coordination of Indigenous Organizations of the Brazilian Amazon (COIAB) issued a statement expressing “extreme concern about the rapid destruction of the Amazon rainforest, home to our families and to all the resources we need to live.” COIAB stated,

“The related record rates of deforestation and outbreaks of fire are a consequence of the anti-indigenous and anti-environmental genocidal speeches of this government.”

A group of Indigenous Huni Kuin leaders recently called for a stop to the fires, saying:

“Nature is crying and we are crying. If we don’t stop this destruction of Mother Nature, future generations will live in a completely different world to the one we live in today. This is Mother Nature’s cry, asking us to help her. And we are working today so that humanity has a future. But if we don’t stop this destruction, we will be the ones that will be extinguished, burned and the sky will descend upon us, which has already begun to happen.”

The UN Security Council Should Order International Firefighters and Economic Boycott

As empowered by the United Nations Charter, the Security Council should find that the fires in the Amazon pose a “threat to the peace” and order measures to restore and maintain international peace and security. Those measures “may include complete or partial interruption of economic relations.”

The Council should require that member states refrain from entering into trade agreements with Brazil unless and until it agrees to allow international economic and physical firefighting assistance. As Moira Birss, Amazon Watch’s finance campaign director said in a release issued by the Institute for Public Accuracy (IPA),

“Now that the world is finally paying attention, it’s important to also understand that governments and companies around the world are emboldening Bolsonaro’s toxic policies when they enter trade agreements with his government or invest in agribusiness companies operating in the Amazon.”

In addition, the Council should order member states to contribute money and personnel to fight the fires raging in the Amazon.

There is precedent for this type of resolution. In 1985, the Council passed Resolution 569, which condemned the South African government’s policy of apartheid. It urged UN members to adopt measures including suspension of all new investment in South Africa, prohibition of the sale of South African currency and coins, restrictions on cultural relations and sports, suspension of guaranteed export loans, prohibition of new nuclear contracts, and prohibition of sales of computer equipment that could be used by the South African police and army. The international boycott of South Africa led to the end of the apartheid regime.

All UN member countries are bound by the resolutions of the Security Council. Article 25 of the Charter says,

“The members of the United Nations agree to accept and carry out the decisions of the Security Council.”

And Article 49 states that the UN members “shall join in affording mutual assistance in carrying out the measures” upon which the Council decides.

Bolsonaro’s Policies Have Exacerbated the Fires

Fires do not ignite themselves in the rainforest.

“Basically, the Amazon hadn’t burnt in hundreds of thousands or millions of years,” said William Magnusson, a biodiversity specialist at the National Institute of Amazonian Research in Brazil. According to National Geographic, “A growing number of manmade fires have plagued the Amazon in recent years, imperiling the ecosystem. The rainforest is not built for fire.”

Farmers in the Amazon cut down trees to clear the area for planting. Miners and loggers start fires to cover their illegal activities. And some fires are set to force Indigenous peoples from their land. Bolsonaro, however, has fanned the flames in the Amazon.

A New York Times analysis found that for the first six months of 2019, Bolsonaro’s pro-development, anti-environmental policies led to a 20 percent decrease in enforcement measures aimed at protecting against deforestation, as compared to the same period in 2018.

“Bolsonaro must take immediate, comprehensive steps to not only extinguish these fires but also address the root causes of this environmental catastrophe: the roll-back of environmental and indigenous rights protections and the recklessness of the profit-seeking agribusiness industry,” Christian Poirier, program director at Amazon Watch, said on the IPA release. But, he added, “This burden isn’t on the Brazilian government alone. We are all global citizens of our shared planet and must take shared responsibility for its preservation.”

We must act internationally to save the precious Amazon rainforest. Citizens of the 15 member countries on the Security Council should pressure their governments to vote in favor of a resolution calling for an economic boycott of Brazil and the provision of resources to quell the forest fires. The future of our planet is at stake.

*

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

Copyright © Truthout. Reprinted with permission.

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

Featured image: An aerial image of the Amazon burning in the Jamanxim Environmental Protection Area in the city of Novo Progresso in Pará state, Brazil. (Source: VICTOR MORIYAMA / GREENPEACE)

What heralded the United States as a uniquely dangerous force was its creation of the atomic bomb, the world’s first nuclear weapon. Prompting this was Albert Einstein‘s signing of a letter regarding nuclear research, drafted by his fellow physicists Leo Szilard and Eugene Wigner, then quickly dispatched on 2 August 1939 to president Franklin D. Roosevelt.

The letter detailed a formulation of “extremely powerful bombs of a new type” which “may thus be constructed”, and urged America to pursue the invention of such weapons before the Nazis. Fear of Hitler attaining atomic bombs was Einstein’s sole concern. Roosevelt responded on 19 October 1939 promising to “thoroughly investigate the possibilities of your suggestion”.

After two years of analysis and inquiries, Roosevelt formally established America’s nuclear program on 19 January 1942, called the Manhattan Project – with a final $2 billion budget supporting it ($36 billion today) and employing over 130,000 people.

Einstein himself, whose parents were Jewish, had much reason to be aggrieved with the Nazis. In March 1933, the 54-year-old Einstein was left severely shaken upon learning that men loyal to Hitler had raided his summer cottage in Caputh, a village just 30 miles from Berlin. His lakeside residence was then converted into a Hitler Youth camp. This was the due thanks afforded to Einstein after decades of glittering service to his country.

Einstein, born in the southern German city of Ulm, quickly renounced his citizenship and spent periods in Belgium and England, before settling in America by the mid-1930s.

In September 1933, after a visit to an exiled Winston Churchill, Einstein said of Hitler’s rise to power,

“I cannot understand the passive response of the whole civilized world to this modern barbarism. Does the world not see that Hitler is aiming at war?”

Later, Hitler’s pursuit of murderous policies would result in the deaths of about 35 million people. Yet the global human population in 1940 stood at just over 2.2 billion. Hitler’s brutal methods had only reached a certain point, though he was indeed determined to wipe out the Jewish race, from Lisbon to the Urals.

Elsewhere, Hitler had recognized the path to nuclear weapons could see the earth “transformed into a glowing star” as observed in June 1942 by Albert Speer, the Third Reich’s leading war minister and architect. Speer also noted that “Hitler was plainly not delighted” the globe under his command could be incinerated by the route to obtain atomic bombs. Almost inevitably, Hitler also linked nuclear fission as belonging to “Jewish pseudo-science”.

Born 10 years after Einstein, Hitler comprised part of the First World War generation; that being, those born long before the era of endless technological advancements and mass production, which tens of millions have become accustomed to post-1945.

The Nazi leader’s vision of armaments was entrenched with antiquity, and he instinctively disapproved of modern contraptions. Of the airplane’s 1903 invention, Hitler informed the SS commander Heinrich Himmler in early November 1941 that,

“The world has ceased to be interesting since men began to fly. Until then, there were white patches on the map. The mystery has vanished, it’s all over”.

In the evening of 29 October 1941, Hitler said to an approving Field Marshal Günther von Kluge,

“In a campaign it’s the infantryman who, when all’s said, sets the tempo of operation with his legs. That consideration should bid us to keep motorization within reasonable limits. Instead of the six horses that used to pull an instrument of war, they’ve taken to using an infinitely more powerful motor-engine, with the sole objective of making possible a speed which is, in practice, unusable – that’s been proved”.

These opinions were expressed at the height of Operation Barbarossa on the Eastern Front. Meanwhile, the Nazis’ atomic bomb project was abandoned forever in the autumn of 1942. Had Einstein predicted such eventualities, he would surely not have signed his name to the Roosevelt letter; indeed, he may have strongly advised against America developing atomic weapons. In 1954, the year before he died, Einstein described his role in America’s nuclear program as the “one great mistake in my life”.

As seen, in mid-January 1942 Roosevelt authorized the atomic bomb project, one month after America declared war on Germany and Japan. Throughout 1942, America’s pursuit of the atomic bomb could be excused by pointing towards the Nazis, who still employed hugely gifted scientists like Werner Heisenberg and Wernher von Braun.

With the war advancing into 1943, it was becoming clear to the British that Hitler possessed no nuclear program, mainly due to information relayed to them from Paul Rosbaud, Britain’s spy operating in Germany. These reports were relayed to the Americans, who remained skeptical initially.

However, by spring 1944, US leaders were convinced that Hitler had no such project to develop atomic bombs. What’s more, the Wehrmacht was now set in unmistakable retreat.

Militarily-speaking, but most importantly from an ethical viewpoint, Roosevelt should have disbanded America’s nuclear program from at least early 1944. At this late date, Roosevelt’s health was in steep decline, yet he still commanded office and began a fourth term as president in January 1945. It seems that Roosevelt simply could not grasp the grave threat that atomic bombs posed to the planet.

By 1944, America’s ambitions with regard nuclear weapons had also shifted towards a purely imperial outlook. From winter 1943, US strategists identified that the USSR would be their principal rival at war’s end – the same USSR who then ranked as America’s indispensable ally against both Germany, and later Japan. America’s atomic weapons were thereafter being constructed with the Russians in mind, as confirmed in 1944 by Leslie Groves, who was directing the Manhattan Project.

Over dinner in March 1944, Groves told his nuclear physicist Joseph Rotblat that “the real purpose in making the bomb was to subdue the Soviets”. Rotblat was “terribly shocked” to hear this and in late 1944 he resigned from the program.

Rotblat was the only scientist to depart America’s nuclear project on ethical grounds. This is perhaps not so surprising. The typical scientist, once set towards an important task, becomes consumed by the work, convincing him or herself that the research they are conducting is morally correct and of benefit to humankind – even when the mounting evidence suggests otherwise. After all, why did almost the entirety of America’s scientists continue working on the atomic bomb when Hitler was defeated, and Japan virtually so?

Despite many scientists possessing very high levels of intelligence, they can submit willingly to state power, unquestioningly obeying orders from government bosses. Some scientists are heroic and others less so. A good number too are naive to politics and the surrounding world, assuring themselves that their country’s leaders are of sound character. The Manhattan Project is a landmark example of this glaring lack of political and moral awareness regarding scientists.

In late morning of 24 July 1945, the combined American and British Chiefs of Staff convened near Berlin to discuss the atomic bomb, with new US president Harry Truman in attendance, along with British counterpart Churchill. Amid all these prestigious figures, not one person put forward an objection to deployment of atomic weapons. Churchill revealed, “There was unanimous, automatic, unquestioned agreement around our table”.

Truman himself said later,

“The final decision of where and when to use the atomic bomb was up to me. Let there be no mistake about it. I regarded the bomb as a military weapon and never had any doubt that it should be used”.

It may be worth remembering that, throughout the latter half of World War II, American and British bombers had attacked German and Japanese cities with increasing ferocity. Since 1942, the ethical aspects of war had largely been cast to the winds. By mid-1945, hundreds of thousands of German and Japanese civilians were killed, due to indiscriminate Allied bombing. These policies had prior agreement in British and American government headquarters.

As a result, in the minds of Allied political and military chiefs, the atomic bomb was just another step towards a more powerful weapon to be used against the enemy. Yet the absence of foresight on the Allies’ part is remarkable, not to mention dangerous without precedent.

It hardly required a great mind to realize that Stalin would soon produce his own atomic arsenal, and by August 1949 the Soviet Union successfully tested a nuclear device, a replica of America’s Nagasaki bomb. The policies sought first by Roosevelt, and pushed through by Truman with British support, have seen the world become indescribably dangerous after 1945.

In November 1952 (again under Truman) the Americans developed the hydrogen bomb, up to a thousand times more powerful than its atomic cousin. The Soviets quickly followed suit. In 1947, the Doomsday Clock had been established by atomic scientists, and come 1953 they advanced its hand to two minutes to midnight (apocalypse), which is its position today.

Once more, with the hydrogen bomb’s creation, lack of concern for our globe and humanity as a whole is indeed staggering. The elapsing decades have witnessed many close calls and near-accidents – the 1962 Cuban Missile Crisis standing out most clearly.

Entering 2019, the threat of nuclear conflict is likely higher than during the Cold War’s darkest days. This is mostly due to aggressive policies engineered by the Donald Trump administration, governing the world’s dominant nuclear and military power.

It is borne out in Trump’s 2018 Nuclear Posture Review, which lowers the threshold for war; his trillion dollar modernization of America’s nuclear arsenal sparking another arms race; his plan to ditch Cold War-era treaties that attempted to contain nuclear threats and further proliferation; his amassing of huge US forces to encircle nuclear-armed China; NATO’s continuing intimidation and provocation of Russia, another nuclear superpower.

Trump’s climate actions have also constituted a catastrophe, the result of which saw America’s carbon emissions rise by over 3% in 2018. It is, for reasons such as these, that the Doomsday Clock is likely to advance once more later this January, for the third consecutive year. In that case, it is the closest the hand will have ever been to midnight.

*

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

Shane Quinn obtained an honors journalism degree. He is interested in writing primarily on foreign affairs, having been inspired by authors like Noam Chomsky. He is a frequent contributor to Global Research.

Featured image is from Strategic Culture Foundation


Towards a World War III Scenario: The Dangers of Nuclear War” 

by Michel Chossudovsky

Available to order from Global Research! 

ISBN Number: 978-0-9737147-5-3
Year: 2012
Pages: 102
Print Edition: $10.25 (+ shipping and handling)
PDF Edition:  $6.50 (sent directly to your email account!)

Michel Chossudovsky is Professor of Economics at the University of Ottawa and Director of the Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG), which hosts the critically acclaimed website www.globalresearch.ca . He is a contributor to the Encyclopedia Britannica. His writings have been translated into more than 20 languages.

Reviews

“This book is a ‘must’ resource – a richly documented and systematic diagnosis of the supremely pathological geo-strategic planning of US wars since ‘9-11’ against non-nuclear countries to seize their oil fields and resources under cover of ‘freedom and democracy’.”
John McMurtry, Professor of Philosophy, Guelph University

“In a world where engineered, pre-emptive, or more fashionably “humanitarian” wars of aggression have become the norm, this challenging book may be our final wake-up call.”
-Denis Halliday, Former Assistant Secretary General of the United Nations

Michel Chossudovsky exposes the insanity of our privatized war machine. Iran is being targeted with nuclear weapons as part of a war agenda built on distortions and lies for the purpose of private profit. The real aims are oil, financial hegemony and global control. The price could be nuclear holocaust. When weapons become the hottest export of the world’s only superpower, and diplomats work as salesmen for the defense industry, the whole world is recklessly endangered. If we must have a military, it belongs entirely in the public sector. No one should profit from mass death and destruction.
Ellen Brown, author of ‘Web of Debt’ and president of the Public Banking Institute   

WWIII Scenario

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Reckless Path to Nuclear Weapons Leaves Us Looking Over the Edge
  • Tags:

9/11: Facts, Fiction and Censorship

August 31st, 2019 by Julie Lévesque

The commemoration of 9/11 on September 11, 2019 is fast approaching.

The following text (including a selection of articles) was first posted seven years ago on September 12, 2012.

***

Whoever dares raise questions about the official 9/11 narrative, will be excluded from both the mainstream and  “progressive” media, dismissed as a mentally disturbed individual, lost in delirium, harboring wild conspiracy theories.

In reality, the governmental spoon-fed 9/11 myth crumbles like a house of cards when confronted to facts and scientific analysis.

That is why to keep the myth alive,  the facts surrounding 9/11 need to be continuously censored. In the process, the U.S. government’s propaganda has reached all-time highs. In addition to the 9/11 mainstream media myth factory,  both presidents George W Bush and Barack Obama have seized every opportunity to fuel the myth since the fatal attacks on September 11, 2001.

As James Corbett notes:

In his latest weekly address to the nation, President Obama asserts that America’s questions about 9/11 have been answered. If only it were so.

The questions of 9/11 have only continued to pile up higher since that fateful day, and despite official platitudes we are no closer to having those questions answered today then we were when they first arose. In fact, for some of the most important 9/11 questions, the government’s own documents and records that could conceivably answered them have been destroyed, meaning we may never have answers. ( James Corbett, The Unanswered Questions of 9/11)

Former assistant secretary of the US Treasury Dr. Paul Craig Roberts, who had high level security clearance while in office, immediately doubted the official narrative. The scale of the security failure “was too massive to be credible”:

The more the story of 9/11 was presented in the media, the more wondrous it became. It is not credible that not only the CIA and FBI failed to detect the plot, but also all 16 US intelligence agencies, including the National Security Agency, which spies on everyone on the planet, and the Defense Intelligence Agency, Israel’s Mossad, and the intelligence agencies of Washington‟s NATO allies. There are simply too many watchmen and too much infiltration of terrorist groups for such a complex attack to be prepared undetected and carried out undeterred.

Washington’s explanation of the attack implied a security failure too massive to be credible. Such a catastrophic failure of national security would mean that the US and Western Europe were never safe for one second during the Cold War, that the Soviet Union could have destroyed the entire West in one undetected fell swoop. (Paul Craig Roberts, On 9/11 Doubts Were Immediate)

We need to know the truth about 9/11.

The 9/11 Commission was a colossal cover-up exercise even according to the Commission’s own chairmen Thomas Kean and Lee H. Hamilton. Let us not forget that the 9/11 myth is the pillar of another fabrication, the so-called “Global War on Terrorism” and constitutes the one and only pretext for the U.S. imperialist war on the world, responsible for the death of millions of innocent civilians.

As long as the lie is perpetuated, women, men and children will be killed, whole families and countries will be destroyed in the name of an elusive anti-terrorism campaign.

The Global Research website was launched on the 9th of September 2001, Since its inception, Global Research has been offering its readers with important facts, scientific and political evidence which refute  the official 9/11 narrative.

Here is a list of selected articles [published in 2012] on that important topic.

***

 

Selected articles 

The commemoration of 9/11 brings to the forefront the issue of 911 Truth. The official story is that Al Qaeda, with the complicity of the Taliban government was behind the 9/11 attacks….

In his latest weekly address to the nation, President Obama asserts that America’s questions about 9/11 have been answered. If only it were so.
The TV news anchors compared the disintegration of the towers to controlled demolition. There were numerous reports of explosions throughout the towers from the base or sub-basements to the top.
Psychologists: Questioning 9/11 Is the Sane Thing To Do, Washington’s Blog, September 22, 2011
Mental Health Professionals Say that Questioning 9/11 Is the Sane Thing To Do.
  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on 9/11: Facts, Fiction and Censorship

The Recolonization of Latin America and the War on Venezuela

August 31st, 2019 by Prof. James Petras

First published in March 2019

Introduction

Not since the US pronounced the Monroe Doctrine proclaiming its imperial supremacy over Latin America, nearly 200 years ago, has a White House regime so openly affirmed its mission to recolonize Latin America.

The second decade of the 21st century has witnessed, in word and deed, the most thorough and successful US recolonization of Latin America, and its active and overt role as colonial sepoys of an imperial power.

In this paper we will examine the process of recolonization and the strategy tactics and goals which are the driving forces of colony- building. We will conclude by discussing the durability, stability and Washington’s capacity to retain ownership of the Hemisphere.

A Brief History of 20th Century Colonization and Decolonization

US colonization of Latin America was based on direct US military, economic, cultural and political interventions with special emphasis on Central America, North America (Mexico) and the Caribbean. Washington resorted to military invasions, to impose favorite trade and investment advantages and appointed and trained local military forces to uphold colonial rule and to ensure submission to US regional and global supremacy.

The US challenged rival European colonial powers – in particular England and Germany, and eventually reduced them to marginal status, through military and economic pressure and threats.

The recolonization process suffered severe setbacks in some regions and nations with the onset of the Great Depression which undermined the US military and economic presence and facilitated the rise of powerful nationalist regimes and movements in particular in Argentina, Brazil, Chile Nicaragua and Cuba.

The process of ‘decolonization’ led to, and included, the nationalization of US oil fields, sugar and mining sectors; a shift in foreign policy toward relatively greater independence; and labor laws which increased workers’ rights and leftwing unionization.

The US victory in World War II and its economic supremacy led Washington to re-assert its colonial rule in the Western Hemisphere. The Latin American regimes lined up with Washington in the Cold and Hot wars, backing the US wars against China, Korea, Vietnam and the confrontation against the USSR and Eastern Europe.

For Washington, working through its colonized dictatorial regimes, invaded every sector of the economy, especially agro-minerals; it proceeded to dominate markets and sought to impose colonized trade unions run by the imperial-centered AFL-CIO.

By the early 1960’s a wave of popular nationalist and socialist social movements challenged the colonial order, led by the Cuban revolution and accompanied by nationalist governments throughout the continent including Argentina, Bolivia, Venezuela, Peru, Ecuador and the Dominican Republic. US multi-national manufacturing firms were forced to engage in joint ventures or were nationalized, as were oil, mineral and energy sectors.

Nationalists proceeded to substitute local products for imports, as a development strategy. A process of decolonization was underway!

The US reacted by launching a war to recolonize Latin America by through military coups, invasions and rigged elections. Latin America once more lined up with the US in support of its economic boycott of Cuba,and the repression of nationalist governments. The US reversed nationalist policies and denationalized their economies under the direction of US controlled so-called international financial organizations – like the International Monetary Fund (IMF), World Bank (WB) Inter-American Development Bank.

The recolonization process advanced, throughout the 1970’s and 1980’s, under the auspices of newly imposed military regimes and the new ‘neo-liberal’ free-market doctrine.

Once again recolonization led to highly polarized societies in which the domestic colonized elites were a distinct minority. Moreover, the colonial economic doctrine allowed the US banks and investors to plunder the Latin countries, impose out- of -control debt burdens, de-industrialization of the economies, severe increases in unemployment and a precipitous decline in living standards.

By the early years of the 21st century, deepening colonization led to an economic crisis and the resurgence of mass movements and new waves of nationalist-popular movements which sought to reverse – at least in part – the colonial relationship and structures.

Colonial debts were renegotiated or written off; a few foreign firms were nationalized; taxes were increased on agro-exporters; increases in public welfare spending reduced poverty ; public investment increased salaries and wages. A process of de-colonization advanced, aided by a boom in commodity pieces.

Twenty-first century decolonization was partial and affected only a limited sector of the economy; it mainly increased popular consumption rather than structural changes in property and financial power.

De-colonization co-existed with colonial power elites. The major significant changes took place with regard to regional policies. Decolonizing elites established regional alliance which excluded or minimized the US presence.

Regional power shifted to Argentina and Brazil in Mercosur; Venezuela in Central America and the Caribbean; Ecuador and Bolivia in the Andean region.

But as history has demonstrated, imperial power can suffer reverses and lose collaborators but while the US retains its military and economic levers of power it can and will use all the instruments of power to recolonize the region, in a step by step approach, incorporating regions in its quest for hemisphere supremacy.

The Recolonization of Latin America: Brazil, Argentina, and the Lima Pact Against Venezuela

As the first decade of the 21st century unfolded numerous Latin American governments and movements began the process of decolonization, displacing US client regimes, taking the lead in regional organizations, diversifying their markets and trading partners.

Nevertheless, the leaders and parties were incapable and unwilling to break with local elites tied to the US colonization project.

Vulnerable to downward movements in commodity prices, composed of heterogeneous political alliances and unable to create or deepen anti-colonial culture, the US moved to reconstruct its colonial project.

The US struck first at the ‘weakest link’ of the decolonization process. The US backed coups in Honduras and Paraguay. Then Washington turned to converting the judiciary and congress as stepping stones for launching a political attack on the strategic regimes in Argentina and Brazil and turning secondary regimes in Ecuador, Chile, Peru and El Salvador into the US orbit.

As the recolonization process advanced, the US regained its dominance in regional and international organizations. The colonized regimes privatized their economies and Washington secured regimes willing to assume onerous debts, previously repudiated.

The US advances in recolonization looked toward targeting the oil rich, dynamic and formidable anti-colonial government in Venezuela.

Venezuela was targeted for several strategic reasons.

First, Venezuela under President Chavez opposed US regional and global colonial ambitions.

Secondly, Caracas provided financial resources to bolster and promote anti-colonial regimes throughout Latin America especially in the Caribbean and Central America.

Thirdly, Venezuela invested in, and implemented, a profound and comprehensive state social agenda, building schools and hospitals with free education and health care, subsidized food and housing. Socialist democratic Venezuela contrasted with the US abysmal dismantling of the welfare state among the reconstructed colonial states.

Fourthly, Venezuela’s national control over natural resources, especially oil, was a strategic target in Washington imperial agenda.

While the US successfully reduced or eliminated Venezuela’s allies in the rest of Latin America, its repeated efforts to subdue Venezuela failed.

An abortive coup was defeated; as was a referendum to impeach President Chavez.

US boycotts and the bankrolling of elections failed to oust the Venezuelan government

Washington was unable to pressure and secure the backing of the mass of the population or the military.

Coup techniques, successful in imposing colonial regimes elsewhere, failed.

The US turned to a multi-prong, continent-wide, covert and overt military, political, economic and cultural war.

The White House appointed Juan Guaido, a virtual unknown, as ‘interim President’. Guaido was elected to Congress with 25% of the vote in his home district. Washington spent millions of dollars in promoting Guaido and funding NGOs and self-styled human rights organization to slander the Venezuelan government and launch violent attacks on the security forces.

The White House rounded up its recolonized regimes in the region to recognize Guaido as the ‘legitimate President’.

Washington recruited several leading European Union countries, especially the UK, France and Germany to isolate Venezuela.

The US sought to penetrate and subvert the Venezuelan populace via so-called humanitarian aid, refusing to work through the Red Cross and other independent organizations.

The White House fixed the weekend of Feb. 23 – 24 as the moment to oust President Maduro. It was a total, unmitigated failure, putting the lie to all of Washington’s fabrications.

The US claimed the Armed Forces would defect and join with the US funded opposition – only a hundred or so , out of 260,000 did so. The military remained loyal to the Venezuelan people, the government and the constitution despite bribes and promises.

Washington claimed ‘the people’ in Venezuela would launch an insurrection and hundreds of thousands would cross the border. Apart from a few dozen street thugs, tossing Molotov cocktails there was no uprising and less than a few hundred tried to cross the border.

Tons of US ‘aid’ remained in the Colombian warehouses. The Brazilian border patrol sent the US funded ‘protestors’ packing for blocking free passage across the frontier

Even US provocateurs who incinerated two trucks carrying ‘aid’ were exposed, the vehicles in flames remained on the Colombian side of the border. US sponsored boycotts of Venezuelan oil exports partially succeed because Washington illegaly seized Venezuela export revenues.

The recolonized Lima Group passed hostile resolutions and re-anointed Trump’s President Guaido, but few voters in the region took their pronouncements serious.

Conclusion

What are the colonized states expected to serve? Why has the White House failed to recolonize Venezuela as it did in the rest of Latin America?

The recolonized states in Latin America serve to open their markets to US investors on easy terms, with low taxes and social and labor costs, and political and economic stability based on repression of popular class and national struggles.

Colonized regimes are expected to support US boycotts, coups and invasions and to supply military troops as ordered.

Colonized regimes take the US side in international conflicts and negotiations; in regional organizations they vote with the US and meet debt payments on time and in full.

The recolonized nations ensure favorable results for Washington by manipulating elections and judicial decisions and by excluding anti-colonial candidates and officials and arresting political activists.

The colonized regimes anticipate the needs and demands of Washington and introduce resolutions on their behalf in regional organizations.

In the case of Venezuela, they promote and organize regional bloc like the Lima Group to promote US led intervention.

As Washington proceeds to destabilize Venezuela the colonized allies recycle US mass media propaganda and offer sanctuaries for opposition defectors and refugees.

In sum the recolonized elites facilitate domestic plunder and overseas conquests.

Venezuela success in resisting and defeating the US drive for reconquest is the result of nationalist and socialist leaders who re-allocate private wealth and re-distribute public expenditures to the workers, peasants and the unemployed.

Under President Chavez, Venezuela recruited and promoted military and security forces loyal to the constitutional order and in line with a popular socio-economic and anti-colonial agenda. Venezuela ensured that elections and judicial appointments were free and in-line with the politics of the majority.

The Venezuelans ensured that military advisers were independent of US military missions and aid agencies which plot coups and are disloyal to the nationalist state.

Venezuelan social democracy, its social advances and the massive reduction of poverty and inequality, contributed to reinforcing commitments to endogenous cultural values and national sovereignty.

Despite the US accumulation of colonial vassals throughout Latin America and Europe, Venezuela has consolidated mass support. Despite Washington’s capture of the global mass media it has not influenced popular opinion on a world scale. Despite US threats of a ‘military option’it lacks global support. In the face of prolonged and large scale resistance ,Washington hesitates. In addition the Latin Americans colonized states face domestic social and economic crises and political resistance. Europe confronts a regional break-up. Washington is riven by partisan divisions and a constitutional crisis.

The failure of the imperialist ultra’s in Washington to defeat Venezuela can set in motion a new wave of decolonization struggles which can force the US to look inward and downward – in order to decolonize its own electorate.

*

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

Award winning author Prof. James Petras is a Research Associate of the Centre for Research on Globalization.

Featured image: A protest outside the United States Consulate in Sydney on January 23 2019 to demand no US intervention in Venezuela. Photo: Peter Boyle

Heroin Addiction in America Spearheaded by US-led War on Afghanistan

August 31st, 2019 by Prof Michel Chossudovsky

…”In 2016, we lost 64,000 Americans to drug overdoses:  174 deaths per day.  Seven per hour.  We must get much tougher on drug dealers and pushers if we are going to succeed in stopping this scourge.

My Administration is committed to fighting the drug epidemic and helping get treatment for those in need.  The struggle will be long and difficult — but, as Americans always do, we will prevail.” (Trump State of the Union, emphasis added)

Trump brings to the forefront the story of the Holets family of New Mexico:

“Ryan Holets is 27 years old, and an officer with the Albuquerque Police Department.  He is here tonight with his wife Rebecca.  Last year, Ryan was on duty when he saw a pregnant, homeless woman preparing to inject heroin.  When Ryan told her she was going to harm her unborn child, she began to weep.  She told him she did not know where to turn, but badly wanted a safe home for her baby.

In that moment, Ryan said he felt God speak to him:  “You will do it — because you can.”  He took out a picture of his wife and their four kids.  Then, he went home to tell his wife Rebecca.  In an instant, she agreed to adopt.  The Holets named their new daughter Hope.

Ryan and Rebecca:  You embody the goodness of our Nation.  Thank you, and congratulations.” (Trump State of the Union, emphasis added)

Beautiful narrative. The Nation weeps, Ryan was interviewed on CNN. While he and his family take a courageous stance against heroin addiction, Trump sheds crocodile tears.

While Trump acknowledges that “there’s a drug epidemic the likes of which we have never seen in this country”, his national public health emergency plan fails to address the underlying causes. Getting “tougher on drug dealers and pushers” involved in the retail sale of heroin does not resolve the drug crisis.

The unspoken truth is that the surge in heroin addiction in America has been spearheaded by the US led invasion of Afghanistan in October 2001.

Afghanistan under US military occupation produces approximately 90% of the World’s illegal supply of opium which is used to produce heroin. The production of opium in Afghanistan registered a 49 fold increase since 2001. In 2017, the production of opium in Afghanistan under US military occupation reached 9000 metric tons.

The Taliban Opium Eradication Program

Barely acknowledged by the mainstream media, in 2000-2001 the Taliban government with the support of the United Nations (UNODC) –  implemented a successful ban on poppy cultivation. Opium production which is used to produce grade 4 heroin and its derivatives declined by more than 90 per cent in 2001. The production of opium in 2001 was of the order of a meagre 185 tons.

It is worth noting that the UNODC congratulated the Taliban Government for its successful opium eradication program.

This year’s production [2001] is around 185 tons. This is down from the 3300 tons last year [2000], a decrease of over 94 per cent. Compared to the record harvest of 4700 tons two years ago, the decrease is well over 97 per cent.

Any decrease in illicit cultivation is welcomed, especially in cases like this when no displacement, locally or in other countries, took place to weaken the achievement”

(Remarks on behalf of UNODC Executive Director at the UN General Assembly, Oct 2001)

The Taliban government had contributed to literally destabilizing the multibillion dollar Worldwide trade in heroin.

What motivated the US-led war on Afghanistan, which had been planned several months prior to the 9/11 attacks?

Did the US-NATO led War against Afghanistan serve to restore the illicit heroin trade?

Immediately following the invasion (October 7, 2001) and occupation of Afghanistan by US-NATO troops, the production of opium regained its historical levels. (a more than nine fold increase in 2002). Since 2001, according to UNODC, the production of opium has increased 49 fold, reaching 9000 metric tons in 2017. (See Figure 1 below)

Heroin Addiction in the US

There were 189,000 heroin users in the US in 2001, before the US-NATO invasion of Afghanistan. By 2012-13, there were 3.8 million heroin users in the US according to a study by Columbia University Mailman School of Public Health. Extrapolating the 2012-2013 figures (see graph below), one can reasonably confirm that the number of heroin users today (including addicts and casual users) is well in excess of four million.

In 20o1, 1,779 Americans were killed as a result of heroin overdose. By 2016, the number of Americans killed as a result of heroin addiction shot up to 15,446. (see graph below)

“My Administration is committed to fighting the drug epidemic” says Donald Trump.

My message to Donald Trump: Those lives would have been saved had the US and its NATO allies NOT invaded and occupied Afghanistan.  

Source: National Institute of Drug Abuse

Since 2001, the use of heroin in the US has increased more than 20 times. 

Is there a correlation between heroin addiction in America and the dramatic increase in opium production which occurred in the immediate wake of the US-NATO October 2001 invasion?

Who is protecting opium exports out of Afghanistan?

Amply documented, the opium economy in Afghanistan was set up by the CIA in 1979.

As revealed in the Iran-Contra and Bank of Commerce and Credit  International (BCCI) scandals, CIA covert operations in support of the Afghan Mujahideen had been funded through the laundering of drug money.  “Dirty money” was recycled –through a number of banking institutions (in the Middle East) as well as through anonymous CIA shell companies–, into  “covert money,” used to finance various insurgent groups during the Soviet-Afghan war, and its aftermath. According to a 1991 Time Magazine report:

“Because the US wanted to supply the Mujahideen rebels in Afghanistan with stinger missiles and other military hardware it needed the full cooperation of Pakistan. By the mid-1980s, the CIA operation in Islamabad was one of the largest US intelligence stations in the World. `If BCCI is such an embarrassment to the US that forthright investigations are not being pursued it has a lot to do with the blind eye the US turned to the heroin trafficking in Pakistan’, said a US intelligence officer. (“The Dirtiest Bank of All,” Time, July 29, 1991, p. 22. emphasis added)

Alfred McCoy’s study confirms that within two years of the onslaught of the CIA’s covert operation in Afghanistan in 1979,

“the Pakistan-Afghanistan borderlands became the world’s top heroin producer, supplying 60 per cent of U.S. demand. In Pakistan, the heroin-addict population went from near zero in 1979  to 1.2 million by 1985, a much steeper rise than in any other nation.”

“CIA assets again controlled this heroin trade. As the Mujahideen guerrillas seized territory inside Afghanistan, they ordered peasants to plant opium as a revolutionary tax. Across the border in Pakistan, Afghan leaders and local syndicates under the protection of Pakistan Intelligence operated hundreds of heroin laboratories. During this decade of wide-open drug-dealing, the U.S. Drug Enforcement Agency in Islamabad failed to instigate major seizures or arrests. (Alfred McCoy, Drug Fallout: the CIA’s Forty Year Complicity in the Narcotics Trade. The Progressive, 1 August 1997).

Heroin: “Supply Creates its Own Demand”?

While the number of heroin users in America has increased about 20 times (2001-2016), the cultivation and production of opium used to produce heroin increased 41 times (2001-2017): 8000 hectares in 2001 rising to 328,000 hectares in 2017.

In 2017, ironically coinciding with the influx of more US troops into Afghanistan, the areas under opium poppy cultivation according to UNODC increased by 83 percent in a single year, (see Figure 1 above)

While the supply-demand relationship is complex: the dramatic increase in the consumption of heroin would not have been possible without a concurrent increase in the production of opium from 183 metric tons in 2001 to an estimated 9000 metric tons in 2017 (a 49 fold  increase in relation to 2001).

It stands to reason that the increase in heroin usage could not have occurred without a corresponding surge in opium production.

Needless to say, the drug trade is a multibillion dollar operation which has been supported by successive US administrations. The unspoken truth is that US foreign policy is supporting this lucrative trade:

The heroin business is not  “filling the coffers of the Taliban” as claimed by US government and the international community: quite the opposite! The proceeds of this illegal trade are the source of wealth formation, largely reaped by powerful business/criminal interests within the Western countries. …

Decision-making in the US State Department, the CIA and the Pentagon is instrumental in supporting this highly profitable multibillion dollar trade, third in commodity value after oil and the arms trade.( Michel Chossudovsky,The Spoils of War, Afghanistan’s Multibillion Dollar Heroin Trade, Global Research, May 2005)

The UNODC confirms in its 2017 Report that: “Only a small share of the revenues generated by the cultivation and trafficking of Afghan opiates reaches Afghan drug trafficking groups. Many more billions of dollars are made from trafficking opiates into major consumer markets, mainly in Europe and Asia.” The earnings generated by 9000 metric tons of opium are colossal, in the hundreds of billions. 9000 tons produces 900 tons of pure heroin.

These global proceeds accrue to business syndicates, intelligence agencies, organized crime, financial institutions, wholesalers, retailers, etc. involved directly or indirectly in the drug trade.  Moreover, a large share of global money laundering as estimated by the IMF is linked to the trade in narcotics.

Drug trafficking constitutes “the third biggest global commodity in cash terms after oil and the arms trade.”

Are US military planes being used to export opioids out of Afghanistan? US occupation forces have been instructed to turn a blind eye? According to Abby Martin,

“…there is no conclusive proof that the CIA is physically running opium out of Afghanistan. However, it’s hard to believe that a region under full US military occupation – with guard posts and surveillance drones monitoring the mountains of Tora Bora – aren’t able to track supply routes of opium exported from the country’s various poppy farms (you know, the ones the US military are guarding).”

In the words of researcher Timothy Alexander Guzman: “who owns the planes and the ships that transport 90% percent of the world’s heroin from Afghanistan to the rest of the world in the first place? It sure isn’t the Taliban”.

  • Posted in English, Mobile
  • Comments Off on Heroin Addiction in America Spearheaded by US-led War on Afghanistan

Forget geopolitics and the World financial crisis.

Music gives us hope. Listen carefully.

By far Yeol Eum Son is among the World’s most outstanding pianists.

It is not only musical excellence and talent.

She translates her feelings into music. Her mind communicates with her fingers. 

Her mind and her fingers and her love of music are combined. 

M. Ch, August 31, 2019

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Mozart Piano Concerto No 15: Yeol Eum Son, the World’s Most Outstanding Pianist

This incisive ad timely article was first published in October 2013

Former Clinton administration Labor Secretary Robert Reich explained, saying:

“Of all developed nations, the United States has the most unequal distribution of income, and we’re surging towards every greater inequality.”

America’s 400 richest elites have more wealth than half the population. Jacob Kornbluth’s new documentary film “Inequality for All” examines disturbing truths.

US inequality is at historic highs. Since 1970, America’s economy doubled. The top 1% benefited hugely. They earn more than 20% of national income. It’s triple their 1970 percentage.

The gap between rich and all others keeps widening. Inequality hurts everyone, says Reich. Since economic recovery began in 2009, America’s top 1% got 95% of the gains.

Adjusted for inflation, median household income keeps declining. Where will most people “get the money they need to keep the economy going,” asked Reich?

“We’re the richest economy in the history of the world. For the majority of Americans not to get the benefits of this extraordinarily prosperous economy, you know, there’s something fundamentally wrong.”

America has less upward mobility than any other developed country. If you’re poor, you’ll stay that way.

If you’re lower middle class, “the cards are going to be stacked against you. You will probably never get anywhere,” says Reich.

“Who is actually looking out for the American worker? The answer is nobody.”

The nation is headed toward becoming a “100 percent plutocracy.” Inequality this extreme fuels public anger. It hurts economic growth. Force-fed austerity assures worse ahead.

