Global Research

ISIS cells have used an IED to blow up a Syrian Army vehicle on the road between Naamer and al-Khirbet in northern Daraa, the ISIS-linked news agency Amaq said on June 4. According to the report, 3 soldiers were killed in the attack. However, these claims have not yet been confirmed by pro-government sources.

This became the first official ISIS announcement of an attack in the province of Daraa since last year when the army and former rebels that had reconciled with the government eliminated ISIS’ local branch, the Khalid ibn al-Walid Army.

The resumption of ISIS attacks in southern Syria may be a sign that the terrorist group’s core hiding in the Syrian and Iraqi deserts has had enough time to restore contacts with its cells in this part of the country. If this is the case, further attacks in the area can be expected.

Just recently, the army discovered a large ammo depot during a recent search operation in the country’s south. The ammo depot contained loads of weapons, including: 3 US-made TOW anti-tank guided missile (ATGM) launchers along with 4 missiles, 3 Russian-made Metis-M ATGM launchers along with 6 missiles and two 1PBN86-VI thermal sights, a Soviet-made Malyutka ATGM along with its launcher, 7 Bulgarian-made AT-4 Spigot ATGMs, a Bulgarian-made Konkurs ATGM and several rounds for the Yugoslav-made M79 Osa anti-tank weapon.

A swarm of armed drones attacked residential areas in the town of Jubb Ramlah in western Hama in the early hours of June 5. According to

Local sources, the Syrian Arab Air Defense Forces intercepted all the drones before they managed to cause any losses.

Opposition sources confirmed the attack attempt saying that it was a response to strikes on the Greater Idlib area.

According to pro-militant sources, Syrian and Russian forces carried out hundreds of strikes on various targets in northwestern Hama, southern Idlib and northern Lattakia over the last 24 hours. Clashes also continued in the area north of Kafr Nabudah.

At the same time, so-called moderate rebels from Jaysh al-Izza, the group that had received large quantities of weapons from the US, appeared in a new video with a badge of the Islamic Black Standard with the Seal of Muhammad. This is a well-known symbol of al-Qaeda and the official flag of ISIS.

Despite all the attempts by Idlib militant groups and their Western backers to present these “rebels” as “moderate democrats”, it’s not so easy to hide 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.

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

Today is the 75th anniversary of the Normandy invasion.  Once again the event is celebrated by demonization of National Socialist Germany and glorification of America’s greatness in winning the war.  

In actual fact the Normandy invasion was not a significant contributor to Germany’s defeat.  A small US/British/Canadian/French force of about 150,000 soldiers of which about 73,000 were American faced a few German divisions at half strength and short of fuel and ammo.  The real war was on the Eastern front where millions of soldiers had been fighting for several years. 

The Red Army won World War II.  The cost to the Soviets was between 9 million and 11 million military deaths.  Adding in the Russian civilian deaths, the Soviet Union won the war at the cost of between 22 million and 27 million Soviet lives.

In contrast the US had 405,000 soldiers killed during WW II of which 111,600 died fighting the Japanese in the Pacific.

The falsification of history applies to World War II just as it does to everything else in the West, and President Trump’s D-Day speech exemplifies how false our history is.  Russia is simply left out of the story.  Putin was not even invited to the celebration.  The celebrants consisted of outgoing British prime minister May, failed French president Macron, and outgoing German chancellor Merkel who was there to celebrate her own country’s defeat, but they might as well not have been present.  Trump made the occasion America’s greatness.  We defeated Germany at a cost of less than 300,000 soldiers killed.  The Russians who lost 36 times more soldiers are not considered to be sufficiently important to the victory over Germany to be invited to the celebration.  

*

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

This article was originally published on the author’s blog site: Paul Craig Roberts Institute for Political Economy.

Dr. Paul Craig Roberts is a frequent contributor to Global Research.

The late economist Milton Friedman’s notion of capitalism and freedom is polar opposite to my own views.

We’re however likeminded on the issue of illicit drugs and so-called US war on them, largely waged on Blacks and Latinos. They comprise around two-thirds of the US gulag prison system inmates, the world’s largest by far.

Over half of US incarcerated individuals are for nonviolent offenses, about half of them for illicit drug possession.

Friedman opposed the criminalization of illicit drugs and war on them. Ending it in the US would “half the number of prisons, half the number of prisoners,” and eliminate thousands of annual drug-related homicides, he maintained.

It would also help stabilize inner city communities ruptured by the devastating war on drugs, imprisoning many of its residents, depriving young children of one more parents or older siblings.

Prohibition of alcohol in the US ended because its enormous harm far outweighed anything positive. The same goes for illicit drugs to a far greater extent.

For the past half century, trafficking terrorized inner city neighborhoods, fostering violence while serving the interests of organized crime, the CIA as a key revenue source, and major Western banks, profiting from laundering dirty money.

Addressing the failure of prohibition, legal scholar Roscoe Pound once said certain human behaviors are beyond “the effective limits of legal action.”

Instead of ending alcohol abuse and addiction, prohibition drove production, distribution, and consumption of the products underground.

The illicit drug trade is a far greater problem than alcohol abuse. According to the UN  Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC) and Interpol, the annual dollar volume way exceeds $400 billion.

The US spends tens of billions of dollars annually dealing with the problem, money unavailable to benefit the general welfare.

The illicit drug trade let the US prison/industrial complex surge to unprecedented size. It masks racism, a form of modern-day slavery, crushing the human spirit, locking people in cages, brutalizing them in captivity, including for minor offenses, notably for possession of illicit substances.

According to California Prison Focus, “no other society in human history has imprisoned so many of its own citizens” and residents — a democracy in name only, run like a fascist police state.

Alcohol, tobacco, and drug addictions are health issues, wrongfully criminalized when it comes to substances banned by ill-conceived laws, waging war on people using them instead of focusing on helping them become drug-free.

Should overeating and other poor dietary habits be criminalized, causing far more health problems and premature deaths than illicit drugs?

The same goes for addiction to alcohol, tobacco, and other harmful behavior. Banning their use would make the solution worse than the problem.

Nationwide legalization of cannabis is long overdue. It’s coming incrementally — to Illinois effective January 1, 2020 based on passed House and Senate legislation, the Cannabis Regulation and Tax Act (CRTA), to be signed into law straightaway by Governor Jay Pritzker (image on the right), fulfilling his earlier pledge.

He called the measure “the most equity-centric approach in the nation,” adding:

“This will have a transformational impact on our state, creating opportunity in the communities that need it most and giving so many a second chance.”

The bill will make Illinois the first US state to legalize cannabis legislatively, rather than by ballot initiative.

Polls show most state residents support its use for recreational purposes. The measure lets adults aged-21 or older possess up to 30 grams of cannabis flower, 5 grams of cannabis concentrate, and 500 milligrams of THC-infused products.

It’s similar to but more liberal than laws enacted in 10 other states, permitting use of cannabis with or without marijuana card authorization.

It lets medicinal cannabis users grow their own plants at home, not recreational users. It expunges earlier low-level marijuana possession, manufacture, and intent to distribute convictions.

Along with measures enacted in other states, it’s a small step back from the near-half century human and community destructive war on drugs.

State Senator Toi Hutchinson said

“(t)he most historic aspect of (CRTA) is not just that it legalizes cannabis for adults, but rather the extraordinary efforts it takes to reduce the harm caused by the failed war on marijuana and the communities (and people) it hurt the most.”

According to Marijuana Policy Project (MPP) director Chris Lindsey, (t)he Illinois Legislature has set a standard of excellence with this bill that other states seeking to pass similar legislation should follow,” adding:

“Illinois has put in place a set of equity provisions that should serve as a national model for other state legislatures grappling with how to redress the harm caused to communities targeted in the drug war.”

Chicago NORML, Working to reform marijuana laws’ executive director Edie Moore said

“(w)e’re going to be able to look back five years from now and see that the quality of life in disadvantaged communities has been made better because of this legislation.”

Supporting the legalization of cannabis in Illinois, Cook County State’s Attorney Kim Foxx said the following:

“The failed war on drugs has disproportionately impacted communities of color” for far too long, the criminal/injustice system doing far more harm than illicit substances.

According to the ACLU, Black Americans are nearly four-times more likely to be arrested, prosecuted, and imprisoned for marijuana possession than white people.

DrugPolicy.org explained that nearly 600,000 American citizens and residents were arrested in 2017 for marijuana possession. Around half the number were Black or Latino.

Arrests and convictions overwhelmingly target the poor and disadvantaged, unable to afford proper legal help available to well-off individuals.

Criminalization of substances overall should end, helping addicts recover from their illness instead of punishing them behind bars — making the problem far worse, not better.

*

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.

Whether it’s eerily-specific ads popping up in our news feeds, or stories about our data leaking into the wrong hands, there’s plenty of evidence that Facebook knows quite a bit about us.

But exactly what information does Facebook have? It’s a question we may not want to know the answer to, but one that we can likely deduce. That’s right. It’s a lot.

Facebook is not the only company that collects data about you. In fact, most of the services you use on your phone, tablet, and computer are probably tracking your activity in one way or another. However, we give Facebook a lot more valuable information than to most other companies, and they know how to use this to generate lots and lots of revenue.

Interestingly, though, people seem to trust Facebook less than other companies when it comes to handling their personal information, so it’s worth delving a little deeper into exactly what this social media giant knows about us.

Facebook in 2019: Just How Big Is It?

We don’t need a bunch of statistics to know that Facebook plays an important role in our lives, but understanding just how big it is sheds some light on how important it is that Facebook has so much data about its users.

To give you an idea of just how big Facebook is, consider the following:

Sources: Macrotrend and The Hub

Facebook is More Than Just Facebook

Over the years, Facebook has grown considerably both in terms of how much revenue it makes as well as users. Here’s a snapshot of the journey Facebook has taken since its founding in 2004 to the present day.

The use of these apps means that Facebook has access to you in three different ways, and if you use all these services on a regular basis, then you can bet that Facebook knows quite a bit about who you are and what you do.

Read the full article by Broadband Search here.

*

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 BroadbandSearch.

Featured image is from Black Agenda Report

“History shows that governments sometimes seek to regulate our lives finely, acutely, thoroughly, and exhaustively. In our own time and place, criminal laws have grown so exuberantly and come to cover so much previously innocent conduct that almost anyone can be arrested for something. If the state could use these laws not for their intended purposes but to silence those who voice unpopular ideas, little would be left of our First Amendment liberties, and little would separate us from the tyrannies of the past or the malignant fiefdoms of our own age. The freedom to speak without risking arrest is ‘one of the principal characteristics by which we distinguish a free nation.’”—Justice Neil Gorsuch, dissenting, Nieves v. Bartlett (2019)

What the First Amendment protects—and a healthy constitutional republic requires—are citizens who routinely exercise their right to speak truth to power.

What the architects of the police state want are submissive, compliant, cooperative, obedient, meek citizens who don’t talk back, don’t challenge government authority, don’t speak out against government misconduct, and don’t step out of line.

For those who refuse to meekly accept the heavy-handed tyranny of the police state, the danger is all too real.

We live in an age in which “we the people” are at the mercy of militarized, weaponized, immunized cops who have almost absolute discretion to decide who is a threat, what constitutes resistance, and how harshly they can deal with the citizens they were appointed to “serve and protect.”

As such, those who seek to exercise their First Amendment rights during encounters with the police are increasingly finding that there is no such thing as freedom of speech.

This is the painful lesson being imparted with every incident in which someone gets arrested and charged with any of the growing number of contempt charges (ranging from resisting arrest and interference to disorderly conduct, obstruction, and failure to obey a police order) that get trotted out anytime a citizen voices discontent with the government or challenges or even questions the authority of the powers-that-be.

Merely daring to question, challenge or hesitate when a cop issues an order can get you charged with resisting arrest or disorderly conduct, free speech be damned.

In fact, getting charged or arrested is now the best case scenario for encounters with police officers who are allowed to operate under the assumption that their word is law and that there is no room for any form of disagreement or even question.

The worst case scenario involves getting probed, beaten, tasered, tackled, searched, seized, stripped, manhandled, shot, or killed by police.

This mindset that anyone who wears a government uniform (soldier, police officer, prison guard) must be obeyed without question is a telltale sign of authoritarianism goose-stepping its way towards totalitarianism.

The rationale goes like this:

Do exactly what I say, and we’ll get along fine. Do not question me or talk back in any way. You do not have the right to object to anything I may say or ask you to do, or ask for clarification if my demands are unclear or contradictory. You must obey me under all circumstances without hesitation, no matter how arbitrary, unreasonable, discriminatory, or blatantly racist my commands may be. Anything other than immediate perfect servile compliance will be labeled as resisting arrest, and expose you to the possibility of a violent reaction from me. That reaction could cause you severe injury or even death. And I will suffer no consequences. It’s your choice: Comply, or die.

Indeed, as Officer Sunil Dutta of the Los Angeles Police Department advises:

If you don’t want to get shot, tased, pepper-sprayed, struck with a baton or thrown to the ground, just do what I tell you. Don’t argue with me, don’t call me names, don’t tell me that I can’t stop you, don’t say I’m a racist pig, don’t threaten that you’ll sue me and take away my badge. Don’t scream at me that you pay my salary, and don’t even think of aggressively walking towards me.

This is not the attitude of someone who understands, let alone respects, free speech.

Then again, there can be no free speech for the citizenry when the government speaks in a language of force.

What is this language of force?

Militarized police. Riot squads. Camouflage gear. Black uniforms. Armored vehicles. Mass arrests. Pepper spray. Tear gas. Batons. Strip searches. Surveillance cameras. Kevlar vests. Drones. Lethal weapons. Less-than-lethal weapons unleashed with deadly force. Rubber bullets. Water cannons. Stun grenades. Arrests of journalists. Crowd control tactics. Intimidation tactics. Brutality. Contempt of cop charges.

This is not the language of freedom. This is not even the language of law and order.

Unfortunately, this is how the government at all levels—federal, state and local—now responds to those who choose to exercise their First Amendment right to speak freely.

Just recently, in fact, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a ruling protecting police from lawsuits by persons arrested on bogus “contempt of cop” charges (ranging from resisting arrest and interference to disorderly conduct, obstruction, and failure to obey a police order) that result from lawful First Amendment activities (filming police, asking a question of police, refusing to speak with police).

In Nieves v. Bartlett, the Court ruled 6-3 to dismiss the case of Russell Bartlett, an Alaska resident who was arrested at an outdoor festival for disorderly conduct and resisting arrest after he refused to be interrogated by police and then intervened when police attempted to question other attendees about their drinking. While at a campsite party, Bartlett exercised his First Amendment right to refrain from speaking with a state trooper who was monitoring the event for underage alcohol consumption. Bartlett later intervened after observing another Trooper questioning a fellow camper in what he believed was an improper manner. At one point, one of the troopers reportedly caused Bartlett to stumble, then forced him to the ground, threatened to tase him if he resisted, and arrested him for disorderly conduct and resisting arrest. The charges were later dismissed. Bartlett sued, asserting that he was arrested in retaliation for challenging the Troopers’ authority. Although the Court recognized that people have a right to be free from a retaliatory arrest over lawful First Amendment activities, it ruled that if police have probable cause for the arrest, the person cannot sue for a free speech violation unless they can show that someone else was not arrested for the same actions.

Another case currently before the Supreme Court, Ogle v. State of Texas, involves the prosecution of a Texas man who faces up to one year in jail and a $4000 fine for sending emails to police criticizing them for failing to respond to his requests for assistance. Scott Ogle was charged with sending complaints to a sheriff’s office, including one email stating that officials were “pissing” on the Constitution. The Texas law under which Ogle was charged makes it a crime to send “annoying,” “alarming” or “harassing” electronic messages. The law is so overbroad that it could be used to punish a negative review of a restaurant posted online or caustic Facebook posts.

In yet another case, a rapper was charged with making terroristic threats after posting a song critical of police on Facebook and YouTube. In refusing to hear the case of Knox v. Pennsylvania, the Supreme Court paved the way for individuals who engage in controversial and unpopular political or artistic expression, by criticizing the police for example, to be labeled terrorists and subject to prosecution and suppression by the government. Police had been actively monitoring rapper Jamal Knox’s (a.k.a. “Mayhem Mal”) social media presence when they discovered the song titled “F**k the Police” and charged Knox and his rap partner with multiple counts of terroristic threats and witness intimidation.

These cases reflect a growing awareness about the state of free speech in America: it’s all a lie.

If we no longer have the right to tell a Census Worker to get off our property, if we no longer have the right to tell a police officer to get a search warrant before they dare to walk through our door, if we no longer have the right to stand in front of the Supreme Court wearing a protest sign or approach an elected representative to share our views, if we no longer have the right to protest unjust laws by voicing our opinions in public or on our clothing or before a legislative body, then we do not have free speech.

What we have instead is regulated, controlled, censored speech, and that’s a whole other ballgame.

Remember, the unspoken freedom enshrined in the First Amendment is the right to challenge government agents, think freely and openly debate issues without being muzzled or treated like a criminal.

Protest laws, free speech zones, bubble zones, trespass zones, anti-bullying legislation, zero tolerance policies, hate crime laws, and a host of other legalistic maladies dreamed up by politicians and prosecutors are aimed at one thing only: discouraging dissent and reminding the populace that resistance to the tyranny of the police state is futile.

Weaponized by police, prosecutors, courts and legislatures, “contempt of cop” charges have become yet another means by which to punish those individuals who refuse to be muzzled.

• Deyshia Hargrave, a language arts teacher in Louisiana, was thrown to the ground, handcuffed and arrested for speaking out during a public comment period at a school board meeting.
• Fane Lozman was arrested for alluding to government corruption during open comment time at a City Council meeting in Palm Beach County, Fla.
• Dan Heyman, a reporter for the Public News Service, was arrested for “aggressively” questioning Tom Price, the secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services during an encounter in the West Virginia State Capitol.
• College professor Ersula Ore was slammed to the ground and arrested after she objected to the “disrespectful manner” shown by a campus cop who stopped her in the middle of the street and demanded that she show her ID.
• Philadelphia lawyer Rebecca Musarra was arrested for exercising her right to remain silent and refusing to answer questions posed by a police officer during a routine traffic stop. (Note: she cooperated in every other way by providing license and registration, etc.)

Cases like these have become typical of the bipolar nature of life in the American police state today: you may have distinct, protected rights on paper, but dare to exercise those rights and you put yourself at risk for fines, arrests, injuries and even death.

This is the unfortunate price of exercising one’s freedoms today.

Yet these are not new developments. We have been circling this particular drain hole for some time now.

Almost 50 years ago, in fact, Lewis Colten was arrested outside Lexington, Kentucky, for questioning police and offering advice to his friend during a traffic stop. Colten was one of 20 or so college students who had driven to the Blue Grass Airport to demonstrate against then-First Lady Pat Nixon. Upon leaving the airport, police stopped one of the cars in Colten’s motorcade because it bore an expired, out-of-state license plate. Colten and the other drivers also pulled over to the side of the road.

Fearing violence on the part of the police, Colten exited his vehicle and stood nearby while police issued his friend, Mendez, a ticket and arranged to tow his car. Police repeatedly asked Colten to leave. At one point, a state trooper declared, “This is none of your affair . . . get back in your car and please move on and clear the road.”

Insisting that he wanted to make a transportation arrangement for his friend Mendez and the occupants of the Mendez car, Colten failed to move away and was arrested for violating Kentucky’s disorderly conduct statute.

Colten subsequently challenged his arrest as a violation of his First Amendment right to free speech and took the case all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court, which sided with the police.

Although the Court acknowledged that Colten was not trespassing or disobeying any traffic regulation himself, the majority affirmed that Colten “had no constitutional right to observe the issuance of a traffic ticket or to engage the issuing officer in conversation at that time.”

The Supreme Court’s bottom line: protecting police from inconvenience, annoyance or alarm is more important than protecting speech that, in the government’s estimation, has “no social value.”

While the ruling itself was unsurprising for a judiciary that tends to march in lockstep with the police, the dissent by Justice William O. Douglas is a powerful reminder that, in a free society, the government exists to serve the people and not the other way around.

Stressing that Colten’s speech was quiet, not boisterous, devoid of “fighting words,” and involved no overt acts, fisticuffs, or disorderly conduct in the normal meaning of the words, Douglas took issue with the idea that merely by speaking to a government representative, in this case the police—a right enshrined in the First Amendment, by the way—Colten was perceived as inconveniencing and annoying the police.

In a passionate defense of free speech, Douglas declared:

Since when have we Americans been expected to bow submissively to authority and speak with awe and reverence to those who represent us? The constitutional theory is that we the people are the sovereigns, the state and federal officials only our agents. We who have the final word can speak softly or angrily. We can seek to challenge and annoy, as we need not stay docile and quiet. The situation might have indicated that Colten’s techniques were ill-suited to the mission he was on, that diplomacy would have been more effective. But at the constitutional level speech need not be a sedative; it can be disruptive.

It’s a power-packed paragraph full of important truths that the powers-that-be would prefer we quickly forget: We the people are the sovereigns. We have the final word. We can speak softly or angrily. We can seek to challenge and annoy. We need not stay docile and quiet. Our speech can be disruptive. It can invite dispute. It can be provocative and challenging. We do not have to bow submissively to authority or speak with reverence to government officials.

In theory, of course, “we the people” have a constitutional right to talk back to the government.

The Constitution does not require Americans to be servile or even civil to government officials.

Neither does the Constitution require obedience (although it does insist on nonviolence).

In fact, the U.S. Supreme Court concluded as much in City of Houston v. Hill when it struck down a city ordinance prohibiting verbal abuse of police officers as unconstitutionally overbroad and a criminalization of protected speech.

Unfortunately, the brutal reality of the age in which we live is far different from the ideals set forth in the Bill of Rights: talking back—especially when the police are involved—can get you killed.

The government does not want us to remember that we have rights, let alone attempting to exercise those rights peaceably and lawfully. And it definitely does not want us to engage in First Amendment activities that challenge the government’s power, reveal the government’s corruption, expose the government’s lies, and encourage the citizenry to push back against the government’s many injustices.

We’re in deep trouble, folks.

Freedom no longer means what it once did.

Not only do we no longer have dominion over our bodies, our families, our property and our lives, but the government continues to chip away at what few rights we still have to speak freely and think for ourselves.

If the government can control speech, it can control thought and, in turn, it can control the minds of the citizenry.

Protest laws, contempt of cop charges, and all of the other bogus violations used by cops and prosecutors to muzzle discontent and discourage anyone from challenging government authority are intended to send a strong message that in the American police state, you’re either part of the herd, marching in lockstep with the government’s dictates, or you’re a pariah, a suspect, a criminal, a troublemaker, a terrorist, a radical, a revolutionary.

Yet by muzzling the citizenry, by removing the constitutional steam valves that allow people to speak their minds, air their grievances and contribute to a larger dialogue that hopefully results in a more just world, the government is creating a climate in which violence becomes inevitable.

When there is no steam valve—when there is no one to hear what the people have to say, because government representatives have removed themselves so far from their constituents—then frustration builds, anger grows and people become more volatile and desperate to force a conversation.

As John F. Kennedy warned in March 1962, “Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable.”

As I point out in my book Battlefield America: The War on the American People, the government is making violent revolution 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.

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].

Even in New York, it’s not often one has an opportunity to view a sculpture exhibit on the scale of Simone Fattal’s 50-year retrospective at the Museum of Modern Art PS 1. It’s a splendid assemblage of work—247 items— from a prolific artist generously distributed over spacious galleries in a grand museum space in Long Island City, New York.

As I moved through the eight halls devoted to stages of Fattal’s work—collage, canvas paintings, work on paper, ceramic and glazed terracotta, I found her sculpted pieces particularly compelling. Many are rather whimsical; although they initially appear somber. The overriding impression from these sculptures is of movement and ‘becoming’; while the striking paintings and collages evoke contemplation, for me. Even Fattal’s stark back and white lies on canvas are heavy with deliberation.

This is not a crowded, ponderous mind we are witnessing at work; there’s some playfulness here, along with a reach into history. The range of work is not surprising given that they represent half a century, in Lebanon, California, and France.

Wounded Warriors, 2013

Accompanying captions refer to the impact of displacement and geopolitical conflict on the artist. This may apply to mystical terracotta items — mostly standing humanoid figures, their blunt torsos anchored by heavy trunk-like legs. While these pieces evoke something colossal from early times, there is nothing daunting in them. Is Fattal telling us they represent past (or present) experiences which, while they may embody dislocation, are in fact manageable and embraceable?

The headless, armless figures stand unambiguously erect, about to step forward. Speaking with Ms. Fattal at her home in Paris last week, she affirms:

“I want to show man on his feet, as witness, still standing.”

She began sculpturing long after she left Syria and then Lebanon in 1980 where she’d worked on canvas. Taking with her the detritus of war with an energy she would never lose, she turned her attention to founding a publishing house. Her Post Apollo Press featured innovative texts, mainly poetry—especially the writing of the powerful poet and painter Etel Adnan.

Settled in California, Fattal returned to the plastic arts in the late 1980s not to resume painting (some striking canvases from that period are exhibited here). She began clay sculpting, a medium she chose, she explains “because, she clay gives the sense of being alive; it retains the quality of fragility and lightness at the same time.”

By The Road, 2006 with Sirene, 2005

Too often creations of artists originating in places we associate with conflict are interpreted as cathartic; their images seem baleful or angry, we are told, to expunge or transform painful past experience. I don’t see this in Fattal’s work on exhibit in this grand New York gallery. With the mostly diminutive scale of her massive (in image, not size) ceramic and clay shapes, perhaps the artist is showing us how she prevails as an energetic being celebrating a continuous forward movement.

The reference to ancient antiquity in some sculpted forms may derive from a ‘memory’ of lost civilization. But through their color and their weightlessness, the artist transforms them into celebratory images. Those massive feet under the torsos are not irreconcilably anchored; they seem ready to spring off the platform.

Still, there’s an undisputed historical feel to many sculpted figures, especially the mystic ceramic and stoneware torsos. While possessing a sense of emergence, they simultaneously remind us of recovered, damaged reliquaries. I found myself meditating on them.

Accompanying exhibition notes inform us how Fattal draws from her personal experience in the Middle East and from the epics of Gilgamesh and Dhat al-Himma created in that cradle of civilization millennia earlier. Characters from these tales populate the exhibition and may provoke viewers to search out those classics. The art itself is however strong enough to suggest an intentional reach into the elemental aspect of civilization.

Simone Fattal is a fine example of the many women with roots in the Middle East, Asia and Africawho exist in a global 21^st century, bringing powerful messages, with courage and limitless energy that speak to all. Their female voices represent a universal past, a present and a future.

Nour ala Nour, 2008

This is an exhibition for anyone, and for any age. But I encourage women to see this display of one woman’s vision. Just as I encourage women to read the poetry and novels of the abundance of contemporary women who seem to be in the forefront of groundbreaking research, of invention, of reinterpretations, and of honest truth-telling. Fattal is in the vanguard of creative women demonstrating our ability to reinterpret history and reality, and to project the power of our gender in completely new terms. To my question to Fattal about women in the arts, she replies—

“We can pick up and move on from adversity maybe more easily than men can, perhaps because we fall from a less elevated place.”

*

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

Barbara Nimri Aziz is a New York based anthropologist and journalist. She is the author of “Tibetan Frontier Families” and numerous articles on Tibet and Nepal, has been working in Nepal in recent weeks. Find her work at www.RadioTahrir.org. She was a longtime producer at Pacifica-WBAI Radio in NY.

All images in this article are taken by M. Gurung

When the President of Israel and the Jewish son-in-law of the President of the United States make surprisingly thoughtless statements about Palestine, they show us just how deliberately ignorant of history they are — and how uncaring they are for Palestinian suffering at a deeply subconscious level.

Hatim Kanaaneh, Palestinian doctor and author of A Doctor in Galilee: The Life and Struggle of a Palestinian in Israel and a collection of short stories entitled Chief Complaint, doesn’t know what to make of Reuven Rivlin’s slip of the tongue in addressing his guest Mohammad Kiwan, the chairman of the Council of Muslim Leaders in Israel, at an iftar (breaking the fast) meal the Israeli president hosted at his home in celebration of Ramadan. Rivlin says to the Palestinian (with a straight face, apparently), “Your Home Is My Home.”

Kanaaneh imagines Sheikh Kiwan responding: “Had you left it standing in Damoun (Kiwan’s village), you would be welcome to enter it.” Kanaanah goes on to “try to exonerate [Rivlin] of any conscious malicious intent.”

I wish I could do the same for Jared Kushner’s calculated, ignorant and orientalist comment in an interview about the deal to liquidate Palestinian claim to their homeland:

“Donald Trump’s son-in-law and senior adviser Jared Kushner said in an interview that the Palestinians aren’t yet able to govern themselves and declined to promise them an independent state in the White House’s long-awaited Mideast peace plan.”

Malicious intent is all over that statement. He goes on to add condescendingly,

“The hope is that they over time will become capable of governing.”

When Kushner says Palestinians are not ready “to govern themselves”, he is really calling upon their hasbara carefully-manufactured image as terrorists. Given Palestinian history of denial and desperation, they are not to be trusted, he is saying. They have yet to accept “civilized” behavior — i.e., mask their rage and pain — and reject “uncivilized behavior.”

Kushner’s statements are so outrageous, I hardly know where to begin to address them. Let me start almost exactly a hundred years ago when the Turks lost Palestine in 1918 and their rule was replaced by a “British Mandate”, an agreement between the Allied Powers in 1923, which also incorporated the ambiguous terms of the Balfour Declaration of 1917. Ever since then, Palestinian Arabs understood that the phrase “Jewish national home” with its religious connotations in the Declaration was merely a euphemism for a Jewish settler-colonial state and that ‘article 2’ of the Mandate, with its reference to “self-governing institutions”, was a fraud.

Similarly, today Kushner’s phrase implying that self-government would come later when the Palestinians were “ready” to govern is meant as a fraudulent “safeguard”. The British Mandate over Palestine of 96 years ago has simply evolved into an “Israeli Mandate”. It is blessed, not by the United Nations, but by an arm-twisting imperial power.

The deal of the 20th century (the Balfour Declaration) triggered the Great Palestinian Arab Rebellion, “probably the boldest challenge to Britain in her colonial half of the twentieth century”, according to Walid Khalidi. The deal of the 21st century will also inevitably inflame Palestinian rebellion — and for exactly the same reasons.

In the 20th century, the Arabs of all the Middle East States expected independence in return for their help to Britain during WWI. They fought against their co-religionists, the Turks, putting their faith in the principle of self-determination as enshrined then in the League of Nations. Eventually, when they were deemed “ready” for self-governance, all the Arab states eventually achieved independence, despite the negative colonialist imagery imposed on them — except for Palestine.

In the 20th century, as in the 21st, Palestine was excluded from the doctrine of self-determination in a clear strategy of dispossession. Balfour had explained to President Wilson in a memorandum: “we are dealing not with the wishes of an existing community but are consciously seeking to reconstitute a new community and definitely building for a Jewish numerical majority in the future.” [At the commencement of the Mandate, there were approximately 486,000 Muslims in Palestine, 84,000 Jews and 71,000 Christians.]

In today’s lingo “Jewish majority” also translates as “Jewish self-determination”, leaving the self-determination of Palestinian Arabs who were there and had always been there, nowhere. Pre-Zionist Palestine as well as the remnant pockets of Palestine today called the “occupied territories” have been portrayed as backward and unproductive awaiting “Western penetration and fecundation”, to use Ella Shoat’s disturbingly apt phrase, which is also morally superior to the Arab masses.

And underpinning the entire Zionist venture in Palestine, as Walid Khalidi explains, is a myth, that when “stripped down to its barest essentials may be presented as two sides of a coin. The obverse carries the Right of Return deriving from Divine Promise. The reverse carries explicitly, the dismissal of the millennia-old ‘Arab’ presence in Palestine.”