Reich teaches a popular Wealth and Poverty course at UC Berkeley. His book “Beyond Outrage” explains what’s wrong with America’s economy.

It doesn’t work. It benefits the privileged few. It harms most others. Doing so undermines America. Expect worse ahead unless people react, he says.

He’s never been more concerned about things than now. He cites “the corrupting effects of big money in politics,” regressive hard right policies, and unprecedented “wealth and power at the very top.”

Things are “perilously close” to falling apart altogether. People are right to be outraged. It’s a “prerequisite for social change.” It’s vital to “move beyond outrage and take action.”

The stakes are too high to be ignored. Nothing good happens in Washington unless people mobilize, organize and demand it.

“Nothing worth changing in America will actually change unless you and others like you are committed to achieving that change,” he stresses.

So-called US economic recovery is fake. Main Street poverty, unemployment, underemployment, hunger and homelessness are at Depression era levels.

Half of all US households are impoverished or bordering it. Recovery benefited only America’s most well off. Most others endure deepening deprivation.

According to economist Emmanuel Saez:

 “For the first time in nearly 100 years, the percentage of income taken by the top 10 percent of Americans topped 50 percent.”

 From 2009 to 2012, “(t)op 1% incomes grew by 31.4% while bottom 99% incomes grew by only 0.4%.” Adjusted for inflation, they declined considerably.

From 2007 – 2009, average real family income declined 17.4%. It’s more than any period since the Great Depression. Wealthy Americans recovered and then some. Conditions for most others went from bad to worse.

According to Saez:

“We need to decide as a society whether this increase in income inequality is efficient and acceptable and, if not, what mix of institutional and tax reforms should be developed to counter it.”

Russell Sage Foundation president Sheldon Danziger said:

“The continued high rate of poverty is no surprise, given ongoing high unemployment, stagnant wages and government spending cuts.”

 “Poverty is higher today than it was in 2000, and household incomes are lower. The ‘lost decade’ is likely to turn into ‘two lost decades.’ “

 According to Marx:

“Accumulation of wealth at one pole is at the same time accumulation of misery, agony of toil, slavery, ignorance, brutality, and mental degradation at the opposite pole.”

 America’s wealth distribution is extreme. It keeps shifting disproportionately upward. Most people are more than ever on their own.

Financial elites run America. Whatever they want they get. Popular needs go begging. Things go from bad to worse.

In 1962, Michael Harrington’s “The Other America: Poverty in the United States” exposed the nation’s dark side, saying:

 “In morality and in justice, every citizen should be committed to abolishing the other America, for it is intolerable that the richest nation in human history should allow such needless suffering.”

“But more than that, if we solve the problem of the other America we will have learned how to solve the problems of all of America.”

 Jack Kennedy addressed the issue. In his January 8, 1964 State of the Union address, Lyndon Johnson declared war on poverty.

He barely scratched it. Inequality was severe. Today, it’s unprecedented and growing. It bears repeating. Census data show around half of US households impoverished or bordering it.

Government data most often over-estimate good news and understate what’s bad. Unprecedented numbers of US households are impoverished under protracted Main Street Depression conditions.

Bipartisan harshness assures greater pain and suffering. Over 20% of US households haven’t enough money for food and other essentials.

On November 1, Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) benefit cuts are coming. One-person households will get $11 per month less.

For 2 people, it’s $20. For three it’s $29. For four it’s $36. Expect more cuts ahead. Food costs are rising. Family incomes are falling. More help is needed. Congress and Obama intend less.

America’s most needy will be harmed most. So will tens of millions of children. They may end up without enough to eat.

America’s great divide is greater than ever. In 2009, around half of US households had no assets. Today it’s more than half.

Most Americans don’t earn enough to live on. Things go from bad to worse. Hardwired inequality is deepening. Casino capitalism takes precedence.

America’s criminal class alone benefits. Ordinary people are swindled. Venal politicians serve wealth, power and privilege. Democrats and Republicans are in lockstep. Few benefit at the expense of most others.

On July 28, AP headlined “Exclusive: Signs of Declining Economic Security,” saying:

“Four out of 5 US adults struggle with joblessness, near poverty or reliance on welfare for at least parts of their lives.”

 It’s a disturbing “sign of deteriorating economic security and an elusive American dream.”

“Survey data exclusive to The Associated Press points to an increasingly globalized US economy, the widening gap between rich and poor, and loss of good-paying manufacturing jobs as reasons for the trend.”

Hardship for white Americans is rising. AP-GfK poll numbers show “63 percent of whites called the economy ‘poor.’ ”

Fifty-two-year-old Irene Salyers perhaps spoke for others, saying:

“I think it’s going to get worse. If you do try to go apply for a job, they’re not hiring people, and they’re not paying that much to even go to work.”

 Economic insecurity is much worse than government data show. It affects over three-fourths of white Americans.

It’s defined as experiencing unemployment some time during working years or needing government aid to survive.

According to Professor William Julius Wilson:

 “It’s time that America comes to understand that many of the nation’s biggest disparities, from education and life expectancy to poverty, are increasingly due to economic class position.”

 Government data fall short of explaining things. Conditions are much worse than official reports. Most Americans struggle to get by. Impoverishment or close to it affect them.

 It’s harder than ever for millions of disadvantaged households to survive. Their numbers keep growing exponentially. Vital social protections are eroding. It’s happening when they’re most needed.

“By race, nonwhites still have a higher risk of being economically insecure, at 90 percent.”

 “But compared with the official poverty rate, some of the biggest jumps under the newer measure are among whites, with more than 76 percent enduring periods of joblessness, life on welfare or near-poverty.”

 “By 2030, based on the current trend of widening income inequality, close to 85 percent of all working-age adults in the US will experience bouts of economic insecurity.”

 According to Professor Mark Rank:

“Poverty is no longer an issue of ‘them.’ It’s an issue of ‘us.’ Only when poverty is thought of as a mainstream event, rather than a fringe experience that just affects blacks and Hispanics, can we really begin to build broader support for programs that lift people in need.”

 Data Professors Tom Hirschl and John Iceland compiled provide more context. They show:

  • for the first time in nearly three decades, impoverished single-mother households surpassed or equaled black ones; they exceeded numbers of Hispanic single mother families; and
  • numbers of children living in high-poverty neighborhoods increased.

According to a University of Chicago General Social Survey, whites are more pessimistic about their futures than since the depths of the early 1980s.

“Just 45 percent say their family will have a good chance of improving their economic position based on the way things are in America,” said AP.

Polls show over 80% of Americans mostly don’t trust government. Congress’ approval rating is 11%.

It’s barely above its all-time February and August 2012 10% low. Given the margin of error, they’re’s virtually no difference between then and now.

Americans are suffering. Things go from bad to worse. Republicans and Democrats are in lockstep. They’re cutting social protections when they’re most needed.

Stephen Lendman lives in Chicago. He can be reached at [email protected]

His new book is titled “Banker Occupation: Waging Financial War on Humanity.”

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

Visit his blog site at sjlendman.blogspot.com. 

Listen to cutting-edge discussions with distinguished guests on the Progressive Radio News Hour on the Progressive Radio Network.

It airs Fridays at 10AM US Central time and Saturdays and Sundays at noon. All programs are archived for easy listening.

http://www.progressiveradionetwork.com/the-progressive-news-hour

http://www.dailycensored.com/americas-economic-dark-side/

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on America’s Economic Dark Side. Widening Social Inequality, Rising Poverty and Joblessness

For nearly a century, Japan posed the greatest threat to the security of Korea and most of Asia through its agenda of aggressive militarism and Western-style imperialism; today, that distinction belongs primarily to the United States. Yet the casual newsreader wouldn’t know this from the unanimous outcry that has poured out from the military-intelligence establishment in South Korea, Japan, and the United States over the Moon administration’s recent decision to withdraw from its intelligence-sharing agreement with Japan, GSOMIA.

According to the experts and talking heads who represent this establishment, South Korea’s GSOMIA withdrawal leaves all of East Asia more vulnerable to the real security threat in the region: North Korea, followed closely by China and Russia.

Indeed, Japan and South Korea signed the bilateral agreement in 2016 with the intent to “streamline intelligence sharing between Seoul and Tokyo in the face of North Korea’s nuclear threats.” GSOMIA was designed to serve both “practical” and “symbolic” functions: the agreement allowed for the unmitigated sharing of various forms of intelligence — military, satellite, cyber, and human — between Japan and South Korea concerning the activities of North Korea. More importantly, it symbolized the triumph of the U.S.-led alliance with South Korea and Japan to project military and economic power in East Asia against the rising powers of China and Russia.

Embedded into this rationale lie certain hypocrisies both blatant and subtle. A thorough account of U.S. imperialism in Asia in the past half-century would extend beyond the scope of this article, but the pervasive lack of clarity about the current situation among Asian countries themselves reveals certain contradictions worth spelling out.

East Asia: appearance vs. reality

Since its defeat in World War II, the government of Japan has thrown up a white flag of pacification that has won over much of the Western world. In line with its international image and traumatic national experience of nuclear warfare, Japan became a signatory of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty more than 40 years ago. Today, however, Japan implicitly postures to its neighbors as a de facto nuclear state with the technical capability to produce 5,000 nuclear weapons in six months. Meanwhile, Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe praises the “glories” of Japan’s past, and his glowing praise contains within it a veiled threat to every country Japan invaded and plundered during its colonial era. Nowhere is this threat more apparent than in Japan’s aggressive attempts to stake a territorial claim over the island chains of Dokdo and Diaoyu: for centuries these territories belonged to Korea and China, respectively, only to be seized by Japan in the mid-twentieth century and placed under a foreign administrative rule that continues to this day.

Within the Korean peninsula, the supposed threat of North Korea has served as a convenient excuse for the continuation in South Korea of multi-million dollar joint military exercises and unchecked arms build-up — along with a dizzyingly vast, subterranean “spy manufacturing machine” that churns out highly questionable North Korean defector narratives for the sake of acquiring so-called human intelligence to be directly shared with the U.S. and until recently, Japan. Consequently, a national culture of anti-North paranoia pervades the South.

Under the weight of these contradictions, the rationale behind South Korea’s current military and security arrangement has been steadily waning. Despite the resumption of a familiar back-and-forth of joint military exercises on the U.S.-South Korean side and missile tests on the North Korean side, neither the Moon administration nor the DPRK government appears to have lost its long-term resolve in striving for peace and reunification on the peninsula. Japan, meanwhile, has only offered half-baked apologies and recalcitrant chauvinism towards Korea.

And so a stormy trade feud with deep historical roots has brought the relationship between Japan and South Korea to a new low for this century: last year, a South Korean court ruled in favor of compensation for Korean victims of forced labor by Japanese companies during the era of Japan’s colonial rule. In retaliation, Japan removed South Korea from its list of preferred trading partners and increased restrictions on exported products earlier this month. Incensed South Koreans erupted into a widespread boycott of Japanese goods, and the Moon administration downgraded Japan’s trade status. Beneath South Korea’s decision to abandon GSOMIA, then, lies a century of simmering anger at the refusal of the Japanese people and their government to fully recognize and make true amends for their imperialistic crimes against humanity.

With the renunciation of its intelligence-sharing pact with Japan, the South Korean government has not only responded to the mandate of the Korean people but dealt a practical and symbolic blow to the status quo in East Asia. As prospects for peace between North and South Korea loom closer than they have since the Korean War, the widening rift between South Korea and Japan has opened a door of opportunity for a new peace paradigm to be created in the region.

Ultimately, the termination of GSOMIA does not so much reflect the failure of inter-Asian diplomacy as it does the inefficacy of the U.S. alliance structure in East Asia. As American power dwindles in the Asia Pacific, the possibility of multilateral cooperation among the Asian countries increases. A regime built on the dominance of a foreign superpower can be replaced with a regional or continental system based on mutual relationships. Such a system would not emerge by chance or fate, but rather by the political will of the people involved. It is easy to talk of government officials and newsroom personalities when it comes to matters of international import, but the more important question is whether the people of a country want peace — for it is they who can decide whether peace is won.

The panic in Washington

Predictably, any forecast of peace appears as a threat to those who hold a stake in maintaining a climate of war. Perusing the lines of mainstream news reports and analyses on the recent GSOMIA decision proves highly instructive in this regard, insofar as these lines reveal the panic and dismay among the Washington elite at the thought of South Korea breaking up a military bloc that the United States has taken such pains to build over the past 75 years.

A prime example can be found in Bruce Bennett, a senior defense analyst at the RAND Corporation. In an interview with Yonhap News Agency, Bennett opined: “In the event of a conflict with the North, the U.S. would deploy forces in support of its South Korean ally, but some of those troops would need to arrive via airports in Japan… South Korea’s decision to terminate GSOMIA reflects a failure of the South Korean government to recognize the importance of Japanese support to South Korean security.” In another interview with Voice of America, Bennett estimated that a conflict with North Korea would require the U.S. to bring about 690,000 troops to the peninsula — 662,000 more than the 28,000 U.S. troops currently stationed in Korea. Terminating GSOMIA would “significantly slow the ability of U.S. forces to get to Korea” through Japanese airbases.

Perhaps unwittingly, Bennett paints a horrifying picture: a full-sized army of American soldiers flying halfway across the world to attack Korea from Japan.

Bennett’s employer RAND is a U.S. government-funded think tank whose tendrils have spread far and deep into every aspect of U.S. military and intelligence strategy since the Cold War, making Bennett a reliable mouthpiece for the permanent-war complex in Washington. The key detail to notice in Bennett’s opinion on the South Korea-Japan situation is that he presupposes a conflict between North and South Korea. In a delicate act of subliminal messaging, he slips in the mental image of war with North Korea as a given assumption from which all other reasoning must proceed.

The military-intelligence elites in Washington need lawmakers and everyday citizens to believe that a possible peace between the two Koreas should not be factored into any sort of decision-making when it comes to South Korea’s national security strategy or U.S. military involvement in Korea. Crucially, however, the Trump administration does not always align with the agenda of permanent war, especially when it comes to Korea.

In scores of news reports, opinion columns, and interviews, President Trump has been held wholly or partially guilty for the Moon administration’s most recent drastic course of action. Analysts have been quick to denounce Trump for botching trilateral relations between the U.S., South Korea, and Japan due to a bevy of accused missteps: his reluctance to step between the latter two nations to paternalistically resolve their issues with one another, his awareness of the hypocrisy in condemning North Korea for testing missiles when other countries do the same, and his personal crusade to reduce U.S. troop involvement and monetary support toward military “readiness” operations in South Korea that signal a flagrant threat of war to the North.

Whether Trump has consciously willed it or no, what is clear is that his administration’s political and rhetorical stances towards Korea have precipitated a seismic shift in the balance of power in East Asia — a fact which has drawn the ire of those who cling onto the outdated idea that the world needs the United States to maintain the global order because the smaller, darker nations cannot govern themselves.

In an interview on KBS World Radio, James Brown, a professor at Temple University’s Japan campus, ventured that a change in administration in the United States might “make a difference” in trying to “promote cooperation between the two sides and get them to overcome their differences” — an area where Trump has evidently failed. A Democratic president might, in other words, reverse the spiraling disarray of the U.S. alliance in East Asia. If Trump is unseated in the 2020 elections, pro-war factions can likely anticipate a more conventional U.S. military strategy akin to former President Obama’s disastrous “pivot to Asia”.

For those of us in the United States who care about peace and believe that the universal right to self-rule means that other peoples should exercise responsibility for their nation’s path without requiring the blessing of the West, the upcoming presidential election presents an opportunity to put, as the saying goes, our money where our mouth is. Will we elect a president who stands for persistent wars? Or will we elect a president who can help open the door to peace? Will we do what we can to hasten the arrival of a new paradigm in East Asia? Or will we bow before the so-called experts who tell us that further militarization is best for “America’s interests” or that somebody else “needs” America’s help?

It is not necessary to fully agree with or condone the governments of North Korea, China, and Russia. It is right, however, to practice some basic self-awareness about the gaping contradictions in our own society’s use of wholesale violence and extortion against not one, but multiple continents of human beings. As a famous Jewish rabbi once said, “You hypocrite, first take the log out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to take the speck out of your brother’s eye.”

The military-intelligence establishment has decried South Korea’s refusal to cooperate with a country that will not recognize the persistence of its own evils, and hawkish trumpeters are sounding the horns of war and mayhem — but a great many others will be sounding the bells of peace and justice in the days to come.

*

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.

Jeremiah Kim is a graduate of Cornell University, a member of Asian Pacific Americans for Action (APAA), and a former editor at The Cornell Daily Sun.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on South Korea’s Withdrawal from the Intelligence Sharing Agreement (GSOMIA) with Japan, Opens a Door to New Peace Paradigm in East Asia
  • Tags: , ,

On August 27, joint forces of Hayat Tahrir al-Sham and other militant groups launched an attack on positions of the Syrian Arab Army (SAA) near the town of Abu Dali in southern Idlib. Clashes between the SAA and militants erupted in the villages of Tal Maraq, Salmuia, Jaduia, Sham Al-Hawa and Abi Omar. Hayat Tahrir al-Sham employed at least one suicide vehicle borne improvised explosive device. Nonetheless, they were not able to overrun the SAA defense.

Pro-militant sources claimed that militant forces captured a battle tank and 3 armoured vehicles from the SAA. Pro-government sources reported that at least 37 militants were killed and a T-55 battle tank and a BMP-1 infantry fighting vehicle belonging to them were destroyed.

The developments near Abu Dali, a Russian observation post is located in the same area, demonstrate that no real de-escalation of the situation in Idlib is possible while Hayat Tahrir al-Sham operates there.

Watch video here.

Meanwhile, the SAA deployed a batch of reinforcements to northern Lattakia. Pro-government forces have been seeing the militant-held town of Kinsabah as a high priority target in the area. However, all previous attempts to capture it have resulted in no progress.

On August 28, pro-militant sources reported that a supposed Syrian Air Force airstrike hit a Turkish observation post near Sheir Magher in northwestern Hama. Later, it appeared that the Syrian Su-24 dropped a strike near the post causing no damage to it. The Turkish Defense Ministry also denied that any of its posts was targeted.

Radical militant groups, including Hayat Tahrlr a-Sham, often deploy their positions used to shell SAA positions near Turkish observation posts using Turkish troops as de-facto human shields.

On the same day, Jaysh al-Nasir reported that one of its field commanders, Mohamad Turki, and two of his body guards were eliminated near the town of Alhakorh. The group blamed Russian special forces.

The situation on the contact line in southern Idlib remains tense.

*

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

We call upon Global Research readers to 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

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Video: Militants’ Failed Terror Attack in Eastern Idlib Ends in Disaster
  • Tags: ,

From an ignorant child you’d never learn it.
Yet the sophisticated know it is work
That is the secret of the good life. God forbid,
Not labor that breaks your back, picking
Vegetables, cleaning toilets, laying down
That steaming hot blacktop on summer days.

Nothing that crushes your body to fine powder.
No, no, nothing as crude as dirty work like that.
They are, after all, wise in the world’s ways, those
Who mean a career, achievement, a steady craft,
Day in and day out whether you like it or not,
Whether it involves crushing others or ignoring
Them, playing dumb and innocent, bad
Faith to be sure, tapping at a keyboard as you
Lie or steal to build your innocent dream
House, construct your illusions to hide from truth
As you sell your soul to the money lenders, those
Who hunt and kill the poor everywhere. Sometimes
It is couched as art or intellect.  Get something down
Every day. It is not important what it is or that
It doesn’t serve to salve the wounded ones. Regularity is what
Counts, a daily drop in the bucket of fugacious waste,
Tomorrow and tomorrow and tomorrow, creeping
Through a petty pace in petty pursuits in petty lives.

All wise and happy people know it.

A career a work a task to call your own, to say
I am a lawyer, a professor, a journalist, anything
With a name, a title, a way to be but not become,
A way to say that dusty death can never
Claim that you have lived an idiot’s life, wasted
Work in time that you will never have again.

Real work true work regular work,
So merry Rodin advised the sad young poet Rilke,
Work, work, work, my boy, never cease
From toiling over your clay world of words.
Exactly why he never said exactly,
Except I guess he meant it would bring benefit.
And bubbly Freud’s advice is legendary.
You need work that is yours, so too
Some love, but mostly work to keep you jolly
Sane. Life is a long and lonely vale
Of tears, so you must find your work and do it
Whether you like it or not. Civilization is a
Valley of deep discontent, pleasure
Might come to you later, a little here
Or there, once you get regular, down to it
Daily. Success will rise to greet you,

From an ignorant child you’d never learn 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.

Distinguished author and sociologist Edward Curtin is a Research Associate of the Centre for Research on Globalization.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Get to It. “The sweet smell of success. From an ignorant child you’d never learn it”

G7 – The Cost of Uselessness

August 30th, 2019 by Peter Koenig

The G7 Summit is an obsolete, useless talking shop, as Finnian Cunningham so adroitly says. RT calls it The Unbearable Pointlessness of G7. Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, the UK, and the United States constitute the G7 gang. It should strike any logical thinker as extremely odd that the world’s largest economy (by purchasing parity-based GDP), China, is not part of the club. Why is that? – It’s clear, the club is for western turbo-capitalist ideologues only; the self-proclaimed world hegemons.

Yes, the G7 are, no doubt, a useless talking shop – and much worse. These seven self-nominated leaders of the world are also among the greatest war criminals of the globe. They are involved in and initiate conflicts and wars that have in the last 20 years – roughly since 9/11 gave them a ‘free pass’ to raise in the name of fighting endless terrorism havoc around the globe – killed an estimated 15 to 20 million people, either directly or by proxy and mercenary armies.

That is of course much worse than uselessness.

*

Does anyone ever talk about the value and cost, of these ‘summits’? – The value, i.e. the output, is at best zero – and in most cases negative. These conferences highlight conflicts, create new ones and add to the fire what was just smoldering. And I am not talking about the Brazilian amazon fires. This was the case of the G7 in Biarritz. The high-ranking delegates were insulting each other, plus, as this was not enough, barbs were thrown back and forth across the Atlantic between Macron and Bolsonaro. That just shows about what level of human consciousness we are talking.

Trump was confusing the lot, or those who paid any attention to the outbursts of the creator of pure chaos, more tariffs on Chinese goods, then not, then again, levying tariffs for French wines, new sanctions against Iran, Venezuela, threats of new aggressions and even war with Iran; and surprise-surprise “Kim Jon-un, North Korea’s President, is a friend”. Peace talks were not even on the back-burner. So, it would be fair to say, the benefits or values of this summit were less than zilch, they were negative. It was a laughable propaganda stint, but an expensive one at that.

Defining the costs of the event is a rather complex algorithm. However, any cost for an event that produces a sum of negative values, is money thrown into a bottomless pit. The costs, of course, do not just amount to travel, lodging, good food and drink – they include for starters also the entire entourage of the megalo-politicians, police and military security. Biarritz alone was protected by about 20,000 police and military troops combined, they shielded the worldly leaders (sic) from anti-G7 / anti-establishment demonstrators.

Protests are widely justified against this clan of smiling tyrants and despots, with the audacity to appoint themselves to the world’s rulers. No UN or other international body has selected or ratified them. Their arrogance with impunity is meant to irradiate power around the globe. Their smoke of grandeur emanating from their heads can most likely be seen from space. The sad story is that the vast majority of this world, especially the western world, takes them seriously. They bow to the G7 nonsense; they accept their often-criminal decisions for wars, conflicts and killer-sanctions, as God-given. – The G7 decide over the fate of sovereign nations, like Iran, Venezuela, Cuba, Syria, Afghanistan – and who is next? – If it wasn’t for Russia and China the damage, they cause would indeed be unbearable.

They selected themselves as rulers of the universe. Unheard of, only half a century ago, that something so aberrant like the G7, the G20, the WEF (World Economic Forum that meets every January in lush Davos, Switzerland), are able to assemble many of the same rulers to hold the scepter of power over the planet. How come the peoples of this world allow their supremacy with impunity? – One can but shake one’s head about this lunacy – what has humanity become?

The Trump delegation usually travels with a flock of aids, journalists, advisors, let alone his bodyguards – and the blinded cars he brings from Washington by special air carriers. And all the others? Maybe slightly less, as they are – as vassals of the Great US Emperor – bound to be a bit more modest. Nevertheless, the total cost must be in the hundreds of millions – all counted, including shadow costs, environmental damage, CO2 emissions, and ‘externalities’ – which includes everything that establishment economists don’t want you to know, say a total cost of 200 to 300 million dollars?

Image result for g7 summit 2019 theme

Source: Flickr

Maybe that’s an underestimate. The published figure on what Biarritz alone spent on this illustrious event is around US$ 41 million equivalent, 15,000 police and about 5,000 troops, but not counting for the damage caused by the authorities fighting peaceful protesters. Add to this the cost of all the other attendants. Never mind the exact cost – the sheer fact that a grotesque amount of money in the range of 200 to 300 million dollars, is spent for nothing, zilch, for the bolstering of egos of some megalos, is an absurdity of our western civilization.

Hundreds of millions of dollars – a fiat currency produced at will and whim by the Federal reserve (The FED – the entirely privately owned US Central Bank) – nevertheless a currency that still drives much of the world, is used to pay for basics, like food, housing, clothing, health care and what’s left of education  – meaning what the world rulers are still allowing young people to be educated with.

Just think about it – who pays for all these hundreds of millions of dollars, euros, yen, or whatever other fiat currency? – You – the tax payer. So, you, the tax payer have something to say about how your money is spent. Don’t you think?

Therefore, we the people have to stop this arrogant nonsense – that leads to less than zero, or worse, but costs hundreds of millions that could be spent on education and health services and other public services, including taking care of refugees – in the G7 countries, or alternatively in countries to be rebuilt after the destruction by wars for greed and hegemony by the very G7.

So far – and every time more – the money spent on G7 and similar events, is like negative interest – destructive. You the citizen and tax-payer, spend money for something that has a negative return. It is as nefarious as if you deposit your savings in a bank and the bank, instead of giving you an interest on your savings, charges you interest for keeping your money, then lends it to, say, a corporation, but the corporation has to pay back less than it borrowed. In other words, you the ‘small saver’ subsidize the big corporation, or anybody who can afford and is considered ‘eligible’ and solvent enough by the bank to borrow money. – It’s a new form of transferring resources from the bottom to the top.

The money spent on the G7 – or other comparable events – is similar. The event rulers take your money (taxes) and transfer it upstairs, where you will never see it again. Not only do you get nothing for it, but it costs you more, as the G7 foment wars and conflicts which kill millions, annihilate entire countries’ infrastructure, housing, schools, health facilities and generate an influx of refugees, for all of which you pay again.

Let’s see – a year of primary education, say in Africa, costs about US$ 400 / per student, and about US$ 650 for high school education (2017). Providing decent health care, preventive and curative, per person in Bangladesh amounts to about US$ 650 per year. Assuming the money spent on the G7 Biarritz summit was about 250 to 300 million, you could provide education for a year to about 550,00 students in, say, Kenya, or provide a year of decent health care to about 430,000 Bangladeshi. – Or – the G7 funds could build drinking water and sanitation facilities for about 2.5 million people in developing countries. These figures may have a margin of error of plus or minus 20%. But you get the picture.

Or closer to home – how many refugees could xenophobic Europe, especially France and Italy,  take care of – refugees driven from their countries, precisely for wars started and sustained by the G7s, to line their weapons industries with huge profits, to dominate the world’s natural resources and eventually put all the people under one hegemonic, globalized roof – one culture, one currency, and only one kind of thinking and ideology allowed – their final goal.

Well, these refugees streaming to Europe, children without parents, divided families, sick people, people dying in the ditches, on the sides of roads in self-built camps, camps exposed to the climate elements, camps that are eventually erased by bulldozers – these human beings – put into misery by the very G7 – why not use the money spent on such nefarious fora to impress the lot of the well-off populations on either side of the Atlantic, instead on a little humanitarian act – act of consciousness, what’s left of it – taking care of the trans-Mediterranean refugees?

Mr. Macron, you are besieged by the Yellow Vests, who will not go away – what do you think canceling the event and instead pledging the funds for humanitarian shelter for refugees, and lobbying with the remaining G6 to do the same – would have done to your Presidency, to your ever-sinking popularity? – Maybe some uplifting? – You could badly need it. But the image – that’s what it is, the image of grandeur, rubbing elbows with the so-called “leaders” of the world, is of all-overarching importance. Isn’t it? – Never mind the unbearable suffering of many of the people you claim to democratically represent.

*

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 New Eastern Outlook.

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 is from NEO

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on G7 – The Cost of Uselessness
  • Tags:

GR Editor’s Note.

Mark Carney is a Canadian citizen and former senior official at Goldman Sachs before becoming Governor of the Bank of Canada (2008-2013).

He was the first foreign national since the founding of the Bank of England in 1694 to be appointed to the position of Governor (2013- ). He broadly reflects the interests of the The Washington Consensus and the Anglo-American banking establishment. He is a candidate for the position of Managing Director of the IMF.

Carney talks about “dislodging the U.S. currency” with a view to developing “a diversified multi-polar financial system”.

But what does this new global currency arrangement –which he describes as a “Synthetic Hegemonic Currency (SHC)–imply?

Is it not a process of integration of the dollar process, namely the dollarization of existing national currencies under a new (dollar hegemony) SHD label?

Michel Chossudovsky, Global Research, August 30, 2019

***

It is remarkable that Bank of England Governor Mark Carney recently spoke publicly about “the U.S. dollar’s “destabilizing” role in the world economy”, going on to suggest that “central banks might need to join together to create their own replacement reserve currency (see link at end of article).” This is very significant because in his capacity as Bank of England Governor, Carney serves as Chairman of the Monetary Policy Committee, giving him a major role in directing national economic and monetary policy.

The destabilizing role Carney’s referring to is the massive free ride that European-American capitalists (EACs) have enjoyed since going off the gold standard in 1971 and creating the petrodollar in 1974. Since then, EACs have raided the treasury so ruthlessly and completely that the financial system in the U.S. collapsed into insolvency in 2008.

The fiat, petrodollar has allowed EACs to project military power beyond America’s borders to an extent unprecedented in human history without collapsing the economy as happened to imperial Rome. The results are 800+ military bases and facilities in over 60 ‘nations.’ EACs have used the petrodollar arrangement to finance aggressive and illegal military actions in the Americas, Afrika and the Middle East for the past thirty years.

EACs and their European brothers have also used their domination of foreign currency reserves, totaling a whopping 82%, as a weapon to coerce recalcitrant ‘nations’ into following their dictates with the imposition of economic sanctions. EACs have placed heavy sanctions on several nations that possess major strategic petroleum reserves, effectively attempting to manipulate the oil market in their favor. While European capitalists have recently been a bit more circumspect in their efforts to maintain the supremacy of European capitalist men than their American brothers, they have yet to completely break ranks.

Domestically, the U.S. economy is running on fumes. Citizens have been stuck with stagnant wages, the loss of jobs resulting from manufacturers deserting the U.S. for ‘nations’ with cheaper production costs, brutal changes in work conditions such as the explosion of part time and contract jobs, the loss of benefits, rising cost of living, disastrous health care, crumbling public education, crumbling infrastructure, etc.

The Federal Reserve has added to the malaise with quantitative easing, in other words, printing money. In the aftermath of the financial collapse of 2008, the Fed bought up all that bad paper created by fraudulent casino capitalists that caused them to go insolvent in the first place thereby creating an ominous asset bubble.

The instability that Carney is talking about is the unbalanced, unstable, dystopian conditions created by EACs in their bloody determination to retain their supremacy by any means necessary without regard for friend or foe.

At the same time, several non-European nations have gained considerable economic strength over the same period beginning in the 1990’s. These nations, primarily located in Asia, are determined to lessen and eventually eliminate the outsized power that EACs have to manipulate their currencies and economies via the fiat, petrodollar and military coercion.

They are determined to slowly extricate their economies from global capitalism and thus protect themselves from coercion, manipulation and control. So, they are steadily adding to their strategic mineral reserves by buying gold, slowly ditching U.S. Treasury Notes, establishing currency swaps with trading partners, engaging in barter trade, developing independent interbank messaging systems and giving crypto currencies serious consideration. It is, perhaps, this rather morbid reality that motivates Carney to be so forthright in criticizing what EACs have been doing.

He goes on to suggest,

“The best solution to dislodge U.S. currency would be a diversified multi-polar financial system, something that could be provided by technology!”

Perhaps it is difficult to take this seriously in light of what European capitalists and their European-American brothers have done for the past 150 years but maybe it’s time that we do. The fact is that cycles are an integral part of how things work in this universe. The decline and collapse of such an ruthless, unbalanced, pseudo political economy as capitalism was inevitable from its beginnings in England 500 years ago.

Here’s the kicker:

“As a consequence, it is an open question whether such a new Synthetic Hegemonic Currency (SHC) would be best provided by the public sector, perhaps through a network of central bank digital currencies,” Carney said.

Let that sink in for a moment! Carney is the governor of the Bank of England. He is a capitalist administrator in a major institution of global capitalism.

Clearly, international power relations are changing dramatically. We will predict that within 5 generations capitalism will no longer be the world’s dominant political economy. It will be replaced by hybrid economies that some will call ‘socialist’ (see China, Venezuela, etc.), however, the political economy that ultimately comes to dominate globally cannot be predicted at this time.

One thing’s for sure, capitalism is dying and, once gone, will never return. That’s why European-American capitalists, who have ‘carried the flag’ most aggressivelyfor elite European men, are so desperate and behaving so erratically recently and will probably continue to do so as long as they can.

What does this mean for Afrikans in America? Good question!

In the short term, that is, over the next 10 years, we can expect more of the same in America, that is, repeated economic recessions, increased inflation, stagnant wages, declining social services, environmental degradation, increased violence, increased underemployment and unemployment, increased police violence and mass incarceration, increased ethnic and ‘racial’ tension, etc. In other words, more of what has been happening for the past 30 years.

Therefore, Africans in America should focus on building the institutions our people will need to survive the coming dystopian conditions in America.

We need to focus on building up our communities.

We need to institutionalize the knowledge, training and skills needed to ensure the viability and survival of our people.

It’s up to us.

Evolve the Revolution!

The Marathon Continues!

*

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

Featured image is from Flickr

Just about 50 years ago the West Coast rock group Quicksilver Messenger Service recorded “What About Me”. Sadly, in this America 2019 the lyrics are more relevant. 

Fifty years later! Let’s analyze certain parts of the song:

What About Me

You poisoned my sweet water.
You cut down my green trees.
The food you fed my children
Was the cause of their disease.

My world is slowly fallin’ down
And the airs not good to breathe.
And those of us who care enough,
We have to do something…….

Well, you cannot get more apropos than the first stanza. Go ask the folks in Flint, Michigan and thousands of communities nationwide about the lead and other toxins that they and their kids suck down. Go ask anyone with even half a brain about what the loggers and ranchers are doing in Brazil to our precious rainforest? The trail of smoke, I am told, can even be seen from our satellites in space. As far as the food we ingest, well, with all the pesticides and genetically engineered veggies and fish, plus all the **** manufacturers place into their formulas for pre prepared meal, as well as artificial sweeteners like Aspartame (Donny Boy Rumsfeld was CEO of G.D Searle when they manufactured this poison), and nitrites etc…

Your newspapers,
They just put you on.
They never tell you
The whole story.

They just put your
Young ideas down.
I was wonderin’ could this be the end
Of your pride and glory?

You know, Trump borrowed the phrase ‘Fake News’ to exploit his base into thinking that he tells the truth and the media lies. Well, he got that half correct. Historically, all of our presidents and their minions have lied whenever it suited them. The embedded in empire mainstream media can not only outright LIE, but  diabolically steer their viewers and readers into any right wing direction they wish. Yes, right wing. You see, one of the great ‘Long Cons’ has been to instruct the sucker public that the Democrats are ‘Left’ and the Republicans are ‘Right’. It used to be that one party was seen as ‘Liberal’ and the other ‘Conservative’. Regardless of labels these two subservient political parties always make sure to keep the interests of the Military Industrial Empire above that of the people they are supposed to represent. Thus, this ‘Left vs. Right’ is only valid on the slew of news talk shows on CNN, Fox and MSNBC.

 I work in your factory.

I study in your schools.
I fill your penitentiaries.
And your military too!

And I feel the future trembling,
As the word is passed around.
“If you stand up for what you do believe,
Be prepared to be shot down.”
 

Does this need explaining at all for 2019? This is the voice of the young, the ones who could  not either afford or qualify to be in college. So, they work tedious dead end jobs, or join the military or break the law (like selling tax free cigarettes?) and wind up dead or in jail. Fifty years and nothing changes.  

I smoke marijuana
But I cant get behind your wars.
And most of what I do believe
Is against most of your laws

I’m a fugitive from injustice
But I’m goin’ to be free.
Cause your rules and regulations
They dont do the thing for me
 

Marijuana is slowly being accepted by the empire because it supports the state budgets with its heavy sales tax revenue. The monies needed to run things properly should be gotten by taxing the super rich individuals and corporations that need to pay their fair share (In 1961 when JFK took office the top federal tax rate for individuals was 90% and for corporations at 52%- today it is at 37% and 21% respectively). Ok, so at least taking pot off the ‘ Public Enemy’ list is a positive. Of course, the ‘ War ‘ part of the song referred to the Vietnam War era when we had a draft. Don’t we who ‘ know better’ feel like fugitives from injustice as our nation moves into the ‘ Fourth Reich Zone’ ?

A phrase from the chorus of this powerfully written song that seems to sum it all up::

When will more of we working stiffs stop believing all that MAGA  **** ( Make America Great Again) and all that Resistance **** from each of these two sell out parties? It is not just about elections either. It is about raising one’s consciousness to say NO to empire and , more importantly, to be role models for our youth.

*

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

Philip A Farruggio is a contributing editor for The Greanville Post. He is a frequent contributor to Global Research, Nation of Change, World News Trust and Off Guardian sites.

He is the son and grandson of Brooklyn NYC longshoremen and a graduate of Brooklyn College, class of 1974. Since the 2000 election debacle Philip has written over 300 columns on the Military Industrial Empire and other facets of life in an upside down America. He is also host of the ‘It’s the Empire… Stupid‘ radio show, co produced by Chuck Gregory. Philip can be reached at [email protected].

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on What About Me … I Feel The Future Trembling, Like a Stranger In the Land Where I was Born

Tehran and Washington have been locked in a dispute since last year when the US unilaterally pulled out of the nuclear agreement and re-imposed crippling sanctions on Iran. On Monday, President Donald Trump said he is ready to meet his Iranian counterpart, Hassan Rouhani within weeks after a G-7 leaders’ summit. The idea was proposed by French President Emmanuel Macron who was hosting the summit. But Rouhani said Washington must first lift sanctions imposed since its withdrawal from the nuclear deal.

Below is a timely interview with Peter Koenig, Geopolitical analyst and Research Associate of the Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG)

***

PressTV: Could you comment on Mr. Rouhani’s conditions for talks with President Trump?

Peter Koenig: Mr. Rouhani is right asking for lifting of sanctions, as a principle, because Iran has never bypassed or violated the rules of the Nuclear Deal. The sanctions are a groundless punishment by Washington – because Iran wants – and should – remain a sovereign country, not bowing to Washington.
Its sheer economic terrorism.

However, let’s be realistic – the US, especially Trump who is dancing to the tunes of Netanyahu – will not just lift the sanctions. It would, in my opinion, be more constructive if Mr. Rouhani would ask for lifting of the most “hurting” sanctions – for example, the ban on importing crucial medication and medical equipment and other vital goods.

We know, the US will not change behavior, especially under Trump, as long as they still feel they are the exceptional Nation, the undisturbed Empire. Never mind that the empire is rapidly declining. As long as they have a stranglehold, literally, on the wester monetary system. That will not change.

That’s why I keep suggesting that Iran gradually but firmly and ever faster detach itself from the western economy and financial system, western banks, the use of dollars and euros – and shift to the East, becoming a member of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) as quickly as possible, and trade in Chinese yuan.

Yes, Mr. Macron initiated the talks with Mr. Trump. But, how shall I say this – Macron is not trustworthy. He does what he thinks can serve himself, not even the French people, but him, his image as King Macron.

He wants to be the go-between, be friends with Mr. Putin and Mr. Xi, but also be friends with Trump. Whatever serves his megalo-image.

When something doesn’t go his way, doesn’t bolster his image, he will step back.

So better Iran goes her own way – in direction East, where the future is.

And again – with as little as possible dealing with the west.

As long as the US is in the driver’s seat, and as long as the US controls the western money flow, anybody not liked by the Master is vulnerable for sanctions. We see it all over the world.

Therefore, asking for partial lifting of sanctions, namely for vital goods, those that cause most harm to the Iranian people, like medical imports, may be a good initial strategy.

Who knows, perhaps Trump goes along. And if not, Mr. Rouhani has at least tried, and a rejection by Trump would further tarnish his presidency.

*

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 is from Voice of People Today

The announcement that the Brahmos supersonic missiles jointly produced by Russia and India will soon be exported to third countries that are on friendly relations with both increases the odds that their historic Vietnamese partners might receive these game-changing weapons.

***

New Delhi’s Man In Moscow Is Right, Russia & India Are Global Partners“, and no sooner had the Indian Ambassador to Russia said that in a recent interview earlier this week than the announcement was made that the Brahmos supersonic missiles that they jointly produced will be exported to third countries that are on friendly relations with both of them. Although Sputnik reported at the beginning of the month that Thailand would probably be the first country apart from those two to take possession of these weapons, the outlet also reported a few months back that Southeast Asian nations such as Indonesia, Malaysia, and Singapore were interested in them too, as well as the Gulf countries (in clear reference to the GCC). There wouldn’t be anything controversial about any of those aforementioned nations receiving these game-changing arms, except perhaps the GCC ones that would obviously intend to use them against Iran in the event of a conflict (per Russia’s strategy of “balancing” the Islamic Republic all throughout the region), but it would be extremely significant if Moscow and New Delhi’s historic Vietnamese partners were to one day receive them as well.

That’s not too far-fetched of a prediction to make either after rumors have been floating around for the past couple of years that Hanoi is in the market for these missiles in order to defend its claims in the disputed waters of the South China Sea from Beijing. There’s a solid reasoning behind this possibility too, and it’s that a subsidiary of Russian state-owned oil company Rosneft is drilling in the Lan Do oilfield that narrowly sits within the southwestern border of China’s nine-dash line but is apparently regarded by the company as being under Vietnam’s de-facto sovereignty, which thus gives Russia a natural interest in arming Vietnam in order to secure this “national champion’s” energy deposits by proxy. The precedent established by Russian Ambassador to India Nikolai Kudashev’s claim earlier this week that India’s unilateral moves in disputed Kashmir are an “internal matter” suggests that it would also regard Vietnam’s sale of oil blocks in the disputed waters of the South China Sea as similarly being an “internal matter” in the interests of consistency.

It’s important to point out that Russia’s stalwart defense of India’s actions in Kashmir represented the first time that it openly contradicted China’s official position on a significant international issue since the end of the Old Cold War and showed the world that Moscow will at the very least diplomatically “balance” Beijing in South Asia in the New Cold War in order to defend its national interests in the region.

Russia’s lucrative (but declining) arms trade and nuclear energy cooperation with India greatly help support the state budget during this difficult period of international sanctions and the two systemic transitions that the country is currently undergoing in the political and economic spheres, so it would have been unthinkable for Moscow to take Beijing’s side over New Delhi’s on that issue. Furthermore, Russia has a grand strategic interest in positioning itself as the leader of a new Non-Aligned Movement (Neo-NAM) that presents a much-needed “third way” between China and the West like Valdai Club programme director Oleg Barabanov proposed earlier this year in his policy paper about “China’s Road to Global Leadership: Prospects and Challenges for Russia“.

It’s with this “balancing” intent in mind, coupled with the possibility that Russia’s Western partners might even tacitly encourage its leadership of the Neo-NAM as part of a “New Detente” between the two, that it wouldn’t be unexpected at all if Moscow agreed to sell Brahmos missiles to Hanoi in order to safeguard Rosneft’s investments in the disputed waters of the South China Sea de-facto controlled by Vietnam. Not only would the arms sales and energy extraction themselves be profitable enough (with the latter’s exports likely going to India to further reinforce their strategic partnership and the developing trilateral arrangement between them and Vietnam), but it would be a massively strategic move for “balancing” China in the region due to the game-changing effect that these weapons’ deployment could have for boosting Vietnam’s naval defenses. Consequently, that development could improve Russia’s relevance in the Southeast Asian region by serving as proof that it can indeed function as a credible “third way” between the West and China for the countries caught in their competition, thus inspiring them to prioritize the comprehensive betterment and diversification of ties.

Russia has successfully returned to the Mideast ever since its 2015 anti-terrorist operation in Syria, and it’s presently in the process of following in its Soviet predecessor’s footsteps in Africa after the recent completion of its “African Transversal” slicing through the continent, thus making Southeast Asia the only remaining part of the hemisphere that Moscow has yet to regain its former influence in. The pattern tying the Mideast, Africa, and possibly soon even Southeast Asia together is that Moscow is using its “military diplomacy” in creative ways to “balance” these regions via a formal intervention, the use of private military contractors, and the speculative sale of strategic weaponry, respectively. It therefore follows that selling Brahmos missiles to Vietnam would be a logical extension of this low-cost but highly effective strategy of restoring Russia’s regional influence, with the added benefit of also “balancing” China in the South China Sea, which could then make Moscow a stakeholder in any forthcoming diplomatic solution there and thus give it a prospective role in that process. There are veritably some risks to this strategy, but it nevertheless seems to be the one guiding Russia’s recent actions.

*

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

This article was originally published on OneWorld.

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

Featured image is from OneWorld

Unhinged before the Fall: Boris Johnson, Parliament and Brexit

August 30th, 2019 by Dr. Binoy Kampmark

The Brexit no deal prospect is engendering an element of lunacy fast seeping into every pore of the British political establishment.  As with all steeped in such thinking, some of it made sense.  Prime Minister Boris Johnson had been inspired by a mild dictatorial urge, seeking to suspend the UK parliament five weeks out from October 31.  This has been described as nothing short of a coup, or, if you are the speaker of the House of Commons, John Bercow, a “constitutional outrage”.  

Legal expertise was called upon to answer the question whether Johnson’s proroguing of parliament was, in fact, constitutional.  This was itself a tricky thing, given that the UK has a “political constitution” that resists being inked into written form.  To be British is supposedly to be reasonable, and codifying such convention suggests a fear that reason might be lost.  As Professor Michael Gordon of the University of Liverpool explains, three avenues are open to evaluate the constitutionality of a government action in the system: “compatibility with the law, political convention and constitutional principle.” 

On the first point, it was near impossible to challenge Johnson.  For all the matters of convention, the monarch remains the figure who ultimately holds the power to prorogue parliament.  And the argument here by the prime minister is that this is the penultimate step to announcing a fresh legislative agenda in the monarch’s speech on October 14.   

As far as the second point was concerned, Gordon had to concede that the Queen would never have constituted herself as a “constitutional safeguard” to reject Johnson’s request. That would have done more than repudiate the long held convention on staying above politics and acting on the advice of the prime minister.   

This only left the nebulous notion of “constitutional principles”: as the government draws support from the House of Commons, it must duly abide by the body if its wishes are out of step.  As the House of Commons rejects the idea of a no deal Brexit, Johnson should have engaged parliament on the issue.  Well, that’s the view of the pro-parliamentarians, and as the current prime minister has a very flexible set of values both personal and political, few should have been stunned by the latest antics in subverting parliamentary scrutiny.

Beyond the legal pecking, a swathe of reaction were in agreement with Bercow.  Novelist Philip Pullman went one further, suggesting that, “The ‘prime minister’ has finally come out as a dictator.”  Britain best be “rid of him and his loathsome gang as soon and as finally as possible.”  This had a certain whiff of a coup of its own, the sort of thing that Westminster systems have been vulnerable to in history.  (Australia offers an apt, if undistinguished example of the overthrow of Prime Minister Gough Whitlam in 1975, ably assisted by opposition leader Malcolm Fraser and then governor general John Kerr.)

The prorogation ploy was taken so seriously by the Financial Times that a humble suggestion was made lest Britain comprise his airy position as law-abiding obsessive and exemplar of order to the world. “If Mr. Johnson’s prorogation ploy succeeds, Britain will forfeit any right to lecture other countries on their democratic shortcomings.”  (Hadn’t it already done so?)  Imperially sounding, the FT suggested that Britain’s singular disposition lay in “constitutional arrangements” long bound by “conventions.” 

Momentum, the Labour faction supporting Jeremy Corbyn, the man who would be usurper, was laying the ground for a challenge, albeit tumbling into the oxymoronic. “An unelected prime minister looks set to approach an unelected monarch to ask her if he can shut down parliament to force through a disastrous no deal Brexit.”  The assessment? “Make no mistake – this is an establishment coup.”  All fine, except that monarchs are known for being humanity’s unelected specimens, and that this coup was being countered with a proposal for a counter-coup. Messy be the conventions of the land. 

For those long linked to Britain’s gradual and seemingly natural integration into European affairs, the move by Johnson was near criminal.  Hugh Grant, summoning up a certain primal rage, was furious.  On Twitter, he launched a ferocious firebombing of Johnson’s position. 

“You will not fuck with my children’s future.  You will not destroy the freedoms my grandfather fought two world wars to defend.  Fuck off you over-promoted rubber bath toy.  Britain is revolted by you and you little gang of masturbatory prefects.”   

Comedian and all round brain box Stephen Fry could not stomach it, asking for a good cry for Britain, and deeming Johnson’s effort as those of,

“Children playing with matches, but spitefully not accidentally: gleefully torching an ancient democracy and any tattered shreds of reputation or standing our poor country had left.”  

Unfortunately, such comments betray an old tendency in self-referential Britishness, a Britannia-rules-the-waves smugness.  The world admires, the world respects.  But that world died some time ago, if, indeed, it ever existed.  Britain made a pact for security and wealth with a Europe often reluctant to accept its suspicions and reservations. Both are now parting ways.   

Far milder assessments have also been offered to hose down the Grant ire.  Johnson’s attempt to schedule a Queen’s speech for October 14 was seen in The Spectator, a magazine he once edited with carefree indifference, as “normal” and part of the operating processes of a new government.  At the very least, it would also “bring to an end one of the longest parliamentary sessions in history”. 

The Queen was hardly going to refuse, stratified by, well, convention.  Had she done so, breaking the crust, and holding forth over the prime minister, there would been howls of a different sort.  The only conclusion to arise from this latest bit of chess play by Johnson is that, come October 31, Parliament will have a minimal a role to scrutinise the agreement, or non-agreement, as it might well be. 

*

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]

Benyamin Netanyahu, Prime Minister of “Israel”, the occupier of Palestine, may lose the election on September 17th. He is the longest-serving prime minister in the history of the occupation; however, he is facing possible defeat even though he is the best friend of Pres. Trump, who enjoys a 70% approval rating in “Israel”.  Netanyahu is facing 3 serious corruption charges in a hearing set for October.  Some analysts predict he will lose the election, lose his case, and go to jail.  To win the election, Netanyahu has billboards all over “Israel” showing himself and Trump shoulder to shoulder. 

Netanyahu’s election strategy is to demonstrate that security is his main goal for the voters.  In the past, cracking down on Palestinian resistance groups in the West Bank and Gaza would have been enough; however, his new focus is on Iran.  He has consistently portrayed Iran as the enemy and has influenced U.S. officials into a similar perception. Trump’s decision to pull out of the Iran nuclear deal was influenced by Netanyahu.

On July 19th, “Israel” attacked targets in Iraq, which killed Iraqis and damaged military property.  The Iraqi government in Baghdad complained to the U.S., and this attack seemed unusual given the fact that Iraq is an ally of the U.S. and houses thousands of U.S. military on its soil while fighting terrorism together.  “Israel” could have killed American troops in their attack on the Iraqi military; however, we have heard no warnings to “Israel”, or outrage from the Pentagon.  For some time Iraq has been undecided as to whether they would identify nationally with the resistance movement.  The attack in July may have pushed them to take a stance.

Saturday, “Israel” stepped up the attacks with one in Damascus, hitting a residential building that killed 2 Lebanese citizens.  Hours later on Sunday, “Israel” attacked Beirut with 2 drones, one of which was a 2-meter long military drone which destroyed and damaged offices and homes, and another C-4 laden military drone which did not explode but was captured intact.  Hezbollah was the target of both attacks.  Monday, “Israel” attacked a Palestinian resistance group in Lebanon east of Zahle.  Yesterday, another 2 drones from “Israel” were fired upon at the Lebanese border.  Lebanese President Michel Aoun said on Monday that Lebanon had a right to defend itself against attacks.  Hezbollah has vowed to respond to these attacks.

“Israel” has a long history of preemptive airstrikes, which are a form of targeted assignations.  They have a history of striking first, in an unprovoked attack, and then building a case in the media to justify the attacks, deaths, and destruction. For example, they would attack a car in Gaza, kill everyone in it, and then tell the media they had suspicions that the man who died was going to attack “Israel”.  Attacking and killing people who they speculated might one day do something against “Israel”, but before anything had occurred.

The Resistance

During WW2 the French resistance fought the Nazi occupiers and helped to win the liberation of France.  Palestine has been occupied since 1948 and the suffering of 5 million persons, denied human rights has drawn the attention and passion of millions of global citizens who form the resistance movement.  Some countries have embraced the resistance to the occupation of Palestine, such as Syria, Iran, Palestine, and Lebanon.  Many Arab countries, such as Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, and the UAE, have openly supported “Israel” and have developed close ties with the occupier.

Hezbollah is a Lebanese group committed to the armed resistance to the occupation of Lebanon, Syria, and Palestine.  The Lebanese citizens suffered 23 years under brutal “Israeli” military occupation of the South of Lebanon.  The people of Lebanon and Syria want to see the human rights restored to the Palestinian people, as well as the Shebaa Farms and the Golan Heights,  returned to Lebanon and Syria, and these 3 points could be achieved through a just and comprehensive peace treaty between the occupiers and Palestine and the neighboring countries.  According to the UN, international law, and the Geneva Convention all persons living under occupation have the right to armed struggle to recover their rights.

Iran has made resistance a core value.  Saudi Arabia has been coached by “Israel” and the U.S. to see Iran as the enemy, thus making the trio the foundation of political power in the Middle East today.  The Middle East region is in a precarious position, sitting on a powder-keg which could be ignited at any moment, by an international cast of players.  The recent military aggressions ordered by Netanyahu in the region may prove to be a miscalculation once Lebanese resistance responds.

*

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

This article was originally published on Mideast Discourse.

Steven Sahiounie is a frequent contributor to Global Research.

Featured image is from Another Day in the Empire

Will Hezbollah Respond to Israel? When? And at What Cost?

August 29th, 2019 by Elijah J. Magnier

The “Axis of the Resistance” has been informed about Hezbollah’s intention to respond to Israel imminently, confirmed sources within the decision-making leadership. The main offices of militant leadership and all gathering of forces have been abandoned or forbidden, and a state of full alert has been declared in preparation for a possible Israeli decision to go to war. In Iran, Syria and Palestine, the finger is on the trigger. Is the Middle East going to war? Actually, it all depends on how far- and in which direction- the Israel Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu wants to go: and the degree to which he will accept, or not, the hit back from Hezbollah.

This all snowballed when, from al-Ayen in the Bekaa Valley, Hezbollah Secretary General Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah launched his threat against Israel. He swore to down drones violating Lebanese sovereignty and threatened to kill Israelis.

This is would be carried out in retaliation for the Israeli killing of two Hezbollah members in Syria, and for sending suicide drones to hit Hezbollah high-value objectives and capabilities in the suburbs of Beirut. Netanyahu responded a few hours late by bombing a position of the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine – General Command (PFLP-GC)- in the same Bekaa Valley, to send a clear message to Sayyed Nasrallah:  Hezbollah’s challenge is being acknowledged, and answered with another Israeli challenge. Now it is only a question of when, how, and at what cost the Hezbollah “bloody retaliation” will be, bloody because it is inevitable that Israeli soldiers will be killed.

Sayyed Nasrallah had no option but to respond to the Israeli violation of the Rule of Engagement (ROE) established since the 2006 third Israeli war on Lebanon. If he fails to hit Israel and accepts the ongoing international mediation and politico-financial temptations offered to the Lebanese government to persuade him to renounce his promised attack, he loses his credibility, which is substantial right now. Moreover, Israel would then be encouraged to hit more targets in Lebanon as it is doing in Iraq and in Syria for some years now, against hundreds of objectives. If Hezbollah refrains from responding as promised,  Netanyahu will “get away with it”: this boosts his chances in the forthcoming election.

Sayyed Nasrallah committed himself before the whole world to hit back at Israel. All eyes in the Arab world – in particular among the Palestinians, the Syrians, the Iraqis, the Yemeni and his own Lebanese society that is embracing Hezbollah – are focussed on what the target will be and when the attack will take place. In Israel, Sayyed Nasrallah has high credibility, and people believe him, as indeed most Israeli newspapers write today. Hezbollah is expected to halt Israel’s violation of the Rules of Engagement and give an example to follow for all those within the “Axis of the Resistance” and put a stop to the Israeli attacks on their sovereignty.

It will not be possible to stop all Israeli drones from flying over Lebanon and prevent these from collecting intelligence information. That is considered vital to Israel to update its bank of objectives and analyse any potential threat. Sayyed Nasrallah is aware of that and for that very reason he would indeed attempt to down Israeli drones.

Since the attack against Beirut, Israeli drones continue over flying Beirut: “Israel is doing everything to provoke a reaction from Hezbollah so that it can identify our anti-air missile capability”, said a source within the “Axis of the Resistance”.

Israel is also waiting to see if it is possible to continue targeting Hezbollah warehouses or send suicide drones to target-kill specific individuals, depending on the price it needs to pay in exchange for its killing of Hezbollah operatives. Netanyahu has positioned himself at the bottleneck, unable to move in or out. He pushed his arrogance to the limit in Lebanon, knowing that he would corner Sayyed Nasrallah if Hezbollah were not to hit back (due to the critical financial situation in Lebanon) and the desire to stay away from a devastating war. Now, the Israeli Prime Minister is asking Hezbollah to “calm down”. But it looks like it is too late to turn back the hands of the clock.

Because Iraq did not reply to the Israeli targeting of its warehouses (five destroyed so far) and the assassination of an Iraqi commander (killed by a drone on the Iraqi-Syrian border), Israel obviously concludes that the Iraqi stage is open to its military activities. Hezbollah is aware of the Israeli modus operandi so it cannot permit replication in Lebanon, even at the cost of going to war.

Actually, in Israel, many leaders are blaming Netanyahu for gossiping and bragging about Israel’s responsibility in attacks outside Israel’s borders. Israel generally prefers to be quiet about this practice, one used by Israel for decades but now exploited by Netanyahu for electoral purposes.

So, what is the “cost” Hezbollah is looking for? According to sources within the “Axis of the Resistance”, Hezbollah is looking for a target- to kill two or three Israelis or send a suicide drone against an Israeli military gathering or other more deadly and spectacular options. “Israel is only a few metres from the Lebanese borders. Killing Israeli soldiers is so simple when a Rule of Engagement is violated. Netanyahu will have to justify for his people what advantage he gained in breaking the cessation of hostility since 2006 despite repeated warnings of the consequences. He is either looking for war – in which case both belligerents have to be ready – or he will have caused unnecessary killing on both sides. He will have to pay the price for this,” said the source.

Obviously, Hezbollah is not looking to push Israeli too far outside its comfort zone, with an “acceptable” number of casualties: a hit in exchange for another hit. It will depend on Netanyahu to take it further into war if he wishes to, or to nurse his wounds. Although the Israeli Prime Minister holds the initiative and was respecting to the “rules of the game” as long as he honoured the undeclared agreement, it is time now for him to understand that Lebanon, despite its small size, is not Yemen or Syria or Iraq.

Sayyed Nasrallah’s disposition to attack Israel was boosted by the Lebanese President Michel Aoun who described the Israeli aggression as “an act of war”. Prime Minister Saad Hariri considered the aggression “a threat to regional stability”. Hezbollah has enough domestic support to stand against Israel and retaliate even if the situation goes out of control. Sayyed Nasrallah is no longer constrained by the Lebanese officials who asked him months ago to take into consideration the tourist season, and to share their positive view of the highly tense situation in the Middle East. Indeed, the Iranian, Iraqi, Syrian, Palestinian and Lebanese fronts are all on the verge of explosion, depending on how Israel and the US are willing to be “guided.”

During the last Israeli elections, Hezbollah decided to keep at a distance. This time it seems the situation is different. There is an opportunity for Hezbollah to damage Netanyahu who is facing elections during the third week of September. In this case, Hezbollah’s reply to Israel must be before the 19thof September. If Netanyahu decides to go to war regardless of the outcome, he will certainly lose his possibility of re-election. Most probably, if he does not respond to Hezbollah, he will look weak but will come out of it with less damage.

This takes us to the date of the attack. First, and indeed above all, it depends on the opportunity and on identifying a selective target. That depends on the military decision and findings on the Lebanese-Israeli borders and most probably in the next 72 hours. Second, there are possibilities for allowing the 31stof August to go by, the date the “Amal” movement is planning a large gathering in Beirut to start celebrating the first day of Muharram. This is the first night that marks the beginning of Ashura, a solemn day of mourning for the martyrdom of Imam Hussein Bin Ali Bin Abi Taleb, Mohammad’s grandson, at Karbalaa, Iraq.

The first 10 days of Ashura bring most of the Shia in Lebanon and in particular Hezbollah supporters, to the utmost level of sacrifice. Netanyahu could not have chosen a worse timing for his violation of the Rules of Engagement.

Sayyed Nasrallah is not obliged to provide a date of attack to Israel. It is common for an organisation to first exhaust a country’s resources by forcing it to mobilise its forces on all fronts and abroad to protect its embassies. Therefore, the exact date will be kept in the hands of Hezbollah to evaluate. It could be that allowing the Israeli soldiers to relax on the borders after several weeks of lack of action would create the best opportunity, but I doubt Hezbollah would wait that long. As we have said, Hezbollah as a matter of precaution has abandoned its offices and known gathering places: this is standard practice when war (an Israeli hit or attack) is expected. Netanyahu has really no alternative but to wait and decide if war is really going to be his next best option.

*

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

Cambodia, unlike its similarly sized and in many cases much larger peers in the international community, is relentless in is criticism of the US’ blatant intervention in its domestic political affairs, showing how small countries could stand up to the US if their leaders actually have the will to do so.

***

Cambodia surprised many across the world when one of its spokesmen said earlier this month that American diplomats should leave the country if they don’t like it, specifically remarking that “we don’t welcome you” and adding that “We have the same right to speak as President Donald Trump. It’s simple. If you don’t like it here, leave.” Whatever one thinks about Trump’s controversial rhetoric against the four congresswomen collectively referred to as “the Squad”, Cambodia should be commended for throwing his own words right back at him in response to the incessant criticisms that American diplomats have made about the Southeast Asian state over the past couple of years. The verbal attacks have increased in intensity recently after rumors began to be floated about a supposedly secret deal that it clinched with China to open up a military “base” there, which if true, would be more of a standard overseas logistical facility of the sort that all Great Powers’ navies have than anything else.

Cambodia countered these unsubstantiated claims by inviting journalists to visit the facility in question in order to show them that there isn’t a Chinese naval presence of any kind there. It also doubled down on its strategic partnership with the People’s Republic by announcing that it’s purchasing tens of millions of dollars of more weaponry from it in order to defend its sovereignty. That’s an extremely urgent task, too, since the US has been conspiring to overthrow the government of long-running Prime Minister Hun Sen, something that Washington denies but which Phnom Penh has proven beyond any doubt with the February 2018 publication of its 13-page report titled “Cambodia: Stability And Development First“. The authorities make the well-articulated and inarguable case that the US-managed so-called “opposition” had been engaging in treasonous activity against their homeland at the behest of their foreign patron by trying to stir up Color Revolution unrest a few years ago.

They also reminded readers of the US’ long history of conventional and hybrid aggression against their country throughout the previous half-century, pointing out the “politically uncomfortable” fact that it was none other than America itself which openly supported the genocidal Khmer Rouge’s claim to leadership for over a decade after its overthrow at the hands of invading Vietnamese forces in 1978-1979. The US has worked very hard to suppress any public talk about this Machiavellian policy since then, which is why its allied international Mainstream Media outlets paid barely any attention to the report’s publication, or if they did, they left out the historical review contained therein and simply dismissed the work as “propaganda” for justifying “anti-democratic actions” against the “opposition”. Nowadays, the US is actively working to shape the weaponized infowar narrative that Cambodia is a bought-and-paid-for Chinese “puppet state” in order to sow the seeds of regional distrust and discredit the government in the eyes of ultra-nationalist forces.

The Cambodian government obviously isn’t taking any of this laying down like some countries do, but is opposing it tooth and nail in both kinetic and non-kinetic ways. It disbanded the largest so-called “opposition” group after the treason trial and then released the aforementioned report explaining its decision in detail (and importantly, in an historical context) to the international audience. Phnom Penh has refused to be bullied by the US despite being a comparatively weak country by most metrics, showing that its similarly sized and in many cases also much larger peers don’t have to bend over backwards for Washington either if they truly have the political will to oppose its schemes. The example being pioneered by Cambodia is a powerful one that could serve to inspire other states as well, which could learn a lot from the “Cambodia: Stability And Development First” report and Phnom Penh’s relevant actions in respect to defending its sovereignty. It’s for that reason, however, that American pressure on the country will continue to intensify for the foreseeable future.

*

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.

It is not often that one hears anything like the truth in today’s Washington, a city where the art of dissimulation has reached new heights among both Democrats and Republicans. Everyone who has not been asleep like Rip Van Winkle for the past twenty years knows that the most powerful foreign lobby operating in the United States is that of the state of Israel. Indeed, by some measures it just might be the most powerful lobby period, given the fact that it has now succeeded in extending its tentacles into state and local levels with its largely successful campaigns to punish criticism or boycotting of Israel while also infiltrating boards of education to require Holocaust education and textbooks that reflect favorably on the Jewish state.

Occasionally, however, the light does shine in darkness. The efforts by Congresswomen Rashida Tlaib and Ilhan Omar to challenge the power of the Israel Lobby are commendable and it is worth noting that the two women are being subjected to harassment by their own Democratic Party in an effort to make them be silent.

President Donald Trump, meanwhile, has attempted to make them the face of the Democrats, calling them “Jew haters” and “anti-Semites” while also further claiming that they despise the United States just as they condemn Israel. This has developed into a Trump diatribe claiming that American Jews who vote for Democrats are “disloyal.” By disloyal he meant disloyal to Israel, in a sense ironically confirming that in the president’s mind Jews have dual loyalty, which, of course, at least some of them do.

And Trump has further exercised his claim to the Jewish vote by accepting the sobriquet “King of Israel” bestowed by a demented talk radio host. As Secretary of State Mike Pompeo has already asserted that Trump’s election victory was the result of divine intervention to “save Israel from Iran,” the kingship is presumably an inevitable progression. One can only imagine what will come next.

Congressman Ted W. Lieu Official Photo.jpg

One Democratic congressman who has apparently become fatigued by all that bipartisan pandering to Israel is Ted Lieu (image on the right) of California. Last Thursday Lieu rebuked Trump’s US Ambassador to Israel David Friedman over his support of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s refusal to allow Tlaib and Omar to visit the West Bank where Tlaib’s grandmother lives under Israeli occupation. Friedman had issued a statement saying that the United States “respects and supports” the Israeli action. He went on to elaborate

“The Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) movement against Israel is not free speech. Rather, it is no less than economic warfare designed to delegitimize and ultimately destroy the Jewish state. [Israel] has every right to protect its borders against those activists in the same manner as it would bar entrants with more conventional weapons.”

As Friedman was describing two thirty-something nonviolent first term congresswomen as nothing less than armed attackers about to be unleashed against the Jewish state because they support a peaceful boycott movement, Lieu apparently felt compelled to courageously respond to the ambassador, tweeting

“Dear @USAmbIsrael: You are an American. Your allegiance should be to America, not to a foreign power. You should be defending the right of Americans to travel to other countries. If you don’t understand that, then you need to resign.”

Later that day, on CNN, Lieu explained his objection to Friedman’s actions, saying

“Actually, I think he should resign because he doesn’t see to understand that his allegiance is to America, not to a foreign power. He should be defending the right of Americans to go abroad to other countries and to visit their relatives.”

The outrage from the mighty host of friends of Israel came immediately, with accusations that Lieu was accusing Friedman of “dual loyalty,” that greatly feared derogatory label that is somewhat akin to “anti-Semitism” or “Holocaust denial” in the battery of verbal munitions used to silence critics of the Jewish state. Indeed, Lieu was accused of employing nothing less than a “classic anti-Semitic” trope.

Under considerable pressure, Lieu deleted the tweet and then issued something of an apology,

“It has been brought to my attention that my prior tweet to @USAmbIsrael raises dual loyalty allegations that have historically caused harm to the Jewish community. That is a legitimate concern. I am therefore deleting the tweet.”

But the reality is, of course, that Friedman does not have dual loyalty. He has real loyalty only to Israel, which he demonstrates repeatedly by uncritically supporting everything the kleptocratic Netanyahu regime does with nary a pause to consider actual American interests. He has supported the weekly slaughter of unarmed Gazan civilians by Israeli sharpshooters, praised the bombing of Syria, pushed for the move of the US Embassy to Jerusalem, applauded the recognition by Washington of Israeli sovereignty over the Golan Heights, and is an active supporter of and contributor to the illegal Israeli settlements on the West Bank. He has even pressured the State Department into ceasing its use of the word “occupation” when describing the situation on the West Bank. It is now “disputed.” So, it is no surprise that David Friedman, formerly a bankruptcy lawyer before he became ambassador, lines up with Netanyahu rather than with two American Congresswomen who, apart from anything else, have good reasons to travel to a country that is the largest US aid recipient in order to see conditions on the ground. To put it mildly, Friedman is a disgrace and a reflection of the character or lack thereof of the man who appointed him. If he had any decency, he would resign.

There is no benefit for the United States when an American Ambassador excuses the brutality of a foreign government, quite the contrary as it makes Washington an accomplice in what are often undeniably war crimes. Even though Congressman Lieu was clearly read the riot act and made to fly right by his own party’s leadership, it took considerable courage to speak up against both Israel and an American ambassador who clearly is more in love with the country he is posted to than the country he is supposed to represent.

Of course, in never-any-accountability Washington a buffoon posing as an ambassador as Friedman does will get away with just about anything and, as the subject is Israel, there will hardly be a word of rebuke coming from anyone, to include the mainstream media. But the tweet by Lieu is nevertheless significant. Hopefully he will be among the first of many congressmen willing to put at risk their careers at times to speak the truth.

*

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.

The petition against the prorogation of parliament – i.e. ending the current session (believed by opponents to be a deliberate move to stop opposition to a no-deal Brexit) – is the fastest-growing petition to the UK parliament and government after one that topped 6million earlier this year calling for article 50 to be revoked.

It comes as protestors last night gathered in Westminster to oppose what they called a ‘coup’ by the prime minister and legal challenges are under way.

Mr Johnson told MPs in a letter he was asking the Queen to prorogue Parliament because the current parliamentary session, which has been extraordinarily extended due to Brexit, had gone on too long and he wanted a fresh Queen’s Speech to present an ‘exciting agenda’ of proposed new laws on October 14.

Even so, the director of the Hansard Society which compiles official parliamentary records, Ruth Fox, told the BBC the planned five-week prorogation  was “significantly longer” than would normally be needed to start a new parliamentary session.

Opponents of Mr Johnson said the move was transparently a bid to take power from MPs and it was inappropriate to remove time for them to debate as the UK potentially heads into a no-deal Brexit in two months, regardless of how long the session has gone on.

Protestors last night gathered in Parliament Square before spreading down towards Downing Street.

One protestor from large Kent-based group TW-IN, Sebastian St John, said:

“The atmosphere was very different to previous rallies. Much more anger and a feeling that there will be more direct action moving forward.

“I’m not convinced anything other than direct action will have an impact as our government has been taken over by the asylum. There were plenty of leave supporter placards in these crowds last night who also don’t want a no deal and feel Boris Johnson’s actions are just plain wrong.”

Gina Miller, the businesswoman who launched legal action to ensure the UK did not leave the EU without MPs voting on it, has applied for judicial review of the prime minister’s actions.

Meanwhile Scotland’s top civil court is also considering a challenge to the suspension of parliament led by SNP MP Joanna Cherry and with the support of barrister Jolyon Maugham’s Good Law Project.

*

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: Protestors gathered in Westminster last night (Source: The Connexion)

Boris Johnson Suspends UK Parliament

August 29th, 2019 by Stephen Lendman

It’s called prorogation, marking the end of a UK parliamentary session.

It’s usually for a week or two at most. Approved by Queen Elizabeth, PM Johnson is suspending it for five weeks — from either September 9 or 12 until October 14, beginning a few days after MPs return next month, the longest period since 1945.

It’s part of Johnson’s aim to ram through a no-Brexit deal — if he sticks to plan and no agreement is reached with the EU by end of October.

UK parliamentary affairs expert Ruth Fox called what’s going on an “affront to parliamentary democracy.”

Labor leader Jeremy Corbyn slammed the scheme, saying: “Suspending parliament is not acceptable. It is not on,” adding:

“What the prime minister is doing is a smash and grab on our democracy to force through a no deal.”

When MPs return to the Commons on September 3, top priority for Corbyn is attempting to pass “legislation to prevent what (Johnson) is doing.”

A vote of no confidence will follow “at some point,” he said. On Wednesday, hundreds of protesters gathered outside Westminster, chanting: “Stop the coup.”

Prorogation isn’t unusual. For an extended period at this time is very controversial, leaving little time for MPs to debate and vote on whether to leave the EU without a deal or reject the idea.

Legal action may try to block Johnson’s scheme. Scottish National Party (SNP) leader Nicola Sturgeon said

“(s)hutting down parliament in order to force through a no-deal Brexit is not democracy. It is dictatorship.”

Dozens of pro-Remain SNP MPs initiated legal action in Edinburgh’s Court of Cession to block a no-deal Brexit last month.

They now seek an “interim interdict” ruling to prevent parliament’s suspension until Brexit is debated on September 6 after MPs return from summer recess next Tuesday — a ruling expected this week.

As things now stand, MPs have little time left to approve or block a no-deal Brexit if an alternative with the EU remains unattainable.

Most MPs oppose Johnson’s scheme. Some accused him of creating a “constitutional crisis,” a “coup.”

Speaker of the House of Commons John Bercow called what’s going on “a constitutional outrage…to stop parliament (from) debating Brexit and performing its duty.”

MPs rejected Theresa May’s no-Brexit/Brexit deal three times, no alternative plan agreed on, a no-deal Brexit also rejected.

Is it coming on October 31? It’s possible but uncertain. It can be blocked legislatively or judicially.

The deadline could be extended further if Johnson requests it and Brussels agrees, though this seems unlikely.

To leave or not leave the EU has been unresolved since majority Brits voted for Brexit in June 2016. It remains uncertain how things will turn out.

*

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

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

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

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

Visit his blog site at sjlendman.blogspot.com.

It’s impossible to imagine any realistic scenario where “Israel” would sit back and let its number one enemy strengthen its influence in the region unless Russia was involved as a stakeholder for keeping Iran in check.

***

Iran is reportedly exploring the possibility of building a pipeline across Iraq to Syria to complement the plan that it earlier proposed for constructing a railway corridor connecting all three of them. Each of these countries has the sovereign and international legal right to enhance cooperation with one another as they see fit, but it’s unrealistic to imagine any scenario where their shared “Israeli” foe would sit back and let the Islamic Republic strengthen its influence in the region through these hard infrastructure projects unless Russia was involved. The self-professed “Jewish State” has already proven its willingness to take direct military action against its enemy and its allies in the Mideast through its recent high-profile bombings in Iraq, Syria, and Lebanon, so it’s inconceivable that it would passively let these pipeline and railway plans proceed.

Both projects represent fixed targets that are extremely easy for aircraft, cruise missiles, and even local proxies to destroy, all of which “Israel” could throw at them in order to stop them dead in their tracks. Iran doesn’t have the military capability to defend either the pipeline or railroad across this vast distance, and any moves that it takes in this direction would surely be thwarted before they can make any tangible difference in deterring “Israel”. Tel Aviv will stop at nothing to enforce the “containment” of Iran that was officially put into practice by Washington following its withdrawal from the nuclear agreement, and it therefore obviously has the US’ full support in doing so. Neither “Israel” nor the US want Iran to circumvent the unilateral sanctions via its pipeline, nor to receive economic relief from the same via the railroad, so there’s no doubt that they’ll take action.

That being the case, one has to wonder whether Iran seriously thinks that it could succeed with these plans or not. The Islamic Republic is known for its principled rhetoric in defense of its national interests and also humanitarian ones abroad such as Palestine that it regards as inseparable from its own, though it only rarely ever delivers on what it says that it’s set out to achieve. That’s not to say that Iran “lies”, but just that it has a soft power stake in keeping the morale of its regional supporters high, such as envisaging a “New Middle East” where its closest ones could cooperate with one another through pipeline and railway connectivity projects. There’s no doubt that Iran would like this to happen, but it’s dubious whether or not it can actually pull it off given the aforementioned analysis about “Israel” and the US’ interests in stopping it.

Interestingly, there might be one possible solution to this seemingly intractable problem, and it’s if Iran contracts its Russian partner to become a stakeholder in these two regional initiatives. Russia has recently tried to “balance” between Iran and “Israel” though Moscow has lately shown that it’s much closer to the latter than is publicly recognized by most, but nevertheless, it might have both financial and strategic interests in getting involved that could convince Tel Aviv to allow these projects to proceed. To explain, Russia’s energy and railway companies are world-renowned for their expertise, and Moscow wouldn’t pass up an opportunity for its state-owned companies to strike profitable deals that could potentially bring billions to the national budget if it had the chance to do so after being invited to participate.

From the strategic perspective, Russia would be expanding its influence in the region to the point of possibly even challenging Iran’s, albeit in a “friendly” way but one that would align with the objectives of its Western partners in the event that a “New Detente” between them is finally struck. That might at first sound strange to countenance considering that it doesn’t initially make sense that facilitating Iranian oil exports could result in the country’s “containment”, but upon further thought, making Iran more dependent on Russia via Moscow’s participation in this project would allow the Eurasian Great Power to indirectly wield even more influence over the Islamic Republic itself which could later be leveraged on behalf of its Western partners. The same logic goes for the prospective railway between Iran, Iraq, and Syria, too.

That said, it’s still unlikely that Iran would invite Russia to jointly construct these projects and that “Israel” would even agree to it since Tel Aviv has no reason to “compromise” on what it considers to be its pressing “national security” interests in militarily “containing” Iran after it recently once again proved the effectiveness of its heavy-handed approach. Iran also views Russia as a strategic competitor of sorts despite their anti-terrorist cooperation in Syria, so it would be reluctant to sell a stake in this project to its energy and connectivity rival unless it was truly desperate. As such, these plans will likely remain on the drawing board for the indefinite future since they’re politically unfeasible in the current context, which doesn’t appear to be changing anytime soon, but their significance rests in inspiring Iran’s supporters across the region to not lose hope in the future.

*

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

Andrew 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 “Israel” Will Never Let Iran Build a Pipeline to Syria Unless Russia Is Involved

Last week the town of Khan Sheikhoun was finally liberated by the Syrian Arab Army (SAA), led by the Tiger Forces and Republican Guard. Earlier this month a truce was entered into force in Idlib. It was understood that if Ankara failed to implement its obligations under the ceasefire agreement brokered by Russia and Turkey last September in Sochi, the Syrian army would continue with their military operation. A few days later, Turkish-backed terrorist factions violated the ceasefire and the Syrian Arab Army resumed their military operation, just as planned.

The strategic town of Khan Sheikhoun is within the southern Idlib Governorate in northwestern Syria. Idlib is the last terrorist stronghold in Syria. It sits on a highway connecting Damascus and Aleppo, part of which has been controlled by terrorists since 2012.