This myth played and it still does today a key role, beclouding the strategy of dispossession and tapping a huge reservoir of emotions in the West. Is Jared Kushner a White supremacist who just happens to be Jewish, or is he a Jewish supremacist as in a Jewish nationalist? Today the Jewish State which has sovereignty over all of Mandate Palestine minus Jordan has a Western ideological and political orientation despite the fact that 70% of its population is “Third-World derived” (Palestinians and Mizrahi/Sephardic Jews). Its character is anomalous, as Edward Said so often described it.

What are Trump’s motives and that of countless other American politicians for sponsoring Israel? The answers are deliberately beclouded with the myth, causing Western “purblindness” to use Walid Khalidi’s expressive word.

In Palestine under the Mandate, British policy, similar to U.S. policy today, was never to accept the principle of one-man-one-vote in Palestine, and no self-governing institutions were ever developed for the country at large. It was not possible to question the provisions of the Mandate then, just as it is impossible for Palestinian “negotiators” to question the Jewish national provisions of the Israeli government today.

During the failed Oslo process, money was poured into the occupied territories for “development” and “capacity building”. Numerous reports were and are still being written, with each one beginning, as a matter of framing, with a long list of the obstacles facing both economic development as well as capacity building in the occupied territories, and affirming that only final status negotiations could achieve an enduring development — both political and economic.

It turns out the long-awaited final status is … the status quo!

*

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.

Rima Najjar is a Palestinian whose father’s side of the family comes from the forcibly depopulated village of Lifta on the western outskirts of Jerusalem. She is an activist, researcher and retired professor of English literature, Al-Quds University, occupied West Bank. She is a frequent contributor to Global Research.

Featured image is from Jerusalem Post

The escalating “trade war” between the US and China is reportedly causing some in Washington to consider imposing legal restrictions on Chinese students in the interests of national security, which shows that all the trade talk was really just a front for justifying more comprehensive “containment” measures against the People’s Republic in order to pre-empt its global rise.

Reuters released a report on Wednesday about how “U.S. lawmakers prep bills targeting China spy threat on campus“, which included details about some proposed legislation that would impose legal restrictions on Chinese students in the interests of national security. Some ideas are to prohibit Chinese students from studying in the US if they’re affiliated with a military-linked institution, as well as regulate the amount of money that universities can receive from the People’s Republic.

Other proposals include limiting access to sensitive academic research out of concern that Chinese students might take this proprietary knowledge with them back to China whenever they finally leave and therefore undercut America’s competitive know-how advantage over their homeland. Had it not been for the “trade war“, it would have been unthinkable that the US would contradict its own much-touted principles of “freedom, democracy, and respect for all” in such a way, but therein lies the crux of the matter because the “trade war” was never entirely about trade at all.

No one disputes the fact that trade forms the bedrock of American-Chinese relations and is unquestionably its most important component, but despite what most people might believe, it’s impossible to separate politics from economics in this case. Actually, US-Chinese trade is inherently political because of the strategic purpose that it’s hitherto fulfilled for the People’s Republic in enabling it to develop at an unprecedented pace due to the decades-long imbalance of hundreds of billions of dollars that ultimately compounded into countless trillions over the years. Pre-empting China’s global rise and its possible replacement of the US as the world’s most important Great Power is the chief concern of the Trump Administration, which decisively acted to curtail the trade deficit between the two through tariffs and then use the economic dimension of their competition to justify more comprehensive “containment” measures against it such as the lead-in news event about the possible legal restrictions that might be imposed on Chinese students.

The “trade war” should therefore be reconceptualized and even rebranded if it’s to be strategically accurate because it’s not about profits or lack thereof at all, but about the Great Power competition between the US and China over the future of the evolving world order, with economics being the key determinant but also comprising much more than simple trade ties. The relevancy of legal restrictions on Chinese students speaks to the fear that the US government has of them acting as fifth column proxies of the Communist Party ideologically committed to stealing American secrets in order to help their homeland surpass its main geopolitical rival. It’s not within the ambit of this analysis to argue whether such fears are justified or not, but just to point out that it’s the sovereign right of all states to regulate the entry of foreigners into their borders however they see fit, no matter how seemingly unfair or hypocritical their actions may be, though the US should understand that China might very well respond reciprocally if Congress’ proposals come to pass.

It would be absurd to allege that all Chinese students are secretly communist spies, just as it would be equally absurd to say the same about American ones vis-a-vis the CIA even if a few of each of them might really be abusing their student status as a cover for intelligence collection and other unsavory activities, meaning that Chinese students might become the first civilian casualty of the “trade war” after which American ones would probably follow soon thereafter. After reconceptualizing the “trade war” as a New Cold War and accepting that the public economic focus is really intended to mask the behind-the-scenes “containment” measures being quietly taken against China in parallel with the tariffs, it makes sense why a special category of the country’s nationals in the US (students) are now being targeted as the next phase of this Hybrid War escalation.

If it’s ever called out for hypocritically contradicting its internationally exported morals, ethics, and principles, the US can always plead “self-defense” by pointing to its national security concerns, though that nevertheless might not be convincing enough for many who are finally beginning to see the US for what it truly really was all along, which is a global hegemon that endeavors to maintain its leading position in International Affairs by hook or by crook. Soft power is an important part of its grand strategy, but is more than easily sacrificed in the interests of ensuring its hard power, practically all of which is dependent in one way or another on economics and technology. By rectifying the trade imbalance through tariffs and overreacting to intelligence threats by restricting the activities of all Chinese students in the country, the US hopes to finally regain the competitive edge that it was at risk of losing up until this point and turning the tables in the New Cold War.

*

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.

Trump’s first-ever state visit to the UK was a monumental event that celebrated the history of these two Great Powers’ “Special Relationship” and also hinted at what the post-Brexit future has in store for each of them, specifically concerning the so-called “Clash of Civilizations” that American strategists are striving to implement all across Eurasia.

There’s been non-stop news coverage over the past couple of days about Trump’s first-ever state visit to the UK, with journalists focusing on practically all dimensions of his trip. The President’s tweets were given their due attention as always, as was the seating protocol during the huge state dinner that was hosted in his honor. Gossip abounded as usual and countless folks were on the edge of their seats waiting to see how the man who’s perhaps the most undiplomatic Western leader of modern times would behave around the Royal Family that’s known for their prioritization of diplomatic protocol.

Trump’s supporters saw his visit as an endorsement of Brexit, while his critics asserted that he should never have been invited at all. The entire event was both polarizing but also awe-inspiring since it captivated the imagination of the entire nation, for better and for worse, and will certainly go down in history as a monumental trip.

Looking beyond the intangibles such as the overall mood and the disproportionate attention given to the President’s tweets about London Mayor Sadiq Khan and Meghan Markle, there were three main highlights of his visit: the talk about a post-Brexit US-UK trade deal, the emphasis on how common values and shared interests unite the two Great Powers, and the 75th D-Day commemorative event. About the first, it’s well known that Brexit is in jeopardy and that many of the country’s citizens are very concerned about the possibility of leaving the EU without first striking a deal with Brussels. Trump sought to assuage their unease by discussing the possibility of a mutually beneficial trade pact in that event, which is enticing for Brexit’s supporters but certainly won’t endear its opponents to this process. The US leader at one time suggested that the NHS would have to be included in the deal, but promptly backtracked the next day after widespread backlash over what some feared would be its creeping privatization.

Regarding the second main element of Trump’s trip, the emphasis on how common values and shared interests unite the two Great Powers, it was none other than the Queen herself who said this, which therefore bestowed this grand statement with the highest level of normative value possible in that country. It not only explained the soft power basis for the “Special Relationship”, but reinforced the timelessness of their bonds with a view to the future. This is important to dwell upon because it strongly implied that the UK will always be remained allied with America irrespective of however Brexit ultimately plays out.

Her words also took for granted that Western Civilization as a whole includes both the US and Europe despite some very  noticeable differences between these two transatlantic halves, which crucially adds another level of significance (whether knowingly or not) to the 75th D-Day commemorative event that wrapped up Trump’s trip.

As the author analyzed in an earlier piece this week, that ceremony was actually a civilizational provocation after over a dozen leaders of the Allied nations (and curiously enough, even Germany) were invited to attend except for President Putin, whose country sacrificed the most out of anyone else’s in the existential struggle against the fascist war machine. This was intended to imply that Russia isn’t part of European/Western Civilization despite its centuries of involvement in continental affairs but is an “other” that doesn’t share its counterpart’s historical memory, whereas the US is evidently a more crucial component of the aforesaid even though it’s only been directly involved in transatlantic affairs since World War I. Keeping in mind what the Queen said about how common values and shared interests unite the US and UK, it’s clear to see that Trump’s trip certainly carried with it a strong degree of civilizational importance in the New Cold War.

Overall, his first-ever state visit to the UK focused on the past and the future of the “Special Relationship”. Brexit was certainly on everyone’s mind, and Trump has made no secret over the years of his support for the country’s divorce from Europe, but at the same time he didn’t seem to overly interfere in the domestic affairs of the host nation any more than the CIA and other forces already do. If anything, the visit was a feel-good reminder to the citizens of both countries about how common values and shared interests unite them, though the dark side of this civilizational focus is that it pits the West (the US, UK, and EU) against all the rest, especially Russia, China, and the Mideast. It’s on this closing note that observers should be most concerned because of the prospect of Trump applying the “Clash of Civilizations” blueprint for dividing and ruling the Eastern Hemisphere throughout the 21st century.

*

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.

Featured image: President Donald Trump, along with British Prime Minister Theresa May, viewing a displayed copy of the Declaration of Independence at No. 10 Downing Street Tuesday, June 4, 2019, in London. (Official White House Photo by Shealah Craighead)

An Israeli minister has called on settlers to continue entering Jerusalem’s Al-Aqsa compound and thanked security officials for making their visits possible after hundreds broke into the mosque during the final days of Ramadan.

In a video released on Monday, Culture and Sports Minister Miri Regev said:

“We should do everything to keep ascending to the Temple Mount [the name used by Jews for Al-Aqsa].”

“And hopefully soon, we will pray in the Temple Mount, our sacred place,” she added.

Regev also thanked Gilad Erdan, Israel’s Interior Security Minister, and Jerusalem’s Police Chief for their “fight and contribution for Jews to ascend to the Temple Mount”.

Regev’s comments come days after Palestinians and Israeli police clashed at the compound. On Sunday, tensions ratcheted up in the city with Israel’s Jerusalem Day – a celebration of the country’s capture and occupation of East Jerusalem in 1967 – coinciding with the last days of Ramadan.

As Israelis planned to march through the Old City, including the Muslim Quarter, to observe the holiday, Palestinians were urged to occupy the Al-Aqsa compound, an act of defiance against Jewish Israelis that were expected to enter the holy site.

In response to Palestinians rallying in Al-Aqsa, Israeli police – who reportedly allowed the settlers to enter the site – raided the mosque.

The Waqf, an Islamic organisation that oversees the site, said Israeli police fired rubber bullets and used pepper spray against Palestinians as they cracked down on the rally. Two Palestinians were arrested, the Waqf said.

In a statement, the police said protesters had barricaded themselves in the Al-Aqsa Mosque and threw chairs and stones at forces who were attempting to “disperse” them.

Settlers regularly praying at holy site

The status of the Al-Aqsa compound is one of the most sensitive issues in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. The Al-Aqsa compound is one of the holiest sites in Islam and served as the first Qibla, the direction towards which Muslims must turn to pray, before that was changed to Mecca, in Saudi Arabia.

It is also the holiest site in Judaism, believed to be the location of the Jewish temple that was destroyed 2,000 years ago.

Jews are allowed to visit the site during set hours but not pray there to avoid provoking tensions. However, Israeli settlers who regularly enter the compound often perform Jewish prayers on the site and some right-wing activists have called for the mosque’s destruction to make way for another temple.

Increasingly, these activists have sought to build support for increased Jewish presence at the site despite a longstanding, joint guardianship agreement between Israel and Jordan, which retains control over Christian and Muslim holy sites in Jerusalem.

Palestinians fear settler tours inside the Al-Aqsa compound may erode their claims to the area, and further extinguish their aspirations for full rights and a state of their own, with East Jerusalem as its capital.

Regev is part of a religious Zionist wave that is dominating Israeli politics, and she is a prominent figure in Prime Minister Benyamin Netanyahu’s Likud party. Also on Monday, Israeli MK Bezalel Smotrich said Israel should be governed by the Torah and return to days of King David and Solomon.

*

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: Israeli Minister of Culture Miri Regev in the Knesset on January 27, 2016. (Yonatan Sindel/Flash90)

Three Italians were invited to this year’s meeting of the Bilderberg Group, which was held in Montreux, Switzerland, (30 May to 2 June). Another journalist was invited with Lili Gruber, the host of the TV channel La7, and now the permanent host of the Bilderberg Group – this was Stefano Feltri, assistant director of Fatto Quotidiano, directed by Marco Travaglio. The “third man” chosen by the Bilderberg is Matteo Renzi, senator for the Partito Democratico, and ex-President of the Council.

The Bilderberg Group, formally established in 1954 on the initiative of certain US and European “eminent citizens”, was in reality created by the CIA and the British secret service MI6, in order to support NATO against the USSR[1]. After the Cold War, it continued to play the same role in support of the strategy of the USA and NATO.

The guests of these annual meetings are almost exclusively citizens of Western Europe and North America. They number approximately 130 representatives from the world of politics, economy, the military, the major media and the secret services, who, formally speaking, participate “in a personal capacity”.

They gather behind closed doors in luxurious hotels, each year in a different country, and are protected by draconian military security systems. No journalists or observers are allowed access, and no communiqué is ever published.

The participants are sworn to silence – they are not even allowed to reveal the identity of the speakers who may have given them information (in total disregard of their proclaimed “transparency”). We only know that this year, they talked mostly about Russia and China, spatial installations, a stable strategic order, and of the future of capitalism.

The most important “personalities” participating this year, as usual, were those of the USA;

Henry Kissinger, “historical figure” of the Group, closely linked to the late David Rockefeller (image right, died in 2017) who was founder of The Bilderberg and the Trilateral Commission:

Mike Pompeo, ex-head of the CIA and currently US Secretary of State[2];

General David Petraeus, ex-head of the CIA[3];

Jared Kushner, advisor (and son-in-law) of President Trump for the Middle East, and intimate friend of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.

Following on, Jens Stoltenberg, Secretary General of NATO, who received a second mandate for services rendered to the  USA.

For four days, in secret multilateral and bilateral meetings, these representatives, with other known or unknown figures of the major powers of the West, reinforced and expanded the network of contacts which enable them to influence government policies and the orientation of public opinion.

The results are visible. In Il Fatto Quotidiano, Stefano Feltri violently defends the Bilderberg Group, explaining that these meetings are held in secret “in order to create a context of frank and open debate which is specifically non-institutional”, and attacks the “numerous conspiracy theorists” who spread “legends” about the Bilderberg Group and the Trilateral Commission.

However, he refrains from mentioning the fact that among these “numerous conspiracy theorists” stood the late Judge Ferdinando Imposimato, (image right) Honorary President of the Supreme Court of Cassation (he died in 2018), who described the result of the enquiries he had initiated as follows:

“The Bilderberg Group is partially responsible for the strategy of tension and therefore also the massacres” – beginning with that of Piazza Fontana, in which the Bilderberg Group worked with the CIA and the Italian secret services, with Gladio and the neo-fascist groups, with the P2 lodge and the USA Masonic lodges in NATO bases[4].

Even Matteo Renzi has now been admitted into this prestigious club. Overlooking the possibility that they may have invited him because of his talents as an analyst, we are left with the hypothesis that these powerful men and women are secretly preparing some other political operation in Italy. Feltri will excuse us for joining the “numerous conspiracy theorists”.

*

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

This article was originally published on Il Manifesto. Translated from Italian by Pete Kimberley.

Award winning author Manlio Dinucci is a Research Associate of the Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG)

Twelve leading ocean conservancy and environmental groups have requested that Canada’s environment and health ministers take immediate regulatory action on plastic waste and pollution, under the Canadian Environmental Protection Act 1999, and call on the Government of Canada to add any plastic generated as a waste, or discharged from the use or disposal of products or packaging, to the Schedule 1 List of Toxic Substances under CEPA.