Efforts to pave the highway as Syrian troops progress north towards two other nearby Turkish posts are underway.

In order to make their recent advancement, the SAA surrounded a heavily fortified Turkish military observation post in the northwestern village of Morek. In response to the rapid advances made by the Syrian army over the past few weeks, Turkey’s Foreign Minister Mevlut Cavusoglu said,

“We have no intention of moving it and it will continue to serve out its purpose,” he added “The regime should stop playing with fire.”

The twelve observation posts in northwestern Syria are part of the agreement reached last year between Turkey and Russia. Turkey’s support for terrorist factions throughout the war, along with looting factories in Aleppo, and their expansionist ambitions have all led to increased friction and deteriorating relations between the Turkish and Syrian governments. Furthermore, Turkey is seen as an unwelcomed invader much like the US, and all other foreign uninvited forces on Syrian territory.

Two years ago, Khan Sheikhoun made headlines for a supposed chemical weapons attack that was automatically pinned on the Syrian Government. Allegations were quickly made by local terrorists with strong ties to media platforms such as The White Helmets. Quickly thereafter and based on falsities, US President Donald Trump launched 59 tomahawk missiles on Syrian airfields.

Almost exactly a year later in Douma, the US, UK, and France responded to another alleged chemical weapons attack which once again was blamed on the Syrian government, by launching a coordinated missile attack on Syrian targets. In an interview with Sputnik News I mentioned both of these events and the premature attacks that followed, prior to OPCW findings being issued.

Syrian Arab News Agency (SANA) issued a statement of the General Command of the Army and Armed Forces whereby it was announced that after intensive strikes over the course of days against terrorists in Hama’s northern countryside that their brave soldiers managed to liberate Khan Sheikhoun city, as well as many other locations including strategic hills in the northern countryside of Hama and Idlib’s southern countryside. They were able to inflict heavy losses on terrorists in both personnel and arms.

The General command reiterated that the plan is to liberate the entire country from terrorists. The statement concluded with confirmation that work is underway to clear these villages and towns of IED’s and the dense minefields that were planted by the terrorists, so that citizens can return to their homes and farmlands as soon as possible.

During combing operations in Khan Sheikhoun and al-Tamani’a area in Idlib’s southern countryside on Friday, the Syrian Arab Army uncovered a network of tunnels dug into mountains, which were used as fortified headquarters for Jabhat al-Nusra terrorists and affiliated groups. These tunnels included a set of chambers which were used by terrorists to plan their criminal acts and hide from the SAA’s intensive air strike campaigns, they were equipped with electric lighting, sanitation, and accommodations.

Humanitarian aid was delivered to Khan Sheikhoun on Monday, by the Russian military. Efforts are underway to restore water and electricity so that residents can return to their homes as quickly as possible.

Russian President Vladimir Putin reiterated on Tuesday, the need for eliminating terrorism in Idlib and other regions of Syria during a press conference with Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan. Putin said,

“The situation in the de-escalation zone of Idlib stirs our concern as terrorist groups in the area continue their attacks on the sites of Syrian army and Russian troops in Syria.”

Putin added that the de-escalation zone of Idlib should not be used for refuge by terrorists and that many procedures must be taken to remove terrorist cells from Idlib and other regions in Syria.

On Tuesday the SAA confronted an attack launched by Jabhat al-Nusra terrorists on military points positioned along the axis of Sham al-Hawa a town in Idlib’s southeastern countryside killing and injuring the majority of the attackers. The SAA also carried out a series of artillery and rocket strikes on fortifications of these terrorists and groups affiliated with them in Idlib’s countryside and was successful in destroying many dens, vehicles, and killing several domestic and foreign terrorists.

Foreign journalists came from Bulgaria, Greece, Italy and Russia to view the newly liberated town. On Tuesday SANA reported that a Russian and European media delegation visited Khan Sheikhoun in Idlib’s countryside. The Governor of Idlib Muhammad Fadi Sadun also confirmed that over the past three days a road to one of the local schools was rebuilt and the building is being repaired with an expected opening date of September 1st.

“It is very painful to see all this destruction that happened to Khan Sheikhoun. Before the war, it was a very beautiful town, people lived a good, wealthy life. Thank God, now it is liberated, and we will try to do everything to make it as soon as possible the same as before, so that people live peacefully and children go to school”, he said.

*

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

This article was originally published on InfoBrics.

Sarah Abed is an independent journalist and political commentator. For media inquiries please email [email protected].

Featured image is from InfoBrics

It has been termed a ‘constitutional outrage’ by Speaker of the UK House of Commons, John Bercow, as the UK government announced its plan to delay the beginning of the parliamentary year till mid October in an attempt to avoid opposition parties from derailing Brexit. Prime Minister Boris Johnson has already asked the Queen to condone such a move, thereby postponing the Queen’s speech – which signifies the beginning of the parliamentary year – till 14th October. On Wednesday the Queen granted his request.

The move provoked a furious reaction from Johnson’s pro-Remain colleagues, who view it as a way of him ruling out any attempt to stop a No Deal Brexit.  Opposition leader Jeremy Corbyn accused Johnson of conducting a ‘smash and grab’ on Britain’s democracy and he himself has also requested an audience with the Queen, having already written to Her Majesty to express his concerns about Conservative plans. Boris Johnson for his part has denied that he was stopping MPs from blocking a No Deal Brexit, saying there was ‘ample time’ for the issue to be debated in the last two weeks of October.

Scottish First Minister Nicola Sturgeon earlier expressed her concerns on the matter, tweeting:

‘Unless MPs come together to stop him next week, today will go down in history as a dark one indeed for UK democracy’.

She went further to say that it was in fact ‘not democracy but dictatorship’ and called on Conservative party leader in Scotland, Ruth Davidson, to oppose the government suspension. Ruth Davidson for her part announced her resignation on Thursday, citing her desire to spend more time with her family, however admitting she felt conflicted over Brexit. Davidson’s resignation will be a huge blow to the Unionist movement in Scotland, and consequently a boost to the Scottish Nationalists. Other prominent Conservatives have also Johnson’s action, with former Chancellor Phillip Hammond terming it ‘profoundly undemocratic’.

The government may have been prepared for widespread protests given a No Deal Brexit on 31st October, but given yesterday’s news the backlash has already begun, with calls by media personalities such as Owen Jones on social media for people to take to the streets on Wednesday to ‘defend democracy’. A petition has also been started which aims to collect 17 million signatures against what is being labelled the ‘Boris Johnson coup’.

There are indeed questions surrounding the legality of such a bid to effectively shut down parliament at a time when debate and discussion surrounding Brexit is needed most. The Scottish National Party’s Joanna Cherry has stated that her party have called for the Scottish court to organise a hearing on this issue this week, and are confident of being heard. However, according to journalist Robert Peston, government lawyers state that they ‘absolutely confident the courts cannot interfere’.

As for the Queen’s role in this; it is normal for her to support such government decisions. This has not prevented opposition politicians however from appealing to Her Majesty not to prorogue parliament till Friday 8th November. 45 MPs from the Scottish National Party, Labour, Green and Liberal Democrats yesterday signed a declaration called an Early Day Motion which calls on the Queen to use her powers to overrule the government.

Johnson’s move has taken many by surprise, but the reality is that Brexiteers have long been intent on achieving Brexit at whatever the cost. The prospect of outcry from politicians and the public alike does not seem to concern the Johnson team, who staunchly believe in the advantages of Brexit, and are confident that the UK can weather any storm which awaits after October 31st. Boris Johnson’s meetings with EU leaders last week may have created a show of solidarity and a common desire to achieve a deal, but the reality is that the PM always knew it would be nigh impossible to get an agreement passed by parliament, and so regardless of any deal negotiated with Brussels, leaving without a deal is looking increasingly likely. Some analysts are suggesting that this is a way of Johnson forcing parliament to accept some kind of deal, but the fact is that the Johnson Brexit team is staffed of hard-line Brexiteers, some of whom have been calling for a No Deal Brexit for some time.

With this arguably reckless act however Johnson is no doubt storing up trouble for the future credibility of his party. It has only deepened the rift between Remainers and Brexiteers and exacerbated the feelings of mistrust in the Johnson government. With still around half of the country opposed to Brexit, and a majority of people in Scotland against it, he is also putting the territorial integrity of the United Kingdom on the line. By charging forward to implement a No Deal Brexit, he is undoubtedly only worsening the current constitutional crisis and fuelling the Scottish independence movement. Time will tell if the opposition can succeed in stopping him.

*

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

This article was originally published on InfoBrics.

Johanna Ross is a journalist.

Featured image is from InfoBrics

The Open Amazon and Its Enemies: A Call for Action and Optimism

August 29th, 2019 by Francesc Badia i Dalmases

The Amazon, now on fire, has become the central political and geopolitical hot spot for humanity’s right to its own future. Optimism is the gasoline that must feed the fight.

***

June and July have been the hottest months on record in the Western Hemisphere as the climate crisis escalates. This summer, the ice in Greenland has been melting at an unseen rate under an unprecedented heat wave. Droughts and wildfires are on the rise ravaging significant forest surfaces, and the role of the rainforest as a carbon dioxide absorber is being jeopardized by a substantial acceleration in deforestation efforts.

The Amazon basin, which contains 40% of the world’s rainforest, plays a very complex yet central role as a buffer of climate change. It functions as a cooler of the atmosphere through moisture evaporation and it produces its own rainfall in the dry season while also capturing carbon and acting as the Earth’s lungs.

But lately, the Amazon’s vulnerability has become apparent, as fires have been spreading at an unprecedented rate. As Leonardo DiCaprio put it to his 34 million Instagram followers in a post: “the lungs of the Earth are in flames.” Data released by Brazil’s National Institute for Space Research shows that from January to July, 4.6 million acres of the Brazilian Amazon went ablaze, a 62 percent increase over last year.

Overall, the basin is experiencing an increasing number of threats from “development” involving logging, mining, farming, ranching and infrastructure construction (road and dam building). At the beginning of August, the latest in a series of reports from the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change focused on the impacts of agriculture, deforestation and other land use on the environment.

“Climate change, including increases in frequency and intensity of extremes, has adversely impacted food security and terrestrial ecosystems, as well as contributed to desertification and land degradation in many regions,” the report states.

To slow global warming, the UN report warns, agriculture and cattle ranching must change. This conclusion holds political undertones as agriculture and cattle ranching support many capitalist world economies.

Today, one cannot talk about the Amazon without talking about local, regional, and global politics.

Since Jair Bolsonaro, a far right-wing politician, was elected president in Brazil and took office this past January, many of the policies put in place to protect the Amazon over at least the past two decades are being paralyzed or reversed, while “trees have been disappearing at a rate of two Manhattans a week.” As The Economist writes in its first week of August issue, Deathwatch for the Amazon:

  “If there is a green shot in Mr. Bolsonaro’s scorched-earth tactics towards the rainforest, it is that it has made the Amazon’s plight harder to ignore”.

With the Amazon ablaze since January, the issue can no longer be avoided by the international community.

“The ongoing forest fires in Brazil are deeply worrying,” the European Commission said in a statement last Thursday. “Forests are our lungs and life support systems.”

The fact that the international press has joined activists and has become more aggressive on the issue of the climate crisis and the Amazon, acknowledging that this is a political issue and that it has to be approached as such, is progress. Journalism has a key political role in preventing the furthering of this catastrophe and it must be used to its fullest extent. And yet, when journalists working in the Amazon talk about politics, we discuss the people living there.

One should recall that the Greek root of politics is “polis” meaning city, which produced the word “polités” meaning citizens. And when one talks about the people living in the Amazon, be they indigenous, riberino (river dwellers) or quilombolas (escaped black slaves’ descendants), one should not forget that these people are all citizens of the Earth; citizens, just like most of the readers of this article.

Yet, being citizens means having equal rights, and when we investigate in this part of the world and meet indigenous riberine or quilombola people, we must overcome our neocolonial, Western-centered and often racist prejudices. We must always bear in mind that they are our equals and that they are as much citizens of this world as we are, even if their lives are different from our own.

This concept of global citizenship seems obvious from an intellectual point of view. However, it is not so straightforward. There is a severe contrast between our urban, technology-driven lives and their traditional, ancestral and analogic world.  An effort should always be made to bridge cultural gaps, but that has become increasingly difficult for young generations born in the urban digital world.

Yet, as journalists working in the Amazon basin, our priority should be putting people at the center of our approach, which must be, above everything, humanistic. Yes, humanistic in the sense expressed by the ancient Greek philosopher Protagoras who said, “Man is the measure of all things,” but also humanistic in the sense of bringing together different concepts of knowledge and disciplines.

The term humanist can also be interpreted as having an interdisciplinary perspective. One cannot approach such a complex and interconnected system as the Amazon from only one discipline, for to cover the Amazon means to be able to consider many disciplines. From geography to economics, ecology to anthropology, history to sociology, and engineering to environmental and climate sciences. But, above all these disciplines, it is key to acknowledge that in the Amazon, when any kind of scientific or journalistic work is performed, people and politics are involved.

The Amazon is so key to the future of our planet that it has become a hot issue of geopolitics. And, we are not only talking about the physical environment. We are talking about the future of the people- those who live there and us. And, above all, when we talk about people, we talk about values. We need a humanistic and value-oriented approach when working in the Amazon to solve the issues developing in the area.

Yet, with a president like Bolsonaro, who considers the Amazon a commodity to deplete and export, and its people as leftists who refuse to integrate into his development mirage, we have to agree that the root of this issue has to do with human rights. What we are witnessing in the Amazon is a natural and human rights violation. But also, and most importantly, it is the violation of the right of humanity to exist in the future. So, it is not an exaggeration to sustain that, should Bolsonaro pursue his vandalistic approach to the Brazilian rainforest, he should be brought to justice by the international court.

The fact that the Amazon has become significant as it occupies an increasingly central position in the spotlight of global media gives room for some optimism.  Karl Popper, the Austrian philosopher who was very influential to science with his theory of falsification and its implications to the methodology of scientific research, was an optimist. He said something which is of key importance today, and that is that “optimism is a moral duty.” For him, the future is not written, but rather depends very much on what we do in the present.

Our duty is to be optimistic as a way to shape a better future for all.

And, optimism is what is found in Open Democracy’s Rainforest Defenders series, produced with photojournalist Pablo Albarenga and the people from the Brazilian environmentalist NGO Engajamundo down in the Tapajós River with the support of the Rainforest Journalism Fund, administered by the Pulitzer Center in Washington.

In producing the series, Open Democracy put young people at the center of the stories, allowing them to speak about their struggles, frustrations, hopes and views for a better world. And, in spite of the many difficulties they face daily, we found optimism in them after all.

*

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

This article is based on the speech delivered by the author on July 11, 2019, in Manaus (Amazonas / Brazil) during the first meeting of the Rainforest Journalism Fund which funds reports in the Amazon and other tropical forests, in partnership with the Pulitzer Center.

Francesc Badia i Dalmases is editor of democraciaAbierta at openDemocracy.net London and a journalist. A political analyst, an author and a publisher, he specializes in International Affairs and is a Pulitzer grantee. Born in Mexico and based in Barcelona, Francesc has been senior fellow and general manager at the Barcelona Centre for International Affairs (CIDOB), general manager at the European Institute of the Mediterranean and at the Interarts Foundation. He was executive director of URB-AL-III, a decentralised and urban cooperation program for Latin America of the European Commission.

Featured image is from Wikimedia Commons

‘A Very British Coup’

August 29th, 2019 by Vanessa Baird

One must be Boris Johnson’s lucky number. He has been subjected to just one day of parliamentary scrutiny since being ‘crowned’ prime minister by the tiny fraction of the British electorate that happen to be paid-up Conservative party members.

He has a majority of just one in parliament, thanks to the £1-billion plus ‘confidence and supply’ bung paid out to Northern Ireland’s Democratic Unionist Party (DUP) by his predecessor Theresa May.

And now his singular dreams of autocracy have come a whole lot closer with his request to Queen Elizabeth to prorogue parliament until 14 October, thereby throwing into disarray plans by fellow MPs to devise a way to halt Britain crashing out the European Union without a deal on 31 October.

Parliament was due to open next week after the long summer recess, and MPs who believe a no-deal Brexit spells chaos for the UK economy, shortages of food and medicine, and subservience to a trade agenda determined by US president Donald Trump, were due to try and devise legislative ways of avoiding a reckless no-deal Brexit.

Labour’s John McDonnell called Johnson’s move: ‘A very British coup.’

Boris Johnson, for his part, maintains that MPs will still have time to discuss Brexit and that the proroguing is just normal at this time of year.

But Conservative Speaker John Bercow called it ‘a constitutional outrage’. ‘However it is dressed up, it is blindingly obvious that this is a way of stopping the parliament debating Brexit,’ he said. It was ‘an offence against parliamentary democracy’.

Scottish National Party leader Nicola Sturgeon said it was the action of a ‘tinpot dictator’ and mourned ‘the day that democracy died’. To Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn it was a ‘smash and grab’ of our democracy.

So, what happens now? The Queen was constitutionally bound to follow the advice of her prime minister – in other words, she could not say no to Johnson.

The chances of a vote of no confidence in the prime minister is increased, as is the possibility of an early election.

But there are profound dangers in having an election now. Questions about electoral fraud have not been dealt with. There are strict limits to how much parties can spend on advertising during elections or referendums. The Electoral Commission has proved itself incapable of effectively tackling the issue of Facebook campaign advertising that allegedly broke the law during the referendum campaign. Mastermind of the Vote Leave campaign was Dominic Cummings, who MPs accuse of contempt of parliament for refusing to attend a key select committee inquiry into the Cambridge Analytica scandal. He is now Boris Johnson’s senior adviser – and busy buying up Facebook ads for his new boss.

The Metropolitan Police has also moved at a glacial pace when it comes to conducting criminal investigations, in spite of information supplied to them by investigative journalist Carole Cadwalladr and openDemocracy about the ‘dark money’ behind Brexit.

Cadwalladr, who spoke at the recent Byline festival, is currently being pursued by arch-Brexiteer and business entrepreneur Aaron Banks, who is suing her for libel.

Boris Johnson’s bid to suspend parliament is being resisted strenuously. But at least it’s blindingly obvious.

It’s the things going on under the surface, that are not being addressed, that we really have to worry about. The foreign interference from East and West, the dark money behind election campaigns, the lobbyists, the thinktanks, the special interest groups, that are the deepest threats to our democracy.

And if these forces come to play in the next election – or referendum, if there is one – we will have done little to protect British democracy from them.

*

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.

Vanessa Baird lived and worked as a journalist in Peru during the tumultuous mid-1980s, and she maintains a passionate interest in South America. She joined New Internationalist as a co-editor in 1986.

An iatrogenic condition is a state of ill health caused by medical, surgical, drug or vaccine treatments. It may qualify as the 3rd most common cause of death in the United States. 

For much more information about this hidden healthcare crisis of iatrogenesis, please read one of the articles that I have written about drug- and vaccine-induced iatrogenic disorders here.

In that article, I quoted statistics from an article that was written by Barbara Stanfield, MD, MPH, that had been published in the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA, July 26, 2000—Vol 284, No. 4).

Stanfield’s article was titled “Is US Health Really the Best in the World?” It can be read here.

In the article, Stanfield included the following statistics from her research on America’s iatrogenic deaths:

  • 12,000 deaths/year from unnecessary surgery in hospitals
  • 7,000 deaths/year from medication errors in hospitals
  • 20,000 deaths/year from other errors in hospitals
  • 80,000 deaths/year from nosocomial infections in hospitals
  • 106,000 deaths/year from non-error, adverse effects of medications in hospitals

Combining these five groups gives us a total of 225,000 in-patient deaths. The 225,000 number does not include out-patient iatrogenic deaths that occur at home, iatrogenic nursing home deaths or even non-lethal, chronic illnesses or disabilities. In any case, this number alone easily constitutes the third leading cause of death in the United States, behind heart disease and cancer.

Note that Stanfield did not present any data about in-patient OR outpatient iatrogenic drug- or vaccine-induced disorders that did not result in death. If there were such retrievable data, it could be reasonably asserted that iatrogenic disorders are the most common cause of acute or chronic/disabling diseases in the United States.

Given that vaccine-induced disorders are a taboo subject that is avoided at all costs in polite company in America, and given that our Big Pharma-infiltrated/influenced CDC, FDA, AMA, AAP, AAFP, US Congress, US Supreme Court, White House, Big Media, etc, this reality should come as no surprise. What is intentionally ignored by every entity listed above is the VAERS data on iatrogenic deaths and disabilities that have been confirmed as caused by legal vaccines.

Iatrogenic illnesses are intentionally not acknowledged by the elites who are protective of the reputations of Big Pharma, Big Vaccine or Big Medicine corporations because of the fear of legal ramifications, nor are they recorded as iatrogenic illnesses by the CDC – for the same reasons. Iatrogenesis is also not recognized by either the patient-victims who are commonly told that adverse effects from their prescribed drugs or vaccines are “normal”.

A 1999 report from the Institute of Medicine attributed most iatrogenic medical errors not to negligence or misconduct, but to “system-related problems”.

Errors in diagnosis or treatment can come from any member of healthcare team members – from

1) the pharmaceutical corporations that commonly make potentially toxic products, to

2) the hospital administrators that sometimes make ridiculous policies like firing employees that logically refuse annual flu shots or make the policy to inject hepatitis B vaccines into immunologically-immature newborn infants (without giving parents a chance to logically refuse the shot), to the physicians and physician’s assistants who do the diagnosing and prescribing, to the nursing staff that injects the drugs and vaccines, to the pharmacists that dispense the drugs (and sometimes even do the vaccinating(!).

There are plenty of blame-worthy cogs in America’s dysfunctional and error-prone healthcare system – especially when office calls are often limited to 10 minutes! When I was in family practice, I would often tell my patients, before I spent the hour or so with them painstakingly figuring out the root cause of their problems that “it only takes 2 minutes to write a prescription but it takes 20 minutes to NOT write a prescription”. It also only takes only a few minutes to make snap – and often erroneous – judgements but far longer to really understand the patient and the usually complex issues that have sickened him or her.

Polypharmacy and injecting too many unproven-for-safety vaccines into infants at one time can easily cause iatrogenic illnesses

Iatrogenic events have been estimated to affect 2/3 of nursing home and assisted living residents annually. The main reason is that polypharmacy is so common in such populations and errors are almost inevitable when more than one drug is taken chronically.

It is important to note that Big Pharma corporations NEVER do any safety testing on ANY drug or vaccine combination – whether the second or third drugs or vaccines are already on the market or still in development. What could possibly go wrong?

All adverse vaccine effects are iatrogenic (whose end results may not show up for weeks, months or years), and they usually involve routine vaccinations that are recommended by the CDC, the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP), the AAFP and the AMA.

A few years ago two academic neurologists helpfully illuminated the common problem of iatrogenic disorders. They could easily have been writing about the cocktails of brain-altering, life-long psych drugs that psychiatrists commonly prescribe to their patients or the cocktails of vaccines that pediatricians commonly inject into their infant patients. 

The neurologists wrote:

“The reality of iatrogenesis is one of the most frequent causes of hospital admissions and constitutes a growing public health problem. The most common type of iatrogenic neurologic disease is pharmacologic, and the central and peripheral nervous systems are particularly vulnerable. Despite this, iatrogenic disease is generally overlooked as a differential diagnosis among neurologic patients.” Drs Luciano Sposato and Osvaldo Fustinoni, contributing authors to the 2014 edition of Handbook of Clinical Neurology (they authored chapter 107, which was titled Iatrogenic Neurology

I suspect that very few of the specialties involved are fully aware that the pharmaceutical corporations that research, manufacture and then aggressive market their block-buster drugs and vaccines have ever done long term safety or efficacy studies on their products nor have they ever done safety studies in any of the combinations to which future patients will be exposed. What could possibly go wrong?

The Opioid Epidemic is Largely an Iatrogenic Epidemic 

Nearly 2/3 of the 30,000 annual opioid overdose deaths in America are iatrogenic deaths, in that they were caused by the over-prescribing of addictive, dependency-inducing, disabling opioid drugs that were profitably marketed by pharmaceutical corporations and profitably-prescribed by physicians (each of whom falsely claimed that the drugs were safe to use chronically).

Below is an excerpt (including two important graphs that prove that the decline in mortality rates for measles and scarlet fever – two common childhood illnesses – had nothing to do with vaccines and everything to do with improvements in public health measures). It is from a Vaccineimpact.com article titled: “The Truth About Measles That the Mainstream Media is Suppressing”.

The point made by the two charts is that there was never a vaccine for scarlet fever and the vaccine for measles wasn’t introduced until the mortality rates for both childhood scourges had already dropped to near zero! Similar charts exist for mumps and chickenpox.

It is important to note that only actual clinical infections (and NOT vaccinations) involving the so-called “vaccine-preventable” childhood illnesses will give life-long immunity whereas vaccines only offer, at the very most, short-lived partial non-cellular immunity that needs frequent toxic booster doses to raise the antibody levels (in MOST children but not ALL children) to a theoretically protective level.

“Analysis of the data shows the often-repeated mantra that vaccines were key in the decline of infectious disease deaths is a fallacy. Deaths had decreased by massive amounts before vaccinations. In the case of scarlet fever and other infectious diseases, deaths declined to near zero without any widespread vaccination.”

“Unfortunately, the erroneous belief (that vaccines deserved the credit for the decline in childhood infections) has led people to trust in vaccination as the sole way to handle infectious diseases when there were clearly other factors that caused mortality to decline. Those factors were improved hygiene, sanitation, nutrition, labor laws, electricity, chlorination, refrigeration, pasteurization, and many other facets that we now generally take for granted as part of modern life.”

“Very little of the improvement in the death rate had anything to do with medicine. A 1977 report estimated that, at best, approximately 3 percent of the mortality decline from infectious disease could be attributed to modern medical care.”

“The vaccine-injured community is composed of people, young and old, who are suffering from a spectrum of chronic illness and disabilities, including learning disabilities and developmental delays, attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), autism, seizure disorders, mental retardation, diabetes, asthma, inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) rheumatoid arthritis, multiple sclerosis and other kinds of neuroimmune and autoimmune dysfunction.” — Barbara Loe Fisher of the National Vaccine Information Center (www.nvic.org) as she introduced the International Vaccine Victim Memorial Video Collection 

“The Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) is a national vaccine safety surveillance program co-sponsored by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the Food and Drug Administration. VAERS is a post-marketing safety surveillance program, collecting information about adverse events (possible side effects) that occur after the administration of vaccines licensed for use in the United States.”Teresa Conrick, mother of her autistic daughter Megan who had regressive episodes after every childhood vaccination, especially following her MMR, following which she was diagnosed with autism, see this.

Conrick lists the details of dozens of vaccine-injured or killed children from the VAERS repository. AOA states that tens of thousands of vaccine-injured victims submit their stories to VAERS every year! Most are unfairly denied compensation for their injuries. 

Below are more quotes from enlightened physicians, vaccine researchers, well-informed parents of vaccine-injured or killed children, public health officials, etc that need to be taken into account when readers try to wade through the immense amount of pro-vaccine propaganda from the sociopathic Big Pharma corporations that cavalierly and profitably brought us thimerosal/mercury in vaccines, the disastrous live virus polio vaccine of the Cutter Incident, the disastrous Dengvaxia vaccine in the Philippines, the OxyContin/opioid crisis, the Vioxx disaster, etc, etc.

The whistle-blowers that are mentioned in this article have been witnesses to a global iatrogenic epidemic that is akin to the global warming crisis, the pollution of the seas, the destruction of the environment, the poisoning and disappearance of the earth’s drinking water supplies, the militarization of space, the global wars (that are making the planet increasingly uninhabitable) and the plastic pollution of the entire world.

Each of these courageous people has been called names by odious internet trolls, black-listed by their former colleagues, had their medical journal submissions ignored or their books figuratively “burned” and their well-done videos and writings banned. Some have even had their licenses to practice medicine taken from them.

These honorable individuals have even been treated as if they were NeoNazis and mass murderers, but they desperately need to be heard. Take their testimony to heart, for they speak unwelcome truths.

***

“The great enemy of the truth is very often not the lie — deliberate, contrived and dishonest, but the myth, persistent, persuasive, and unrealistic. Belief in myths allows the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought.”John F. Kennedy 

“It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it.” –Sinclair Lewis

“Medical journals have devolved into information-laundering operations for the pharmaceutical industry.” — Richard Horton, editor of the prestigious British Medical Journal

“The medical profession is being bought by the pharmaceutical (and vaccine) industry, not only in terms of the practice of medicine, but also in terms of teaching and research. The academic institutions of this country are allowing themselves to be the paid agents of the pharmaceutical industry. I think it’s disgraceful.”Arnold Seymour Relman, MD Former Editor-in-Chief of the New England Journal of Medicine

“The American Academy of Pediatrics (as do the CDC, the FDA and the AMA) derives a majority of its outside contributions – estimated at more than $25 million per year – from pharmaceutical companies that make vaccines. The pediatricians that the AAP represents derive the majority of their annual revenues from the administration of vaccines to their pediatric patients…The majority of studies that authorities point to as proof that vaccines do not cause autism have been published in a journal called Pediatrics, the official journal of the American Academy of Pediatrics. As we know, the AAP is a trade union (and lobbying organization) for pediatricians.” – J.B. Handley 

“Most physicians haven’t got a clue about vaccines. Physicians are undeservedly endowed with a mantle of authority and therefore most of their patients think vaccines are simple, safe and effective. And therefore there is nothing much to know about vaccines except that they somehow illicit an immune response and magical antibodies will protect the inoculated patient for life. Total ignorance. But that’s what ‘The Snake’ tells physicians starting in medical school; and, since medical school professors are also undeservedly endowed with a mantle of authority, both those healthcare professional groups believed it from the start.” – Anonymous (parent of a vaccine-injured child)

“After years of propagandizing the American public in violation of the law, after holding the illegal secret Simpsonwood meeting when all of this was revealed – including to a representative of the American Academy of Pediatrics, we now have a generation of pediatricians, who face perhaps the greatest iatrogenic accident in the history of pediatrics, who actually need to be deprogrammed to understand what the true nature of all the (vaccine-induced) neuro-behavioral problems are that they confront without any understanding of etiology or potential interventions.– Board-certified Pediatrician Kenneth Stoller, ex-Fellow of the American Academy of Pediatrics

“The vaccine manufacturers, the Center for Disease Control and Prevention, the Food and Drug Administration, and the various medical associations (including the American Academy of Pediatrics, the American Academy of Medicine and the American Academy of Family Practice) have failed miserably in their duty to protect our children. Rather than acknowledge their role…they have resorted to denial and obfuscation. They stand to lose their credibility, and billions of dollars in liability suits will soon reach the courtsAs a full-time professional research scientist for 50 years, and as a researcher in the field of autism for 45 years, I have been shocked and chagrined by the medical establishment’s ongoing efforts to trivialize the solid and compelling evidence that faulty vaccination policies are the root cause of the epidemic. There are many consistent lines of evidence implicating vaccines, and no even marginally plausible alternative hypotheses…Mercury, one of the most toxic substances known, is used as a preservative in many vaccines. Some infants have had 125 times the maximum allowable limit of mercury injected directly into their bloodstreams, in one day, in vaccines.” Dr. Bernard Rimland, Director, Autism Research Institute and editor of Autism Research Review International, issued a statement on July 14, 2003: “The Autism Epidemic Is Real, And Excessive Vaccinations Are the Cause” 

***

Safety Recommendation for Parents Who Choose or are Mandated to Vaccinate Their Children, Based on Guidelines of the Autism Research Institute

  1. Never vaccinate a sick child, even if just a runny nose from a viral infection, as all viruses are immunosuppressive, rendering the child more vulnerable to adverse vaccine reactions.
  2. Never allow more than two vaccines per visit; avoid all combination vaccines.
  3. Administer vitamin C before and after each vaccination, ideally in doses of 500 mgs every four hours during waking hours. Also give vitamin A in standard doses. 
  4. All forms of sugar should be avoided for several days before and after vaccines, as sugar has been shown to diminish the protective activities of the immune system by depressing white blood cells’ ability to destroy bacteria.

I knew that MMR (GlaxoSmithKline’s Measles/Mumps/Rubella vaccine) was a mistake from the start. Within 10 seconds I could see that it was a bad idea.  All the vaccinations prior to MMR could occur in nature; they had never been combined before. Normally, viruses can’t infect at the same time, so if you put more than one virus into a body at once you are making a grave error. Surely the point of vaccination is to make it safer for children, but with MMR a child could be overwhelmed, and might not recover.  The deaths and severe reactions to MMR are just the tip of the iceberg.“ – Dr Peter Mansfield, British general practitioner whose practice was dedicated to reducing his patient’s reliance on doctors by giving them the confidence and information to help themselves

“There are very powerful people in positions of great authority in Britain and elsewhere who have staked their reputations and careers on the safety of MMR and they are willing to do almost anything to protect themselvesClinical and scientific data is steadily accumulating that the live measles virus in MMR can cause brain, gut and immune system damage in a subset of vulnerable children. There’s no one conclusive piece of scientific evidence, no ‘smoking gun’, because there very rarely is when adverse drug reactions are first suspected. When vaccine damage in very young children is involved, it is harder to prove the linksThe refusal by governments to evaluate the risks [of the MMR] properly will make this one of the greatest scandals in medical history. There’s far too much to ignore. Yet government health authorities are, it seems, more than happy to do so.””Dr. Peter Fletcher, former Chief Scientific Officer at the UK’s Department of Health

“Live virus inoculations can actually cause a recently-vaccinated patient to shed the infectious vaccine viruses. Therefore, the recently vaccinated individual can actually spread the disease to close contacts. Post-vaccination contagion has been proven to occur following measles, mumps, chicken pox and oral polio vaccination. The viral shedding is known to last for months in some cases. There are no easily available and affordable tests to determine which recent vaccinated patients are shedding live vaccine viruses. Therefore, recently vaccinated persons are obviously far more likely to be contagious than are the asymptomatic, non-infected, non-vaccinated children that are so irrationally feared, banned from attending public schools or forced to be vaccinated against their wills.” – Gary G. Kohls, MD

“It’s not as though the medical establishment has not been wrong before. AsDr David Sackett, ‘the father of evidence based medicine, told a class of pre-med students: “Half of what you’ll learn in medical school will be shown to be either dead wrong or out of date within five years of your graduation; the trouble is that nobody can tell you which half—so the most important thing to learn is how to learn on your own.” – Jeremy R. Hammond, From his Why You Can’t Trust the CDC on Vaccines”

“The really sad thing is the amount of doctors I’ve spoken to who say to me, ‘Del, I know that vaccines are causing autism, but I won’t say it on camera because the pharmaceutical industry will destroy my career just like they did to Andy Wakefield.'”Del Bigtree, Producer of “Vaxxed: From Cover-up to Catastrophe” and host of “The Highwire” For a complete playlist of Del Bigtree’s unimpeachable testimony and to hear his impressive fund of knowledge concerning the iatrogenic, vaccine-induced epidemic, visit his The Highwire show.

*

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 Kohls is a retired family physician from Duluth, MN, USA. Since his retirement from his holistic mental health practice he has been writing his weekly Duty to Warn column for the Duluth Reader, northeast Minnesota’s alternative newsweekly magazine. His columns, which are re-published around the world, deal with the dangers of American fascism, corporatism, conscienceless industrialization, militarization, racism, xenophobia, malnutrition, sea level rise, global warming, geo-engineering, solar radiation management, electromagnetic radiation, Big Copper Mining’s conscienceless exploitation of northeast Minnesota’s water-rich environment, Big Medicine’s over-screening, over-diagnosing, over-treating, Big Pharma’s over-drugging and Big Vaccine’s over-vaccination agendas (particularly of tiny infants), as well as other movements that threaten human health, the environment, democracy, civility and the sustainability of life on earth.  Many of his columns have been archived at a number of websites, including these four:

http://duluthreader.com/search?search_term=Duty+to+Warn&p=2;

http://www.globalresearch.ca/author/gary-g-kohls;

http://freepress.org/geographic-scope/national; and

https://www.transcend.org/tms/search/?q=gary+kohls+articles

In spring, Ukraine witnessed an event that will surely be written down in the country’s history – the presidential elections were won by Volodymyr Zelensky, a showman who had never been involved in politics before. And as Zelensky’s victory is astonishing so Petro Poroshenko’s defeat is unexpected. It delivered a hard blow not only at his reputation as politician but also at his ego.

Petro Poroshenko hasn’t accepted the defeat and tries to rehabilitate himself in politics, which however hasn’t brought any success so far. The Ukrainians don’t trust the former president, and a criminal case against him can lead to imprisonment or make him leave Ukraine. To prevent this from happening and take revenge on Zelensky, Poroshenko turns to all means at his disposal – his connections in politics, law enforcement agencies, courts and business. At the same time, one of the main cards up Poroshenko’s sleeve is the Orthodox Church of Ukraine (OCU) which was created by the former president and unites many of those loyal to him.

In Ukraine, Poroshenko created an image of an uncompromising fighter for religiosity. During the election campaign, his political consultants stressed that he formed the first recognized independent Church in the Ukrainian history. Many of OCU supporters believe that the merit of its creation belongs to Poroshenko and are ready to back him. The OCU hierarchy, led by Metropolitan Epiphany (Dumenko), is also extremely loyal to the former president; due to him, they came out of the shadow of the Filaret (Denysenko), primate of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church – Kyivan Patriarchate, and founded their new Church. All these led to the formation of the so-called “Autocephalous Bloc” involving OCU priests, business persons and, most importantly, politicians.

Out-of-favor politicians supporting Poroshenko

First of all, Poroshenko is supported by now-disgraced politicians who contributed to the Autocephaly project. One of Zelensky’s main antagonists is Rostislav Pavlenko, the former director of the National Institute for Strategic Studies who was dismissed in May 2019. Pavlenko, one of the main ideologists of the Autocephaly project, is in rigid opposition to Zelensky, criticize his internal policy and the incompetence of his team. The new president has declared several times his intention not to interfere in Church affairs, and Pavlenko will do his best to undermine the apathetic Church agenda.

Andriy Parubiy, the former speaker of the Verkhovna Rada, is also ready to stand against Zelensky. Poroshenko’s supporter had a number of conflicts with the new president over the past couple of months including the one which was caused by Zelensky’s intention to prematurely dissolve the Rada. Parubiy is close to his resignation after the recent parliamentary elections and is offended by Zelensky as well as many politicians of 2014-2019.

Incumbent Cabinet

Meanwhile, a large number of the former president’s high-ranking supporters, who openly backed the autocephaly, continue to work in Ukrainian state bodies. One of the most dangerous opponents for Zelensky is Andriy Yurash, the director of the Department for Religious and Ethnic Affairs of the Ministry of Culture. It was Yurash who lobbied the president’s unsuccessful trip to the Phanar. Given the fact that one of the main initiators of the Autocephaly maintains ties with Constantinople, it becomes clear that this trip was an attempt to make Zelensky dance to his tune.

It’s unknown what document Zelensky refused to sign at the Phanar. The media claim that there were agreements on ecology but the point could be the transfer of Ukrainian stauropegions to the Ecumenical Patriarchate. If Zelensky had signed the agreement, it could have dealt a serious blow to his rating.

Moreover, the Ecumenical Patriarchate, which scooped a large profit in Ukraine thanks to Poroshenko, can also exert pressure on Zelensky. Patriarch Bartholomew is rumored to have intended to discuss the criminal case against Poroshenko during Zelensky’s visit to Istanbul but changed his mind at the last moment.

Despite the fact that the Yurash family integrated in the new government, it will remain loyal to Poroshenko, which means the ex-president keeps under full control the Department for Religious and Ethnic Affairs that oversees Church developments.

Zelensky is also opposed by Ukrainian Foreign Minister Pavlo Klimkin. Klimkin is still in office but he is in conflict with Zelensky and is said to leave his position soon. When it happens, Klimkin will join the opposition group of politicians backing Petro Poroshenko. Close ties of Poroshenko and Klimkin have lasted since the first was Foreign Minister. Poroshenko consistently awarded Klimkin and lent support to him.

Poroshenko’s another person in the government is Hennadiy Zubko, the Minister of Regional Development. Zubko maintains close relations with the family of the former president. The Foundation of Poroshenko’s wife Maria is funding a public organization of Zubko’s spouse while the official himself assisted the employment of the brother of Andriy Yurash’s daughter-in-law, Sofia Yurash, at his Department.

In addition to the above-mentioned officials, there formed a group of other senior politicians who support Poroshenko:

Minister of Youth and Sports Ihor Zhdanov. He was appointed after the Revolution of Dignity in 2014; Zhdanov was a commandant during the standoff at Kyiv’s Maidan square. The minister claimed that he would hold onto his position to the last though he is said to be soon dismissed by Zelensky.

First Deputy Prime Minister Stepan Kubiv. He was against Zelensky during the election campaign. A member of the Petro Poroshenko Bloc.

Minister of Culture Yevhen Nyshhuk. Spoke in support of the autocephaly and Petro Poroshenko but is not yet in strong opposition to Zelensky.

Business

Many businesspersons still actively support Petro Poroshenko. The autocephaly project is being backed by businessman Andriy Matsola and a criminal kingpin Oleksandr Nalekrishvili also known as “Narik” (i.e. “Dope”).

Matsola is a close friend of Epiphanius and the deputy head of the Department of external Church relations of the OCU Eustratius (Zorya). Due to Matsola’s support, Filaret’s strong influence was reduced. He also undertook all financial expenditures during the implementation of the Autocephaly project.

Narik has been showing his piousness in recent years. He was also present at the ceremony in Istanbul when patriarch Bartholomew officially signed the Tomos. Nalekrishvili is the co-father-in-law of Andriy Pavelko, a member of the Petro Poroshenko Bloc.

Poroshenko was actively promoting his project so many business persons not only joined the “Autocephalous Bloc” but also became its sponsors.

The OCU as a weapon

Volodymyr Zelensky’s decision not to interfere in Church affairs may result in far-reaching consequences. Poroshenko intends to use the OCU as a tool to exert pressure on the elected president and the new Church can become one of the factors of his political defeat. Zelensky’s indifference to Church issues will weaken the state control over Church developments. Petro Poroshenko and his “Autocephalous Bloc” will support any canonical or schismatic movement to provoke a full-fledged conflict among Ukrainian believers to shatter Zelensky’s presidency.

And if Volodymyr Zelensky doesn’t want to lose his position, he will have to take the Church agenda and those who covertly or openly are ready to act against him into consideration.

*

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.

Translated to English by Nadia Bazuk

After the recent Israeli attacks against Lebanon, Syria, and Iraq, the Middle East has found itself in the midst of an undeclared war.

Almost everyone in Lebanon appears to agree. “This time Israel went too far. In just two days, it bombed three countries,” I am told by a local UN staffer based in Beirut.

The same day, my local barber was talking like he saw it all, his voice full of sarcasm and determination:

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is facing tough elections at home, while his wife is on trial for fraud. A bit of excitement during the evening news can only help his chances of regaining attention from his electorate. But we here have had enough; we are ready to fight for our countries.

But ‘fighting for their countries’ could prove lethal, as Netanyahu threatened to attack Lebanon as a whole, if Hezbollah decides to retaliate.

My barber is not just a barber. He is a Syrian engineer, exiled in Lebanon. The entire region is dispersed, derailed and intertwined, after NATO and Israeli attacks, occupations and destabilization campaigns.

On August 25, Hassan Nasrallah, the head of Hezbollah, put it bluntly during his televised speech in Lebanon:

The dawn suicide attack is the first act of aggression since August 14, 2006. The Lebanese state’s condemnation of what happened and referral of the matter to the Security Council is good, but these steps do not prevent the course of action to be taken. Since 2000, we have allowed Israeli drones for many reasons but no one moved. Israeli drones entering Lebanon are no longer collecting information, but [carrying out] assassinations. From now on, we will face the Israeli drones when they enter the skies of Lebanon and we will work to bring them down. I tell the Israelis that Netanyahu is running with your blood.”

President of Lebanon Michel Aoun went even further, calling the drone attack against his country a “declaration of war.

Meanwhile, a powerful block in the Iraqi Parliament – the Fatah Coalition – insists on holding the US “fully responsible” for the Israeli attacks, “which we consider to be a declaration of war on Iraq and its people.” The Fatah Coalition wants all US troops to get out of Iraq, as soon as possible.

There is no doubt that Mr Netanyahu, with his recent combat-drone incursions and bombings, has thrown the entire region into great and unexpected turmoil.

Israel has been regularly attacking Syria and bombing Palestine for decades. But Lebanon is a totally different story: only its airspace has been habitually violated by the Israeli jets flying towards the Syrian targets. Bombing Iraq is also clearly an escalation of Israel’s bellicose strategy. A bizarre escalation, considering that Iraq is still de facto a state occupied by Israel’s closest ally – the United States.

Everything that is Shia – short of Iran itself (for now) – suddenly became a ‘legitimate target’ for Israel. For many years, Shia Islam has been synonymous with the ideological resistance to Western imperialism in the Middle East: Iran itself, several factions inside Iraq, and Hezbollah, among others.

Lebanon is deeply divided 

Lebanon is one of the most ‘strategic’ countries in the Middle East and the most divided one. It is based on a ‘confessional’ system. Its government is always at least ‘shaky,’ but often totally dysfunctional. Compared to its Israeli counterpart, its air force consists of toy aircraft, like converted Cessnas.

The latest Maserati and Ferrari cars drive past some of the most miserable slums in the Middle East. Posh restaurants and cafes are often just a few meters away from destitute beggars. There are hundreds of thousands of refugees in this tiny country, from all over the region: Palestinians, living in dangerous, overcrowded camps with very little hope; Iraqis fleeing war and NATO occupation; and victims of the Syrian war.

The Lebanese government and the elites are profiting from the refugee crises, allegedly pocketing money from ‘foreign aid.’ Almost nothing is left for social services, or even for defense, let alone for the poor and the lower-middle class.

Hezbollah, on the contrary, is providing social services including food supplies, medical care and education to all people residing on Lebanese territory, regardless of race or religion. Plus, it is fighting Israeli invasions, taking into its ranks all Lebanese citizens who want to join. It also fights terrorists in Syria. It is closely linked to Iran. All this, of course, infuriates the United States, Israel and Saudi Arabia. Hezbollah is firmly on the ‘terrorist list’ of the West and its associates.

Israel is using the fight against Hezbollah and against Iranian-allied positions to justify bombing various countries in the region. It keeps ‘uncovering new plots’ and carrying out ‘pre-emptive strikes’ with the full support of the US administration.

During the latest escalation, Israel reportedly conducted three drone strikes in Lebanon’s Beqaa Valley on a base belonging to the secular, Marxist-Leninist, pro-Syrian group, the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine, which is, predictably, an ally of Hezbollah.

Blue Line 

Just a few days ago, I managed to drive to the border between Lebanon and Israel, and then went east, following the so-called Blue Line which is patrolled by the United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon (UNIFIL), for tens of kilometers.

Israelis have already erected a wall almost all the way from the Mediterranean Sea to the Golan Heights – the Lebanese frontier.

Israel right behind the wall

More than a year ago, the government of Lebanon claimed that ‘building the wall would amount to an act of war.’ Israel couldn’t care less. It put up a huge concrete structure right in front of the Lebanese Army, Hezbollah, and UNIFIL.

On many occasions, Israelis actually crossed the border, at least a few meters or centimeters, while erecting the wall,” I was told by several local farmers in the village of Markaba. And nothing happened.

At the town of Kfarchouba, known as a Hezbollah stronghold right next to an eerie wall decorated with children’s drawings, people told me that they are “ready for a conflict; ready to die… if necessary.”

Kfarshouba is where the Israelis ‘discovered Hezbollah tunnels,’ which was an official justification for the construction of the walls.

Nonsense,” I was told by the locals. “Tunnels were there for decades, and Israelis knew about them all along. They were fully barricaded for many years and posed no danger to Israel.

Right in front of the horrid new Israeli fence, three flags are waving in the wind – those of Palestine, Lebanon and Hezbollah. Next to them, three UNIFIL armored vehicles are parked. Indonesian soldiers are resting, taking selfies.

Are you going to take action if Israel crosses the line?” I ask them.

Indonesian UNIFIL selfie takers at war zone

They are grinning at me. No coherent reply is given.

The Israeli-occupied Golan Heights are just 10km from this point. And several Israeli villages and towns are right behind the wall.

With the firepower that Hezbollah has, they could be leveled to the ground in just one minute.

Although Hezbollah is apparently on ‘high alert,’ so far, the talk about ‘retaliation’ is just talk.

‘Inertia is like slow death to Lebanon’ 

In order to bomb targets inside Iraq, Israeli jets had to fly either over the territory of its former ally, Turkey, or over Saudi Arabia. As reported by Al-Jazeera:

Israel and the Saudis do not have formal diplomatic relations but are believed to have established a behind-the-scenes alliance based on their shared hostility towards Iran.”

Is Israel trying to provoke several Arab countries of the Middle East into yet another war?

Or is this just another ‘humiliation’? Are Beirut, Damascus, Baghdad just going to count punches and remain idle? Are they going to quote, again and again, the UN resolutions, while Israel continuously bombs their cities and countryside, with total impunity and with the approval of the West?

It is a very tough decision to make. If Lebanon or Hezbollah decide to retaliate, or simply protect their country, thousands will die. Perhaps immediately.

If they don’t retaliate, new walls will be erected, and the ‘low-key’ bombing campaigns by the Israelis will continue for, most likely, many years to come. As a result, the entire region will continue to be paralyzed.

My local colleague was more expressive: “This inertia is like a slow death for the whole of Lebanon.

*

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 News.

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

All images in this article are from the author

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on ‘We Are Waiting for War’: Lebanese Say Israel Has Gone Too Far
  • Tags: ,

Let’s Save the Amazon! Let’s Save the Planet!

August 29th, 2019 by Network in Defense of Humanity

“Tomorrow will be too late to do what we should have done a long time ago.” Fidel Castro Ruz, United Nations Conference on Environment and Development, Rio de Janeiro, June 12, 1992

The Network in Defense of Humanity joins the worldwide mobilization in protest against the ecological disaster caused by the fires in the Amazon and against the transnational corporations and politicians directly responsible for the catastrophe.

As Fidel said twenty-seven years ago, the human species, “is at risk of disappearing because of the rapid and progressive liquidation of its natural living conditions”. And he added an unequivocal denunciation;

“Enough of the selfishness. Enough of the schemes of domination. Enough of the insensitivity, irresponsibility and deceit.”

In the last few days the extensive clouds of smoke over the Amazon constitute a very serious alarm for humanity. However, it cannot be seen as an isolated event. Its main cause is the capitalist system and its conception of infinite economic growth that gives priority to the production and reproduction of capital instead of the production and reproduction of life. What is happening today in the Amazon is also happening in vast areas of Africa and other regions of the planet.

Businesspeople and neoliberal politicians, in their unbridled ambition for greater profits, do not listen to the growing and disturbing warnings of the scientific institutions and the defenders of the Amazon, and undertake and approve increasingly aggressive and destructive projects without taking into account the irreparable consequences of their action. The expansive interests of the mining, oil, aquifer, and agribusiness transnationals have found an unconditional ally in Brazil’s current neo-fascist government.

Bolsonaro has been promoting the deforestation of the Amazon, the weakening of all control and oversight over companies and the reduction of funds for the protection and conservation of the region. The persecution of indigenous and peasant leaders and communities who defend their rights and their territories has become a practice. These peoples, with their ancient cultures, worldviews and knowledge, are the ones who have best defended — and in many cases have guaranteed it at the price of their lives — the conservation of this great region as the planet’s greatest reservoir of biodiversity, whose loss or deterioration will cause irreversible damage to the already precarious health of ecosystems at the global level.

Due to these facts, the Network in Defense of Humanity expresses its solidarity with all the native peoples of our Amazon, victims of the policies of dispossession and the cruelest violence of transnational capital, and denounces the attitude of the government of Jair Bolsonaro, which in addition to promoting ecocide, turns its back on its people, and only after twenty days of fires does it announce, an order to confront it. He does this by the militarizing the region, which could constitute a dangerous step towards turning over the control of a strategic geopolitical zone, through international tutelage to the direct intervention of the transnationals, shielded in a supposed philanthropy.

It is necessary to remember that the “help” of other imperial nations in the face of similar disasters has historically been used as a pretext for intervention, destabilization and looting, in which the great powers have always had the most diverse tools for domination and, of course, the constant manipulation of public opinion. We must defend the principle that if there is a real will to help, it must be channeled through States and international bodies with full respect for the principle of sovereignty.

We denounce the false morals of the countries that have been the most responsible for the global ecological crisis, (among them the members of the G7) and that today express their concern for the Amazon, ignoring any kind of connection between fires and capitalist development. It is the transnationals of these same countries that are spreading throughout the natural strongholds of the world in search of resources of all kinds, lands and sources of energy. No apparent polemic affects the link between a neoliberal and sold out government like Bolsonaro’s to the transnationals and the great powers. In contrast we support the actions promoted by the government of the President of the Plurinational State of Bolivia, Evo Morales Ayma, who has demonstrated a spirit of unity in adversity, and true concern to face the fire not only in his country, but in the region, and we also applaud the call made by his government and that of the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela for regional actions to be carried out that allow the emergency to be tackled quickly and efficiently.

The Network in Defense of Humanity, echoing the expressions of concern and pain in the face of the tragedy of many sensitive people on the planet, demands of the Brazilian government that urgent measures be taken to safeguard the lives of the peoples and cultures that are in danger today in the Amazon. With the fires, they are also being deprived of the material and spiritual sustenance of their existence. When a tree burns, a house always burns.

We urge the UN Secretary General, Antonio Guterres, to activate the resources established by international instruments to immediately guarantee the protection of the more than four hundred cultures affected and in turn the sovereignty of the eight Amazonian countries. We urge the promotion of denunciations before the International Criminal Court and other competent bodies against the attacks on the environment, which should be considered crimes against humanity.

We encourage to work in the urgent articulation of popular platforms in a common and coordinated front of action in the face of all ecological and social disasters that allows an alternative that is truthful, accurate and opportune communication. We also call to reveal and to spread with emphasis the existing causal connection between the capitalist system and the environmental debacle that we are witnessing. This makes it essential to link the anti-capitalist struggles with that of the environmental movements in defense of the Amazon and other areas of the planet.

We call for activities in all our countries, popular mobilizations, sit-ins, marches, rallies and denunciations through social networks, or to use every possible tribune to show this crime against nature. We must accuse those responsible and warn of the danger that the media impact is having on this tragedy. It will be used by the great imperialist powers to intervene in the Amazon and to consolidate and legitimize the dispossession in a concerted manner with corrupt authorities.

We also call for the transformation of our logics of consumption and against the pollution and environmental degradation they produce, linked to the capitalist mode of production and its unviable paradigm for healthy civilization.

Let’s save the Amazon! Let’s save the planet! As Fidel said in 1992:

“Tomorrow will be too late to do what we should have done a long time ago.”

*

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 exile of prisoners to a distant place, where they can ‘pay their debt to society,’ make themselves useful, and not contaminate others with their ideas or their criminal acts, is a practice as old as civilization itself. The rulers of ancient Rome and Greece sent their dissidents off to distant colonies. Socrates chose death over the torment of exile from Athens. The poet Ovid was exiled to a fetid port on the Black Sea.”— Anne Applebaum, Gulag: A History

This is how freedom dies.

This is how you condition a populace to life as prisoners in a police state: by brainwashing them into believing they are free so that they will march in lockstep with the state and be incapable of recognizing the prison walls that surround them.

Face the facts: we are no longer free.

We in the American Police State may enjoy the illusion of freedom, but that is all it is: an elaborate deception, rooted in denial and delusion, that hides the grasping, greedy, power-hungry, megalomaniacal force that lurks beneath the surface.

Brick by brick, the prison walls being erected around us by the government and its corporate partners-in-crime grow more oppressive and more pervasive by the day.

Brick by brick, we are finding there is nowhere to run and nowhere to hide.

Brick by brick, we are being walled in, locked down and locked up.

That’s the curious thing about walls: they not only keep those on the outside from getting in, they also keep those on the inside from getting out.

Consider, if you will, some of the “bricks” in the police state’s wall that serve to imprison the citizenry: Red flag gun laws that strip citizens of their rights based on the flimsiest of pretexts concocted by self-serving politicians. Overcriminalization resulting in jail time for nonviolent offenses such as feeding stray cats and buying foreign honey. Military training drills—showy exercises in armed intimidation—and live action “role playing” between soldiers and “freedom fighters” staged in small rural communities throughout the country. Profit-driven speed and red light cameras that do little for safety while padding the pockets of government agencies. Overt surveillance that turns citizens into suspects.

Police-run facial recognition software that mistakenly labels law-abiding citizens as criminals. Punitive programs that strip citizens of their passports and right to travel over unpaid taxes. Government agents that view segments of the populace as “subhuman” and treat them accordingly. A social credit system (similar to China’s) that rewards behavior deemed “acceptable” and punishes behavior the government and its corporate allies find offensive, illegal or inappropriate.

Screenshot from Route Fifty

These are just a small sampling of the oppressive measures used by the government to control and constrict the American people.

What these despotic tactics add up to is an authoritarian prison in every sense of the word.

Granted this prison may not appear as overtly bleak as the soul-destroying gulags described by Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn in his masterpiece The Gulag Archipelago, but that’s just a matter of aesthetics.

Strip away the surface embellishments and you’ll find the core is no less sinister than that of the gulags of the Cold War-era Soviet Union.

Those gulags, according to historian Anne Applebaum, used as a form of “administrative exile—which required no trial and no sentencing procedure—was an ideal punishment not only for troublemakers as such, but also for political opponents of the regime.”

The word “gulag” refers to a labor or concentration camp where prisoners (oftentimes political prisoners or so-called “enemies of the state,” real or imagined) were imprisoned as punishment for their crimes against the state. As Applebaum explains:

Over time, the word “Gulag” has also come to signify not only the administration of the concentration camps but also the system of Soviet slave labor itself, in all its forms and varieties: labor camps, punishment camps, criminal and political camps, women’s camps, children’s camps, transit camps. Even more broadly, “Gulag” has come to mean the Soviet repressive system itself, the set of procedures that prisoners once called the “meat-grinder”: the arrests, the interrogations, the transport in unheated cattle cars, the forced labor, the destruction of families, the years spent in exile, the early and unnecessary deaths.

Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn (image on the right) was such a political prisoner.

Solzhenitsyn in 1974

For the crime of daring to criticize Stalin in a private letter to a school friend, Solzhenitsyn was arrested and sentenced to eight years in exile in a labor camp.

That was before psychiatry paved the way for totalitarian regimes such as the Soviet Union to declare dissidents mentally ill and consign political prisoners to prisons disguised as psychiatric hospitals, where they could be isolated from the rest of society, their ideas discredited, and subjected to electric shocks, drugs and various medical procedures to break them physically and mentally.

In addition to declaring political dissidents mentally unsound, government officials in the Cold War-era Soviet Union also made use of an administrative process for dealing with individuals who were considered a bad influence on others or troublemakers. Author George Kennan describes a process in which:

The obnoxious person may not be guilty of any crime . . . but if, in the opinion of the local authorities, his presence in a particular place is “prejudicial to public order” or “incompatible with public tranquility,” he may be arrested without warrant, may be held from two weeks to two years in prison, and may then be removed by force to any other place within the limits of the empire and there be put under police surveillance for a period of from one to ten years.

Warrantless seizures, surveillance, indefinite detention, isolation, exile… sound familiar?

It should.

The age-old practice by which despotic regimes eliminate their critics or potential adversaries by making them disappear—or forcing them to flee—or exiling them literally or figuratively or virtually from their fellow citizens—is happening with increasing frequency in America.

We saw it happen with Julian Assange. With Edward Snowden. With Bradley Manning.

They, too, were exiled for daring to challenge the powers-that-be.

It happened to 26-year-old decorated Marine Brandon Raub, who was targeted because of his Facebook posts, interrogated by government agents about his views on government corruption, arrested with no warning, labeled mentally ill for subscribing to so-called “conspiratorial” views about the government, detained against his will in a psych ward for standing by his views, and isolated from his family, friends and attorneys.

Raub’s case exposed the seedy underbelly of a governmental system that is targeting Americans—especially military veterans—for expressing their discontent over America’s rapid transition to a police state.

Now, through the use of red flag laws, behavioral threat assessments, and pre-crime policing prevention programs, the government is laying the groundwork that would allow it to weaponize the label of mental illness as a means of exiling those whistleblowers, dissidents and freedom fighters who refuse to march in lockstep with its dictates.

That the government is using the charge of mental illness as the means by which to immobilize (and disarm) its critics is diabolically brilliant. With one stroke of a magistrate’s pen, these individuals are declared mentally ill, locked away against their will, and stripped of their constitutional rights.

These developments are merely the realization of various U.S. government initiatives dating back to 2009, including one dubbed Operation Vigilant Eagle which calls for surveillance of military veterans returning from Iraq and Afghanistan, characterizing them as extremists and potential domestic terrorist threats because they may be “disgruntled, disillusioned or suffering from the psychological effects of war.”

Coupled with the report on “Rightwing Extremism: Current Economic and Political Climate Fueling Resurgence in Radicalization and Recruitment” issued by the Department of Homeland Security (curiously enough, a Soviet term), which broadly defines rightwing extremists as individuals and groups “that are mainly antigovernment, rejecting federal authority in favor of state or local authority, or rejecting government authority entirely,” these tactics bode ill for anyone seen as opposing the government. Although these initiatives caused an initial uproar when announced in 2009, they were quickly subsumed by the ever-shifting cacophony of the news media and its ten-day cycles.

Yet while the American public may have forgotten about the government’s plans to identify and disable anyone deemed a potential “threat,” the government has put its plan into action.

Thus, what began as a blueprint under the Bush administration has become an operation manual under the Obama and Trump administrations to exile those who are challenging the government’s authority.

An important point to consider, however, is that the government is not merely targeting individuals who are voicing their discontent so much as it is locking up individuals trained in military warfare who are voicing feelings of discontent.

Under the guise of mental health treatment and with the complicity of government psychiatrists and law enforcement officials, these veterans are increasingly being portrayed as ticking time bombs in need of intervention.

For instance, the Justice Department launched a pilot program aimed at training SWAT teams to deal with confrontations involving highly trained and often heavily armed combat veterans.

One tactic being used to deal with so-called “mentally ill suspects who also happen to be trained in modern warfare” is through the use of civil commitment laws, found in all states and employed throughout American history to not only silence but cause dissidents to disappear.

For example, in 2006, NSA officials attempted to label former employee Russ Tice, who was willing to testify in Congress about the NSA’s warrantless wiretapping program, as “mentally unbalanced” based upon two psychiatric evaluations ordered by his superiors.

In 2009, NYPD Officer Adrian Schoolcraft had his home raided, and he was handcuffed to a gurney and taken into emergency custody for an alleged psychiatric episode. It was later discovered by way of an internal investigation that his superiors were retaliating against him for reporting police misconduct. Schoolcraft spent six days in the mental facility, and as a further indignity, was presented with a bill for $7,185 upon his release.

In 2012, it was Virginia’s civil commitment law that was used to justify arresting and detaining Marine Brandon Raub—a 9/11 truther—in a psychiatric ward based on posts he had made on his Facebook page that were critical of the government.

Incredibly, in Virginia alone, over 20,000 people annually are forced into psychiatric wards by way of so-called Emergency Custody Orders and civil commitment procedures.

Each state has its own set of civil, or involuntary, commitment laws. These laws are extensions of two legal principles: parens patriae Parens patriae (Latin for “parent of the country”), which allows the government to intervene on behalf of citizens who cannot act in their own best interest, and police power, which requires a state to protect the interests of its citizens.

The fusion of these two principles, coupled with a shift towards a dangerousness standard, has resulted in a Nanny State mindset carried out with the militant force of the Police State.

The problem, of course, is that the diagnosis of mental illness, while a legitimate concern for some Americans, has over time become a convenient means by which the government and its corporate partners can penalize certain “unacceptable” social behaviors.

In fact, in recent years, we have witnessed the pathologizing of individuals who resist authority as suffering from oppositional defiant disorder (ODD), defined as “a pattern of disobedient, hostile, and defiant behavior toward authority figures.” Under such a definition, every activist of note throughout our history—from Mahatma Gandhi to Martin Luther King Jr.—could be classified as suffering from an ODD mental disorder.

Of course, this is all part of a larger trend in American governance whereby dissent is criminalized and pathologized, and dissenters are censored, silenced, declared unfit for society, labelled dangerous or extremist, or turned into outcasts and exiled.

Red flag gun laws, growing in popularity as a legislative means by which to seize guns from individuals viewed as a danger to themselves or others, are a perfect example of this mindset at work. “We need to stop dangerous people before they act”: that’s the rationale behind the NRA’s support of these red flag laws, and at first glance, it appears to be perfectly reasonable to want to disarm individuals who are clearly suicidal and/or pose an “immediate danger” to themselves or others.

Where the problem arises, of course, is when you put the power to determine who is a potential danger in the hands of government agencies, the courts and the police.

Remember, this is the same government that uses the words “anti-government,” “extremist” and “terrorist” interchangeably.

This is the same government whose agents are spinning a sticky spider-web of threat assessments, behavioral sensing warnings, flagged “words,” and “suspicious” activity reports using automated eyes and ears, social media, behavior sensing software, and citizen spies to identify potential threats.

This is the same government that keeps re-upping the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), which allows the military to detain American citizens with no access to friends, family or the courts if the government believes them to be a threat.

This is the same government that has a growing list—shared with fusion centers and law enforcement agencies—of ideologies, behaviors, affiliations and other characteristics that could flag someone as suspicious and result in their being labeled potential enemies of the state.

This is the same government that has, along with its corporate counterparts (Facebook, Google, Twitter, etc.), made it abundantly clear at all levels (whether it be the FBI, NSA, local police, school personnel, etc.) that they want no one challenging their authority.

This is a government that pays lip service to the nation’s freedom principles while working overtime to shred the Constitution.

Yes, this is a prison alright.

Thus, for those who take to the streets to constitutionally express their opinions and beliefs, rows of riot police, clad in jackboots, military vests, and helmets, holding batons, stun guns, assault rifles, and sometimes even grenade launchers, are there to keep them in line.

For those who take to social media to express their opinions and beliefs, squadrons of AI censors are there to shadowban them and keep them in line.

As for that wall President Trump keeps promising to build, it’s already being built, one tyranny at a time, transforming our constitutional republic into a carceral state.

Yet be warned: in a carceral state, there are only two kinds of people: the prisoners and the prison guards.

In a carceral state—a.k.a. a prison state or a police state—there is no difference between the treatment meted out to a law-abiding citizen and a convicted felon: both are equally suspect and treated as criminals, without any of the special rights and privileges reserved for the governing elite.

With every new law enacted by federal and state legislatures, every new ruling handed down by government courts, and every new military weapon, invasive tactic and egregious protocol employed by government agents, “we the people”—the prisoners of the American police state—are being pushed that much further into a corner, our backs against the prison wall.

This concept of a carceral state in which we possess no rights except for that which the government grants on an as-needed basis is the only way I can begin to comprehend, let alone articulate, the irrational, surreal, topsy-turvy, through-the-looking-glass state of affairs that is being imposed upon us in America today.

As I point out in my book Battlefield America: The War on the American People, we who pretend we are free are no different from those who spend their lives behind bars.

You see, by gradually whittling away at our freedoms—free speech, assembly, due process, privacy, etc.—the government has, in effect, liberated itself from its contractual agreement to respect the constitutional rights of the citizenry while resetting the calendar back to a time when we had no Bill of Rights to protect us from the long arm of the government.

Aided and abetted by the legislatures, the courts and Corporate America, the government has been busily rewriting the contract (a.k.a. the Constitution) that establishes the citizenry as the masters and agents of the government as the servants. We are now only as good as we are useful, and our usefulness is calculated on an economic scale by how much we are worth—in terms of profit and resale value—to our “owners.”

Under the new terms of this revised, one-sided agreement, the government and its many operatives have all the privileges and rights and “we the prisoners” have none.

*

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

This article was originally published on The Rutherford Institute.

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

Featured image is from The Crux

Throughout history, the idea of those in power to oversee the education system started in the 16th Century. The history is complex and is rarely mentioned.

The formation of the American public education system began in the Kingdom of Prussia around 1525, a former Kingdom in north-central Germany with an extension of lands that crossed between the Baltic and Northern seas. It encompassed Belgium, the Netherlands, Luxemburg, France, and Switzerland to the south. It also touched upon the Russian border to the west and on the Austria-Hungary border to the east. During the time of the Titanic knights in the 13th Century, Christianity was established. The Teutonic Knights were a German militaristic-religious order based in Jerusalem, Palestine who had conquered the ‘Old Prussians’ and brought both German and Dutch settlers into their realm. Many ‘Old Prussians’ were killed, exiled or had to assimilate. In the beginning of the 14th Century, opposition to the Teutonic Knights gained momentum among the Prussians and overthrew the order with Polish and Lithuanian forces which led to the Thirteen Years War. It ended with the Prussians, Lithuanians and the Poles as the victors in the war leading to the ‘Second Peace of Thorn Agreement’ a peace treaty that was signed in 1466 between both sides. The Order agreed on the rights of the Polish Crown for Prussia’s western half called Royal Prussia in return the Knights accepted Eastern Prussia, later called Duchy of Prussia until 1525, as a territory under the Polish crown. Western Prussia was then administered under the Polish crown in accordance to the agreement.

Prussia became one of the most powerful states, although political conditions of that time became perplexed as those in power sought what can complement their special interests. Gordon A. Craig’s ‘The Politics of the Prussian Army 1640-1945′ said

“that they were maintained and that the disparate fragments of territory were forged, not only into a viable political union, but into one which was recognized as a Great European Power, was the result of two things: the political will and the sagacity of the Hohenzollern rulers after 1640 and the effectiveness of the Army which they created.” [1]

One of the last Grand Masters of the Teutonic Knights, Albert was a Lutheran who established Protestantism as he declared himself the first Duke of Prussia back in 1525. By 1569, Albert Frederick, the son of Albert became Duke of Prussia after he submitted himself or what would be called a “feudal homage” to the King of Poland named Zygmunt August which at the time, Ducal Prussia was a kingdom of Poland. By 1618, after the religious wars between the Protestants and Catholics throughout the Holy Roman Empire (a German Empire) utterly destroyed vast lands in the German territories and during the same time, the Vassal state of Poland was handed over to John Sigismund, a member of the Hohenzollern Dynasty. After Sigismund’s death, his son George William, Elector of Brandenberg was his successor, appointed in 1623 by the king of Poland, Sigismund III Vasa.

George William’s power to rule was rather weak so it was handed over to Catholic chancellor Count Adam von Schwarzenberg, a German official in his administration to manage the territory and then some time later, George William retired. His son, Frederick William, the Elector of Brandenberg, was known as the ‘Great Elector’ was the one who secured the Ducal Prussia’s independence of Poland, lead to the Peace of Oliva in 1660.

The Peace of Oliva, was the treaty that ended the Northern War of 1655 and lasted until 1660. It was signed by Austria, Brandenburg, Commonwealth of Poland-Lithuania and Sweden who also fought in the war. Frederick William of Brandenburg gained political power from the treaty and his rule over Ducal Prussia through prior treaties of Wehlau and Bromberg in 1657.

The centralization of the administration of the Duchy by Frederick William was monumental in securing power originally from the nobility and the oligarchy. According to Craig “Prussia’s standing army was born during the war of 1655-60” [2], Frederick William was responsible for building a military that was able to defend itself with aid from France. However, Frederick William’s policy of religious freedom for both Catholics and Protestants was a positive factor that contributed to the rebuilding of Prussian lands that was destroyed by previous wars over religion. Frederick William set the foundation for Brandenburg-Prussia to become a self-ruled Kingdom under his son and successor Frederick the 1st who established the Kingdom of Prussia in 1701 after he crowned himself as the ‘King in Prussia,’ as his ambition became evident as to his willingness to extend the kingdom with support promised to King Leopold the 1st of the Holy Roman Empire and Archduke of Austria in exchange for his title since war was looming between the Holy Roman Empire and France.

Frederick the 1st legacy was that he convinced the Holy Roman Empire to allow the Brandenberg-Prussian state to become a Kingdom. His son Frederick William I became his successor in 1713, so the devout protestant passed a law making education compulsory by 1717. Known as the ‘Soldier King’, Frederick William I believed in military values. He increased the size of his military and built Prussia into a military power to defend the Kingdom. After the change in the state structure of power, the issue of education was the primary goal to enhance the power of the Prussian state militarily. Murray N. Rothbard, who was considered a heterodox economist of the Austrian School, a historian, and a political theorist from the Ludwig von Mises Institute wrote ‘Education: Free and Compulsory’ said that:

It was King Frederick William I who inaugurated the Prussian compulsory school system, the first national system in Europe. In 1717, he ordered compulsory attendance of all children at the state schools, and, in later acts, he followed with the provision for the construction of more such schools. It is perhaps appropriate that the King’s personal attitudes were quite in keeping with his ardent promotion of despotism and militarism. [3]

He was in favor of centralization by the government to oversee all aspects of Prussian life as he established an education system that would complement the military. To support these actions he imposed taxes on the middle class. Frederick William influenced his son, the future King of Prussia, Frederick the 2nd to allow a militaristic approach to power and control. He sent scouts to recruit young soldiers of other families for his military. The Soldier King set forth the preparation for a post-militaristic state able to defend itself from an invading forces or a state capable of being the aggressor. As Frederick the 2nd also known as Frederick the Great was left with enormous military powers and a vast amount of financial reserves as it enabled him to expand the military. He gained control of the education system and mandated attendance as a rule of law. Rothbard wrote:

These beginnings were carried forward by his son Frederick the Great, who vigorously reasserted the principle of compulsory attendance in the state schools, and established the flourishing national system, particularly in his Landschulreglement of 1763. What were the goals that animated Frederick the Great? Again, a fervent belief in absolute despotism, although this was supposed to be “enlightened.” “The prince,” he declared, “is to the nation he governs what the head is to the man; it is his duty to see, think, and act for the whole community.” He was particularly fond of the army, spent public funds freely upon it, and inculcated especially constant drill and the strictest discipline. [4]

Interestingly, Frederick the Great was also a student of the occult and was a member of freemasonry. Frederick believed that the elites were the superior force and chosen by a high order relative to the Sun, the highest order of power.

“Frederick was a financial supporter of Orthodox freemasonry and in 1768; he commissioned the building of a grand lodge for use by the Prussian brethren” [5].

Frederick was a supporter and a participant in the creation of the Illuminati “One of the many titles used by the Masonic secret societies founded by Frederick was the Illuminati.”6 The Illuminati was fully established on May 1st, 1776. Frederick the Great was indeed mystical by all standards. Frederick assumed that he was enlightened, he was convinced that they were legitimate and had the authority to rule and conquer territories throughout Europe. Prussia eventually became a major power in Europe. Frederick the Great invaded Austria’s province of Silesia which started the war of Austrian Succession. Silesia was eventually annexed by Frederick. In 1772, the Polish Royal Prussia was also annexed.

The Prussian Style of Public Education, A Breeding Ground for Soldiers

The Prussian Empire used their method of public education to create an army so that they can basically expand their empire throughout Europe. Heinz Stubig, professor at the University of Marburg (Germany) and author of ‘The Prussian German Army: School of the Nation in the Nineteenth Century’ said that in a speech given at Berlin University by classical philologist Ulrich von Wilamowitz-Moellendorff praised the education system in an open ceremony:

On the other hand one cannot value highly enough the blessing-and a seat of intellectual education has indeed the duty even to praise the fact-that an institution existed that provided a kind of breeding necessary to each and all, namely, one that leads through obedience to independence, through service to freedom: to wit, the Prussian Army. This army remained intact even as the state was crumbling internally, remained faithful to its commander by force of will, and swiftly extinguished the fire of open rebellion” [7]

The speech provided an admission that the Prussian education system was intended to create an army of obedient soldiers. Stubig said that

“The educational mission implied in this claim targeted in the first instance the simple soldier: the objective was to transform through training the mass of conscripted recruits into faithful and obedient subjects.” [8]

The Prussian State was based on military principals, it was even described as a giant penal institution where everything was regulated and run by the state including town buildings. John Taylor Gatto, a former public school teacher and author of ‘The Underground History of American Education’ described Prussia as “an army with a country”:

The little North German state of Prussia had been described as “an army with a country,” “a perpetual armed camp,” “a gigantic penal institution.” Even the built environment in Prussia was closely regimented: streets were made to run straight, town buildings and traffic were state-approved and regulated. Attempts were made to cleanse society of irregular elements like beggars, vagrants, and Gypsies, all this intended to turn Prussian society into “a huge human automation” in the words of Hans Rosenberg. It was a state where scientific farming alternated with military drilling and with state-ordered meaningless tasks intended for no purpose but to subject the entire community to the experience of collective discipline-like fire drills in a modern junior high school or enforced silence during the interval between class periods. Prussia had become a comprehensive administrative utopia. It was Sparta reborn. [9]

Many countries starting with Europe made compulsory education law. It started with Hungary in 1868, then in Austria during 1869 and in all German societies by 1872. Then followed other countries like Switzerland in 1874, for England it was in 1880. It was the the domino effect in compulsory education, a term relative to the domino theory used by the United States during the Cold War suggesting that if one country fell to communism then all countries surrounding it would turn communist. However, this was the situation in Europe as countries were adopting the compulsory public education system. Gatto declared that

“Administrative utopias are a peculiar kind of dreaming by those in power, driven by an urge to arrange the lives of others, organizing them for production, combat, or detention..” [10]

Darwinism and the Rise of Public Education

During the 1800’s, a significant realm of science had been developed in England by naturalist Charles Darwin. ‘Darwinism’ which is also known as the ‘Survival of the fittest’ was the development of the mind that is determined by the genetic inheritance which can be manipulated and controlled through steady observation. Darwin’s findings lead to the Eugenics movement, a science based on the genetic composition of the human population by improving human hereditary traits by promoting the ‘good’ traits of people that were considered ‘superior’ usually in the form of the elites or the ‘super-class’ and reducing the ‘bad’ traits found in the remaining population, so “Eugenics” became a science using depopulation methods such as sterilization and abortion. In Nazi Germany, Eugenics became standard practice for the Nazis where extermination, experimentation and racial hygiene became common practice, but began to lose its credibility during and after World War II.

Darwin was born in England in 1809. Darwin attended Edinburgh University in Scotland to study medicine, but he could barely stand the sight of human blood so he transferred to Cambridge University to study ministry, however, in his own time he would pursue his passion in natural history. While at Cambridge University, Darwin met John Stevens Henslow, a professor of Botany who introduced him to the field of zoology and geography. By 1831, Darwin accepted a position with a British Navy survey vessel called the HMS Beagle through the recommendation of Henslow which allowed him to travel through South America’s coastlines including the Galapagos Islands and other places in the South Pacific for more than 5 years. Darwin observed various species that included different types of animals and exotic plants. It was where Darwin developed his observations that lead to his idea on the theory of evolution by natural selection or ‘selective breeding.’ By 1839 he published ‘The Voyage of the Beagle’ based on his journals and field notes from his expedition and became an instant celebrity among the rich and powerful in London. Darwin married his first cousin, Emma Wedgwood that same year and eventually had 10 children together.

He continued his studies on morphology and biogeography with animals and plants he closely observed as an established naturalist. Charles Darwin published ‘On the Origin of Species’ in 1859 where “He eventually concluded that species exhibited varying degrees of similarity because they were to varying degrees related.”[11] It led him to conclude his theory of natural selection which was on course to become mainstream, although there was another naturalist by the name of Alfred Russell Wallace who had developed his own theory of evolution, but Darwin was already prepared. In 1858, Darwin read a paper he had written to an audience at the Royal Society on what ideas he had formulated in relation to the theory of natural selection.