Doing so would allow the federal government to pass laws requiring producers of products containing plastics or using plastic packaging to collect and recycle them; to prevent exports of plastics to developing countries; to require recycled plastics to be used in making products and packaging; to ban single-use plastic items that aren’t collected and end up as litter and marine pollution; and to reduce microplastic waste from clothing and other products that pollute fish Canadians eat.

The 12 ocean conservancy and environmental groups that have banded together to make this formal and joint request to Canada’s environmental and health ministers include:

1. Surfrider Foundation Canada
2. The Ocean Legacy Foundation
3. Environmental Defence Canada
4. West Coast Environmental Law
5. Friends of the Earth Canada
6. Pacific Wild Alliance
7. BC Marine Trails Association
8. Coastal Restoration Society
9. Sea Shepherd Conservation Society
10. Greenwave Environmental Consulting
11. Sea Legacy
12. Association for Denman Island Marine Stewards

According to a study for Environment and Climate Change Canada, Canada’s plastics recycling rate is 9%^[1]. Canada landfills or burns 91% or 2.93 million tonnes of the waste plastic generated each year. Canada’s rivers, lakes and oceans receive an additional 29,000 metric tonnes of plastic litter – the equivalent of 9.7 billion coffee cup lids.

The scientific evidence of the impacts of this plastic pollution is clear. A systematic review of data from 139 lab and field studies by researchers at the University of Toronto concluded,

“…that there is evidence that plastic pollution of all shapes and sizes can affect organisms across all levels of biological organization. There is no doubt that plastic pollution can have an impact on wildlife, and there is compelling evidence suggesting macroplastics are already impacting marine populations, species, and ecosystems.”

On May 21, 2019 the European Union took decisive action against plastic pollution stating that:

80 to 85% of marine litter, measured as beach litter counts, is plastic, with single-use plastic items representing 50% and fishing-related items representing 27% of the total. Single-use plastic products and fishing gear containing plastic are therefore a particularly serious problem in the context of marine litter, pose a severe risk to marine ecosystems, to biodiversity and to human health and damage activities such as tourism, fisheries and shipping.

In addition to plastic pollution Canada’s failure to recycle plastics results in over 1.8 million metric tonnes of greenhouse gases^[2]as more plastic is made to replace what is lost to landfills, incinerators (thus adding even more greenhouse gases), rivers, lakes and oceans, or what is shipped to unwitting developing nations.

Chloé Dubois, President, The Ocean Legacy Foundation

“We see discarded plastic bottles, bottle caps, cigarette butts, fishing nets, buoys, crab trays, ropes and polystyrene all along the coast and in the coastal waters of British Columbia. We can see it, scientists say it is having an impact and other jurisdictions are taking action. It is time we start treating plastic pollution as a solid form oil spill that it is. We need to act now.”

Michelle Hall, Vice President, Surfrider Foundation Canada

“On December 22, 2018, Motion 151 passed unanimously in the House of Commons. It calls for, among other things, the regulation of single-use plastics, the development of a plan to clean-up derelict fishing gear and marine debris, and regulation to make companies making plastic products and using plastic packaging responsible for collection and recycling. The Canadian government has a powerful mandate from an overwhelming majority of Canadians to stop our plastic problem from being exported and to tackle it here and now.”

*

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

How primitive human beings dealt with the harsh conditions of life can hardly be imagined. I suppose humans emerged in racial and ethnic groups that then merged to some extent, sometimes easily, sometimes not. All, however, face the same hardships to which they responded in various ways. All people require the stuff that is essential to life. Acquiring it is what life is all about. Since all people cannot fend for themselves, these groups made arrangements to take care of the needy. The groups’ survival required it.

Political considerations are always the basis of these arrangements. Political differences always produce different economic practices. Each group has its own political-economy. Capitalism, Socialism, and Democratic Socialism, for instance, are political-economies and each has numerous variations. Economies do not exist in isolation. Any attempt to alter a society’s economic practices requires a corresponding change to its political practices.

For instance, raising the minimum wage substantially is futile unless prices are kept from rising. A large enough rise in prices can negate the effects of any pay raise. Controlling prices, however, is political.

Any attempt to compare the economies practices of different societies is also difficult. Unless the political differences are understood, the economic differences cannot be.

American society has been organized to produce ever higher levels of Gross Domestic Product which is said to be the value of all goods and services produced in a year. Although GDP is defined as domestic product, it is calculated by adding up all the money spent on consumption by households, businesses, and governments. When one year’s GDP is greater than the previous year’s, the “growth” of the economy is revealed. Growth is what American culture strives for. Economic growth brings goods and services to everyone. The more growth the better! In that way, America’s attempts to provide people with what they need to live. Growth is the solution to all human problems. Would that it were so!

GDP is said to be the value of products and services measured by the costs of consuming them. But that is not what it really measures. What it really measures is the amount of money that is moved from the pockets of consumers (buyers) to the pockets of merchants (sellers). That’s all it does; nothing more and nothing less. And that’s all the society cares about. America has been organized for the purpose of transferring money from consumers to merchants. This organization functions with enormous efficiency. The wealth of the merchant class increases by quantum amounts. Such is the greatness of America!

But the gloss of its greatness has been tarnished by its failure to provide for its needy. The word “economics” is derived from the Classical Greek οίκος νέμoμαι (household management). If household management were taken as the goal of human activities, a completely different set of data would reveal the underside of the wealthiest nation the world has ever known. But nobody cares. No economic indicators exist that display this dark underside. Wouldn’t it be helpful to know, for instance, how many employed people have gain-less jobs, jobs that provide so little income that they cannot save even a dime. Are those people employed or enslaved? When the employment rate is calculated monthly, why isn’t the gainless rate calculated? The only answer is that because nobody cares.

America is said to lack a state religion. It lacks one only in name. America’s state religion is Mammonism! Every mercantile is a temple, and every sales counter an altar.

Will Americans ever be virtuous enough to make the changes to those political practices needed to enable the necessary changes to its economic practices? Doubtful! Americans have been inured to ignoring the needy. A primitive society could not do that and survive. Today’s developed societies can. The needy are no longer needed. People no longer matter.

*

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

John Kozy is a retired professor of philosophy and logic who writes on social, political, and economic issues. After serving in the U.S. Army during the Korean War, he spent 20 years as a university professor and another 20 years working as a writer. He has published a textbook in formal logic commercially, in academic journals and a small number of commercial magazines, and has written a number of guest editorials for newspapers. His on-line pieces can be found on http://www.jkozy.com/ and he can be emailed from that site’s homepage.

Voters looking ahead to 2020 are being bombarded with soundbites from the twenty plus Democratic would-be candidates. That Joe Biden is apparently leading the pack according to opinion polls should come as no surprise as he stands for nothing apart from being the Establishment favorite who will tirelessly work to support the status quo.

The most interesting candidate is undoubtedly Congresswoman Tulsi Gabbard, who is a fourth term Congresswoman from Hawaii, where she was born and raised. She is also the real deal on national security, having been-there and done-it through service as an officer with the Hawaiian National Guard on a combat deployment in Iraq. Though in Congress full time, she still performs her Guard duty.

Tulsi’s own military experience notwithstanding, she gives every indication of being honestly anti-war. In the speech announcing her candidacy she pledged “focus on the issue of war and peace” to “end the regime-change wars that have taken far too many lives and undermined our security by strengthening terrorist groups like Al-Qaeda.” She referred to the danger posed by blundering into a possible nuclear war and indicated her dismay over what appears to be a re-emergence of the Cold War.

In a recent interview with Fox News’s Tucker Carlson, Gabbard doubled down on her anti-war credentials, telling the host that war with Iran would be “devastating,” adding that

“I know where this path leads us and I’m concerned because the American people don’t seem to be prepared for how devastating and costly such a war would be… So, what we are facing is, essentially, a war that has no frontlines, total chaos, engulfs the whole region, is not contained within Iran or Iraq but would extend to Syria and Lebanon and Israel across the region, setting us up in a situation where, in Iraq, we lost over 4,000 of my brothers and sisters in uniform. A war with Iran would take far more American lives, it would cost more civilian lives across the region… Not to speak of the fact that this would cost trillions of taxpayer dollars coming out of our pockets to go and pay for this endless war that begs the question as a soldier, what are we fighting for? What does victory look like? What is the mission?”

Gabbard, and also Carlson, did not hesitate to name names among those pushing for war, one of which begins with B-O-L-T-O-N. She then asked

“How does a war with Iran serve the best interest of the American people of the United States? And the fact is it does not,” Gabbard said. “It better serves the interest of people like [Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin] Bibi Netanyahu and Saudi Arabia who are trying to push us into this war with Iran.”

Clearly not afraid to challenge the full gamut establishment politics, Tulsi Gabbard had previously called for an end to the “illegal war to overthrow the Syrian government,” also observing that “the war to overthrow Assad is counter-productive because it actually helps ISIS and other Islamic extremists achieve their goal of overthrowing the Syrian government of Assad and taking control of all of Syria – which will simply increase human suffering in the region, exacerbate the refugee crisis, and pose a greater threat to the world.” She then backed up her words with action by secretly arranging for a personal trip to Damascus in 2017 to meet with President Bashar al-Assad, saying it was important to meet adversaries “if you are serious about pursuing peace.” She made her own assessment of the situation in Syria and now favors pulling US troops out of the country as well as ending American interventions for “regime change” in the region.

In 2015, Gabbard supported President Barack Obama’s nuclear agreement with Iran and in 2016 she backed Bernie Sanders’ antiwar candidacy. More recently, she has criticized President Donald Trump’s withdrawal from the Iran nuclear deal. Last May, she criticized Israel for shooting “unarmed protesters” in Gaza, a very bold step indeed given the power of the Israel Lobby.

Tulsi Gabbard could well be the only genuine antiwar candidate that might truly be electable in the past fifty years, and that is why the war party is out to get her. Two weeks ago, the Daily Beast displayed a headline: “Tulsi Gabbard’s Campaign Is Being Boosted by Putin Apologists.” The article also had a sub-headline: “The Hawaii congresswoman is quickly becoming the top candidate for Democrats who think the Russian leader is misunderstood.”

The obvious smear job was picked by ABC’s George Stephanopoulos, television’s best known Hillary Clinton clone, who brought it up in an interview with Gabbard shortly thereafter. He asked whether Gabbard was “softer” on Putin than were some of the other candidates. Gabbard answered:

“It’s unfortunate that you’re citing that article, George, because it’s a whole lot of fake news.”

Politico the reported the exchange and wrote: “’Fake news’ is a favorite phrase of President Donald Trump…,” putting the ball back in Tulsi’s court rather than criticizing Stephanopoulos’s pointless question. Soon thereafter CNN produced its own version of Tulsi the Russophile, observing that Gabbard was using a Trump expression to “attack the credibility of negative coverage.”

Tulsi responded

“Stephanopoulos shamelessly implied that because I oppose going to war with Russia, I’m not a loyal American, but a Putin puppet. It just shows what absurd lengths warmongers in the media will go, to try to destroy the reputation of anyone who dares oppose their warmongering.”

Tulsi Gabbard had attracted other enemies prior to the Stephanopoulos attack. Glenn Greenwald at The Intercept described how NBC news published a widely distributed story on February 1^st, claiming that “experts who track websites and social media linked to Russia have seen stirrings of a possible campaign of support for Hawaii Democrat Tulsi Gabbard.”

But the expert cited by NBC turned out to be a firm New Knowledge, which was exposed by no less than The New York Times for falsifying Russian troll accounts for the Democratic Party in the Alabama Senate race to suggest that the Kremlin was interfering in that election. According to Greenwald, the group ultimately behind this attack on Gabbard is The Alliance for Securing Democracy (ASD), which sponsors a tool called Hamilton 68, a news “intelligence net checker” that claims to track Russian efforts to disseminate disinformation. The ASD website advises that “Securing Democracy is a Global Necessity.”

ASD was set up in 2017 by the usual neocon crowd with funding from The Atlanticist and anti-Russian German Marshall Fund. It is loaded with a full complement of Zionists and interventionists/globalists, to include Michael Chertoff, Michael McFaul, Michael Morell, Kori Schake and Bill Kristol. It claims, innocently, to be a bipartisan transatlantic national security advocacy group that seeks to identify and counter efforts by Russia to undermine democracies in the United States and Europe but it is actually itself a major source of disinformation.

No doubt stories headlined “Tulsi Gabbard Communist Stooge” are in the works somewhere in the mainstream media. The Establishment politicians and their media component have difficulty in understanding just how much they are despised for their mendacity and unwillingness to support policies that would truly benefit the American people but they are well able to dominate press coverage. Given the flood of contrived negativity towards her campaign, it is not clear if Tulsi Gabbard will ever be able to get her message across. But, for the moment, she seems to be the “real thing,” a genuine anti-war candidate who is determined to run on that platform. It might just resonate with the majority of Americans who have grown tired of perpetual warfare to “spread democracy” and other related frauds perpetrated by the band of oligarchs and traitors that run the United States.

*

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 is a former CIA counter-terrorism specialist and military intelligence officer who served nineteen years overseas in Turkey, Italy, Germany, and Spain. He was the CIA Chief of Base for the Barcelona Olympics in 1992 and was one of the first Americans to enter Afghanistan in December 2001. Phil is Executive Director of the Council for the National Interest, a Washington-based advocacy group that seeks to encourage and promote a U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East that is consistent with American values and interests. He is a frequent contributor to Global Research.

From what’s known about the scheme, subject to change, Trump’s so-called “deal of the century” has nothing to do with regional peace or treating Palestinians equitably.

It has everything to with serving US and Israeli interests at the expense of fundamental Palestinian rights — why it’s dead before arrival, why it may never be released in final form, especially if new Israeli elections end Netanyahu’s regional reign of terror.

According to Haaretz, Trump’s scheme aims to eliminate Palestinian refugees by naturalizing them as citizens of Lebanon, Jordan, Syria, Iraq, and elsewhere regionally where they reside.

It’s all about rendering UN General Assembly Resolution 194 null and void —  resolving that

“refugees wishing to return to their homes and live at peace with their neighbors should be permitted to do so at the earliest practicable date, and that compensation should be paid for the property of those choosing not to return and for loss of or damage to property which, under principles of international law or equity, should be made good by the Governments or authorities responsible.”

The right of return to one’s country of origin or citizenship is inviolable international law. The fundamental right is affirmed by Fourth Geneva, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination, and Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

Refugees resettled as citizens of other countries lose their universally recognized legal right of return to their country of origin.

UN Charter provisions include “respect for the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples,” along with promoting fundamental human rights on a non-discriminatory basis.

International law guarantees the right of Palestinian refugees to return to their homeland, what Israel and the US reject for Palestinians.

Trump’s no-peace/peace plan aims to pressure or otherwise force them to abandon this fundamental right, along with getting Arab countries to go along with the scheme.

According to Haaretz, Trump’s deal of the century aims to eliminate the right of return that’s been a major obstacle whenever so-called Israeli/Palestinian peace talks were held.

At stake is the fate and rights of around six million diaspora Palestinians, mostly refugees. Trump and Netanyahu regime hardliners want what’s affirmed under international law denied them.

Lebanese law prohibits giving Palestinian refugees citizenship because it would render their right of return null and void — what its diaspora population sought since forcefully displaced from their homeland in 1948.

Jordan also rejects the idea of granting Palestinian refugees citizenship. A core element of the Trump regime plan is bribing these countries with economic incentives to go along.

“…Palestinian refugees are the supreme symbols of Palestinian nationhood,” said Haaretz, adding:

“An American deal that blatantly relies on buying up that symbol for cash, even lots of it, can’t be acceptable to the Palestinian leaders in the West Bank and Gaza.”

According to Iran’s parliament speaker Ali Larijani, the Trump regime aims “to arrange an economic deal and get its money from the miserable (cash-rich) Persian Gulf countries.”

Trump’s one-way deal of the century favoring Israel and US interests is unacceptable to Palestinians wanting statehood and freedom from occupation harshness — what hardliners in Washington and Tel Aviv want them denied.

*

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

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

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

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

Visit his blog site at sjlendman.blogspot.com.

Featured image is from The Iranian

I plead with the readers of this column to click on the following links and read about the Vale Mining Corporation’s warning of an impending dissolution of yet another Brazilian mine tailings dam. Here is the link to the developing story. 