Then one year later, after his publication of ‘On the Origin of Species,’ he concluded how ‘Natural Selection’ can be utilized. Darwin’s use of this new science as a tool was to produce a new species, he proclaimed that

“it may be said that natural selection is daily and hourly scrutinizing, throughout the world, every variation, even the slightest; rejecting that which is bad, preserving and adding up all that is good; silently and insensibly working, whenever and wherever opportunity offers, at the improvement of each organic being in relation to its organic and inorganic conditions of life”[12] What was implied in the theory of natural selection was that preserving the favored race was a necessary step to advance the “good” species. “Natural Selection will modify the structure of the young in relation to the parent, and of the parent in relation to the young. In social animals it will adapt the structure of each individual for the benefit of the community; if each in consequence profits by the selected change.” [13]

By creating a population into what he considered for the good of human society with an acceptable race on top of the pyramid. Darwin believed that psychology can contribute to the natural selection process. Darwin said that

“In the distant future I see open fields for far more important researches. Psychology will be based on a new foundation, that of the necessary acquirement of each mental power and capacity by gradation”[14]

In relation to public education, Darwin’s observation and later on, Francis Galton’s theories of natural selection became a topic of interest among educational tycoons including James Mckeen Cattell (which I will discuss in further detail later on), who was Wilhelm Wundt’s (the father of Experimental Psychology) first assistant.

Francis Galton believed that man’s natural abilities are the product of his inheritance. Galton was inspired by Darwin with the concept of identifying human abilities in relation to hereditary elements. He advanced and continued Darwin’s idea and in 1888, became the creator of the term ‘Eugenics’ an applied science that improved the genetic composition of the human population, a term called ‘Human Selective Reproduction’. He believed in the best of the human population should breed in what he called ‘Positive Eugenics’ that is deemed acceptable and those that should be eliminated through genocide, segregation and sterilization called ‘Negative Eugenics’. Galton developed his interest in human variability from Darwin’s ideas on the ‘variations’ of domestic animals as he applied the same concept of variations to humans in regards to weight, height, mental capabilities and facial features. It was clear that Darwin’s idea was consistent with Galton when he said

“to my mind it accords better with what we know of the laws impressed on matter by the creator, that the production and extinction of the past and present inhabitants of the world should have been due to secondary causes, like those determining the birth and death of the individual”[15]

Maximilian Wundt’s Experimental Psychology

Wilhelm Maximilian Wundt is the father of ‘Experimental Psychology’ and is also the founder and practitioner of ‘Modern Psychology.’ Morgan Hunt, the author of ‘The Story of Psychology’ said

“Yet today he seems a strange and paradoxical figure. Despite the immense reputation and influence he long had, his name is now all but unknown except to psychologists and scholars; most lay persons who can easily indentify Freud, Pavlov, and Piaget have no idea who Wundt was” [16] (Born in 1832, in a southern German town called Neckarau).

In his late teens he entered Tubingen University and graduated in 1851. He then studied medicine at the University of Heidelberg where he earned his medical degree in 1856. He remained at the University for a short time while he studied with Johannes Peter Muller, a professor of physiology. He then became a professor and contributed to such journals such as the Contributions Towards’ a Theory of Sense Perception (1858–62) in several volumes which gave credibility to the core study of psychology. After his professorship at Heidelberg, Wundt accepted a position at the philosophy department at the University of Zurich for one year, and then returned to Germany to become a rector at the University of Leipzig until his death in 1920. Wundt taught the first course ever recorded in history called ‘Scientific Psychology’. Psychology was treated as a science because it collects knowledge through explanations, observations and tests from scientifically based methods since it provided the answers needed to form a definitive conclusion. Since ‘scientific psychology’ was still in the experimental phase, it was considered a science. In 1875, he accepted the chairmanship of philosophy at the University of Leipzig where he also established the first laboratory in 1879. Major encyclopedias description of Wilhelm Wundt is at a minimum of details, when in fact he was the first person to teach scientific psychology and published lectures based on his expertise. The Encyclopedia Britannica (www.britannica.com) describes Wundt and his accomplishments as follows:

It was during this period, in 1862, that Wundt offered the first course ever taught in scientific psychology. Until then, psychology had been regarded as a branch of philosophy and, hence, to be conducted primarily by rational analysis. Wundt instead stressed the use of experimental methods drawn from the natural sciences. His lectures on psychology were published as Vorlesungen über die Menschen und Thierseele (1863; “Lectures on the Mind of Humans and Animals”). He was promoted to assistant professor of physiology in 1864. [17]

Important details are left out of the Wundt’s description; to get a complete biography of who this man really was is quite interesting. According to a classic investigative book titled ‘The Leipzig Connection’ by alternative education promoter Paolo Lionni describes who Wundt really was. Lionni said that

“What they omit is that Wundt was the founder of experimental psychology and the force behind its dissemination throughout the western world” he continued “to Wundt, a thing made sense and was worth pursuing if it could be measured, quantified, and scientifically demonstrated. Seeing no way to do this with the human soul, he proposed that psychology concern itself solely with experience.” [18]

Germany was at the center for sciences and technology as it changed the world with advanced knowledge of the human mind, body and thought processes which became instrumental for political and financial interests:

Throughout the revolutions and revolts of 1848 across Europe, the rise of the Socialist Internationals, and the forced unification of the new Germany by Otto von Bismarck, Germany was a flourishing center of culture and the sciences, each of its universities a magnet for the ambitious intellectual youth of Europe and the United States. Leipzig was no exception and one of its principal attractions was Wundt, who was attempting to place his ideas within the mainstream of German Scientism by redefining psychology as a physiological rather than a philosophical subject. [19]

Wundt was an idealist who was in competition with other scientists who where inventing new approaches to various sciences at the time. All of these ideas led to newly created sciences which came from the Age of Enlightenment in the western world during the 18th Century. Germany’s scientific achievement did change society in several ways especially in educational teaching methods. The reasoning behind Wundt’s idea was in the interest of the individual’s feelings after stimulation had been introduced. What were the reactions of the subject after stimulation? To answer that question, Wundt decided to measure all of the data that was made available after the subject was tested. Wundt was “convinced that perceptions and experiences could be understood through measurable physiological reactions.” [20] Measuring reactions was the key component in understanding human actions and in response to a stimulating event that was produced by actions caused by Wundt. According to the studies conducted in the laboratory:

Wundt noticed that reaction began with stimulation, followed by (1) perception, in which the experience exists within the individual; (2) “apperception,” in which the body (or so he thought) indentifies the stimulus and combines it with other stimuli, and (3) an act of will which results in (4) a reaction to the stimulus. [21]

We react accordingly to what stimulates us from a past experience. The experience we have within ourselves is the ‘perception’ which allows us to respond to the stimuli. Since we identify the stimulus, which is the ‘apperception’, it forces us to react to the stimuli. Morton Hunt’s ‘The Story of Psychology’ explains further:

Other studies concerned the boundary between perception and apperception. In a notable one, the experimenter flashed a group of letters or words very briefly through a slit in a revolving drum; the subject “perceived” them (saw them at the periphery of awareness, without having time to recognize them) but in the next instant “apperceived” (consciously remembered and recognized) some of what he had seen. The major finding was the size of the attention span: most subjects could apperceive and name four to six letters or words after having seen them too briefly to identify them. [22]

We are physical objects according to Wundt. We need to be stimulated and directed towards a goal set out by the experimenter. Lionni said that

“Wundt asserted that man is devoid of spirit and self-determinism. He set out to prove that man is the summation of his experiences, of the stimuli which intrude upon his consciousness and unconsciousness”[23]

He used examinations of the sensory perception to measure every outcome of the action of the individual to the reaction and with this analysis, he determined what differences between individuals in the timing and the words that formed from the response to the stimuli. Wundt’s intention was to form a “new psychology as a study of the brain and the central nervous system” [24] Wundt did change the face of education through his experiments. He developed a new kind of education, one that goes against the idea of what an education was supposed to be originally, which had a formative effect on the mind, body and character of an individual. Education is supposed to be a natural development of a young mind. Not a programmed development process that stimulates your response with an expected outcome. Paolo Lionni analysis says the following:

To the experimental psychologist, however, education became the process of exposing the student to “meaningful” experiences so as to ensure desired reactions: [L]earning is the result of modifiability in the paths of neural conduction. Explanations of even such forms of learning as abstraction and generalization demand of the neurones only growth, excitability, conductivity, and modifiability. The mind is the connection-system of man; and learning is the process of connecting. The situation-response formula is adequate to cover learning of any sort, and the really influential factors in learning are readiness of the neurones, sequence in time, belongingness, and satisfying consequences. [25]

Lionni continued:

If one assumes (as did Wundt) that there is nothing there to begin with but a body, a brain, a nervous system, then one must try to educate by inducing sensations in that nervous system. Through these experiences, the individual will learn to respond to any given stimulus, with the “correct” response. The child is not, for example, thought capable of volitional control over his actions, or of deciding whether he will act or not act in a certain way; his actions are thought to be preconditioned and beyond his control, he is a stimulus response mechanism. According to this thinking, he is his reactions. Wundt’s thesis laid the philosophical basis for the principles of conditioning later developed by Pavlov (who studied physiology in Leipzig in 1884, five years after Wundt had inaugurated his laboratory there) and American behavioral psychologists such as Watson and Skinner; for laboratories and electroconvulsive therapy; for schools oriented more toward socialization of the child than toward the development of intellect; and for the emergence of a society more and more blatantly devoted to the gratification of sensory desire at the expense of responsibility and achievement. [26]

This was the first stage of educational psychology in a controlled setting, where the response was predicted with the proper stimuli. In an educational setting a controlled individual will react to a particular stimuli induced by a teacher. Since a child is pre-conditioned and not in control of their reactions as assumed by Wundt, the outcome he was searching for was successful because it was what he predicted would happen. This is the socialization of children, one that will lead to the desired outcome. Morton Hunt’s observation on Wundtian methods is clear:

Wundtian introspection is precise, circumscribed, and controlled; it is confined to what Wundt calls the “elements” of psychic life-the immediate, simple perceptions and feelings aroused by sounds, lights, colors, and other stimuli. The experimenter provides these stimuli and observes the subject’s visible reactions, while the subject focuses his attention on the perceptions and feelings the stimuli generate in him. [27] 

The controlled atmosphere that Wundt basically studied was a reaction-time experiment that was based on the timing of the stimuli responses.

“Wundt defines a scientific psychological experiment as one in which a known, controlled physiological stimulus-the “antecedent variable,” he calls it-is applied and the individual’s responses observed and measured.” [28]

The experiment led to measurements only to the visible reactions since Wundt was limited in his findings to accept the simplest state of feelings or reactions.

“But the laboratory’s most original and important findings came from its studies of “Mental Chronometry,” the measuring of the time required by particular mental processes and the interactions among them” [29]

Hunt concluded. It was the formula used for the future of public school classrooms. Students will be taught through a scientific method that includes class lessons and examinations administered by the public school bureaucracy. It is a science that accepts human conditioning as a necessity. A new psychology that was based on mind control experiments for the sole purpose to manage the population. The science produced by the Wundtian method was the start of “mind control experiments” that lead to an education philosophy that attracted many ambitious and radical scientists that had common objectives with an intended purpose of becoming pioneers in the new psychology. Lionni said that Wundt expanded his new psychology to Europe and the U.S.:

“Wundt’s second major contribution to psychology preempting of education wasn’t theoretical at all: he produced the first generation of researchers, professors and publicists in the new psychology. This group went on to establish experimental psychology throughout Europe and the United States.” [30] 

It was the new scientific trend for scientists. The determination to spread the new psychology was evident.

“The young Americans who studied with Wundt returned to found departments of psychology throughout the United States. With the prestige attached to having studied in Germany, these men found little difficulty in securing positions of influence at major American universities.” [31]

Practically all of the students became successful professors who trained hundreds of doctorate students that contributed to new associations, wrote articles and publications. Wundt’s first student was an American named G. Stanley Hall, a Harvard University graduate who studied under Wundt for a considerable length of time. In 1883, Hall returned to the United States and became a professor at Johns Hopkins University and then established a psychological laboratory. The university was following the German University model at the time, so Hall was an ideal prospect. In 1887, he founded the American Journal of Psychology that became influential. Then in 1889, he became president of the newly established Clark University in Worchester, Massachusetts. By 1892, he played a significant role in establishing the American Psychological Association. Child Development was a study that Hall decided to undertake that became the ‘Child Study Movement’ in the United States. He was an editor of the Pedagogical Seminary and The American Journal of Religious Psychology and Race Development. He published Aspects of German Culture in 1881, a two volume book called ‘Adolescence’ which became one of his most recognized works which are considered a monumental achievement and Youth: Its Education, Regimen, and Hygiene published in 1906 among others.

G. Stanley Hall was an influential figure to John Dewey, a major contributor in relation to the mutual interdependency of psychology and education. “To Dewey, as to Wundt, man was an animal alone with his reactions and entirely dependent upon experiential data” [32] A student of Hall for one year, Dewey obtained a doctorate from Johns Hopkins University in 1884. Afterwards he taught at the University of Michigan in 1884, then at the University of Minnesota in 1888. Dewey published the first American textbook Psychology in 1887 on the study of psychology and German philosophy which was used in several universities. In 1895 he joined the faculty of the University of Chicago which was funded by industrialist and philanthropist John D. Rockefeller to head a number of departments including the psychology department. During that time an educational laboratory called ‘the Dewey School’ was established to practice the principles of psychology and implement experimental techniques that can be used for the purpose of how learning can be applied to public schools. Dewey once stated that “Education is thought of also as something needed by some human beings merely because of their dependence upon others. We are born ignorant, unversed, unskilled, immature, and consequently in a state of social dependence” [33] It is unfortunate that those in power can ultimately decide what kind of education the public shall receive. They believed that humans are born into this world with no knowledge therefore we are considered animals. “The business of childhood is to grow into the independence of adulthood by means of the guidance of those who have already attained it.” [34] which is true when analyzing what public schools had become, a world where educational authorities, administrators and teachers who are trained by the very same institutions guide students to become ideally good citizens.

Lionni’s research leads us to James McKeen Cattell was a PhD from Leipzig who studied under Wundt and had developed an interest in mental testing and identifying the abilities of what individuals were capable of. The method focused on words which should not be “read” but rather can be seen as “total word pictures”, in other words instead of trying to compound the words by sounding out the letters through speech, but as a word that is recognized as a “picture”.

“Cattell found they could recognize words without having to sound out the letters. From this, he reasoned that words are not read by compounding the letters, but are perceived as total word pictures.”[35]

For example, if one sees a word such as ‘Dog’ sounding it out, and knowing how to pronounce the letters would naturally enable the individual to learn other words instead of a teacher showing you the words through a picture where it can be recognized as a word. “He determined that little is gained by teaching the child his sounds and letters as the first step to being able to read. Since they could recognize words very rapidly, the way to teach children how to read would be to show them words, and tell them what the words were”[36] The method was called “Sight-Reading” which became popular in the United States as it was used as a tool for newly trained teachers. While lecturing at Cambridge University in England he met Francis Galton, who believed that men with natural abilities are inherited.

“Cattell quickly absorbed Galton’s approach to eugenics, selective breeding and the measurement of intelligence. Cattell was later to become the American leader in psychological testing, and in 1894 would administer the first battery of psychological tests ever given to a large group of people, testing the freshmen and senior classes at Columbia University.”[37]

Cattell eventually became a professor at University of Pennsylvania who established a psychological laboratory fashioned along Leipzig’s model. Columbia University became interested in Cattell’s findings in relation to education as it attributed to his rise as a publicist and a promoter of experimental psychology where it allowed him to publish a journal called ‘The Psychological Review’. At Columbia University, he supervised more than 344 doctoral candidates and then was elected to president of the American Psychological Association in 1895. He was the first psychologist ever elected in 1900 to the National Academy of Sciences.

Another student of Wundt was James Earl Russell, a PhD and a European agent at Leipzig for the Federal Bureau of Education who also became an administrator and then a dean for more than thirty years at Columbia University’s Teachers College. This was the turning point for Wilheim Wundt’s laboratory psychology which influenced the American education system where teachers were trained in the new psychology. Russell hired numerous Wundtians, which included a disciple of Wundt himself, Edward Lee Thorndike. A Wesleyan and Harvard University graduate applied for a fellowship offered by Cattell at Columbia University and was accepted. Thorndike eventually earned his PhD in 1898. When he arrived in New York he brought along his two chickens in his hand to experiment. A disturbing fact that chickens would be treated as students for his new research was bizarre.

“Thorndike’s specialty was the “puzzle box” into which he would put various animals (chickens, rats, cats) and let them find their way out by themselves.”[38]

The experiment with animals was applied to classrooms across America and eventually throughout the world. “Thorndike equated children with the rats, monkeys, fish, cats and chickens upon which he experimented in his laboratory and was prepared to apply what he found there to learning in the classroom”[39] As he created laws from his research, he applied ‘Animal Behavior’ principles on how to train the teachers. Teachers then applied their new animal training techniques to their classrooms through school curriculums. After he received his doctorate, he went off to Western Reserve University to teach education for a year before Dean James Russell of Columbia Teachers College offered Thorndike a position where he would later accept to study animal behavior, but this time on young children and youths in collaboration with James McKeen Cattell. By 1903, Edward Thorndike’s ‘Educational Psychology’ was already published in numerous books and articles.

Barbara Beatty published her findings regarding Thorndike’s Educational Psychology on the academic journal of the American Psychological Association and acknowledged that “In the years before World War I, Thorndike combined learning theory, psychometrics, and applied research on school-related subjects to form a psychology of education.”[40] Since he landed a position in teacher education he became heavily involved in the mass commercialization of educational psychology.

“In the 1920s, he helped turn educational psychology into a mass-market industry and produced numerous commercially successful tests and textbooks.”[41] Thorndike believed in law and effect according to Lionni “which held that those actions and behaviors leading to satisfaction would be impressed, or stamped in, on those leading to unsatisfactory results would be stamped out.”[42]

In theory, a positive response by enforcing it would be automatically implemented and a negative response (an action that is considered non-compliant by the education authorities) would be eliminated. So if a child does not want to learn a particular subject it is up to the teacher to make it ‘Pleasurable’ by simply ’Rewarding’ the child will make them feel good about their accomplishment. If a child misbehaves he must be punished, therefore by denying that behavior the child would not find it as pleasurable.

“This thinking favors a society which operates more on the basis of gratification than on the basis of reason or responsibility. Children expect to receive what is pleasurable, and what they desire, because they have learned in school that what is pleasurable is good, and what isn’t pleasurable isn’t good.”[43]

In actuality, what Thorndike was advocating was a form of social conformity or the conditioning of children to have them act in a manner to what is acceptable. He found that the 3-R’s (Reading, Writing and Arithmetic) were not as important, even language and history were considered useless according to Thorndike. He maintained the idea that the three main functions should be experienced, which is already conditioned in the brain and the nervous system by stimuli produced with the Pavlovian method, not through the development of fundamental skills. He believed in testing each child on a regular basis to pinpoint weaknesses in the child’s learning abilities. By this standard, it can be determined which child will succeed and who will fail. For those who will not succeed to Thorndike’s standard will be directed to vocational training. Lionni understood that psychological testing excluded the teacher and the school system from responsibility as he points out that they are the culprits of a failed testing policy:

It is an easy conclusion, and it absolves educators from the responsibility for any of their students not learning, for if half the students in a classroom learn, that is proof enough that the teacher is teaching correctly. That the other half doesn’t is obviously not the teacher’s fault, as this half heard what the first half heard, and experienced the same stimuli. There must be something wrong with the second half, and psychological tests will determine what it is. [44] 

Through his experimental psychological findings, men were animals according to Wundt. Lionni’s research into education psychology allowed him to correctly predict that

“within half a century juvenile delinquency would run rampant, illiterates would pour out of schools, teachers would no longer learn how to teach, and generation after generation of adults, themselves cheated out of the fruits of a good education, would despair of any solution to the morass of “modern’ education.”[45]

Lionni believed that throughout the United States, and many other countries that had the same education model, all experienced the same problems. The problem of illiteracy is evident for students who graduate from the school system today, and with teachers not teaching anything useful is sheer proof that the public education system is a failed institution.

Prussian Education Comes to America

The idea of public education in the United States was first proposed by Horace Mann of Massachusetts who believed that all children, rich or poor should receive an education to become disciplined citizens. The education system that existed at that time was local and only available to the wealthy. But the two men who opposed this notion were Horace Mann and Henry Bernard of Connecticut whose education reforms allowed all children to attend public schools. Horace Mann, grew up poor and endured many hardships, he rejected the teachings of Calvinism or Protestantism (that follows Christian practices of John Calvin) due to its unrelenting teaching style. Horace Mann’s own early education was complex as it involved formal schooling of that time with teachers who were considered mediocre, so his attendance was inconsistent, consistently absent, perhaps two to three months per year. But once he learned how to read, he occupied the Franklin town library where Benjamin Franklin’s one hundred and sixteen volumes was stored. The young Horace Mann became self-educated through his vigorous reading, day and night. His self-study was significant as he was accepted to Brown University where he excelled in several subjects including politics and education. After he graduated in 1819, he was asked to return to the university to become a tutor and accepted the opportunity. It was where his humanitarianism developed and geared him towards public service. He then went on to study law at Litchfield Law School and was admitted to the bar in 1823. He eventually settled in Dedham, Massachusetts, became a politician who through his popularity earned him a seat in the state legislature in 1827.

By 1829, Horace Mann established one of the first public institutions for the mentally ill that later became a state hospital for the insane in Worcester, Massachusetts. He was then elected to the Massachusetts senate from 1834 until 1837. He supported the ‘Temperance Movement’ (a social movement to reduce the consumption of alcohol) since alcohol consumption was attributed to the rising crime-rate and was responsible for the increase of severe health problems among the public, he backed legislation to prohibit the sale of alcohol and even the sale of lottery tickets due to morality issues. During this period he had a successful legal practice in Dedham and then later in Boston. His legal practice earned him the reputation of a respected lawyer and became popular among the intellectuals of Boston. But Horace Mann’s main interest was the possibility of education for the public as a moral obligation. Mann seemed like he had good intentions.

Since the “Old Deluder Satan” Act of 1647 was passed in Massachusetts, it enacted towns of fifty or more families to build elementary schools to teach reading and writing and conduct bible studies. It also included towns with more than one hundred families to open grammar schools to teach Latin and Greek. It was an act to ensure that education can be passed down to the next generation. So a form of public education did exist, but it was under local control. During Mann’s time however, he witnessed the education system faltering. Lawrence A. Cremin who was an educational historian published ‘The Republic and the School: Horace Mann on the Education of Free Men’ stated

“Yet during Mann’s own lifetime, public penury and disinterest had allowed the schools to fall into disrepute, and there was talk that neighboring states like New York and foreign monarchies-yes, even monarchies!-like Prussia were outstripping Massachusetts in the quality and vigor of their public schools.”[46]

The issue of public education was soon becoming a problem and a major concern for the reform movement in nineteenth century America.

Once efforts to reform public education was evident, a movement arose with politicians such as James G. Carter, a Massachusetts state legislator and a House Chairman of the Committee who wrote ‘Influence of an Early Education’ (from his ‘Essays upon Popular Education containing a particular examination of the schools of Massachusetts, and an outline of an Institution for the education of teachers’) Published in 1826. It involved the Mayor of Boston, Josiah Quincy Jr. and Edward Everett, a politician, educator and president of Harvard University. The reform movement also included reverend Charles Brooks and a member of one of the elite New England families, known as the Dwight family, Edmund Dwight a philanthropist and merchant were all instrumental figures who contributed to the establishment of the Massachusetts Board of Education. It was the first of its kind in America. On April 20th, 1837 a bill was passed to make the Massachusetts Board of Education a reality.

“Two weeks later Dwight, who more than anyone else had lovingly presided over the conception of the board, was dining with Horace Mann to urge his acceptance of the secretaryship.”[47] Cremin wrote. “if ever a post called for moral leadership of the first order, it was this one, and it is to Dwight’s lasting credit that he persuaded Horace Mann to accept it.”[48]

Mann accepted the position and in that same year, the board came into existence. Since he was tireless in his pursuits for the cause of public education, he closely examined the failures that were of concern. He was astonished with America’s diversity of different cultures and religions, as he was fearful of the possibility that the population can easily be divided or become disenfranchised against the government.

“Fearing the destructive possibilities of religious, political, and class discord, he sought a common value system which might undergird American republicanism and within which a healthy diversity might thrive.”[49]

Horace Mann sought an education system that will not challenge the state and will bring harmony among the masses, perhaps one that can mend all cultures into a single community so that a new American citizen will arise and his idea, was the ‘common school.’ He founded ‘The Common School Journal’ in 1838 where he criticized the current public school system that was in place at that time.

“What is perhaps most important about Mann’s view of the common school program is that he saw in it an educational purpose truly common to all. The common school would be ideally devoted to what we would today call general education.”[50]

The main platforms of the common school was that it had to be controlled by the public through it’s’ support and in it’s entirely as a whole avoiding any form of partisanship. “Public control-through the legislature, the Board of Education, local school committees, and other civil agencies-was the means by which the public could participate in defining the public philosophy taught in children”[51] is a forthright justification of state control over the education process directed by governmental agencies as the overseer. “A further problem bears comment here” wrote Cremin, “the problem of centralization. One of the most important reasons for creating the board was to counteract the adverse effects of local district control.”[52] It was a clear indication that the purpose of the Board of Education was to overreach its power over local districts to control education accordingly to state policy. Mann’s concern reflected greatly to what he said “In his very first report, he charged the low quality of public education to the “dormancy and deadness” of local communities.”[53] Nothing was more apparent than the plan to gain state control over children’s educational priorities, as in his ‘Seventh Annual Report’ of 1843 after he traveled throughout Europe; he came across the Prussian school system that involved the Pestalozzian method, an experienced based-pedagogy where children learn through self-activity instead of words. It was the system that impressed him the most. As Mann wrote:

I can only say that, during all the time mentioned, I never saw a blow struck, I never heard a sharp rebuke given, I never saw a child in tears, nor arraigned at the teacher’s bar for any alleged misconduct. On the contrary, the relation seemed to be one of duty first, and then affection, on the part of the teacher,-of affection first, and then duty, on the part of the scholar. The teacher’s manner was better than parental, for it had a parent’s tenderness and vigilance, without the foolish doatings or indulgences to which parental affection is prone [54]

By establishing the first normal school back in 1839 with state legislator James G. Carter with state-funding specifically to train teachers, preparations were made to teach children according to government policies. Horace Mann’s legacy is known as the ‘Father of American Public Education’ influenced other states within the union to adopt a similar education system that resembled Prussian schools. By 1848 age-grading was put into place, a system that placed children into grades according to their age. As they progressed, they were promoted to the next grade which was a higher level. A mandatory bill that required all children to attend elementary school was made law in the state of Massachusetts in 1852, followed by New York State in 1853. By 1918, effectively after World War I was waning, all elementary school children were required by law to attend public schools. Horace Mann ran unsuccessfully for the governorship of Massachusetts so he eventually became president of Antioch College in the state of Ohio in 1852.

The Prussian system had a significant impact on education. Horace Mann’s legacy was celebrated by those who believed in a universal education for every child as Arthur E. Morgan, the chairman of the Tennessee Valley Authority who celebrated Horace Mann’s accomplishment in a Convention sponsored by the National Education Association in 1937 when he said

“I look upon Horace Mann, as a great pioneer, not simply as a prophet and an administrator in founding the American public school system. He was great in seeing the significance of universality in education.”[55]

Indeed Horace Mann was praised by those who believed in the public school system that followed Prussia’s lead as it became a social fabric of American society.

Rockefeller and the Creation of the General Education Board

The goal of social engineering interested John D. Rockefeller, Sr., a wealthy snake-oil salesman who made his fortune in the late 19th Century. He became the owner of the Standard Oil Company, a monopoly that involved the early days of big oil corporations. It involved everything associated with the oil industry from drilling to transportation. It allowed him to accumulate enough wealth to influence many institutions including America’s education system. Rockefeller joined the “banking mafia” a little late in the game, but was still a ruthless businessman who conspired to destroy his competitors. One of the tactics Rockefeller used was to hire spies to gather information on his competitors so that he can make his next business move well in-advance.

Rockefeller’s aim was to undermine any business that would compete against his monopoly which he did quite successfully. He became one of the most despised men in America. The public was appalled by Rockefeller’s ruthlessness and was heavily criticized for it. It then enabled an investigative committees to question his actions on various occasions. Rockefeller’s image needed damage control, he sought a solution to build his reputation in a positive manner, a kind of a public relations campaign to win the admiration of the public to continue his business empire.

Rockefeller was also a Baptist, contributed part of his wealth to Baptist related charities and to its church. He was eventually asked by the people of the church if he would consider donating money in order to rebuild the University of Chicago, formally the Morgan Park Theological Seminary; he agreed to contribute more than $600,000 to the cause. During that time he became involved with the University, he met a Baptist minister named Frederick Taylor Gates, a former employee of George A. Pillsbury of the C.A. Pillsbury and Company (Known today as the Pillsbury Company, a manufacturer of mainly flour and other processed foods). Gates position involved donating part of the Pillsbury fortune to philanthropic causes. Rockefeller was actually impressed by the straight forward approach of Mr. Gates concerning financial matters, so he asked him if he would be interested in working for him. Gates accepted the position and began to work in earnest, taking the responsibility of the financial matters for the Rockefeller family. He tried to help Rockefeller regain his reputation as a millionaire who donated to just causes. But the public saw Rockefeller as an enemy with an image that was damaged beyond repair. Gates was concerned that the fortune Rockefeller was accumulating was outweighing the amount of money that was being distributed to various philanthropic causes.

With public outcry and the hatred towards the Rockefeller Dynasty, Gates’ main concern was the fortune being mishandled to causes that was useless to society at large. Gates was in search of causes that would enhance Rockefeller’s reputation among the public. Gates was quoted as saying

“I saw no other course but for Mr. Rockefeller and his son to form a series of great corporate philanthropies for forwarding civilization in all its elements in this land and all lands; philanthropies, if possible, limitless in time and amount, broad in scope, and self-perpetuating.”[56]

After Rockefeller had donated vast amounts of money to the University of Chicago, his reputation won favorable admiration among fellow church members and educators alike. Gates wanted to penetrate the rural south since the success of rebuilding the University of Chicago had a somewhat positive result among the public. Rockefeller’s son, John D. Rockefeller Jr. was working with Gates on his father’s behalf toured the schools of the south with Robert G. Ogden, a businessman who contributed to the founding of The Hampton Institute and was interested in rebuilding the education system. John D. Rockefeller Jr. was convinced and allowed Gates to set his sights on the rural south of the United States. Paolo Lionni’s said that “John D. Rockefeller, Jr., who had worked at no. 26 Broadway for four years, saw the potential here and went along. on his return, Junior met with Gates to propose that his father’s philanthropy be directed toward southern education.”[57] The south was still recuperating from the Civil war. Even after the ‘Reconstruction Era’ the education system was still in the rebuilding process, suffered from many problems including that of segregation.

It was an opportunity for the Rockefellers to advance their philanthropy. Rockefeller Jr. was enthusiastic towards educational philanthropy and it was evident when he spoke to Gates; as he vowed to convince his father and influential members of the Baptist church towards his plan to invest in southern education. “He also discussed the idea with his father, and with the secretary of the Baptist Home Mission Society, Dr. Wallace Buttrick, a man who would wield considerable influence in education in the coming years.”[58] Buttrick eventually became Secretary of the General Education Board. Rockefeller Jr. was determined to set up a board to advance southern education with the chance to form a Negro Education Board, but decided to expand the opportunity for all races which gave birth to the General Education Board in 1902. The new board was established with $1 million from Rockefeller Sr. who had a significant influence concerning Southern education. The John F. Slater Fund for the Education of Freedman and the Peabody Education Fund were active philanthropies in the south in regards to education, but were merged into the Southern Education Board at the behest of Daniel Coit Gilman who was the acting trustee of both organizations and also was co-founder of the Russell Trust Association along with William Huntington Russell as the financial operation of the Skull & Bones Society, a secret society based at Yale University. Gilman met with Frederick T. Gates and discussed the idea which materialized some time later. Gilman became a member of the newly formed General Education Board. The plan was legitimized by the passage of the General Education Board charter through the United States congress under the leadership of Senator Nelson W. Aldrich from Rhode Island in 1903. Coincidently, his daughter Abbey Aldrich was married to John D. Rockefeller Jr. As written in their own document called ‘The General Education Board: An Account of Its Activities, 1902-1914’ stated the following:

Incorporation by Act of Congress took place January 12, 1903. The charter set forth the general object of the corporation as “the promotion of education within the United States of America, without distinction of race, sex, or creed”; and this broad object was specifically stated to include the power to establish or endow elementary or primary schools, industrial schools, technical schools, normal schools, training schools for teachers, or schools of any grade, or higher institutions of learning; to cooperate with associations engaged in educational work; to donate property or money to any such association; to collect educational statistics and information, to publish and distribute documents and reports, “and in general to do and perform all things necessary or convenient for the promotion of the object of the corporation.[59]

It was clear on the intention of the charter imposed by the Rockefellers. This gave them the power they needed to further advance their plan not only to control public schools, it was for all schools that provided education through the General Education Board. Lionni mentioned who and what was behind the General Education Board,

“These men, it can safely be said, conspired to control American education while buttressing the Rockefeller fortune against all attacks, ensuring that their autocratic views would prevail. With the General Education Board, Rockefeller’s “education trust,” a virtually unlimited source of funds was to be made available to the Wundtian psychologists’ ambitious designs on American education.[60]

Columbia University’s Teacher’s College and the Wundtian Experiment: A New Beginning

The founding of Columbia University’s Teachers College was intended to provide poor children with an education. In 1887, philanthropist Grace Hoadley Dodge and philosopher Nicholas Murray Butler established the college to train teachers with scientific methods with a human approach. Their backgrounds were rather different in terms of ideology. Grace Hoadley Dodge came from a family that participated in causes that related to peace and justice as her great grandfather David Low Dodge who established the New York Peace Society to spread information on the consequences of war. Her grandfather was New York Congressman and businessman William E. Dodge, who was anti-slavery and a Native American rights activist. Grace Hoadley Dodge organized the founding of many societies to help working girls in relation to industry, one of them was the Young Women’s Christian Association (YWCA) of the United States in 1885. She also helped establish the Travelers’ Aid Society of New York in 1907 to protect female travelers from ‘white slave traffic’ (at a time where white women were lured into a life of prostitution). Her intentions were good as she promoted the need for education for the poor.

Nicolas Murray Butler was president of Columbia University and a lecturer at Johns Hopkins University who at first, was an early admirer of Adolf Hitler and Benito Mussolini. Butler founded the New York School for the Training of Teachers that was affiliated with Columbia University which later became the ‘Teachers College.’ He also founded the Horace Mann School in 1887 as a coeducational experimental and developmental chapter situated at Columbia University’s Teachers College. Butler invited German Chancellor Hans Luther to Columbia University to speak about Hitler’s “Peaceful Intentions” in defense of academic freedom. The reality was that Butler defended Hitler and the Nazi regime but later reversed his position during World War II after he realized that their intentions were not for peaceful purposes. As president of Columbia University for more than four decades and receiving the Nobel Peace Prize in 1931 for his participation in the Briand Kellogg Pact to outlaw war, he retired in 1945 right after World War II ended.

Over time, Columbia University experienced an increase in student enrollment as New York City’s population grew. The dean of Teacher’s College at the time was Dr. James Earl Russell, a former student of Wilhelm Wundt. Funding from the General Education Board soon followed on Dr. Russell’s request.

“There was an urgent need for teachers, and the Teachers College was now firmly established and ready to fill that need with a methodology most schools of education didn’t have-“educational” psychology”[61] Professors who were taught by Wilhelm Wundt were hired by the Teacher’s College “With Russell, Cattell, Thorndike, and other Wundtians, Dewey set the ball rolling for an amalgam of “educational” psychology and socialism.”[62]

John Dewey who was also a faculty member and the ‘Father of Progressive Education’ who followed ‘British neo-Hegelianism’ and even praised the Soviet education system. At one point during his career, he became president of The League for Industrial Democracy (LID), formally known as the Intercollegiate Socialist Society (ISS), an organization that wanted to impose the ideals of Karl Marx over Christian values in America. The plan was to influence universities and colleges through local chapters on college campuses, as an extension of the British Fabian Society, both organizations were created for the sole purpose to promote and establish a One World Government. Dewey believed in a community of common ideals, working in unity or you can call it, a collectivist society. :

A society is a number of people held together because they are working along common lines, in a common spirit, and with reference to common aims. The common needs and aims demand a growing interchange of thought and growing unity of sympathetic feeling. The radical reason that the present school cannot organize itself as a social unit is because just this element of common and productive activity is absent. Upon the playground, in game and sport, social organization takes place spontaneously and inevitably. [63]

The majority of the population can work towards a goal, but with a chosen leader that will direct them to that goal. Dewey believed that it was essential for the system to develop both leaders and the people who will be the followers:

There is something to do, some activity to be carried on, requiring natural divisions of labor, selection of leaders and followers, mutual cooperation and emulation. In the schoolroom the motive and the cement of social organization are alike wanting. Upon the ethical side, the tragic weakness of the present school is that it endeavors to prepare future members of the social order in a medium in which the conditions of the social spirit are eminently wanting.[64]

Dewey insisted that school can help focus the ‘thought patterns’ of its’ students. The school can offer much needed guidance in that capacity:

The great thing to keep in mind, then, regarding the introduction into the school of various forms of active occupation, is that through them the entire spirit of the school is renewed. It has a chance to affiliate itself with life, to become the child’s habitat, where he learns through directed living, instead of being only a place to learn lessons having an abstract and remote reference to some possible living to be done in the future. It gets a chance to be a miniature community, an embryonic society. This is the fundamental fact, and from this arise continuous and orderly streams of instruction”[65]

Dewey’s plan was to create a society that will be presumably acceptable to the American ruling classes with a radical form of ‘Progressive Education’ that can train a population that can work to serve and to only exist under a common system that will cooperate with the ruling political and financial elite. Dewey founded The University of Chicago Laboratory School to experiment on children while Edward Lee Thorndike’s Animal Psychology experimented with chickens led to new opportunities. Former researcher at The Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching and prominent member of the General Education Board, Abraham Flexner offered financial assistance to establish a similar laboratory At Teacher’s College called ‘The Lincoln School’. Flexner was responsible for Germanizing American medical schools through the General Education Board. Chemical based Medicine that involved prescription drugs and surgery replaced traditional medicine such as Naturopathy and Homeopathy (Read ‘The Social Transformation of American Medicine’ by Paul Starr and ‘The Politics of Philanthropy: Abraham Flexner and Medical Education by S.C Wheatley). With research experience, Edward Lee Thorndike and John Dewey were funded to continue their work in the name of “Progressive Education”.