The most important part of the report is the accompanying video which should be required viewing for every Minnesotan, every politician and every lover of drinkable water, the St Louis River, Lake Superior, the Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness (BWCAW) and Canada’s Quetico Provincial Park.

In the 3½ minute video, BBC journalist David Shukman does a powerful job of telling the story about the inherent dangers of tailings lagoon dams (whether old or new) and their often-unpredictable dissolutions and massive release of poisonous chemicals into the watershed and river communities downstream.

Watch the terrifying video of the actual collapse of the 2019 disaster below.

Every Minnesotan who even vaguely recognizes the names “PolyMet” or “Twin Metals” or “Glencore” or Antofagasta” needs to watch this video; and every wannabe investigative journalist, whether professional or amateur, needs to study it. Reporters who went into the news business for idealistic reasons need to examine their hearts and question their editors about their proper desire to thoroughly cover important stories such as this one.

The sobering BBC video should compel every clear-headed citizen to forward the link to his or her congresspersons, mayors and city council representatives and demand that the potentially catastrophic PolyMet and Twin Metals projects be re-considered and disallowed.

As opposed to the humane, forward-looking politics of the Green Party, the Democratic Socialist Party and the Green New Deal faction of the Democratic Party, both of Minnesota’s major political parties – Republican and DFL (and their past-appointed partisan bureaucrats in the regulatory agencies) have been embarrassingly subservient to the machinations of foreign mining and pipeline corporations by allowing them to essentially dictate how Minnesota’s natural resources are to be exploited and endangered.

In the last few election cycles experimental copper-nickel sulfide mining in water-rich Minnesota was not made into a campaign issue by either of the two parties, so neither the major party losers nor the winners were ever forced to understand that the vast majority of concerned citizens of northeast Minnesota do not want copper mining done anywhere near their endangered, still relatively unpolluted, fishable fresh water.

At this point in Minnesota’s experimental copper/sulfide mining history, there are only four copper mining companies involved that we know of Two of them are minor Penny Stock companies from Canada: PolyMet and Twin Metals. Both Penny Stock companies are essentially front groups whose business plans and stock holdings are controlled by two major foreign corporations.

PolyMet’s parent company is Switzerland’s Glencore and 100% of Twin Metals’ stock is held by Chile’s Antofagasta corporation.

If these inanimate corporations were sentient human beings, they would meet the definition of a sociopathic personality disordered entities – which makes them essentially conscienceless, pathological liars that usually only respond to legal threats, economic threats and the threat of punishment – not what is best for society or the long-term sustainability of the environment.

That means that – no matter what sociopathic corporations promise to do– they cannot really be trusted to fulfill those promises. Therefore, any professed concern about the environmental health of our water-rich region should be doubted. Wealthy sociopaths are able to afford cunning legal teams that enable them to get away with criminal misdeed after criminal misdeed. Just look at what Vale has gotten away with in Brazil, and just look at what Donald Trump’s administration is trying to get away with up north as he revoked an Obama order to prevent Twin Metals/Antofagasta from proceeding with mine development upstream from the BWCAW.

The Censored-out Stories of Mine Catastrophes Around the World

To understand the real threats the experimental copper mining presents to Minnesota, one only has to recall

1) the catastrophic 2014 Mount Polley mine earthen dam collapse in British Columbia,

2) last two equally catastrophic Brazilian tailings dam collapses in 2015 and 2019 and now

3) the impending collapse of a third Brazilian mine dam that involves a long- abandoned and un-monitored dam site that is should be the moral responsibility of the Vale Mining corporation, the largest mining company in Brazil and the fifth largest in the world. Despite its size and supposed expertise, Vale admits that it has no idea how to avert the impending collapse.

What’s left behind of a once-thriving Brazilian river town that was downstream from a collapsed mine tailings lagoon. Many of the now-dead and/or homeless occupants worked at the mine.

It needs to be pointed out that the engineer that designed the Vale dam burst in January 2019 also designed the proposed PolyMet tailings dam that the company says will eventually rise to an ultimate height of 250 feet; that is, if the project is allowed to go forward against the will of the people of Minnesota.

Clear-headed people who know the facts about copper mining in water-rich areas are justifiably concerned about the future of the St Louis River estuary, Lake Superior and the health of future generations.

(It needs to be pointed out that over 300 victims of the 2019 dam wall collapse drowned in the semi-solid sludge that had built up for decades in the tailings lagoon and that many of the bodies of the “missing” ones have been un-recoverably entombed forever, in the gradually drying sludge that hardens to the consistency of a brick. Some of that sludge has come to rest in layers that are many meters thick.)

The mouth of Brazil’s mine waste-contaminated Rio Doce as it empties into the enlarging dead zone in the Atlantic Ocean 300 miles downstream from the 2015 tailings dam collapse (This could be the St. Louis River as it empties into Lake Superior)

Last year the PolyMet project (including the weak plans for the mine tailings earthen dam walls) was approved by the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (DNR), the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (PCA) and the US Forest Service. To observers it appeared that neither the DNR n the or PCA cared about the testimony from knowledgeable citizens. The thinking was that the PolyMet proposal had actually been pre-approved well prior to what were just “cosmetic” citizen hearings.

And then, adding insult to injury, just last week a three-judge panel of the Minnesota Court of Appeals affirmed PolyMet’s amended, already dangerous plan to vastly increase the volume of daily sulfide ore production. The panel allowed PolyMet/Glencore to proceed with their development of the mine project without requiring a new Environmental Impact Statement to be presented to the DNR and PCA, even though the inherently dangerous earthen dam would likely have to be taller than the originally proposed 250 Feet in height!

The ruling, according to my reading of the court document, failed to pay much attention to the vitally important issue of the long-term storage requirements of the sulfuric acid-producing mine tailings.

I strongly suspect that the three judges are understandably unfamiliar with the many major and minor mine catastrophes that regularly occur all around the world. Such information has been carefully censored-out of the public’s consciousness by the commercial news outlets that have corporate connections, and so even highly intelligent judges can easily become unfamiliar with important issues such as sulfide mining.

Some Visuals Concerning the Mount Polley Mine Disaster of 2014

Before and after satellite images of the Mount Polley, BC tailings dam disaster

Why tailings ponds “designed” to hold back toxic sludge for an eternity are a set-up for disaster

If and when another tailings dam bursts in Brazil, the nearest downstream community will be drowned and disappeared under tens of millions of cubic meters of toxic sludge similar to what happened to the other two downstream communities that were victims of Vale’s unavoidably dangerous mine waste dams.

Twin Metals/Antofagasta intends to deliver its processed, liquified sulfuric-acid-producing waste products (which represent 99.5% of the total volume of the ore that is mined) to PolyMet/Glencore’s tailings lagoon. The eternally toxic contents of that lagoon, if it ever dissolves and drains downstream, will surely destroy the St. Louis River estuary as well as Lake Superior.

If the Twin Metals/Antofagasta rumored plan to not establish an on-site tailings lagoon is approved by the DNR and the PCA, that mine’s waste won’t directly risk the BWCAW. However, there will be other water contamination issues that are generated from both the mine and the processing plant.

That probability may explain why Canada, which aggressively controls the contiguous Quetico Provincial Park’s pristine, water-rich wilderness, is not officially making any noises objecting to the Twin Metals/Antofagasta project.

The Role of the Media in Public Unawareness of Issues Involving Big Business

PolyMet, Twin Metals and the mining industry in general don’t want – nor will they likely get – ANY serious journalistic coverage from any commercial northern Minnesota newspaper, including the Duluth News-Tribune. Most media outlets constrain themselves when they are invited to criticize sociopathic Big Businesses that could offer advertising revenue in the future. Advertising money from any given well-off corporation can affect next quarter’s profit or loss margins and can understandably trump ethics.

And we can’t expect to see any serious journalism from any of northern Minnesota’s television stations either. TV stations have even more significant conflicts of interest with the mining industry that could benefit from conscienceless resource exploitation.

Ever since 1) Mount Polley British Columbia’s 2014 catastrophe (the disaster that permanently polluted Quesnel Lake – a world-famous salmon fishery) and ever since 2) the Brazilian mining catastrophes that occurred in 2015 and 2019, there has been a lot of investigative journalism done that pointed out the fact that similar disasters are likely to happen sometime in the future with any experimental sulfide mining that is done in northeast Minnesota.

Some Comments About the So-called “Free Press” in the Corporation-saturated United States

However, none of that investigative journalism about the serious threats that experimental copper mining poses to Minnesota has been done by the Duluth News-Tribune, the several television stations that serve the area, the many radio stations in the area or in more than a few of the many smaller newspapers that should really be concerned about the health and sustainability of the region’s environment.

The Duluth Reader is only one of three newspapers in the region that has done any significant journalism exposing this vitally important issue. The other two papers are the Timberjay (a commercial newspaper out of Ely and Tower) and Duluth’s other alternative newspaper, the Zenith News. One has to ask “why”.

The Duluth Reader is the largest of the two free, Duluth-area alternative newsweekly magazines.

Neither of those papers takes any advertising money from the mining industry (nor do they take any money from most other major corporation, as far as I can tell). That freedom from corporate conflicts of interest gives the Reader and the Zenith the freedom to do honest journalism and freely publish unwelcome truths about issues that would expose and thus offend corporations – whether criminally-minded or not – that frequently advertise in “normal” commercial media outlets.

Most corporations are on the lookout for vulnerable politicians and political parties that might be willing to accept campaign “contributions” (with the implication being: “if you want more money to fund future campaigns, adhere to our particular corporate agenda”). Giving money to politicians is just another common device that wealthy elites, their foundations and their other special interest groups use to ensure that their business “investment goals” will more likely be achieved.

At any rate, the future of water-rich northeast Minnesota is again being manipulated by foreign entities that cannot be expected (due to their sociopathic tendencies) to pay much attention to the logical objections that are coming from every citizen who really understands the huge risks that copper-nickel/sulfide mining poses to our region.

Ignoring the will of the people and the future of our habitat is a serious mistake of the powers that be.  That is because when all the legal, non-violent means of exposing and opposing  a sociopathic corporate project’s deep flaws have been exhausted, certain segments of the opposition will be tempted to resort to what they consider justifiable violence to prevent what they regard as a crime both against nature and humanity.

One only has to recall what happened last year when another cabal of transnational corporate powers tried to push through their private oil company pipeline against the will of the people by using anti-democratic, “eminent domain”, pro-corporate, “fascism-lite” tactics in the Dakota Access Pipeline confrontation at Standing Rock reservation in North Dakota.

Justice-seeking groups that were opposing the police state action began with non-violent tactics. But, when they were eventually put down with violent methods by armed, corporate mercenaries that worked hand-in-hand with North Dakota’s taxpayer-paid policemen and National Guard members. (Note that none of the cowardly corporate executives that were planning of profiting from the police state action showed up.)

And who won the day at Standing Rock – at least temporarily? It was the wealthy ruling elites that make use of police state tactics (rather than the voting booth) to get what they and what makes their Wall Street investors happy. It was those with enough wealth to “own” as many politicians as they can. It was the secretive, corporate sociopaths in three-piece suits that fly in their corporate jets.

But in the case of the high risks of potential mining catastrophes similar to the ones in British Columbia, Brazil and elsewhere around the world, the courageous water defenders and lovers of the  environment are these days much more diverse and in some ways more powerful that were those that stood their ground at Standing Rock.

Anybody would be foolish to think that violent confrontations won’t occur between the knowledgeable, justice-seeking, anti-copper mine majority and the political, business, Chamber of Commerce and media types that have been either openly in favor of, quietly working behind the scenes for or employing active censorship to prevent information from being published in the regional media that would inform average folks about the high risks of allowing experimental copper mining in water-rich northeast Minnesota.

A lot of protestors who are suffering the humiliation of not being listened to by the powers-that-be are keeping track of those entities that will be fingered for blame (and also punishment) if and when a Brazilian-type disaster hits.

*

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

The U.S. military attacked three Syrian oil tankers, destroying all and killing four of their drivers.  The tankers were carrying Syrian oil, pumped from Syrian oil wells, and driving on Syrian territory.  The U.S. justified the attack and murders while enforcing the U.S. sanctions against Syria, which prohibit the purchase or importation of any oil.  The oil was pumped from Syrian oil wells under the occupation of the U.S. ally in Syria and then sold to the Syrian government, for the needs of the civilians in the regions under Syrian control.

The far North East corner of Syria has been under occupation by the Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF), and made up of Syrian Kurds who turned against their own country, and are working as mercenaries of the U. S. military.  The region they are occupying by military force while subjugating the civilians who are forced to live under their rule is the location of major Syrian oil wells, which had provided the domestic needs of Syria for decades. The fighters are ethnically Kurds, which is a minority in Syria.  The area they occupy is not predominantly Kurdish, as the majority of the population is Syrian Arabs and Syrian Christians. In an effort to establish a homeland on land which does not belong to them, they put their trust in America, who promised that if they fought ISIS in Reqaa, then the U.S. would support their establishing a Kurdistan in Syria, and breaking up Syria, which was a strategic goal for the U.S.: divide and conquer.

The Syrian civilians are living under an international economic siege, which is causing the suffering of unarmed civilians who are trying to survive, with hopes of recovery.  The war is over, but economic recovery cannot begin due to the sanctions imposed by the richest western nations on the survivors of eight years of conflict which has killed up to 500,000 and has displaced millions.  “I thought if we resisted the terrorists, we would be rewarded with improved conditions, but it looks like defeating the terrorists has caused America and Europe to punish us,” said an Aleppo shopkeeper.

Syria was attacked in March 2011 by an international plan headed up by the U.S. and NATO, and most of the western world signed on to the project to remove a constitutionally elected president from office and institute a Muslim Brotherhood government in Damascus, replacing the secular one.

The U.S. and EU have placed sanctions on Syria for many years, and are increasing the pressure on the civilian population who has suffered eight years of foreign-funded attacks.  Many civilians left the country as migrants to other places, in search of an income and a future free of living under sanctions.  Chemotherapy drugs used to be free at all Syrian national hospitals; but, because of the U.S. and EU sanctions, the Syrian government, and private businessmen are prohibited from importing medicines and products made abroad.  The Syrian drug lab producing chemotherapy drugs for domestic use was destroyed by U. S. cruise missiles in April 2018.

“Since the Syria crisis broke out, the country has been short of all kinds of medicines due to the sanctions from Western countries. Foreign companies stopped exporting high-quality medicines to Syria, especially anti-cancer medicines. So we have been conducting researches on anti-cancer medicines here, and three cancer drugs have been developed,” said the head of the research center destroyed by the U.S. in Damascus.

Electricity in Syria is generated by burning petroleum fuel.  One of the power plants is near Mhardeh, a Christian town of 35,000 which is North of Hama, and South of Idlib.  The terrorists who control Idlib are Radical Islamic terrorists affiliated with Al Qaeda.  They have attacked Mhardeh and the power plants repeatedly over eight years.  Earlier, about fifty terrorists dressed up with Syrian Arab Army uniforms and attempted to enter into Mhardeh for the purpose of a massacre; however, at the last moment their plan was discovered and they were stopped and captured alive.  The terrorists have used missiles to attack the power generating plant there many times.  Typically, the area of Idlib, Hama, Homs, and Latakia would plunge into darkness, and later the attack would be confirmed in the news.  Syria has a severe shortage of electricity, and the new normal is electricity cut-offs for hours on rotating schedules.

Several months ago, there were long lines at gasoline stations, as there was a severe gasoline shortage.  This was caused by sanctions, as the various oil tankers cruising toward Syrian with their cargo to be refined in Banias were blocked at the Suez Canal in Egypt, and also blocked in the Mediterranean Sea by the U.S. warships.  Several months passed in which people were walking, or sleeping in the cars while holding their place in a long line.

*

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 InfoRos.

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

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

Voices from Syria 

ISBN: 978-0-9879389-1-6

Author: Mark Taliano

Year: 2017

Pages: 128 (Expanded edition: 1 new chapter)

List Price: $17.95

Special Price: $9.95 

Click to order

In his 1946 Fulton, Missouri “Iron Curtain” address, Winston Churchill coined the US/UK “special relationship” term.