Flexner wanted a school that can transform education into a system dominated by Wundtian ideals. As soon as the Lincoln School opened, new models of teaching were introduced along with newly published textbooks to be distributed among educators who were to be trained in the new methodology. It was evident that it would become problematic when core subjects were discarded. Lionni describes what Flexner’s schools would involve, “his experimental school would eliminate the study of Latin and Greek. Literature and history would not be completely abolished, but new methods would be instituted for teaching these subjects, classical literature would be ignored, and formal English grammar would be dropped. Flexner wasn’t just throwing out the baby with the bath water; he was blowing up the tub.” [66] As influential as Dewey was, his proposals on how and what to think was a radical process that involved methods that was not of human nature. Directed thought from school teachers sets the stage for a creation of students who would not think for themselves but rather their thought process will be pre-set for them while at school. Dewey believed that “Training” the thought of an individual can lead to a meaningful life. In ‘How We Think’ one of the many works Dewey published while at Teacher’s College said that:

The so-called ‘faculty psychology’ went hand in hand with the vogue of the formal-discipline idea in education. If thought is a distinct piece of mental machinery, separate from observation, memory, imagination, and common-sense judgments of persons and things, then thought should be trained by special exercises designed for the purpose, as one might devise special exercises for developing the biceps muscles. Certain subjects are then to be regarded as intellectual or logical subjects par excellence, possessed of a predestined fitness to exercise the thought faculty, just as certain machines are better than others for developing arm power. With these three notions goes the forth, that method consists of a set of operations by which the machinery of thought is set going and kept at work upon any subject matter [67]

If one has to be trained how to think, then an individual who thinks not for himself but for what is relatively in the interests of those who train you how to think with others collectively. Observations through study can and will lead to acceptable outcomes to the ruling class:

Training is that development of curiosity, suggestion, and habits of exploring and testing, which increases sensitiveness to questions and love of inquiry into the puzzling and unknown; which enhances the fitness of suggestions that spring up in the mind, and controls their succession in a developing and cumulative order; which makes more acute the sense of force, the proving power, of every fact observed and suggestion employed. Thinking is not a separate mental process; it is an affair of the way in which the vast multitude of objects that are observed and suggested are employed, the way they run together and are made to run together, the way they are handled. [68]

Dewey’s intentions were to formulate a society based on collectivism. A society that will not cause problems for the establishment and that will remain content within their communities and their standing in life. “When the school introduces and trains each child of society into membership within such a little community, saturating him with the spirit of service, and providing him with the instruments of effective self-direction, we shall have the deepest and best guarantee of a larger society which is worthy, lovely, and harmonious.”[69]

I will conclude with author Paolo Lionni’s final thoughts:

“Humanity is ill-organized. Geographically fragmented, it is spiritually and mentally even more dispersed by an informational oligarchy enthralling the population of earth with its psychologically programmed media. This curtain of disinformation drawn over our lives makes any betterment appear inconsequential and futile; all progress is reduced to mere news and is quickly overwhelmed by a relentless tide of deterioration, alarm, and crisis. Compulsory universal government psychotherapy is not education. Miseducation of both our leaders and their constituents or subjects is at the root of all our difficulties. Earth is educationally disenfranchised by the innate schemings of a universal ignorance. Nothing short of a complete educational renaissance will serve.”[70]

*

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

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

Notes

1-Gordon A. Craig, The Politics of the Prussian Army 1640-1945, Chapter 1: The Army and the State 1640-1807: pg 1, first published by The Clarendon Press 1955, Oxford University Press 1964

2- Ibid., pg 5

3-Murray N. Rothbard, Education: Free and Compulsory, Ludwig von Mises Institute, Mises Daily, September 9, 2006.

4-Ibid

5-Michael Howard, Secret Societies-Their influence and Power from Antiquity to the Present Day, Chapter 3 The Rosicrucian Connection, pg 70, Destiny Books 2008

6-Ibid

7-Heinz Stubig, The Prussian German Army: School of the Nation in the Nineteenth Century, European Education, vol.34, no.3. Fall 2002, pg 2 (translated from the original text: Ulrich von Wilamowitz-Moellendorff: Reden and Vortrage, 3d ed. Berlin 1913. P. 160)

8-Ibid., pgs 7-8

9- John Taylor Gatto, The Underground History of American Education, Finding Work for Intellectuals, Chapter 7, pgs 171-172, The Oxford Village Press; 2nd edition (2001)

10-Ibid, The Underground History of American Education, The Technology of Subjection, Chapter 7, pg 172

11-Charles Darwin, ‘On the Origin of Species: 150th Anniversary Edition, Special Introduction: The History of Charles Darwin, pg 3, Bridge-Logos 2009

12- Ibid., pg 107

13- Ibid., pg 109

14- Ibid., pg 275

15- Ibid

16- Morton Hunt, The Story of Psychology, Chapter 5: First among Equals: Wundt, pg 130, Doubleday, 1993

17- http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/650018/Wilhelm-Wundt

18- Paolo Lionni, The Leipzig Connection: Basics in Education: 1, pg 2. Heron Books 1993.

19-Ibid., pgs 3-4

20-Ibid., pg 4-5

21-Ibid

22-Morton Hunt, The Story of Psychology, Chapter 5: First among Equals: Wundt, pg 136-137, Doubleday, 1993

23– Lionni, The Leipzig Connection: Basics in Education: 1, pg 7.

24-Ibid., pgs 7-8

25-Rudolf Pinter, et al, An Outline of Educational Psychology, rev. ed, New York, Barnes & Noble 1934, 79. As quoted by Paolo Lionni, The Leipzig Connection: Basics in Education: 1, pg 8-9.

26- Ibid, Lionni, The Leipzig Connection: Basics in Education: 1, pg 9.

27- Morton Hunt, The Story of Psychology, Chapter 5: First among Equals: Wundt, pg 135, Doubleday, 1993.

28-Ibid., pg 136

29-Ibid

30- Lionni, The Leipzig Connection: Basics in Education: 1, pg 11. As quoted Duane P. Schultz, A History of Modern Psychology, New York: Academic Press, 1969.

31- Ibid., pg 14

32- Ibid., pg 19

33-John Dewey, Reconstruction in Philosophy and Essays 1920: The Middle Works of John Dewey 1899-1924 Volume 12, 7. Reconstruction in Philosophy, Board of Trustees, Southern Illinois University 1988, The Library of Congress cataloged the first printing of this work as Dewey, John 1859-1952; The Middle Works 1899-1924, pg 185

34-Ibid

35- Lionni, The Leipzig Connection: Basics in Education:1, pg 23.

36- Ibid

37- Ibid., pg 23

38-Ibid., pg 31

39-Ibid., pg 32

40-Barbara Beatty, From Laws of Learning to a Science of Values: Efficiency and Morality in Thorndike’s Educational Psychology, American Psychologist, October 1998:1145

41-Ibid

42- Ibid, The Leipzig Connection: Basics in Education: 1, pg 34.

43-Ibid

44- Ibid., pg 38-39

45- Ibid., pg 41

46-Lawrence A. Cremin, The Republic and the School: Horace Mann on the Education of Free Men, The Republic and the School, pg 6, Teachers College Press, 1957

47-Ibid

48-Ibid., pgs 6-7

49-Ibid., pg 8

50-Ibid., pg 12

51-Ibid., pg 20

52-Ibid

53-Ibid

54-Ibid., pg 55

55-Arthur E. Morgan, Horace Mann and the American Ideal of Education, National Education Association Convention, Vital Speeches of the Day, June 28, 1937

56- Peter Collier and David Horowitz, The Rockefellers: An American Dynasty, New York: New American Library, 1976, 59.

57- The Leipzig Connection: Basics in Education: 1, pg 53.

58-Ibid

59-General Education Board, The General Education Board: An Account of Its Activities, 1902-1914, pg 3-4. 62- The Leipzig Connection: Basics in Education: 1, pgs 58-59.

60- The Leipzig Connection: Basics in Education: 1, pgs 64-65.

61-Ibid

62-Ibid

63-John Dewey, The Middle Works of John Dewey 1899-1924 Volume 1: Journal Articles, Book Reviews, and Miscellany published in the 1899-1901 Period, and The School and Society and The Educational Situation, Edited by Jo Ann Boydston, with an Introduction by Joe R. Burnett, Southern Illinois University Press 1976, pg10

64-Ibid

65-Ibid., pg 12

66- The Leipzig Connection: Basics in Education: 1, pg 72.

67-John Dewey, How We Think: A Restatement of the relation of Reflective Thinking To The Education Process, Lexington, MA, D.C. Heath and Company 1910, pg 55.

68-Ibid., pgs 55-56

69- The Middle Works of John Dewey 1899-1924 Volume 1: Journal Articles, Book Reviews, and Miscellany published in the 1899-1901 Period, and The School and Society and The Educational Situation, pgs 19-20

70- The Leipzig Connection: Basics in Education: 1, pg 98.

All images in this article are from the author

As of August 18th, when the United States test-fired a cruise-missile from San Nicolas Island, California, it would not be an exaggeration to say that we have entered an exceptionally dangerous phase in Russia-US relations, perhaps more so than at any point in the past 5 years. Furthermore, the US Department of Defense has announced plans to test a land-based intermediate-range ballistic missile in November. According to the Pentagon statement, a completely new missile similar to the Pershing II will be tested. Pershing II was prohibited under the INF (Intermediate-Range Nuclear forces) Treaty, which was terminated on the initiative of the United States on August 2nd.

Many readers will already be aware that the reason which US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo gave in October last year for the United States’ intention to withdraw from the INF Treaty was an alleged Russian treaty-violation, namely, the test-firing of the 9M729 cruise-missile from the Kapustin Yar launch-site in Astrakhan. Washington alleged that this missile-test exceeded the 500-kilometre range allowed under the terms of the treaty, an allegation which Moscow has consistently denied.

However, even if neutral observers have to be agnostic concerning the respective claims made by the US and Russian governments on this question, as there is no way to corroborate either government’s claims unless you happen to work at a high level in the military sector, the point remains that this alleged violation of the INF Treaty by Russia, even if it had in fact occurred, would have been quite a marginal violation. The United States itself had already quite flagrantly violated the INF Treaty through the deployment of the Aegis Ashore missile defence system in Romania. The US also plans to deploy Aegis Ashore in Poland. For years, the Russian government’s position had been to avoid raising concerns about the United States’ compliance with the terms of the treaty, as it saw INF as a vital component in the architecture of the international security system.

Then last year, the US starts accusing Russia of treaty-violations.

Projection is the oldest game in town.

On February 1st, the United States formally announces the suspension of its obligations under the INF Treaty.

One day later, the State Department announces a $2.15 billion sale of the Aegis Ashore system to Japan.

On August 2nd, the INF Treaty is officially terminated on the initiative of the United States.

Only 16 days later, the US conducts the cruise-missile test from San Nicolas Island.

Now, we have to make a distinction between declarations in principle and downright convenient timing. If you tell your girlfriend explicitly that, henceforth, you’d like to reserve the right to sleep with other women, then you’re not “cheating” as such. You’re explicitly withdrawing from the monogamy-agreement which you previously had with her. However, if you tell her that in future you reserve the right to sleep with other women, and then you actually do it only 24 hours later, then most people would regard that as downright shabby behaviour. No class.

In his statement to the Security Council of Russia on August 23rd, President Putin said:

“It is noteworthy that the tests of a missile with characteristics prohibited under the treaty were conducted just 16 days after the completion of the procedure of denouncing that treaty initiated by Washington,” he said. “Apparently, that was not an improvisation but another link in a chain of pre-planned actions….It is now obvious to everyone that the main aim of this campaign was to cover up Washington’s work, which was in violation of the Treaty and initially envisaged the withdrawal from this agreement.”

He instructed the Security Council to prepare what he called “a symmetric response.” This phrase turned out to underline his mastery of the art of understatement.

Starting on August 26th, drills involving 8,200 Russian personnel from the air force, army and Black Sea and Caspian Naval Fleets began throughout Russia’s Southern Military District. These exercises included fighter-jets based in Crimea firing air-to-air missiles, the drilling of Iskander missile-squads, exercises in counter-guerilla tactics and in traversing contaminated terrain for ground-forces, etc. Elsewhere, there were anti-ballistic missile exercises in Russia’s Far East, and nuclear submarines in the Barents Sea and the Arctic Ocean test-fired intercontinental ballistic missiles at targets in Kamchatka and Arkhangelsk. Exercises involving the nuclear-capable, intermediate-range Iskander missile system have also been conducted in Khaliningrad.

In his August 23rd statement, President Putin also stated that

“We will not be drawn into a costly arms race that would be disastrous for our economy.”

The question does arise – is the US strategy attempting to repeat the scenario of the late 1980’s by combining economic pressure (in this case, sanctions) with an escalated and wildly costly arms-race so as to force the economic implosion of its geo-strategic adversary?

Strange contradictions have arisen in the American version of this story. Lieutenant-Colonel Robert Carver, a Pentagon spokesman, claimed that the Aegis Ashore system deployed in Romania is not capable of firing offensive weapons of any type, but can only fire the SM-3 interceptor. But this claim is straightforwardly, demonstrably false – we know that MK-41 launch-pads are deployed as components of the Aegis Ashore configuration in Romania, just as they will be in Poland and Japan, and the MK-41 can fire a wide range of missiles, including Tomahawk cruise missiles.

In any case, this is not a particularly crucial point, as even missile-defence systems in themselves, when deployed so close to Russia’s borders, play a tactically aggressive role. Given Russia’s geography and demographics, for the potency of Russia’s nuclear deterrent to be compromised would automatically imply a long-term threat to Russia’s territorial integrity. Sometimes advocates of the Russian position, including even President Putin himself, are too reticent to argue this point, probably out of concerns that the argument will be deliberately misrepresented or misconstrued in western media.

*

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

This article was originally published on InfoBrics.

Padraig McGrath is a political analyst.

Selected Articles: The EU and NATO Remain Closely Linked

August 29th, 2019 by Global Research News

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!

*     *     *

The EU and NATO Remain Closely Linked on the Most Important Issues. Nuclear Weapons “Sharing Policy” directed against Russia

By Shane Quinn, August 28, 2019

The Kremlin is a significant trading partner of the EU, but commerce between Brussels and Moscow has declined continuously since 2012; largely because of European actions such as supporting the overthrow of a government in the Ukraine, bordering Russia, and instituting a Western-backed leader (Petro Poroshenko).

Hollywood Reboots Russophobia for the New Cold War

By Max Parry, August 28, 2019

The Marxist German playwright devised theatrical methods designed to distance the audience from the staged drama while drawing self-reflexive attention to the contrived nature of the spectacle itself.

“Shadow Statistics”: US Government’s Fudging the Numbers on Unemployment, GDP and Inflation

By Bryant Brown, August 28, 2019

You may ask why the government would fudge the numbers. Williams found that between 1997 and 1999 the government understated inflation and as a result inflation indexed payments for social security didn’t escalate as they should have and the government saved millions.

U.S. Africa Command Marks a Controversial Return to Libya

By Alaeddin Saleh, August 28, 2019

The spokesman of Al-Bunyan Al-Marsous coalition Mohammed Al-Ghasri confirmed in an interview to a Libyan media outlet “Ain Libiya” that U.S. African Command team arrived at Air Defense College airbase located in Libyan port city of Misurata on July 22.

India’s Shadow Banking Crisis Is Intensifying

By Kavaljit Singh, August 28, 2019

The ongoing liquidity crisis in India’s shadow banking sector is intensifying. The troubles that started with defaults by Infrastructure Leasing & Financial Services Limited (IL&FS) last year are far from over as the sector continues to face a severe liquidity crisis. If tight liquidity conditions persist over the next three quarters, it may turn into a solvency issue for several shadow banks.

Revival of Shintoism in Abe’s Japan: Why? Another Holy War?

By Prof. Joseph H. Chung, August 27, 2019

It is possible that Abe’s Korea bashing is a part of his ambition of restoring the pre-1945 Japan where Shintoism ruled the body and the mind of the Japanese people.

Lula

Lula Tells the World He’s “Back in the Game” from Jail. “Lula is Brazil’s only Possible Factor of Stability”

By Pepe Escobar, August 28, 2019

In a wide-ranging, two-hour, world exclusive interview out of a prison room at the Federal Police building in Curitiba, southern Brazil, former president Luis Inacio Lula da Silva not only made the case to global public opinion for his innocence in the whole Car Wash corruption saga, confirmed by the bombshell leaks revealed by The Intercept, but also repositioned himself to resume his status as a global leader.

*

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: The EU and NATO Remain Closely Linked

Recentemente, o discurso de que haveria um “marxismo cultural” dominando o Brasil, embora esvaziado de qualquer constatação real ou racionalidade, tomou de braços a grande parcela reacionária que compõe as pouco cultivadas classes médias do país. 

O fenômeno é sintoma de nosso empobrecido cenário cultural: novamente (des)montado pelas elites antinacionais em conluio com generais e a mídia corporativa, como em 1964, por meio de um golpe (gestado desde o agravamento da crise da economia mundial que estoura em 2008). Um cenário em que as classes dominantes já não se envergonham de promover a exacerbação da violência estatal e da ignorância histórica, como forma de preservar da depressão econômica seus dividendos, às custas da miséria de dezenas de milhões de brasileiros.  

As ruas do centro de São Paulo intransitáveis – repletas de pedintes e crianças anoitecendo nas calçadas frias do inverno –, ou o metrô superpoliciado em que audaciosos ambulantes tentam sobreviver sob a pilhagem regular praticada por agentes tucanos, são um retrato da crise social reinventada por nossas classes privilegiadas, como não se via há mais de década. 

Moro, criminoso internacional (dadas as provas evidentes da Vaza Jato), segue solto e no poder; o reformista Lula, a que o ex-juiz bolsonarista encarcerou (sem provas para além de sua própria “convicção” de líder de quadrilha), segue preso. E o Brasil segue, em seu eterno retorno ao subdesenvolvimento, modernamente vira-lata.  

Assim, perigosas noções irracionalistas, como a de “pós-verdade” (cuja tolice de “marxismo cultural” é apenas um dos sintomas), ganharam o espaço grã-midiático, infectando rapidamente o senso comum. Com sua abilolada recusa de qualquer valor de “verdade” ao conhecimento científico ou filosófico, os defensores dessa doutrina idiotizante desprezam os saberes e valores humanos construídos ao longo de milênios por diversas civilizações do planeta em perene intercâmbio. 

Tal espécie de “vale-tudo discursivo” serve como desculpa para uma rejuvenescida ideologia do mais forte: a versão neoliberal da conhecida “lei do cão”, desprovida de humanismo, de ética e mesmo de uma mínima lógica (seja econômica, social ou ambiental). 

Sensacionalismo e ódio ao Outro

Forjado de modo sensacionalista e promotor do ódio ao Outro (a população pobre, o sem-terra, o índio, o negro, o transexual, o imigrante…), esse discurso reacionário tem por objetivo apavorar (e logo, armar) os estratos médios conservadores da sociedade – essas crianças grandes que em sua equilibrada mescla de ingenuidade e perversidade são dos seres mais desligados do real, e dos mais “ligados” no esquema da grande mídia (Veja, Globo, Estadão, El País) de informação rasa. 

No nosso minúsculo brasil bolsonaro, a extrema-direita apadrinhada por neoliberais (das contra-reformas Trabalhista e Previdenciária) vem se usando desse artifício argumentativo disparado intensamente pelas redes sociais para vender o blefe de que estamos sob um amplo e generalizado estado de “conscientização marxista” (ou algo assim); o que, aliás, seria formidável para uma evolução humana da espécie, não fora um disparate, um absurdo sem nenhum embasamento na realidade histórica. 

Para comprovar essa farsa, basta ver a enorme proporção de professores universitários reacionários nos maiores dos “redutos marxistas”, tal como o são efetivamente (embora em minoria) as grandes universidades públicas (USP, Unifesp, UFRJ, UFBA, etc). Ou observar o baixo nível de boa parte dos dirigentes dos grandes espaços públicos de arte e cultura (teatros, museus, centros culturais), tradicionais locais de contestação, mas contraditoriamente dominados por “artistas” (ou antes “profissionais das artes”) conservadores, alçados a cargos diretivos por suas “obras” submissas, enlatadas no padrão de consumo de maior liquidez: o modelo comercial hollywoodiano. 

***

A desonestidade de informação contida na ideia de “marxismo cultural” pode ser comparada àquela usada por militares entreguistas e empresários, em 1964, para instaurar seu regime de terror. 

À época deste anterior golpe das classes dominantes unidas, a lenda dizia que os brasileiros estávamos à beira da “revolução comunista dos comedores de criancinhas”. 

Um discurso construído por militares vendilhões (submissos, como documentado, às ordens estadunidenses), em aliança com a elite interna brasileira (a sócia menor do “centro” capitalista – EUA e UE).

As duas principais correntes de pensamento reacionário no século XXI

Para se elucidar alguns enganos presentes nesse debate, que afeta diversos estratos do ideário raso de espírito, é preciso antes entender um pouco acerca do pensamento marxista. E ainda, entender algo sobre as duas principais correntes de pensamento reacionário – cientificismo moderno e relativismo pós-moderno – que, aliadas, são patrocinadas pelas elites sempre controladoras dos três poderes, opondo-se “culturalmente” ao desenvolvimento das melhorias sociais e direitos humanos propostos pela “cultura marxista”, ou mais precisamente, pela “cultura socialista” de maneira geral (visto que nem toda a esquerda é marxista). 

Comecemos por alguns traços dessas duas correntes anti-socialistas, atualmente submetidas como um todo ao imperialismo. 

Nascidas do esforço da intelectualidade burguesa, no processo de consolidação da modernidade capitalista, inicialmente tiveram (algumas) intenções subversivas e aspectos sociodesenvolvimentistas (de viés anti-aristocrático). 

Hoje, contudo, são nitidamente dirigidas e bancadas pelo sistema (de modo a “conservar” os privilégios do jeito que estão). O “cientificismo moderno” e o “relativismo pós-moderno” são correntes ideológicas aliadas entre si – e alinhadas ao projeto de poder do capital. 

Apesar da retórica do “crescente poder marxista” (o que é uma paulatina verdade, mas que se dá de forma bem mais lenta de que a propagada), essas duas correntes conservadoras são as que de fato se mantêm ainda hegemônicas no poder global (militar, econômico, político). Suas pesquisas acadêmico-culturais são patrocinadas por megacorporações, segundo interesses, não pautados pela necessidade humana, mas por vantagens mercadológicas ou de dominação “cultural” de mentes incautas.

Tratam-se de duas linhas extremistas: uma de ilusão perfeccionista e temas restritos (técnicos, matemáticos, mecânicos), que desprezam questões propriamente humanas; outra descompromissada, cômoda, sem temas certos, voltada ao diversionismo… ou não. 

Em seu tempo, e em certa medida, ambas trouxeram contribuições ao pensamento humano e ao próprio marxismo. Mas hoje não passam de “âncoras culturais” do capital; instrumentos que atrasam o desenvolvimento das ciências e filosofia, com vistas à manutenção do poder geopolítico nas mãos dos atuais 0,00001% de megamafiosos: algumas centenas de famílias depredadoras (dentre bilhões de homens e mulheres) que se apressam em fazer “consumir” gente e natureza, num vicioso ciclo autodestrutivo. 

Decadência da modernidade: progresso técnico não leva ao progresso humano

Ao final do século XIX, alguns grandes pensadores como Nietzsche, Freud e sobretudo Marx (os “mestres da suspeita”, segundo Paul Ricoeur), com seu implacável poder de questionamento das ilusões da consciência, negaram ao homem moderno o estatuto de “centro do mundo” e “senhor da razão”. Apontaram as falhas e as imperfeições humanas, a animalidade e covardia que se oculta em tantos de seus atos. 

Suas críticas são uma recusa do “cientificismo moderno”, pensamento técnico-progressista que se consolida e desenvolve na modernidade capitalista, como oposição ao misticismo e fanatismo religioso que sustentava o poder da aristocracia europeia. 

No caso de Karl Marx, que de longe é quem mais aprofunda essa crítica à modernidade, ele denuncia a iniquidade social, alienação e violência implícitas nas formas de produção moderna, em que poucos privilegiados exploram o trabalho da imensa maioria de seres humanos. Acusa a mesquinhez adornada de “progresso” com que se corrompia a então vitoriosa sociedade burguesa ocidental. 

Já no século XX, duas irracionais guerras capitalistas (ilógicas mesmo com relação aos lucros  então visados) levaram o Ocidente a um dos mais baixos escalões de humanidade experimentados na história, arrastando consigo grande parte do planeta (que era então subjugado ao militarismo, cultura e ideologia europeias). 

Tais fenômenos acabaram por expôr ao mundo – até mesmo aos liberais menos torpes – a insuficiência do cientificismo moderno, que acaba por entrar em descrédito. Provas da decadência deste pensamento burguês e de sua sociedade foram e são inúmeras: da carnificina da I Guerra e as atrocidades da II Guerra, aos regimes de apartheid (dos eurodescendentes sul-africanos ou dos judeus-brancos israelenses); ou ainda, para olharmos a catástrofe de hoje, a paradoxal crise de fome de 2007-2008, em que a sociedade administrada pelo capital atinge (segundo dados da FAO-ONU) o número trágico de “um bilhão de famintos” – possivelmente a maior das calamidades já registradas na história.

Uma outra face violenta da sociedade burguesa ocidental (que explicita seu declínio) é a crise econômica “estrutural” do capitalismo. Crise agravada a partir dos anos 1970, explode no centro do sistema (EUA) em 2008, e a partir daí infecta as economias e sociedades de todo o mundo. 

Vale frisar que esta crise é um problema das “estruturas”, das “regras” que regem o regime, ou seja, é uma crise da própria lógica irracional capitalista – e não um processo “cíclico” (ainda que haja, em paralelo a essa crise estrutural, também as crises cíclicas, que ora emergem, ora se apazíguam). 

Como exemplo de problemas “estruturais”, veja-se que, devido ao intenso progresso tecnológico, o emprego tende a escassear, piorando paulatinamente o já tenso desequilíbrio social (fenômeno que é incontornável dentro da lógica capitalista). Do mesmo modo, a competição liberal leva também a uma pilhagem cada vez maior dos recursos naturais (finitos!), o que tende a aumentar os conflitos sociais e a insalubridade.

Diante desse processo de crise, em que os caminhos da sociedade não acenam a nenhuma solução plausível, os donos do mundo, antes “cientificistas”, passam também a flertar com a relativização da verdade (pós-verdade) – como forma de desviar a atenção do povo quanto à realidade, aos reais motivos da agonia social que o aflige. 

Do outro lado do fronte social, o marxismo (socialismo contemporâneo) – resiste e se movimenta em seu projeto de conscientização (desalienação mental) e de superação do modelo abjeto de sociedade que é o capitalismo, especialmente em sua versão “neoliberal”. 

***

Vejamos então, brevemente, as linhas gerais que caracterizam estas três grandes correntes do pensamento atual: o cientificismo moderno, o marxismo e o relativismo pós-moderno.

Cientificismo: o progresso técnico acima do ser humano

A título de ilustração, pode-se entender o cientificismo moderno como aquela doutrina típica de cientistas, engenheiros ou intelectuais “puros” (os tais “bons naquilo que fazem”), sejam eles alienados ou mercenários. São intelectos alheios à sociedade em que habitam, enclausurados em frios laboratórios (tantas vezes pertencentes ou patrocinados por grandes corporações), com seus moderníssimos aparatos de medição experimental; os experts, profissionais especializados que visam, mediante suas pesquisas pragmáticas (no sentido monetário), quase sempre resultados imediatos, ou seja: “produtos” que gerem, não desenvolvimento humano, mas lucro rápido. São também classificados como “positivistas” (no sentido amplo do termo), dada sua pretensão de obter supostas “certezas infalíveis” (ou “verdades positivas”). 

Trata-se uma espécie de crentes no deus-metal, no deus-fama; embora os mais tolos ou filantropos sejam ainda devotos da ilusão iluminista de que a crescente “exatidão” das ciências deverá “um dia” ser traduzida em melhorias para a humanidade. 

Ignoram porém a realidade histórica, ou dela desviam seu olhar. Desprezam evidências que mostram que essa “evolução científica”, não domada nem planejada segundo propósitos realmente “humanos” (mas sim gananciosa por lucro e poder), nos está conduzindo a uma catástrofe: ao desemprego crônico (profissões que desaparecem, terras que se tornam latifúndios ou áreas de mineradoras); e à destruição do meio ambiente (pois a natureza é vista, não como espaço que proporciona a vida, mas como mero recurso material a ser extraído). 

Um modelo de “progresso” meramente “técnico”, mas alheio ao efetivo desenvolvimento do ser humano (que deveria ser o foco de todo progresso). 

Assim, o desenvolvimento do modelo capitalista de produção nos conduz velozmente a um maior subdesenvolvimento: a guerras e miséria em abundância. 

Como oposição a esse estreito pensamento cientificista, que sustenta tal forma de (des)organização social, no fim do século XIX surgem duas correntes de pensamento que contestam o discurso burguês moderno e seu “perfeccionismo” (tão perverso quanto ingênuo).

Marxismo: a concepção dialética da história

A primeira e mais forte destas correntes nascentes é a concepção dialética da história, também dita materialismo histórico ou marxismo, dentre outras denominações como comunismo internacionalista, ou socialismo “científico” (no sentido de ser uma filosofia não abstrata, que não flutua etérea acima dos conhecimentos empíricos, mas que é pautada pelas ciências, ancorada na história). 

Com seu olhar sempre posto na história, o socialismo marxista supera o anterior socialismo “utópico-idealista” (Robert Owen, Saint-Simon, Fourier, etc). Refuta as abstrações idealistas e politicamente passivas destes socialismos anteriores, que apenas idealizavam uma sociedade com igualdade de direitos, sem nada de prático proporem para sua efetivação real.

Já o marxismo, sendo uma filosofia da práxis (pensamento combativo que visa transformar coletivamente a sociedade), parte da crítica da realidade histórica “concreta”: analisa as contradições, conflitos, injustiças, desigualdade e a consequente miséria humana causada pelo modelo burguês de sociedade moderna. 

Sua perspectiva de compreensão do mundo (da realidade que deve compreender para poder transformar), é tanto “materialista” como “histórica”, pois que recusa explicações a partir de superstições, de supostas soluções perfeitas, ou de providências divinas, centrando-se na interpretação dos fenômenos da história. 

Trata-se de uma forma de conhecimento vinculado à ação social coletiva: um pensamento de “práxis”. Seu objetivo é investigar a realidade histórica como um todo, a partir do estudo das relações entre cada uma de suas partes, e em suas variadas faces (social, econômica, cultural, política), dando especial atenção aos conflitos e oposições de interesses, às relações “dialéticas” que existem entre as classes sociais: os patrões-proprietários, os empregados altos, os médios, e os trabalhadores – frações da sociedade capitalista em perene e desigual combate, nessa guerra suja que se usa ora de armas, ora de meios coercitivos não diretamente armados (grande mídia, leis). 

Em suma, o intuito fundamental dos marxistas – em sua grande variação de matizes – é a superação da atual “sociedade de escassez na abundância”, rumo a uma sociedade em que os homens possam desenvolver sua plenitude de potenciais, realizando-se enquanto seres de fato “humanos”.

Relativismo: a origem do irracionalismo pós-moderno 

Outra corrente que contesta, ainda que parcialmente, o cientificismo moderno em decadência, é a concepção relativista, linha de pensamento que depois seria abduzida pelo sistema, e de cujas entranhas se gera o atual “pós-modernismo” – com suas vertentes mais estúpidas que relativizam qualquer possibilidade de efetivo conhecimento (caso do irracionalismo reacionário defensor da pós-verdade). 

Promovida por parcela intelectual da própria burguesia, essa doutrina surge como antídoto filosófico contra as falhas do pensamento burguês anterior (o cientificismo, alicerce da evolução capitalista). Mas não tardaria em mostrar sua maior “utilidade” às classes dominantes, passando a ser impulsionada artificialmente contra a “perigosa” ascensão do marxismo. 

Começa a angariar forças no instante em que o comando do capital percebe a decadência do seu modelo cientificista ingênuo, ou seja, quando constata o declínio do ideal moderno de “progresso técnico” que por séculos sustentou a ideologia burguesa: com sua falaciosa ideia de um “desenvolvimento” restrito somente à produção material, mas que jamais se cumpriu, sequer minimamente, enquanto efetivo “progresso social”.

Em seu processo de “relativização” da perspectiva cientificista estreita (com suas respostas rígidas, imóveis), o relativismo traz certa riqueza ao pensamento humano, e inclusive ao marxismo – caso da contribuição dos “pós-estruturalistas”, que leva o conhecimento contemporâneo a ter uma maior atenção às demandas das minorias sociais (movimentos negro, indígena, feminista, homossexual, de imigrantes, etc). 

Contudo, sendo levado ao extremismo da estupidez, a partir da segunda metade do século passado, a visão relativista pós-moderna se reduz à tal pós-verdade: a recusa mística (e interesseira) de qualquer conhecimento concreto, histórico ou mesmo natural (ideia propagada especialmente em tempos de crise – vide Trump e Bolsonaro).

As três grandes correntes do conhecimento na atualidade

Em síntese, são estas as três principais linhagens cognitivas que guiam a filosofia e a ciência praticadas no século XX e XXI: 

– o cientificismo (renovado no início do século XX como “neopositivismo” ou “filosofia analítica”, projeto que reduz interessadamente o espectro do conhecimento possível);

– o relativismo (especialmente na sua facção “pós-moderna”, de meados do século XX);

– o comunismo marxista (pensamento alicerçado nos princípios da “dialética” e da “práxis”, e voltado à utopia real da liberdade e plenitude humana).

***

Estas três concepções de mundo são as que vigoram e detêm hoje as mais amplas parcelas do poder discursivo nos locais “produtores do saber”: universidades, centros de pesquisa, laboratórios, etc – lugares que atestam, recusam e, sobretudo, que convencem a opinião pública sobre a suposta validade das teorias a serem tornadas “práticas” pelos poderes vigentes.

Marxismo: o efetivo pensamento contemporâneo

Contudo, há que se destacar que, dentre essas três correntes de pensamento, o marxismo é a única que pode ser considerada efetivamente “contemporânea”, já que somente ela propõe sentidos, soluções para a superação desse modelo fracassado de modernidade. 

Primeiramente, porque supera as deficiências do cientificismo moderno, a saber: o raso progressismo burguês que tem por pretensão divinizar o conhecimento “mensurável”, “calculável”, recusando qualquer estatuto de “saber” ao conhecimento humano (social, econômico-político, histórico) e filosófico-ético, cujo valor não se mede com aparatos mecânicos, mas só se comprova na complexidade da história vivida e comparada. 

E por outro lado, porque o marxismo não se abstém de propor saídas palpáveis para a crise, para a construção da nova civilização, para o novo homem – sugerindo ferramentas bastante concretas para que obtenhamos tal utopia concreta – ao contrário do niilismo pós-moderno que, com sua inação, com sua descrença na razão e seu desprezo pelas estruturas que comandam nossas vidas, acaba por apoiar a manutenção das injustiças e privilégios. 

Tática dos donos do poder: cientificismo nas armas e pós-modernismo na cultura

Apesar disto, na atualidade o marxismo está ainda longe de se alçar como “a mais forte corrente cultural” (como falsamente propagado pela atual aliança neoliberal-fascista), pois as instâncias de planejamento econômico, produtivo e militar são meios ainda controlados pelo cientificismo conservador das grandes corporações e Estados imperiais, enquanto o âmbito da cultura vem sendo lançado há décadas no poço sem fundo do nonsense pós-moderno (como se vê em grande parcela da produção das artes e mesmo da academia). 

Em suma, tanto o cientificismo (com sua estreita visão de mundo), como seu falso antípoda, o pós-modernismo (seita irracional desprovida de deuses e moral), não passam hoje de pensamentos superados nos meios do saber que respeitam a vida e levam o conhecimento humano a sério. E se estas doutrinas detêm ainda tanto poder, isto se dá artificialmente, motivado por interesses de uma minúscula fração de privilegiados que investem fortunas para que tais teorias arcaicas permaneçam em posição de absoluta hegemonia cultural. 

Este é o lugar confortável que os donos do mundo reservam aos intelectuais e artistas submissos, ajoelhados ao sistema, cujas pesquisas e (especialmente) as “soluções” interessam aos sócios do imperialismo.

Yuri Martins Fontes

 

Fuente de la imagen : http://www.anticapitalistes.net/spip.php?article6630

 

 

Yuri Martins Fontes : Doutor em História Econômica, com formação em Filosofia e Engenharia (Universidade de São Paulo) e pós-doutorados em História do Trabalho e Ética Marxista. Exerce atividades como pesquisador, professor, escritor, jornalista. Coordena o Núcleo Práxis da USP (formação política e educação popular). É autor de Marx na América: a práxis de Caio Prado e Mariátegui, dentre outros livros. Trabalhou nas revistas Retrato do Brasil, Caros Amigos, e na editora Boitempo. Colabora com meios independentes: Resumen Latinoamericano, Brasil de Fato, Agencia Latinoamericana de Información, Revista Fórum, Mondialisation. 

  • Posted in Português
  • Comments Off on “Marxismo cultural”, a pós-verdade no palco da crise mundial capitalista 

What Is Happening in Hong Kong?

August 28th, 2019 by Brandon Turbeville

Over the past few months, both mainstream and alternative news outlets have been covering massive protests in Hong Kong where tens of thousands of people have taken part in demonstrations that have since devolved into violence both with police, counter-protesters, and others. These protests have seen injuries on both sides and have now caught the eye of the world.

But the question is more nuanced than simply whether or not one supports the protests. After all, we have seen plenty of protests in the past that, at first glance, seemed legitimate, but unfortunately turned out to be merely tools of Western governments. So the first question is “Are the protests legitimate or are they a color revolution?” In 2019, it is no longer safe to assume that protesters are organic. However, it is also not safe to assume that every action of civil unrest is because the United States has organized a coup.

The Back Story

Before we look into whether or not the protests are legitimate, it is important to understand the trigger for the demonstrations that are currently taking place. The first protests in Hong Kong began in response to a proposed extradition bill that would have seen individuals who are wanted in territories with which Hong Kong does not have an extradition agreement to be detained. Many of the opponents of the bill felt that it would have placed both Hong Kongers and visitors to the territory essentially under the jurisdiction of mainland China, thus making the “one country, two systems” setup obsolete. Others, however, argued that the extradition bill made sense. After all, since it would be difficult to negotiate an extradition agreement with Taiwan or China, it would be useful to at least provide some sort of avenue for justice for individuals who committed crimes and subsequently crossed the border to evade jail time or other punishment.

It is worth noting that the bill was submitted by the Hong Kong government. It is also worth pointing out the complexities of the “One country, two systems” agreement whereby the British, after decades of imperialist rule over Hong Kong, ceded it back to China in 1997. The British forced Beijing to accept a number of conditions such as the agreement that Hong Kong would draft a mini-Constitution and retain its capitalist system, own currency, legal and legislative system as well as individual rights and freedoms. However, this agreement was only to last for fifty years, when the agreement is set to expire and Hong Kong is to be fully returned to China in 2047.

The first protests began in late March and early April and gradually increased in June when hundreds of thousands of protesters entered the streets. June 12 saw an increase of violence with clashes between protesters and police, who brought out the tear gas and rubber bullets. An even larger march began on June 16. On July 1, hundreds of thousands of people turned out for the annual July marches and a number of these protesters split away from the main demonstration to break into the Legislative Council Complex where they vandalized a number of government symbols and briefly occupied the building.

Hong Kong Chief Executive Carrie Lam suspended the bill on June 15, declaring it “dead” on July 9 though she did not clearly state that the bill would be withdrawn or not revisited. Executive Council members Regina Ip and Bernard Charnwut Chan then stated publicly that the government would be making no more concessions. 

Protests have continued throughout the summer and have resulted in increasingly violent confrontations between police and activists. In addition, pro-China “triad” members (organized crime) clashed with the protesters. A portion of the local residents also began to counter-protest the original protesters and clashes then broke out between the two.

For instance, on July 21, a mob of men dressed in white shirts attacked protesters, travelers, and journalists at a Hong Kong train station, injuring 45 people and leaving the train station floor stained with blood.

Demands being made by the protesters have gradually increased in number. They have called for the following:

  • An independent inquiry on police brutality
  • Release of arrested protesters
  • Retraction of the official characterization of the protests as “riots”
  • Direct elections for the positions of Legislative Council members and the Chief Executive
  • Complete withdrawal of the extradition bill from the legislative process
  • Resignation of Carrie Lam

Who Is Behind The Protests?

As soon as protesters took to the streets, Chinese government officials were accusing the United States and its NGO networks of being behind the movement as an effort to weaken China and cause chaos in the process of eventual reunification. Many in the alternative media immediately began reporting on the color revolution taking place in Hong Kong while the mainstream Western press began praising the protesters for their courage and criticizing the Hong Kong police for their brutality.

So is there any evidence that the Hong Kong protests are controlled or being directed by the United States or its NGO community that has created so many color revolutions across the world? The short answer is yes.