Until its 1776 declaration and war of independence, Britain colonized the US. Now it’s the other way around.

The same is true for post-WW II, US orchestrated new world order, transforming Western European countries into virtual US colonies — what the CIA-created EU was and remains all about, wanting them controlled by a higher US power.

At Buckingham Palace on Monday, Queen Elizabeth hailed what she called US/UK “common values and shared interests” — failing to explain the destructive way they play out on the world stage. See below.

During his press conference with Theresa May, Trump hailed the US/UK “special relationship,” calling it the “greatest alliance the world has ever known.” Hyperbole, deceit, bravado, and dissembling define his rhetoric. It makes painful listening.

Britain is part of US-dominated NATO, a killing machine transformed from a defensive to an imperial offensive alliance, waging endless wars of aggression, threatening world peace and humanity’s survival.

As long as NATO exists, peace and stability will remain unattainable. Its 29 members, along with their partnered Euro-Atlantic Partnership Council (EAPC), Mediterranean Dialogue, and Istanbul Cooperation Initiative (ICI) states comprise a global warmaking alliance — risking nuclear war by pushing things too far.

What’s unthinkable may be inevitable because of US rage for global dominance, Britain united with the US in pursuing it as a junior partner.

The same goes for other NATO-connected states, Israel, and their rogue partners for global conquest, colonization, control, and exploitation.

That’s what US/UK “common values and shared interests,” as well as their “special relationship” is all about — risking the destruction of planet earth and all its life forms.

Trump’s Tuesday remarks were pockmarked with bald-faced Big Lies, demonization of Iran, and demand for Britain and other NATO members to spend more for militarism at a time the only threats these nations face are invented. No real ones exist.

Trump lied about the (nonexistent) threat of “Iran…develop(ing) nuclear weapons” — ignoring the real threat posed by nuclear armed and dangerous Israel, the region’s only nuclear power along with the Pentagon’s presence.

He lied accusing Iran of “supporting and engaging in terrorism” — A US, UK, NATO, Israeli specialty, what Iran is combatting to its credit.

Theresa May’s remarks matched Trump’s in offensiveness and Big Lies. She lied about Britain’s “commitment to justice” — while her regime is slowing killing Julian Assange for the “crime” of truth-telling journalism the way it should be in deference to Washington, confining him under deplorable conditions in Britain’s Belmarsh prison.

May lied about the March 2018 Sergey and Yulia Skripal incident, falsely blaming Russia for harming them, what the Kremlin had nothing to do with, no evidence suggesting otherwise.

She lied about CW incidents in Syria, US/UK-sponsored, carried out by terrorists they support, what Damascus had nothing to do with, blaming Bashar al-Assad a bald-faced Big Lie.

She lied accusing Iran of engaging in “destabilizing activity in the region,” adding it must be “ensure(d) (that) Tehran cannot acquire a nuclear weapon” it doesn’t want, doesn’t have, and wants eliminated everywhere to prevent mass annihilation by their use.

She lied claiming “the UK continues to stand by the nuclear deal.” Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif slammed EU countries for failing to fulfill their obligations under the JCPOA, breaching an international agreement since Trump pulled out in May 2018.

She lied about China, falsely accusing its ruling authorities of “threaten(ing) our shared interests or values.” Polar opposite is true.

The shared bond between the US and UK is hostile to what just societies seek and cherish, to the rights and welfare of ordinary people everywhere, to a world safe and fit to live in.

Polls show about 80% of Brits disapprove of Trump. Tens of thousands of Brits took to the streets in protest of his presence.

On Wednesday, his three-day visit ends with commemorations marking the 75th June 6 D-Day anniversary.

In a Tuesday address, Labor party leader Jeremy Corbyn slammed Trump for spreading hatred and division, including his uncalled for denigration of London Mayor Sadiq Khan.

“I’m proud our city has a Muslim mayor – that we can chase down Islamophobia, anti-Semitism, any kind of racism in our society,” said Corbyn, adding:

“Because racism divides, exploitation of minorities divides, brings about hatred, dislike, disdain and a horrible place for individuals to live in.”

Responding to Trump’s refusal to meet him without mentioning him by name, Corbyn said

“I want to be able to have that dialogue to bring about the better and more peaceful world that we all want to live in.”

“Toxic Trump Out,” “Trump Not Welcome,” “Liar,” “Not in My Name,” “We Are the Carnival of Resistance,” and other signs showed how ordinary Brits despise him.

There’s nothing redeeming about his deplorable domestic and geopolitical agenda, responsible for harming millions at home and abroad.

There’s no end of it under one-party rule with two extremist right wings — Trump the latest in a long line of presidents serving privileged interests exclusively, at the expense of world peace and the general welfare.

*

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: British Prime Minister Theresa May and US President Donald Trump arrive at 10 Downing street for a joint press conferance . Photo: Getty

Boris Johnson as interim Prime Minister – even for a short period up to the next UK General Election – could prove extremely dangerous for both democratic government and for Britain as a sovereign, independent power.

Johnson is not only in thrall to US President Donald Trump but, by association, also to Netanyahu of Israel. Such a triumvirate would, in turn, generally conform to the agenda of AIPAC, the unelected Israel lobby that operates openly in Washington, and also in Westminster under the name of the CFI.  AIPAC, whilst certainly not the largest, is nevertheless probably the most powerful political lobby in the world.

Why is this detrimental to British democratic government?

The right to lobby legislators within a democratically elected government was initially enshrined in the United States as a constitutional privilege for any citizen with a grievance to bring his case before his elected representative without the necessity to recourse to litigation.  That right has now been usurped by political and commercial agencies with unlimited funds, often acting for foreign powers, exerting extreme pressure upon elected representatives, using huge sums of money in order to press their case.  This is widespread in the US but increasingly now also in Britain.

In other words, the original right to lobby has been hijacked by highly paid, political lobbyists acting for vested interests to persuade susceptible members of Congress, or Parliament, to act or vote to the benefit not of the electorate but for the agenda of a lobby.  Such lobbies are usually either commercial, as in the NRA, Big Pharma, Big Oil and the Defense Industry etc or political and acting for a foreign state, as in AIPAC the American Zionist Association and the CFI, the Conservative Friends of Israel in London.

It must by emphasised that these lobbies both in the UK and the US, whilst being a threat to democratic government in that they arrange for unelected representatives to legally infiltrate elected legislative assemblies in order to apply pressure to enact or change legislation to the favour of their employer who might be also a foreign power i.e. a diplomatic mission or foreign embassy in London – are, nevertheless, legitimate under both British and US law, as currently constituted.

Some years ago, it was proposed in the United States that all lobbyists acting for a foreign state should be registered as ‘foreign agents’, but no legislation was enacted into law because – (yes, you guessed it) – it was voted down by the those very congressmen whose primary allegiance was allegedly to a political lobby rather than to the American public who elected them.

There are at least two contenders for the leader of the Conservative Party whose allegiance to Parliament and the British electorate is beyond doubt: they are Jeremy Hunt and Dominic Raab – both highly rated politicians with strong ministerial experience whose political agenda would be exclusively for the benefit of the British taxpayer.

However, there are also other qualified contenders and there are also other lobbyists in Westminster acting on behalf of foreign interests.

*

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.

Hans Stehling (pen name) is an analyst based in the UK. He is a frequent contributor to Global Research.

Featured image is from Israeli Embassy

Canadians for Justice and Peace in the Middle East (CJPME) is deeply concerned that Motion M-153– which purports to honour the victims of the January 29, 2017 Quebec City mosque massacre – is an attempt to avert a proper tribute to the victims of January 29. M-153, which passed second reading in the House of Commons last Thursday, a private-members motion introduced by Conservative MP Scott Reid, seeks to designate January 29 as a “National Day of Solidarity with Victims of Anti-religious Bigotry and Violence.” CJPME believes this motion fails to address the Islamophobia that inspired the January 29th massacre, instead diluting the significance of the January 29th by grouping together several dissimilar violent incidents from Canadian history.

The full text of Reid’s motion M-153 reads:

“That the House recognize that acts of violence and bigotry directed against religious believers, such as the June 23, 1985, bombing of Air India Flights 182 and 301, the September 15, 2001, firebombing of the Hindu Samaj Temple and the Hamilton Mountain Mosque, the April 5, 2004, firebombing of Montreal’s United Talmud Torah Jewish school, and the January 29, 2017, murder of Muslims at the Quebec City Islamic Cultural Centre, are inimical to a free, peaceful, and plural society and declare January 29 of every year as National Day of Solidarity with Victims of Anti-religious Bigotry and Violence.”

While each of the incidents named above convey suffering and horror, CJPME notes that the Quebec City Mosque Massacre of January 29th is the only attack resulting in fatalities at a place of worship. Moreover, it is by far the most relevant and most recent of the incidents – in fact by 13 years. CJPME points out that November 2018 Statistics Canada findings revealed that of all religious and racial minorities in Canada, Canadian Muslims are facing the highest increase in hate crimes. Parliamentarians should ask themselves why Reid is only now addressing the bigotry that inspired violence over a decade ago, while refusing to address the threat of Islamophobia today.

CJPME President Thomas Woodley responded,

“Rather than honouring the victims of the Quebec City Mosque Massacre, Reid’s motion seems to make every effort to deflect attention from the issue of increasing Islamophobia in Canada.”

CJPME notes Reid’s motivations remain suspect, given the timing of the motion and his refusal to condemn Islamophobia in 2017. CJPME has published an analysis identifying all the significant shortcomings of the motion M-153: “Motion M-153: An attempt to downplay the problems of Islamophobia in Canada.”

CJPME, for its part, launched the “I Remember January 29” campaign in October, 2018 with the Canadian Muslim Forum. This campaign calls on the government to designate January 29th as a “National Day of Remembrance and Action on Islamophobia, and other forms of religious discrimination,” as per Recommendation #30 from the Parliamentary Heritage Committee’s M-103 Report. Unlike Scott Reid’s motion, this call for a Day of Remembrance and Action has community support from hundreds of Canadian organizations, academics, and municipalities as well as over 7,000 Canadian individuals who have signed onto the campaign. CJPME believes that any commemoration of January 29th should focus on the victims of the Quebec City Mosque attack – gunned down in their place of worship – and the odious bigotry which motivated the attack.

*

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 CJPME

Dr. Tom Dooley, whose best-selling book “Deliver Us From Evil” helped create a favorable climate of opinion for U.S. intervention in South Vietnam, has long been linked to legendary CIA officer Edward G. Lansdale and his black operations in Vietnam between 1954 and 1955. But the real story about Dooley’s influential book, which has finally emerged from more recent scholarly research, is that it was engineered by an official of the U.S. Navy’s Pacific Command, Capt. William Lederer.

Lederer is best known as the co-author, with Eugene Burdick, of the 1958 novel “The Ugly American,” which was turned into a 1963 movie starring Marlon Brando. Far more important, however, is the fact that from 1951 through 1957 Capt. Lederer was on the staff of the commander in chief of the U.S. Pacific Fleet (CINCPAC), Adm. Felix Stump.

The Pacific Command was intensely interested in Dooley, because the U.S. Navy had the greatest stake of all the military services in the outcome of the conflict between the communists and U.S.-backed anti-communist regimes in Vietnam and China during the mid-1950s. And the Pacific Command was directly involved in the military planning for war in both cases.

Adm. Arthur Radford, the former CINCPAC and then chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, led the senior officials pressing President Dwight D. Eisenhower to approve a massive U.S. airstrike against the Viet Minh at Dien Bien Phu in April 1954. And between 1954 and 1955, Adm. Stump called for increasing the size of the Nationalist Chinese raids on the Chinese mainland from offshore islands. He also pushed for a U.S. attack on the mainland, including the use of nuclear weapons, if necessary, to defend those same offshore islands.

The key tactic of the Lansdale team was to print a series of “black propaganda” leaflets—designed to appear as though they came from the Viet Minh—to frighten residents of the North into leaving for South Vietnam. The most dramatic such deception involved spreading the rumor that the U.S. military was going to bomb Hanoi, a story that was further promoted by leaflets showing concentric circles of destruction of the city by an atomic bomb.

Lt. Tom Dooley, a young Irish Catholic Navy doctor, was “loaned” by the U.S. Navy to Lansdale for the operation, although Dooley apparently thought the team’s function was to gather intelligence. Dooley’s job was ostensibly to manage medical supplies needed for the movement of North Vietnamese to the South, but in fact Dooley functioned as the team’s propagandist, briefing visiting news media and sending out out reports through Catholic media in the United States that supported the CIA’s anti-Viet Minh mission.

Lederer quickly recognized Dooley as a potentially valuable propaganda asset because of his connection with Vietnamese Catholics and his penchant for telling tales of Viet Minh atrocities. It was Lederer who suggested that Dooley write a book about his experiences with North Vietnamese refugees who wanted to move to the South. The Navy gave him a leave of absence to write it, and Lederer became Dooley’s handler for the project. Dooley was a charismatic public speaker but needed Lederer’s help with writing. Lederer also introduced Dooley to Reader’s Digest—by far the most popular magazine in America, with 20 million readers. Chief of Naval Operations Arleigh Burke officially embraced the book and even wrote the introduction to it.

Reader’s Digest published a highly condensed 27-page version of the book in its April 1956 edition, and Farrar, Straus and Cudahy immediately published the full-length version. It became a runaway bestseller, going through twelve printings.

The constantly reiterated theme of Dooley’s book “Deliver Us From Evil” was that the Ho Chi Minh government was determined to suppress the Catholic faith in Vietnam and used torture and other atrocities to terrorize Catholics into submission. That was a grotesque distortion of actual Viet Minh policy. The Ho Chi Minh government had worked hard from the beginning of the war to ensure that there was no interference with Catholics’ exercise of their faith, even establishing severe legal penalties on any infringement of that freedom.

But Dooley’s book was full of lurid descriptions of North Vietnamese Communist atrocities against Catholics that Dooley claimed to have known about from treating the victims. It told of the Viet Minh having partially torn off the ears of several teenagers with pliers and left them dangling—supposedly as punishment for their having listened to the Lord’s Prayer.

And he described the Viet Minh taking seven youths out of their classroom and forcing wooden chopsticks through their eardrums. The children, he wrote, had been accused of “treason” for having attended a religious class at night. As for the teacher, Dooley claimed the Viet Minh had used pliers to pull out his tongue, as punishment for having taught the religious class.

But it was widely recognized within the U.S. government that these stories  were false. Six U.S. Information Agency officials who had been in North Vietnam during that period, as well as former Navy corpsmen who had worked in the Haiphong camp with Dooley, all said they had never heard of any such events. And in 1992 Lederer himself, who had made 25 fact-finding trips to Vietnam since 1951, told an interviewer, “[T]hose things never happened. … I traveled all over the country and never saw anything like them.”

Many years later, in an interview with scholar Edward Palm, Lederer disclaimed any significant influence on the content or tone of Dooley’s book, even though Dooley had credited Lederer with helping put the book in final form. Lederer also told Palm he didn’t remember any such stories appearing in the first draft of the book he read.

But Palm, who obtained the first draft of the manuscript from Dooley’s papers, confirmed to this writer that the first draft did contain those stories of atrocities. And Palm’s monograph documented the fact that the last draft chapter was dated the end of July 1955 and that communications from both men at the time indicated that Lederer had met repeatedly with Dooley during June and July to help him finish the draft.

Palm also quoted from Dooley’s first draft to show that it concluded with a call for Americans to be ready for a U.S. war against communism. If negotiations with the Soviet Union failed to bring “lasting peace,” Dooley’s draft warned, “Communism will have to be fought with arms … it must be annihilated….”  Dooley concluded, “[T]here can be no concessions, no compromise and no coexistence.”

Palm pointed out that the published version of the book dropped that rabidly warlike rhetoric and instead introduced a new character named “Ensign Potts” to represent the view that America must be ready to fight a war to destroy communism. The role of the “Potts” character was to be converted to Dooley’s argument that service to the ordinary Vietnamese would be the most effective way to prevail in the Cold War—after Dooley’s tearful recounting of the story of the Viet Minh puncturing the Catholic youths’ ears with chopsticks, reduced “Potts” to tears as well.