For instance, one of the recognized leaders of the protest movement is Joshua Wong, who is a leader and secretary-general of the “Demosisto” party. Wong has consistently denied any links to the United States and its NGO apparatus. However, Wong actually traveled to Washington DC in 2015, after the conclusion of the Hong Kong Umbrella Revolution to receive an award given to him from Freedom House, a subsidiary of the National Endowment for Democracy. Demosisto has been linked with the National Endowment for Democracy as well.

For those that may be unaware, the NED is an arm of the US State Department designed to sow discord in target countries resulting in the overthrow, replacement, or extraction of concessions from governments of target countries.

Indeed, Jonathan Mowat adds to the recent historical understanding of the controlled-coup and color revolutions in his article, “The New Gladio In Action: ‘Swarming Adolescents,’” also focusing on the players and the methods of deployment. Mowat writes,

Much of the coup apparatus is the same that was used in the overthrow of President Fernando Marcos of the Philippines in 1986, the Tiananmen Square destabilization in 1989, and Vaclav Havel’s “Velvet revolution” in Czechoslovakia in 1989. As in these early operations, the National Endowment for Democracy (NED), and its primary arms, the National Democratic Institute for International Affairs (NDI) and International Republican Institute (IRI), played a central role. The NED was established by the Reagan Administration in 1983, to do overtly what the CIA had done covertly, in the words of one its legislative drafters, Allen Weinstein. The Cold War propaganda and operations center, Freedom House, now chaired by former CIA director James Woolsey, has also been involved, as were billionaire George Soros’ foundations, whose donations always dovetail those of the NED.

Nathan Law, another leader of the Hong Kong protests and rock star of the Umbrella Revolution, is also closely connected to the National Endowment for Democracy. On the NED website, “World Movement for Democracy,” in a post entitled “Democracy Courage Tribute Award Presentation,” where the organization mentions an award it presented to Law. In the article, it states,

The Umbrella Movement’s bold call in the fall of 2014 for a free and fair election process to select the city’s leaders brought thousands into the streets to dem onstrate peacefully. The images from these protests have motivated Chinese democracy activists on the mainland and resulted in solidarity between longtime champions of democracy in Hong Kong and a new gen eration of Hong Kong youth seeking to improve their city. The Hong Kong democracy movement will face further obstacles in the years to come, and their ide alism and bravery will need to be supported as they work for democratic representation in Hong Kong.

Interestingly enough, Joshua Wong has shown up to express “solidarity” with other protest movements engineered by the United States and its NGO apparatus, particularly in Thailand where Western NGOs and the US State Department are controlling both the protest movement and the former government.

For a short overview of how such operations work, watch the video below, a BBC report on the Oslo Freedom Forum which shows some of the leaders of today’s Hong Kong protests as well as leaders of the Umbrella Revolution and other global “protest movements” being trained by the US State Department/NGO apparatus in 2013.

Notably, these protests are receiving heavy media coverage as well as the ever-present logo (umbrellas), both hallmarks of color revolutions and social media giants Twitter and Facebook have accused China of spreading disinformation via their accounts and have been removing or blocking pro-China accounts indicating that someone in the halls of power in the West would like to see the protests continue.

So Why Does The US Support The Protests?

The United States State Department and its subsidiary color revolution apparatus does not support protest movements because it supports right and freedom for people in other countries. After all, the US government as a whole does not support rights and freedom for its own people. So, in full knowledge that the US government does support the Hong Kong protesters, the question then arises, “Why?”

There are at least three reasons why the US is supporting the Hong Kong protest movement, none of which involve the rights of Hong Kongers. First, with China set to fully acquire Hong Kong in 2047 and growing integration between Hong Kong and China over the next three decades, the United States does not want to see China grow any stronger as an economic, military, or diplomatic powerhouse. The full return of Hong Kong to China would further Chinese growth in all three of these areas.

Second, the United States benefits from a weaker Chinese government and one that is not able to fully impose control on every citizen within its borders. This is why the US has funded destabilization movements all across China, many with real concerns, as well as terrorist attacks in areas where China is planning to develop in the third world.

Lastly, Hong Kong currently acts as a tax haven for Western corporations and as a dumping ground for wealth that needs to avoid taxation. Chinese control may very well threaten that wealth, particularly in light of the fact that the Trump administration is moving forward on an apparent plan to put the United States on a more fair footing with China in terms of international trade through tariffs and increased worker protections.

Geopolitical Concerns

In short, by maintaining Hong Kong as-is, the United States would maintain an outpost alongside China’s borders. However, China not only views Hong Kong as physical territory and financial wealth, it understands that, in a trade or real war with the United States, Hong Kong can be used to not only physically position military forces but it can also be used to economically loot the mainland.

It should be noted that China has never given up on the re-absorbing Taiwan and Hong Kong, even threatening to do so with military force if necessary.

Do The Protesters Have Legitimate Concerns?

While the United States may be funding and directing many of the protest leaders in Hong Kong, the fact remains that the protesters themselves as well as the many people who support them have legitimate reasons to be protesting. Indeed, in the case of Hong Kong, it appears that the nefarious American desire to weaken China and protect its corporate tax haven have intersected with the very real need of Hong Kongers to preserve what’s left of the liberty they have.

In order to understand this, it is necessary to understand that there is a plethora of opinions on the Hong Kong issue within Hong Kong itself. First, it seems the dividing line of opinions often centers around age, heritage, and geopolitics. From reading mainstream reports and watching a number of videos, it is apparent that the majority of protesters are young, even university-educated people who have lived their lives in Hong Kong while the counter protesters seem to be older, with a stronger heritage link to China. This older generation should not be conflated with oldest, however, as it appears that many are from the “baby boomer” era more-so than the elderly generation before it. That being said, age is not a clear cut line of difference, however, with a number of younger and older people choosing to support opposite sides. Like any protest movement, the majority of the people of Hong Kong can be found going about their everyday business, teetering on the edges of any engagement whatsoever.

One such reason that the oldest and the youngest protesters seem to intersect, however, is, in the case of the oldest, a memory of what life was like in neighboring China before the Cultural Revolution and the ability to watch that way of life change for the worst and eventually horrific. The youngest members of the “anti-China” crowd may be viewing the issue similarly for the completely opposite reason, precisely the fact that they grew up in a time knowing nothing but freedoms their neighbors could scarcely dream of.

It is also important to point out the cultural difference in Hong Kong, which is essentially Chinese culture at heart, but one that has embraced capitalism and has experienced rights that mainland Chinese people can only dream of. Based on Common Law, this includes the right to freedom of speech. As the Financial Times wrote in 2018,

For more than two decades, citizens and residents in the former British colony of Hong Kong have enjoyed a wide range of freedoms and legal protections unthinkable in any other part of the People’s Republic of China. These protections, guaranteed by the territory’s tradition of judicial independence, are the bedrock of the city’s extraordinary success as a regional entrepôt. It is precisely because of these legal safeguards that many international companies, including most global media organisations, have chosen to base their regional headquarters in Hong Kong.

As mentioned earlier, one reason the “lease” of Hong Kong was pushed back for so long a time (to be fully realized in 2047) is because it would erase an entire generation of people who remembered what such little freedom was like compared to the zero freedom afforded by China. However, what was perhaps unintended was a birth of an entire generation of people who only knew that freedom and are not as keen to give it away as others may have been. This is one reason you can see young people in the streets with signs supporting freedom of speech and even calling for the right to own and bear arms. In other words. you are able to see so many people who have been denied rights Americans take for granted or are under threat of losing even more of their rights desperately trying to gain or retain them, all while many Americans march in the streets to have those same rights taken away. Clearly, it is true that freedom is treasured the most when it is lost.

This threat of Chinese takeover is very real. With its brutal authoritarian methods of control, social credit systems, slave labor economy, and polluted food supply, many young Hong Kongers are rightfully terrified of what “one country, one system” will mean for them. China is a communist nightmare, no matter how much Western leftists would like to portray otherwise.

Nowhere is there more clear an example of “Western” arrogance than a widely-circulated video where an angry Australian lectures young Hong Kong protesters on how much “better everything is gonna be” when China takes over both Hong Kong and Taiwan. Coming from a country with virtually no rights and doing business in another, it may be par for the course for him. But there is something incredibly irritating to watch his denial of these protesters’ legitimate concerns and his lecturing on the part of the authoritarian regime that will soon be in power.

This (the threat of quickly descending into the clutches of Chinese authoritarians) is the very real concern the Western NGOs have seized upon in order to foster social unrest in Hong Kong.

Violence – Violent Counter Protests

There have been numerous videos depicting violence coming from both sides of the isle. On one hand, violence on the Hong Kong side has been blamed on anarchists, often a typical method of specific types of anarchists as well as police false flagging in order to justify a crackdown. Other videos have surfaced showing protesters beating “journalists” and those who disagree with them. The justification given by the protesters were that the individuals were “Chinese agents,” a claim that may or may not be true.

Likewise, we have seen numerous videos of counter-protesters also engaging in violence against the Hong Kong protesters, many of whom being members of Hong Kong/Chinese organized crime as mentioned earlier. The videos depicting police attacks against protesters have also been widely circulated in the media.

Scale Of Protests VS Counter Protests

The Hong Kong protests have spread from Hong Kong itself to all across the world with the immigrant community engaging in demonstrations in their adopted countries. Likewise, counter-protests have expanded globally.

There is very little doubt that the protests against greater Chinese involvement in Hong Kong have been much larger than those supporting it. One need only look at the numbers of the protests that took place on August 17 where 1.7 million people showed up to march.

What A Good Outcome Would Look Like

To claim that the protesters have a legitimate cause while, at the same time, pointing out that the US is directing the leaders of their movement may seem contradictory but, unfortunately, it is not. It should be possible to any unbiased observer to understand that the protesters are justified in their fear of being taken over by a country that just finished slaughtering 80 million people and that is currently oppressing each and every one of their citizens. It should also be possible to understand that the Western NGOs have seized upon this fear and desire for freedom for its own nefarious purposes. Only those who wish to promote an ideology would refuse to mention both aspects of the protests, something both the mainstream and alternative media outlets have unfortunately been guilty of.

So with all this in mind, what would a positive outcome be?

1.) First, the United States must cease using its NGO community or intelligence agencies to direct and manipulate an uprising or unrest in Hong Kong. The future of Hong Kong is for Hong Kongers to decide, not under the manipulation of Western NGOs. The US must immediately cease fostering dissent in other nations. If the US wants to counter Chinese empire, it must do so by offering economic and other incentives and not by threats, social unrest, or violence.

2.) None of the protesters’ demands thus far are unreasonable. There should be an independent inquiry as to the techniques being used by police, police brutality, and the connections these tactics have to the growing Chinese influence in Hong Kong. Protesters who have been arrested for their political views (not those arrested for offensive violence, rioting, or peddlers of foreign influence) should be released. While official categorizations are no issue to fixate upon, the protests should be reclassified as what they are, protests. Elections should be instituted and the people of Hong Kong should elect their Legislative Council and Chief Executive directly. Withdraw the extradition bill completely from consideration until a reasonable proposal can be drafted, discussed, and agreed upon. Carrie Lam is widely known as a tool of Beijing and, for this reason, a gradual, orderly, and democratic transition of power should take place.

In addition, while not official protest demands, the solidification of the rights to free speech, expression, possession of weapons, and privacy should take place.

3.) Just as the United States should stop inserting itself into the domestic life of Hong Kong, so  should China immediately cease any and all attempts to control public opinion, social discourse, and political life in Hong Kong. Because of China’s lack of human rights within its own borders, there is a legitimate reason for Hong Kong to desire complete separation from the mainland. Thus, if China is not interested in becoming a free society, the “One country, two systems” policy must be extended abandoned and Hong Kong should remain independent.

Conclusion

By now, it should be relatively clear that many of the leaders of the Hong Kong protests are controlled and directed via the network of United States intelligence agencies and NGO apparatus for the purpose of protecting its corporate tax haven, keeping a friendly outpost on the Chinese border, and sowing seeds of discord within China itself.

However, the protesters are absolutely right in their concern for what will happen if they become part of China – i.e., another human tragedy that is the result of Communist authoritarianism exhibited by the Chinese government.

Thus, both the official and the mentioned unofficial demands are entirely reasonable. The people of Hong Kong must not be forced to live oppressed under authoritarian Chinese rule. Because the US has its own interests that do not involve freedom or human rights, it would be wise of the Hong Kong protests to abandon their Western-backed opposition leaders and find real organic leaders that are not taking orders from the West.

They should, however, continue to press for the rights they have and the rights they deserve.

*

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.

Brandon Turbeville writes for TheOrganicPrepper.com and his own website, BrandonTurbeville.comHe is the author of ten books, Codex Alimentarius — The End of Health Freedom, 7 Real Conspiracies, Five Sense Solutions and Dispatches From a Dissident, volume 1 and volume 2, The Road to Damascus: The Anglo-American Assault on Syria, The Difference it Makes: 36 Reasons Why Hillary Clinton Should Never Be President, and Resisting The Empire: The Plan To Destroy Syria And How The Future Of The World Depends On The Outcome. His books can be found in the bookstore at BrandonTurbeville.comand on Amazon.

Featured image is from Sky News

The following is appointed prosecutor Datuk Seri Gopal Sri Ram‘s opening statement at Najib’s 1MDB trial, reproduced in full.

1. This case concerns the monies of a company called 1Malaysia Development Berhad, widely known as 1MDB. It was originally called Terengganu Investment Authority or TIA. The accused was instrumental in changing its name to 1MDB. He also caused amendments to be made to the articles of the company to place himself in sole control of important matters concerning the business and affairs of the company. In short, he was its plenipotentiary. Additionally, he was the chairman of the company’s board of advisers. He used that position and that of Prime Minister and Minister of Finance to do certain acts and to exert influence over the board of 1MDB to carry out certain abnormal transactions with undue haste. The ultimate aim of the accused was to obtain gratification for himself. He succeeded in achieving that aim.

2. An elaborate charade was employed. It was acted out in four phases in which several characters played a part. But it was the accused who played the pivotal role. His objective was to enrich himself.

3. Although this case concerns four phases, the events in respect of them are to be considered as part of a consecutive story because of the pre-arranged plan by the accused to enrich himself.

4. An important character in the charade is a man called Low Taek Jho or Jho Low. He is a fugitive from justice. He was involved in TIA and later in 1MDB. The prosecution will prove that the accused by his words and conduct made it clear to 1MDB’s officers, its board and others that Jho Low was his alter ego. In truth, Jho Low was the accused’s mirror image. The prosecution will establish facts which will give rise to an irresistible inference that Jho Low and the accused acted as one at all material times.

5. The four charges under section 23 of the MACC Act are in respect of each of the four phases. In respect of these charges the prosecution will prove, through direct and circumstantial evidence that the accused, first in his capacity as the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance, and later as Prime Minister of Malaysia and Minister of Finance took several steps that led to part of 1MDB’s funds being channelled into his account through a circuitous route to prevent detection of its source. The accused thereby used his position for gratification. In each of the phases the accused acted as one with Jho Low.

6. The first phase concerns the scenario of a so-called joint venture created by the accused (acting through Jho Low and one Tarik Obaid, a close associate of Jho Low). It was a false scenario of a joint venture between 1MDB and a company called PetroSaudi International Ltd or PSI. It was called Project Aria. In the first phase the scheme worked in the following way.

7. 1MDB borrowed USD1 billion purportedly to invest in a joint venture company called 1MDB Petro Saudi Ltd. The money was to be paid into the account of the joint venture company. Petro Saudi International was to take up 60 percent of the shares in the alleged joint venture by injecting certain assets of dubious value. The USD1 billion was to represent 1MDB’s contribution for its 40 percent shareholding. But the so-called Joint Venture Agreement was entered into not with PSI but with a company called Petro Saudi Holdings (Cayman) Ltd. And it was Tarik Obaid who executed the agreement on behalf of PetroSaudi Holdings (Cayman) Ltd. Evidence will be led to show the abnormality of the so-called joint venture which close scrutiny will reveal to be a mere device to siphon 1MDB’s money for the accused’s benefit.

8. The prosecution will, through oral and documentary evidence, prove that USD700 million of the USD1 billion, instead of being paid into the joint venture company’s account was diverted into the account of a company called Good Star Ltd which in truth had nothing whatsoever to do with the joint venture. It was incorporated in the Seychelles on 18 May 2009 that is to say 5 months before the joint venture agreement was entered into. It was a company owned and controlled by Jho Low.

9. The payment to Good Star was made in great haste and without approval from 1MDB’s board of directors and in defiance of its directions. Good Star was falsely described as the wholly owned subsidiary of PSI. The payment to Good Star, was vouched for by the accused through Jho Low as monies owed by the joint venture to PetroSaudi International (PSI). The joint venture agreement referred to a loan payable by the joint venture company to PetroSaudi Holdings (Cayman). The prosecution will through documents show that the so-called loan was a sham employed to justify the payment to Good Star.

10. In March 2010, 1MDB entered into a so-called Murabaha financing agreement under the terms of which alleged USD 1 billion equity in the joint venture company was converted into useless Murabaha notes and 1MDB was required to make available to the joint venture company a sum of USD1.5 billion. In September 2010, a sum of USD500 million was sent to the joint venture company. This money has gone missing. Then in May 2011, a further sum of USD 330 million which was supposed to be the second tranche of the investment into the Murabaha financing, was diverted to Good Star. The accused took positive steps to put through this transaction.

11. From the original sum of USD700 million sums of money were disbursed by Good Star to several persons including one Prince Faisal, a close associate of the accused, Jho Low and one Prince Turki. Prince Turki, the accused and Jho Low were so close that they holidayed together on a yacht in the south of France. Prince Faisal received USD12,500,000 from Good Star on 18 February 2011. He received a further sum of USD 12 million from Good Star on 10 June 2011 which came from the Murabaha scam. From these sums he transmitted USD20 million to the accused’s personal account in two tranches of USD10 million each. The first tranche was received by the accused on 24 February 2011, that is to say, six days after Faisal received the money. The accused received the second tranche on 14 June 2011, that is to say, four days after Faisal received the money. The USD 20 million amounts to an equivalent of RM60,629,839.43. This forms the subject matter of the first charge.

12. The first phase came to an end in 2012 with 1MDB holding worthless pieces of paper. The scam having been achieved, Good Star was wound up on 2 May 2014 and PetroSaudi International was wound up on 8 April 2015.

13. The second phase concerns the acquisition of assets of dubious value by 1MDB. The accused using his position and acting through his mirror image, Jho Low took positive steps and caused 1MDB to enter into two transactions as a result of which the accused obtained a sum of RM90,899,927.28 as gratification. This forms the subject matter of the second charge.

14. These two transactions concerned the acquisition of two independent power producers namely, Tanjong Energy Holdings Sdn Bhd and Mastika Lagenda Sdn Bhd. Mastika owned 75% shares in Genting Sanyen Sdn Bhd. To make the purchase, 1MDB acted through its subsidiaries 1MDB Energy Holdings Ltd, 1MDB Energy Ltd and 1MDB Energy (Langat) Ltd (all Labuan companies) as well as through Malaysian registered companies, namely, 1MDB Energy Sdn Bhd and 1MDB Energy (Langat). These companies were used to raise finance for both acquisitions.

15. I now take each acquisition separately. A local bridging loan of RM 6.17 billion was raised for the acquisition of Tanjong Energy. An additional sum of USD1.75 billion was raised through the issue of 10 year structured loan notes. Goldman Sachs were appointed as lead arranger for the issuance of these Notes.

16. Of the USD 1.75 billion, USD 786 million went to Tanjong Energy. Of the balance, a sum of USD907 million was paid into the account of 1MDB Energy Ltd with Falcon Bank in Hong Kong. Of this sum approximately USD 577 million in round figures went to Aabar Investments PJS Ltd (BVI). This payment was purportedly as a security deposit for Aabar’s holding company IPIC issuing a guarantee guaranteeing the Notes. In addition to the security deposit Aabar was also given an option to take up 49% shares owned by 1MDB Energy Ltd in 1MDB Energy Sdn Bhd. On 22 May 2012 USD 295 million was paid by Aabar to a company called Blackstone Asia. Blackstone is a company controlled by Jho Low through his associate Tan Kim Loong also known as Eric Tan. He is also a fugitive from justice. Additionally, on 25 July 2012 a further sum of USD 133 million was transferred by Aabar to Blackstone. These monies remained with Blackstone until October 2012. Goldman Sachs were paid USD 192.5 million as arranger’s fee for this bond issuance.

17. For the Mastika acquisition, the alleged purchase price was RM 2.75 billion. The money for this came from two sources. First, another 10 year structured loan Notes of USD1.75 billion. For this 1MDB paid Goldman Sachs USD 110 million as arrangers’ fee. So, 1MDB got a nett sum of USD 1.64 billion. This sum was paid into 1MDB Energy (Langat) Ltd’s account with Falcon Bank, Hong Kong. The second was a local loan of RM700 million. The total loan raised from these two sources was about RM 6.16 billion. There was therefore available an excess of RM3 billion. This excess was almost wiped out by a payment on 23 October 2012 to Aabar Investment PJS (BVI) of a sum of approximately USD 790 million in round figures as security deposit for Aabar’s holding company IPIC for allegedly guaranteeing the repayment of the notes. As additional security Aabar was given an option to take up 49% shares owned by 1MDB Energy (Langat) Ltd in 1MDB Energy (Langat) Sdn Bhd. For the Mastika acquisition, Genting Power was paid USD 710 million. The loan raised through the Notes for the Mastika purchase came into 1MDB Energy (Langat) Ltd’s account on 19 October 2012

18. On 23 October 2012, Aabar paid a sum of approximately USD 291 million in round figures to Cistenique Investment Fund or CIF. On the same day Aabar paid USD 76 million to Enterprise Emerging Markets Fund (EEMF). On 23 October 2012 Aabar paid USD 75 million to Blackstone. This was part of the USD 790 million paid to Aabar. Later, on 5 November 2012 Aabar paid a further sum of USD 96 million to EEMF. Soon after CIF and EEMF received the monies in question they paid it over to Blackstone. These monies were then channelled by Blackstone into the accused’s account as follows.

19. On 30 October 2012, a sum of USD 5 million was paid into the accused’s account at AmPrivate Bank. Then, on 19 November a sum of USD 25 million was paid into the accused’s account. The total sum received by the accused in the second phase is set out in the amended second charge. Evidence will be led to show how financial layering took place to provide a false justification for the movement of the monies. So much for the second phase.

20. The third phase concerns another purported joint venture between 1MDB and Aabar in equal shares. The joint venture company was called ADMIC. This forms the subject matter of the third charge. The purpose of this alleged joint venture was to develop TRX or the Tun Razak Exchange in Kuala Lumpur. IPIC was to guarantee Aabar’s investment. The Ministry of Finance of which the accused was Minister guaranteed 1MDB’s investment by way of a letter of support. A loan of USD 3 billion was raised for this alleged purpose.   Goldman Sachs acted as the arranger of the loan.

21. On 14 March 2013 the accused signed a letter of support to raise a loan through the issue of bonds by 1MDB from the Bank of New York Mellon Group in the sum of USD 3 billion. On 19 March 2013 a sum of USD 2.721 billion was disbursed into the account of 1MBD Global Investment Limited with BSI Bank at Lugano in Switzerland. The balance went to pay the fee of Goldman Sachs.

22. From the USD 2.721 billion, a sum of USD 1,060,606,065 was paid into account of two fiduciary funds, namely, Devonshire Funds Ltd and EEMF. Devonshire received USD 646,464,649 in five tranches over two days, that is to say, on 20 and 21 March 2013. EEMF received USD 414,141,416 in three tranches, also within two days, that is, on 20 and 21 March 2013.

23. On 21 March 2013, Devonshire transferred USD 430 million to Granton Property Holding Ltd which is a company controlled by Eric Tan, Jho Low’s shadow. On the same day Granton transferred the whole of that sum to Tanore Finance also a company controlled by Eric Tan. Also, on the same day, that is to say, 21 March 2013, Devonshire transferred a sum of USD 210 million to Tanore Finance Corporation. Then, between 22 March 2013 and 25 March 2013, EEMF transferred USD 250 million to Tanore which therefore by that date had USD 890 million in its hands.

24. Between 21 March 2013 and 10 April 2013 Tanore transferred USD 681 million to the accused’s account. In terms of our currency this amounted to RM2,081,476,926. This sum forms the subject matter of the amended third charge.

25. Based on the evidence that the prosecution will adduce, the so-called joint venture never took off. There was no investment and there was no true joint venture. It was all a sham. This concludes the third phase.

26. The fourth phase concerns the purchase of the Aabar options by 1MDB. These are the options that were given to Aabar in 2012 as alleged part consideration for IPIC’s guarantee for the notes that raised USD 3.5 billion forming part of the second phase.

27. In May and August 2014, 1MDB through its subsidiary 1MDB Energy Holdings Ltd obtained two loans totalling USD 1.225 billion from Deutsche Bank Singapore. The accused approved this transaction. The loans were secured by guarantees provided by 1MDB Energy and 1MDB Langat. There was a bridging loan of USD 250 million and a facility loan of USD 975 million. The first loan of USD 250 million was made available on 26 May 2014. From this amount a sum of USD 239,939,970 was paid into 1MDB Energy Holdings Ltd’s account with Falcon Bank Hong Kong on 28 May 2014. Of this sum, Energy Holdings paid Aabar Investments PJS Ltd BVI USD 175 million to its account in BSI Lugano, Switzerland allegedly to part redeem the option given as additional security that was mentioned earlier when dealing with the second phase.

28. From the sum of USD 175 million a sum of USD 19 million was paid by Aabar to the account of a company called Affinity Equity International Partners Ltd. The payment was made on 18 June 2014. The account was held at DBS Bank Ltd Singapore. Affinity Equity is controlled by Eric Tan. Of the USD 19 million, a sum of USD 1.89 million was transferred to a company called Blackrock Commodities (Global) Ltd at its account held in DBS. Blackrock is a company controlled by Eric Tan. On 23 June 2014, a sum of GBP 750,000 was transferred to the accused’s account. This works out to RM 4,093,500.

29. I now turn to the second loan of USD 975 million which was made available on 1 September 2014. Of this sum USD 250 million was utilised to discharge the bridging loan. That left USD 725 million. On 3 September a sum of USD 223,333,000 was transferred to Aabar Investments PJS Ltd (incorporated in Seychelles) at its account with UBS Singapore. Then, on 30 September 2014, USD 457,984,607 was paid to Aabar Investments PJS Ltd (incorporated in Seychelles) at its account with UBS Singapore. Between 16 October 2014 and 17 November 2014 Aabar transferred a sum of USD 226 million to Aabar International Investment PJS Ltd to its account in Barbados. Between 16 October 2014 and 17 November 2014, Aabar Barbados transferred USD 225,500,000 to Vista Equity International Partners Ltd (Barbados), a company owned and controlled by Eric Tan. Between 23 October 2014 and 19 December 2014 Vista Equity through five tranches in sterling currency transferred a sum equivalent to RM 45,837,485.70 to the accused’s account. This sum together with the RM 4,093,500 earlier mentioned forms the subject of the fourth charge. It follows that part of the sum alleged to be used to redeem the option ended up in the accused’s account. So much for the fourth phase.

30. I now turn to the twenty-one charges for money laundering offences. These are the AMLA charges. The first nine charges relate to receiving of the RM2,081,476,926 which forms the subject matter of the amended third charge. The monies fell into the accused’s account ending 9694 with AmIslamic Bank. Between 2 August 2013 and 23 August 2013, the accused transferred a sum of RM2,034,350,000 to Tanore Singapore. Simultaneously, the accused used the balance of RM22,649,000 to pay four entities and one individual. The prosecution’s case is that all these payments benefitted the accused.

31. After making these payments, the accused transferred the balance into a new account ending 1880 with AmBank through two transfers amounting RM162,436,711.87. He closed his account ending 9694.

32. The tenth charge and charges sixteen to nineteen relate to the transfers made by the accused to Tanore involving RM2,034,350,000.

33. Charges eleven to fifteen concern the use by the accused of the funds earlier referred to through payments to the four entities and one individual. All these payments were made by cheques signed by the accused.

34. Charges twenty and twenty-one concern the transfer of funds from the 9694 account to the 1880 account.

35. In this latter part of the case, the prosecution will establish the AMLA charges through direct and circumstantial evidence. It will be proved that in all the circumstances of the case, the accused committed the offence of money laundering contrary to Section 4(1)(a) of the Anti-Money Laundering and Anti-Terrorism Financing Act 2001 (“AMLATFA”).

36. After the 1MDB scandal broke in early July 2015, the accused with his mirror image Jho Low took steps to cover his tracks. Sham documents were produced to pretend a donation from an Arab Prince. Among these were letters and four cheques each for a sum of USD 25 million purportedly written out by a person said to be the Arab donor. But these cheques were never meant to be encashed and were never encashed.

37. The prosecution will also produce evidence to show that the accused took active steps to evade justice. He interfered with the course of investigation of this case which has come to be known as the 1MDB Scandal. He took active steps to effect a cover up of his criminal acts. The prosecution will rely on all this evidence to show that the accused had the requisite mens rea when the offences with which he is charged were committed.

*

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 Malaysia: The Najib Razak 1MDB Trial. The Prosecutor’s Opening Statement
  • Tags: ,

August 2019 was marked by important changes on frontlines in northwestern Syria.

The month started with a declaration by Hayat Tahrir al-Sham leader Abu Mohammad al-Julani that his group, the most powerful faction in Idlib and formerly the official branch of al-Qaeda in the country, rejects the Idlib demilitarization zone agreement and would not withdraw a single fighter or weapon from the area “upon the wishes of the enemies or the friends”. Al-Julani declared that it’s the duty of the terrorist group to defend what he called “liberated areas”.

The withdrawal of radical militants [terrorists] and heavy equipment from the 20km-deep demilitarized zone agreed to in the Astana talk’s framework was the key demand of the September 2018 agreement aimed at de-escalating the situation at the contact line between the Syrian Arab Army (SAA) and the so-called opposition in northwestern Syria. Nonetheless, this agreement has never been honored by Hayat Tahrir al-Sham, other al-Qaeda-linked groups, or even Turkish-backed formations. They saw the agreement, as well as the establishment of Turkish military posts observing the supposed ceasefire, as a kind of diplomatic shield -allowing them to attack the SAA and forbidding the SAA to respond. This turned the demilitarization agreement into a source of constant tensions and competing accusations.

Furthermore, Hayat Tahrir al-Sham used the gained lull in the battle with the SAA to consolidate its control of the Greater Idlib area. According to Russian President Vladimir Putin, before the establishment of the Idlib demilitarized zone, terrorists had controlled 50% of its territory whereas, up until recently, 90% of Idlib’s territory was controlled by terrorists.

Watch the video here.

There were three ways to deal with this situation:

  • First, and the most preferred by militants and their foreign supporters, the SAA stops responding to ceasefire violations and continues to silently take casualties;
  • Second, implementation of the Idlib agreement whereby Radical militants and heavy weapons are withdraw from the demilitarized zone and the ceasefire regime obeyed, thus making an important step en route to de-escalattion of the situation in northwestern Syria;
  • Third, the SAA resumes operations against radical militants, eliminates the threat, and imposes demilitarization by force.

These choices predetermined further developments in the area. In the period from April to July, the SAA and its allies made a series of limited advances in northwestern Hama and southern Idlib liberating Kafr Nabudah and several nearby villages. During the same period, the Damascus government, backed by Russia and Iran, proposed several ceasefires giving militants and their backers multiple chances to begin fulfilling the terms and conditions of the agreement. However, Hayat Tahrir al-Sham and other militant groups apparently interpreted these proposals as signs of weakness. They were wrong.

On August 7, government forces resumed offensive operations liberating the villages of Al-Zakah and Arbain in northern Hama. On August 8, the SAA liberated al-Sakhr, al-Jaysat and Tell Sakhar. Control of the important height of Tell Sakhar allowed government forces to increase pressure on militants in the town of Hobit and secure Hamamiat. By August 11, the SAA had liberated Hobit, as well as Sukayk, Tall Sukayk, and Mughar Al-Hamam.

Despite multiple reinforcements deployed by Turkish-backed groups from the coalition known as the National Front of Liberation, the militants’ defense started collapsing. By August 19, the SAA, the Tiger Forces, and the National Defense Forces had outflanked the militant stronghold of Khan Shaykhun from the northwestern direction by liberating Tal Nar and nearby villages. Militants even employed MANPADs to fend off the SAA offensive.  On August 15, they downed a Syrian Air Force Su-22 warplane over southern Idlib, but this was not enough.

In the period from August 15 to August 18, the SAA repelled several militant counter-attacks, involving suicide bombers, in the areas of Sukayk and Tal Nar, and reached the entrance of Khan Shaykhun.

On August 19, Turkey made a last fierce attempt to rescue militants in northern Hama. Ankara sent a large military convoy of at least 28 pieces of military equipment, including 7 battle tanks, towards Khan Shaykhun. Members of Turkish-backed militant groups accompanied the convoy. The plan was to establish an observation point near Khan Shaykhun and use Turkish troops as human shields to defend militants there. However, the convoy was prevented from reaching the target.

The SAA cut off the highway leading to Khan Shaykhun while the Syrian Air Force carried out several strikes along the path of the Turkish convoy near Heish -killing at least one militant field commander and destroying a machine gun-armed vehicle.

On August 21, government forces liberated Khan Shaykhun and fully encircled the positions of militants in northern Hama. On August 23, the SAA and its allies fully liberated the newly created pocket including al-Lataminah, Morek, and Kafr Zita. By that time,  most of the militants had already fled the area towards their positions north of Khan Shaykhun. The Syrian military fully liberated northern Hama.

Both sides provide highly overestimated numbers of their enemies’ casualties. For example, pro-militant sources claim that over 1,200 government troops were killed in the area. This number is not confirmed by any visual evidence. In their own turn, pro-SAA sources claim that over 1,000 militants were eliminated. This is also not realistic. However, photos and videos from the area show that about 2 dozens pieces of the militants’ military equipment were destroyed.

Khan Shaykhun became widely known around the globe in 2017 after the US leadership used the staged chemical provocation in the militant-held town to carry out a massive missile strike on the Syrian Air Force’s Shayrat Air Base.

Since then, the town had been a visible symbol of success of Western-backed propaganda organizations, first and foremost the White Helmets, operating in Syria and working to promote the regime-change agenda. Therefore, its liberation became an important symbolic victory of the Syrian-Iranian-Russian alliance.

From the military point of view, the SAA secured an important chunk of the M5 highway and expanded a buffer zone at the Hama-Idlib administrative border. Previously, militants actively used their positions in northern Hama to shell government-controlled areas. Mhrdah, Suqylibiyah, Qamhanah, and Salhab were among  the most frequent targets of shelling by militants, leading to dozens of civilian casualties during the last few months alone.

Besides these Hayat Tahrir al-Sham lost a large part of its defense infrastructure in the southern part of the Idlib zone. Khan Shaykhun, located directly on the M5 highway, was an important logistical hub allowing radical militant groups to re-supply their fighters at the frontline, while al-Lataminah, Murak, and Kafr Zita were important strong points.  Full of underground tunnels and weapons depots, these towns were the core fortifications of militants in the area. The command center of Jaysh al-Izza, the main Hayat Tahrir al-Sham ally in northern Hama, was also located there. The group, having now lost all of its areas, has turned into a kind of nomad tribe within the militant-held part of the Idlib zone.

The estimated pre-war population of the areas recently liberated by the SAA was around 140,000 people. Even taking into account displacements during the war, Idlib radicals lost a notable part of their potential forceful mobilization potential and targets for various informal fees imposed by militant groups across northwestern Syria.

In its own turn, the SAA and its allies demonstrated that they are capable of delivering a military blow to militants entrenched in Idlib and that the key reason of their patience in previous months was the multiple attempts to settle the conflict and de-escalate the situation through diplomatic means. The key factor opposing this scenario remains the same: the inability of the so-called moderate opposition, backed by Turkey, to separate from terrorists. These groups are too deeply integrated. If nothing changes in this regard, another round of hostilities in the Idlib zone is almost inevitable.

*

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

We call upon Global Research readers to 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

Multiculturalism, In Morocco, Difference Is a Strength

August 28th, 2019 by Caroline Kirk

Morocco’s belief in the strength of pluralism has energized me and shown me that difference can serve as a strength for any country, whether it is religious or secular, large or small, developed or developing.

I was told that there are spiritual answers to the question, “Why Morocco?”—every person has a story to explain why they are in this country. The hospitality, emphasis on community, and religious practice are only a few of the reasons Moroccans and visitors have provided. While personal narratives and my own experience have intertwined to affirm this point, so do the tenants of community and participatory development that I have witnessed as an intern at the High Atlas Foundation, a nonprofit dedicated to local initiatives that community beneficiaries determine and manage.

My first week in Morocco, after traveling toward the Amazigh village of Akrich, we stopped at a tree nursery. The seemingly small plot of pomegranate and fig saplings is the backdrop to a linkage of cultural cooperation. While Jewish pilgrims visit the mausoleum of Rabbi Raphael Hacohen year after year, a Muslim man, Abderrahim Beddah, serves as the caretaker of the land. This relationship helps the High Atlas Foundation engage a women’s cooperative in the neighboring village. Initiatives are interconnected.

Now these multicultural nurseries are receiving government support. The National Initiative for Human Development has provided land-assessments to monitor the viability of an organic fruit tree nursery near the mausoleum of Rabbi David-Ou-Moshe in the Ourzazate province. They will begin implementing a project that will generate more than one-million trees over five years.

Sustainable development was created through, and continues to depend on, interfaith partnerships. If Beddah did not share the story of Jews crying on the journey to visit their saint and express his deep appreciation for their faith, then this partnership would be unlikely. However, the investment Moroccans make when they support their neighbors is a testament to development that depends on pluralism.

This concept resurfaced in a new friendship. The Ministry in Charge of Moroccans Living Abroad and Migration Affairs – in cooperation with the Association of Friends of the Jewish Museum – fund to bring Jewish people with Moroccan heritage back to discover their roots, meet government and religious leaders, and encourage local investment.

The High Atlas Foundation interns were invited to attend a shabbat dinner during the program for these Moroccan-Jews, and it was at that dinner that my observations were confirmed. I met a woman who has grown up in France, but her parents were from Agadir, Morocco. This was the first time she traversed the site of her great-great-grandparents’ graves and engaged with her heritage. We got to talking about religious coexistence and respect. She put it quite simply—“in Morocco, Jews and Muslims are first Moroccan. They live well together because their identity is placed in the fact that they are neighbors.” She told me she believed that allegiance should be first to one’s country and then to religion, at least in how it is outwardly expressed. We both agreed that country needs to be respected…humanity needs to be respected.

Pluralism is a framework written into Morocco’s foundational documents. Development requires all parties, faiths, and populations of Morocco. I have seen this visiting a women’s cooperative where dialogue and decision making are priorities. I have seen this in visiting the grave of a venerated Jewish saint, guarded by a Muslim.  I have seen this in the logistical processes that allow for the purchasing of carbon credits and maintenance of olive, walnut, and carob farms.

In 2008, King Mohammed VI announced a vision for Morocco in which “culture serves as a driving force for development as well as a bridge for dialogue.” Moroccans are stepping up to the plate, imagining and wrestling to manifest this vision. The country’s potential should serve as an example. But we must not forget that there are villages still plagued by diarrhea, girls not in school, and trees left uplanted. These examples remind us that although potential is not lacking, resources are forever necessary. Volunteers should never back down in fear of not doing enough. Passion for understanding others, learning a new language, or living immersed in a beautiful expression of religion should be motivation to bring you to Morocco. Finding or supporting organizations like the High Atlas Foundation is integral to this vision.

My spiritual explanation to “Why Morocco?” has come to rest in my hope for this pluralistic and collaborative future of development. Creating cooperatives, living together, and working toward a common goal or vision is very “Moroccan.” But it is also very “human.” I wonder how life would look if other countries began to call for pluralistic-driven development in their constitutions, laws, policies, and institutions?

*

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.

Caroline Kirk is a third year student at the University of Virginia. She spent the summer of 2019 interning at the High Atlas Foundation, working on interfaith and multicultural initiatives.

Featured image is from HAF

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Multiculturalism, In Morocco, Difference Is a Strength