Lederer and Burdick popularized the idea that personal kindness to the people of Southeast Asia from American could help defeat Communism in “The Ugly American” and that same idea infused Lederer’s own March  1955 Reader’s Digest article on the interactions between U.S. sailors and Vietnamese aboard a U.S. Navy ship. Lederer told Palm in a 1996 interview that he had suggested that Dooley model his book on that article.

Palm wrote that he didn’t believes Lederer’s personal preference was to promote a U.S. war in Vietnam. But Lederer had obviously approved Dooley’s portrayal of the Vietnamese Communists as an alien horde terrorizing the Catholics. Catholics were the fastest-growing religious denomination in America from 1940 to 1960, during which time their numbers doubled, and Dooley’s message was an obvious way of mobilizing American Catholics to support Adm. Stump and the Navy’s agenda for Vietnam.

Marine Lt. Col. William Corson, who was detailed to the CIA during much of his career and knew Dooley during the writing of his book, told fellow former Marine Edward Palm in a 1997 telephone interview, “Dooley was programmed toward  a particular end.” He did not say specifically what that end was, but he appeared to mean building popular support for U.S. intervention in Vietnam.

While on a nationwide book tour, Dooley was one of the featured speakers at the first conference of The American Friends of Vietnam—later known as the “Vietnam Lobby”—in Washington, D.C., on June 1, 1956. The meeting was held at a crucial moment in U.S. Vietnam policy. Eisenhower was still supporting the election for a government throughout Vietnam as called for by the 1954 Geneva Agreement, with strict conditions for a free vote. Meanwhile, hardliners in the administration were pushing for opposing that election outright on the ground that Ho Chi Minh would certainly win it, regardless of conditions.

Dooley’s contribution was to describe “Communism” as an “evil, driving, malicious ogre” and recount the “hideous atrocities that we witnessed in our camps every single day.” And he retold the story of the Viet Minh punishing the schoolchildren by puncturing their eardrums.

A few weeks after the meeting, Eisenhower reversed his previous position of supporting the all-Vietnamese Vietnamese, opening the path to deeper U.S. political and military intervention in Vietnam.

Dooley had just learned that his secret life as a gay man in the Navy had been discovered by Naval intelligence, and he was forced to quietly resign. At Lansdale’s suggestion, Leo Cherne of the International Rescue Committee helped Dooley establish a primitive medical clinic near the Chinese border in northern Laos. But Dooley had to agree to cooperate with CIA in Laos by allowing it to smuggle arms into the site of the clinic to eventually be distributed to local anti-Communist militiamen.

The Dooley Clinic in Laos helped make him a hugely popular celebrity, with two more best-selling books, feature stories in popular magazines and network television appearances. By the time Dooley died of cancer in 1961, a Gallup Poll found that Americans viewed him as the third most admired person in the world, after Eisenhower and the pope. But his role in the larger tragedy of U.S. war in Indochina was to serve as the instrument of a highly successful campaign by the U.S. Navy to create the first false propaganda narrative of the conflict—one that has endured for most of Dooley’s fans for decades.

But Dooley’s popularity and saintly image increased the power of his tales of Viet Minh atrocities against Catholics that represented the first major false U.S. propaganda narrative of the Vietnam conflict—one that helped build public support for the U.S. military intervention in Vietnam that began under President John F Kennedy in 1962.

*

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.

Gareth Porter is an independent investigative journalist, historian and author who has covered U.S. wars and interventions in Iraq, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Iran, Yemen and Syria since 2004 and was the 2012 winner of the Gellhorn Prize for Journalism. His most recent book is “Manufactured Crisis: The Untold Story of the Iran Nuclear Scare” (Just World Books, 2014).

He may not be popular in Britain, but he still has shavings of appeal.  For a country that has time for Nigel Farage, pro-Brexit enthusiast and full-time hypocrite (he is a member of the European Parliament, the very same institution he detests), President Donald Trump will garner a gaggle of fans. 

One of them was not the London Mayor, Sadiq Khan, trenchant in his belief that the US president should never have been granted a state visit. 

“It’s quite clear that Theresa May was premature in making this invitation, and it’s backfired on her.”

But Trump’s tendency to unhinge his critics is not so much levelling as lowering: Khan’s coarse remarks a day before Trump arrived were timed to create a Twitter scene.   

Trump, he wrote spitefully in The Guardian, was leading a push from the right “threatening our hard-won rights and freedoms and the values that have defined our liberal, democratic societies for more than seventy years.”  The UK had to stop “appeasing” (that Munich analogy again) dictatorial tendencies.  (Oblivious, is Khan, to the illustrious record Britain has in providing receptions and banquets for the blood thirsty and authoritarian.)

This semi-literate historical overview had the desired result.  Just prior to landing in London, Trump tweeted that Khan “who by all accounts has done a terrible job as Mayor of London, has been foolishly ‘hasty’ to the visiting President of the United States, by far the most important ally of the United Kingdom.”  For good measure, Trump insisted that the mayor was “a stone cold loser who should focus on crime in London, not me…”

The mood was set, and the presence of the president overseeing Britain’s increasingly feral political scene reminded The New York Times of boardroom takes of The Apprentice (reality television, again) though it came uncomfortably close to an evaluation of the “rear of the year” or a wet t-shirt competition of the fugglies.  This was aided by the absence of a one-to-one meeting between Trump and the soon to depart Theresa May, there being no preliminary meeting in Downing Street. 

Trump felt at home, sizing up candidates to succeed May as British prime minister.  While he could muster choice words to describe Boris Johnson and Jeremy Hunt, Michael Gove barely registered. “Would do a good job, Jeremy?  Tell me.”

A few candidates did their best to impress, a spectacle that did, at points, verge on the grotesque.

The Conservative Party is deliriously panicked: Farage’s Brexit Party is proving so threatening its pushing the old guard to acts of pure desperation.  This is riveting, if troubling stuff for political watchers such as Tim Bale of Queen Mary, University of London. 

“A lot of the constraints have come off British politics.  Whether they’ve come off permanently, or whether it’s because the Conservative Party is at panic stations, is something only time can tell.”

Foreign secretary Hunt was particularly keen to show his wet shirt to the ogling Trump.  He no doubt felt he had to, given that Johnson had already been praised as a person who “would do a very good job” as British prime minister. To repay Trump for his acknowledgment, Hunt dismissed the views of the London mayor. 

“I agree with [Trump] that it is totally inappropriate for the Labour party to be boycotting this incredibly important visit.  This is the president of the United States.” 

The situation with Johnson cannot but give some amusement.  Trump, rather memorably, had been a subscriber to the theory that parts of London had become a dystopian nightmare replete with psychotic, murderous residents of the swarthy persuasion.  Johnson, for all his faults, was happy to give Trump a nice slice of demurral on his city when mayor.  He also opined that Trump was “clearly out of his mind” in making the now infamous suggestion on December 7, 2015 for a “total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States.”   But politics is an odd stew, throwing together a strange mix of ingredients.  For his part, Johnson declined an invitation to see Trump in person, preferring the comforting distance of a 20-minute phone call.   

Away from rear of the year proceedings were those who had consciously boycotted any event associated with Trump.  Prince William and Prince Harry preferred to avoid a photo opportunity with the president at Buckingham Palace.  Jeremy Corbyn of the Labour Party preferred to join protests against Trump over attending the state banquet.  The act will no doubt be seen as admirable in some quarters, but hardly qualifies as those of a potential future prime minister.

“Corbyn,” noted The Independent, “has again dodged the stately bullet and had instead taken the easy way out.” 

To the echo chamber he went.

Beyond the visit, more substantive matters are going to be troubling for diplomats in the UK Foreign Office.  One of the things touted during the Tuesday press conference was the prospect of a trade agreement between a Britain unshackled from the EU, and the United States.  Trump even went so far as to press May to stay longer for the negotiations.  Not one for briefings, he ventured a suggestion: “I don’t know exactly what your timing is but, stick around, let’s do this deal.” 

The issue is fascinatingly premature: Britain, having not yet left the EU, let alone on any clear basis, faces an orbit of sheer, jangling confusion for some time to come.  In terms of numbers, the issue is also stark: the UK has the EU to thank for half of its trade; the United States comes in at 14.7 percent.   

The troubling feature of any free trade proposal coming out of the Trump administration will be its rapacity, or, as Trump likes to call it, “phenomenal” scope.  Nothing will be exempt.  Agriculture and health are two fields of contention.  Access for US exports will entail easing limitations on animal feed with antibiotics and genetically modified crops.  More headaches, and bumps, await the relationship between troubled Britannia and groping Uncle Sam.   

*

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]

Washington-led Empire is a global gangster state[1]. It corrupts all organizations that stand in its way, including supposedly “non-governmental” agencies[2].

These agencies are government and/or foundation-funded. They are not neutral.  They serve and advance Empire’s crimes. They fabricate consent by propagating fake narratives, including the attribution of fake atrocity stories to target nations and their leadership. Amnesty International is one such agency. Amnesty’s statistics regarding Coalition bombing campaigns and civilian deaths provide a window into the corruption.

When the U.S.-led Coalition claimed that coalition air strikes in Syria and Iraq killed 1,302 civilians between August 2014 and the end of April 2019[3], we (including Amnesty) had every reason to be incredulous.

Ali al-Bayati, a member of Iraq’s Office of the High Commission for Human Rights claims, for example, that the coalition killed 11,800 civilians, including 2,300 children, and 1,130 women, in addition to 8,000 wounded by shelling [4] during the same period.

These figures are reinforced by the fact that the coalition carried out about 20,000 airstrikes between August 8, 2014 and July 31, 2015, and that they targeted 3,262 “ISIS buildings” which, according to Prof. Chossudovsky, were in fact Iraqi and Syrian civilian infrastructure.[5]

But Amnesty International/Air Wars’ “counter argument” that 1,600[6] civilians were killed in the 2017 Raqqa offensive  alone — that reportedly destroyed 80% of the city, and therefore constituted carpet bombing — is also dubious, first, because these statistics are not consistent with a four month long carpet bombing campaign, and second, because Amnesty International has lost its legitimacy as a reliable source of independent research.

#Raqqa has largely been reduced to rubble by US airstrike campaign. Scores of civilians, many of whom are children, have been injured. #Amaq pic.twitter.com/jl1UFnmIac

— Chris Tomson (@TheDaneChris) February 21, 2017

See note 7

Amnesty International failed when it fabricated fake narratives about Syria’s Saydnaya prison[8].

Amnesty failed when it falsely accused Syria’s highest Sunni religious leader, Grand Mufti Ahmad Badreddin Hassoun of authorizing the execution of ordinary citizens.

Amnesty failed when it falsely accused the Syrian government of carrying out a policy of extermination against its own people.

Amnesty failed when it gave the false impression that peaceful Syrian protestors were being imprisoned and executed.

Amnesty failed when it cited the Caesar photographs[9] hoax as “evidence”.

Amnesty fails when it makes accusations against Syria and ignores the Supreme International War Crimes committed by the West and its terrorist proxies[10].

Finally, Amnesty failed when it created false narratives to fabricate consent for Empire’s war crimes against Afghanistan[11], Iraq[12], Libya[13], and beyond.

Amnesty’s vision of “a world in which every person enjoys all of the human rights enshrined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and other international human rights instruments[14]” is clearly a hoax.

Shame!

*

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

Mark Taliano is a Research Associate of the Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG) and the author of Voices from Syria, Global Research Publishers, 2017.

Notes

[1] Prof. Michel Chossudovsky, “Terrorism with a “Human Face”: The History of America’s Death Squads

Death Squads in Iraq and Syria. The Historical Roots of US-NATO’s Covert War on Syria.” Global Research. 4 January, 2013. 14 July, 2016. (https://www.globalresearch.ca/terrorism-with-a-human-face-the-history-of-americas-death-squads/5317564) Accessed 4 June, 2019.

[2] Mark Taliano, “List of Bogus NGOs Which Are CIA/Neocon Fronts Paid to Lie to a Gullible Media.” American Herald Tribune. 1 February, 2019. (https://russia-insider.com/en/mainstream-media-corrupt-core/ri12420) Accessed 4 June, 2019.

[3] Amnesty International and Donatella Rovera, “US-led Coalition Admission of 1,300 Civilian Deaths in Iraq and Syria.” Amnesty International, 31 May, 2019. Global Research, 1 June, 2019. (https://www.globalresearch.ca/us-led-coalition-admission-1300-civilian-deaths-iraq-syria/5679226) Accessed 4 June, 2019.

[4] Alkhaleejonline.net, 20 ألفمدنيضحاياقصفالتحالفالدوليفيالعراقوسوريا,  1

16 February, 2019.

(https://alkhaleejonline.net/%D8%B3%D9%8A%D8%A7%D8%B3%D8%A9/20-%D8%A3%D9%84%D9%81-%D9%85%D8%AF%D9%86%D9%8A-%D8%B6%D8%AD%D8%A7%D9%8A%D8%A7-%D9%82%D8%B5%D9%81-%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%AA%D8%AD%D8%A7%D9%84%D9%81-%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%AF%D9%88%D9%84%D9%8A-%D9%81%D9%8A-%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%B9%D8%B1%D8%A7%D9%82-%D9%88%D8%B3%D9%88%D8%B1%D9%8A%D8%A7?fbclid=IwAR0S8zR1r6ed2i9c_uW7rtxm7yifeEcGP_m9MmpKy3lxhnwEQuapPEg8-UU) Accessed 4 June, 2019.

[5] Prof. Michel Chossudovsky, “Obama’s ‘Fake War’ against the Islamic State (ISIS). The Islamic State is Protected by the US and its Allies.” Global Research, 23 August, 2015, 23 February, 2015. (https://www.globalresearch.ca/obamas-fake-war-against-the-islamic-state-isis-the-islamic-state-is-protected-by-the-us-and-its-allies/5432163) Accessed 5 June, 2019.

[6] Air Wars, “U.S. coalition forces in Iraq and Syria.” June, 2019. (https://airwars.org/conflict-ar/coalition-in-iraq-and-syria-arabic/?fbclid=IwAR2fuDhJMG7PrTCNcrvN5gooGuwMSbO_NejAN1ECMcjlMoL6_H7a0_uO2mU) Accessed 4 June, 2019.

[7] Chris Tomson and Prof. Michel Chossudovsky, “Graphic Video: Raqqa City Reduced to Rubble by US Airstrikes, Scores of Residents Killed.” Global Research 24 February 2017, Al Masdar News, 21 February, 2017. (https://www.globalresearch.ca/graphic-video-raqqa-city-reduced-to-rubble-by-us-airstrikes-scores-of-residents-killed/5576434) Accessed 5 June, 2019.

[8] Rick Sterling, “Amnesty International’s ‘Kangaroo Report’ on Human Rights in Syria.” Global Research, 17 May, 2019. (https://www.globalresearch.ca/amnesty-internationals-kangaroo-report-on-human-rights-in-syria/5574195) Accessed 17 May, 2019.

[9] Rick Sterling, “The Caesar Photo Fraud That Undermined Syrian Negotiations. ‘A Pattern of Sensational But Untrue Reports That Lead to Public Acceptance of Western Military Intervention’ “ Dissident Voice, 3 March, 2018. Global Research, 7 March, 2018. (https://www.globalresearch.ca/the-caesar-photo-fraud-that-undermined-syrian-negotiations-a-pattern-of-sensational-but-untrue-reports-that-lead-to-public-acceptance-of-western-military-intervention/5512573) Accessed 4 June, 2019.

[10] Mark Taliano, “Syria’s Children: ‘Condemned to Live’, Shackled by the Scars of US-NATO Terrorism.” Global Research, marktaliano.net. 22 April, 2018. (https://www.marktaliano.net/syrias-children-condemned-to-live-shackled-by-the-scars-of-us-nato-terrorism/) Accessed 4 June, 2019.

[11] Prof. Tim Anderson, “Afghanistan: Amnesty International lauds war and occupation as ‘progress’ for women.” Links, international journal of socialist renewal. 20 May, 2012. (http://links.org.au/node/2876) Accessed 4 June, 2019.

[12] Felicity Arbuthnot,“Amnesty International: Western instrument of war propaganda.” Voltaire Network. 8 August, 2012. (https://www.voltairenet.org/article175324.html) Accessed 4 June, 2012.

[13] www.thehumanitarianwar.com/Global Research TV, “LIBYA Amnesty International confessing.” 18 January, 2012. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6RnxJ6TvFZ0&feature=youtu.be) Accessed 4 June, 2019.

[14] AMNESTY INTERNATIONAL’S STATUTE, (https://www.amnesty.org/en/about-us/how-were-run/amnesty-internationals-statute/) Accessed 4 June, 2019.

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

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

Voices from Syria 

ISBN: 978-0-9879389-1-6

Author: Mark Taliano

Year: 2017

Pages: 128 (Expanded edition: 1 new chapter)

List Price: $17.95

Special Price: $9.95 

Click to order

“Narcotic: drug that produces analgesia (pain relief), narcosis (state of stupor or sleep), and addiction (physical dependence on the drug). In some people narcotics also produce euphoria (a feeling of great elation).”

Introduction

Romanticism is a philosophical movement of the nineteenth century which had a profound influence on music which can still be seen right up to today. Its main characteristics in music are the emphasis on the personal, dramatic contrasts, emotional excess, a focus on the nocturnal, the ghostly and the frightful, spontaneity, and extreme subjectivism. Romanticism in culture implied a turning inward and encouraged introspection. As Hegel wrote:

“The entire content [of romantic art] is therefore concentrated on the inner life of the spirit”.

Romanticist-influenced music increased its audience dramatically from the early theatres of the nineteenth century to the mass pop concerts of the modern era. Romanticism changed music from being a progressive force in society to being a narcotic and self indulgent individualist experience. In modern times it has been industrialised and commercialised and sells individualism and political impotence to the very people who turn to it for solace from desperation in a highly alienated society.

The most regrettable aspect of this alienation is that music has become more and more distant from people’s movements for progressive change. In the past, progressive music, i.e. music which was in tune with the history of people’s political struggles, tended to come from the people themselves, in the form of ballads or music from progressive composers and lyricists. With the commercialising of the pop music industry in the twentieth century, music moved from something to be consumed on a mass basis rather than produced by people on a local basis – by writing, playing or singing, as it was in the past with balladeers, choirs and progressive composers.

Here we will look at the influence of Romanticism on music from the Classical period in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries through to the development of the pop music industry in the twentieth century. Also examined will be composers and singers who resisted the pressure of the Romantic influence and wrote and played music that was rooted in hardship and struggle and an awareness of international issues and crises as they affected the ordinary people of those countries.

Classical Music – ‘structures should be well-founded’

While classical music in general has a broad meaning the Classical period was an era of classical music between roughly 1730 and 1820. Enlightenment respect for the politics, aesthetics and philosophy of classical antiquity (Classicism) combined with the development of ‘natural philosophy’ – the precursor of the natural sciences – had a profound effect on music: “Newton’s physics was taken as a paradigm: structures should be well-founded in axioms and be both well-articulated and orderly.” The effect of Enlightenment ideas on Classical  music was to mark a change to a lighter, clearer texture compared with the Baroque music that came before it.

Thus the findings in science broadly affected or influenced culture in general. At the same time technical developments in musical instruments and the increase in size and standardisation of orchestras changed the way music was played. The major composers of this time were Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart, Ludwig van Beethoven, Joseph Haydn, Christoph Willibald Gluck, Johann Christian Bach, Luigi Boccherini, Carl Philipp Emanuel Bach, Muzio Clementi, Antonio Salieri, and Johann Nepomuk Hummel.

Joseph Haydn Playing Quartets

Romantic Music – ‘more explicitly expressive and programmatic’

Romanticism originated at the end to the 18th century mainly as a reaction to the Age of Enlightenment and the Industrial Revolution which were perceived to be using science to destroy nature and man’s traditional way of life. The Romantic emphasis on feeling was in direct contrast with Enlightenment ideas of progress with reason and science being the primary source of knowledge. The philosophers and scientists of the Enlightenment had desired to move away from the Feudalism and Scholasticism of the religiously dominated Middle Ages. Unfortunately, the Romantic artists, composers and poets took a new interest in aspects of medievalism that the Enlightenment philosophers had tried to defeat. Enlightenment ideas were also taken up by the new elites who used science in the exploititive ways so hated by the Romantics.

Unlike Deep Purple’s legendary ‘Smoke on the Water’ – “We all came out to Montreux, on the Lake Geneva shoreline”, the 67th Bilderberg group meetings produced no fire and no smoke at the luxurious Fairmont Le Montreux Palace Hotel.

The 130 elite guests had a jolly good – and theoretically quiet – time at the self-billed “informal discussion forum concerning major issues”. As usual, at least two-thirds were European decision-makers, with the rest coming from North America.

The fact that a few major players in this Atlanticist Valhalla are closely associated with or directly interfering with the Bank for International Settlements (BIS) in Basel – the central bank of central banks – is of course just a minor detail.

The major issue discussed this year was “A Stable Strategic Order”, a lofty endeavor that can be interpreted either as the making of a New World Order or just a benign effort by selfless elites to guide mankind to enlightenment.

Other items of discussion were way more pragmatic – from “The Future of Capitalism”, to “Russia”, “China”, “Weaponizing Social Media”, “Brexit”, “What’s Next for Europe”, “Ethics of Artificial Intelligence” and last but not least, “Climate Change”.

Disciples of Antisthenes would argue that these items constitute precisely the nuts and bolts of the New World Order.

The chairman of Bilderberg’s steering committee, since 2012, is Henri de Castries, former CEO of AXA and the director of the Institut Montaigne, a top French think tank.

One of the key guests this year was Clement Beaune, the European and G20 counselor to French President Emmanuel Macron.

Bilderberg prides itself for enforcing the Chatham House Rule, according to which participants are free to use all the precious information they wish because those who attend these meetings are bound to not disclose the source of any sensitive information or what exactly was said.

That helps ensure Bilderberg’s legendary secrecy – the reason for myriad conspiracy theories. But that does not mean that the odd secret may not be revealed.

The Castries/Beaune axis provides us with the first open secret of 2019. It was Castries at the Institut Montaigne who “invented” Macron – that perfect lab experiment of a mergers and acquisitions banker serving the establishment by posing as a progressive.

A Bilderberg source discreetly let it be known that the result of the recent European parliamentary elections was interpreted as a victory. After all, the final choice was between a neoliberal/Green alliance and Right populism; nothing to do with progressive values.

The Greens who won in Europe – contrary to the US Greens – are all humanitarian imperialists, to quote the splendid neologism coined by Belgian physicist Jean Bricmont. And they all pray on the politically correct altar. What matters, from Bilderberg’s perspective, is that the European Parliament will continue to be run by a pseudo-Left that keeps defending the destruction of the nation-state.

Just like Castries and his pupil Macron.

The derivatives clock is ticking

The great Bilderberg secret of 2019 had to do with why, suddenly, the Trump administration has decided that it wants to talk to Iran “with no preconditions”.

It all has to do with the Strait of Hormuz. Blocking the Strait could cut off oil and gas from Iraq, Kuwait, Bahrain, Qatar and Iran – 20% of the world’s oil. There has been some debate on whether this could occur – whether the US Fifth Fleet, which is stationed nearby, could stop Tehran doing this and if Iran, which has anti-ship missiles on its territory along the northern border of the Persian Gulf, would go that far.

An American source said a series of studies hit President Trump’s desk and caused panic in Washington. These showed that in the case of the Strait of Hormuz being shut down, whatever the reason, Iran has the power to hammer the world financial system, by causing global trade in derivatives to be blown apart.

The Bank for International Settlements said last year that the “notional amount outstanding for derivatives contracts” was $542 trillion, although the gross market value was put at just $12.7 trillion. Others suggest it is $1.2 quadrillion or more.

Tehran has not voiced this “nuclear option” openly. And yet General Qasem Soleimani, head of the Iranian Revolutionary Guards Corps’ Quds Force and a Pentagon bête noire, evoked it in internal Iranian discussions. The information was duly circulated to France, Britain and Germany, the EU-3 members of the Iran nuclear deal (or Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action), also causing a panic.

Oil derivative specialists know well that if the flow of energy in the Gulf is blocked it could lead to the price of oil reaching $200 a barrel, or much higher over an extended period. Crashing the derivatives market would create an unprecedented global depression. Trump’s former Goldman Sachs Treasury Secretary Steve Mnuchin should know as much.

And Trump himself seems to have given the game away. He’s now on the record essentially saying that Iran has no strategic value to the US. According to the American source: “He really wants a face-saving way to get out of the problem his advisers Bolton and Pompeo got him into. Washington now needs a face-saving way out. Iran is not asking for meetings. The US is.”

And that brings us to Secretary of State Mike Pompeo’s long, non-scheduled stop in Switzerland, on the Bilderberg’s fringes, just because he’s a “big cheese and chocolate fan”, in his own words.

Yet any well-informed cuckoo clock would register he badly needed to assuage the fears of the trans-Atlantic elites, apart from his behind-closed-doors meetings with the Swiss, who are representing Iran in communications with Washington. After weeks of ominous threats to Iran, the US said “no preconditions” would be set on talks with Tehran, and this was issued from Swiss soil.

China draws its lines in the sand

Bilderberg could not escape discussing China. Geo-poetic justice rules that virtually at the same time, China was delivering a powerful message – to East and West – at the Shangri-La Dialogue in Singapore.

The Shangri-La dialogue is Asia’s top annual security forum, and unlike Bilderberg, held like clockwork at the same hotel in Singapore’s Orchard Road. As much as Bilderberg, Shangri-La discusses “relevant security issues”.

A case can be made that Bilderberg frames the discussions as in the recent cover story of a French weekly, owned by a Macron-friendly oligarch, titled “When Europe Ruled the World”. Shangri-La instead discusses the near future – when China may be actually ruling the world.

Beijing sent a top-of-the-line delegation to this year’s forum, led by Defense Minister General Wei Fenghe. And on Sunday, General Wei laid down China’s unmistakable red lines; a stern warning to “external forces” dreaming of independence for Taiwan, and the “legitimate right” for Beijing to expand man-made islands in the South China Sea.

By then everyone had forgotten what Acting US Secretary of Defense Patrick Shanahan had said the day before, accusing Huawei to be too close to Beijing and posing a security risk to the “international community”.

General Wei also found time to rip Shanahan to shreds.

“Huawei is a private company, not a military company… Just because the head of Huawei used to serve in the army, does not mean his company is a part of the military. That doesn’t make sense.”

Shangri-La is at least transparent. As for Bilderberg, there won’t be any leaks on what the Masters of the Universe told Western elites about the profitability of pursuing the war on terror; the drive toward total digitalization of cash; total rule of genetically modified organisms; and how climate change will be weaponized.

At least the Pentagon has made no secret, even before Shangri-La, that Russia and China must be contained at all costs – and the European vassals must toe the line.

Henry Kissinger was a 2019 Bilderberg participant. Rumors that he spent all his time breathlessly plugging his “reverse Nixon” – seduce Russia to contain China – may be vastly overstated.

*

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 Kurdish separatist militia SDF and its affiliates from PYD and Asayish are burning wheat fields in the territories under their occupation northeast of Syria.

Some of the most fertile lands as well as territories rich with oil are under the occupation of the US-sponsored separatist SDF militia. The US and its illegal International Coalition of evil states are preventing the Syrian state from restoring the country from terrorists and separatists.

A video widely spread on social media shows a vehicle of the Kurdish Asayish thugs, the security arm of the PYD and SDF Kurdish militia, driving through a wheat field in the city of Qamishli northeast of the country with strong flames of fire coming from it to burn out the entire field.

Two pick-up trucks seen in the video, one of the vehicles has reportedly caught fire itself, as per some of the local activists.

Farmers who refuse to hand over their wheat to the criminals get detained, tortured, and their fields get torched by these thugs.

Kurdish separatist militias are trying to carve out a large part of Syria to establish their Israel-style entity, similar to what their brethren did under the US occupation of Iraq. The land they’re claiming belongs to the people whose grandfathers hosted the Kurd refugees who were fleeing the oppression of the Ottomans, and this is how their grandchildren are paying back.

Many US-linked news sites have been falsely claiming that the Syrian state is behind these heinous acts until the evidence indicting their own-grown terrorists is overwhelming and spreading thanks to brave activists from the region.

Syria, prior to the current  War Of Terror waged by the US and its allies including armies of terror, used to be not only self-sufficient in agriculture produce, especially wheat, but also was exporting the surplus.

Burning the wheat fields is very much a US state policy with Turkey and Israel working as the US’s lackey in our region, where they destroy local fields then provide their poisonous US-produced GMO grown wheat and maize [seeds] . Syria has banned growing and importing all sorts of GMO products in 2012 making sure the country’s population does not get harmed by these products.

Locals have been protesting the ill-treatment and heinous acts against them by the SDF militia and its affiliates east of the Euphrates in Der Ezzor, Raqqa, and Hassakah provinces. Kurdish Asayish has also ambushed and slaughtered 13 Syrian security personnel in Qamishli last September to prevent the Syrian state from protecting its citizens and farmers under the SDF/US occupation.

The separatist Kurds have worked very efficiently as Trojan horses luring in Turkey into Syria in the northwest of the country and still working on luring it in the northeast of the country, also have been working relentlessly to serve the USA and Israel as much as they could in return for recognizing them as a self-governing entity on stolen Syrian land, especially after the heavy western propaganda campaign showing them as liberating the areas from ISIS when on the ground it was merely a flag-changing act for the media under the US supervision.

While the US is continuing its destructive War Of Terror against Syria, including Economic Terrorism against our country, US sponsored forces on the ground are starving our people in all the areas they have penetrated: Rukban Concentration Camp in Tanf, Al-Hol concentration camp in Hasakah, and all the land east of the Euphrates.

*

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 Syria News

Dear Readers,

This is a personal message. Please read carefully.

When Global Research was born in September 2001, we were convinced that “Freedom of Expression” and “The Battle of Ideas” would contribute to reversing the tide of war, while also restoring the foundations of social democracy.

Our hope and belief was that “the Big Lie” would one day be crushed by the undeniable weight of the Truth.

We still hold on to this hope.

Independent media is under attack, the search engines want to squeeze us out. A witch-hunt is being waged against independent journalists, renowned academics and scientists. Despite the wide variety of topics covered on our site by all manner of experts and academics from the world over, there is a relentless campaign against us.

Our financial situation is currently precarious. Without some major support from our readers, our future remains uncertain and the mainstream media lies rise to the top, eventually relegating any voice of dissent to the shadows.

The alternative is a world without independent voices, brought to you by corporate sponsors and hidden agendas. We are not coopted. We are not a government mouthpiece. Global Research is committed to “Freedom of Expression”, a fundamental right which is being snuffed out all over the globe.

With your help, we can continue to fight for truth to prevail, as we have always done.

When The Lie Becomes the Truth, there is no moving backwards.

Thank you for your support,

Michel Chossudovsky, Global Research, June 5, 2019

The decision not to invite President Putin to attend the 75th D-Day commemoration event was a civilizational provocation aimed at dividing the European Allies during World War II and reinforcing the historically revised notion that the Soviet Union was an “accidental ally” during the conflict.

Over a dozen world leaders assembled on Wednesday in the British city of Portsmouth to commemorate the 75th anniversary of the Allied D-Day invasion of Nazi-occupied Western Europe, which was an event of historical importance for all the continent’s people and therefore part of their shared memory. That’s why even the leaders of Poland and Slovakia, whose countries were liberated by the Red Army and not by the forces that took part in D-Day, were invited to attend, though the decision to not invite President Putin was a civilizational provocation of epic proportions. There’s been an ongoing trend for quite a while of historically revising the events of World War II in order to minimize the Soviet Union’s enormous contribution to defeating fascism, which when taken to its natural conclusion aims to portray the USSR as an “accidental ally” during the conflict and even a one-time “aggressor state” that supposedly only joined the Allies after Hitler betrayed Stalin during Operation Barbarossa.

In reality, however, the Soviet Union was imploring its European counterparts to take the rising Nazi threat seriously all throughout the 1930s but was repeatedly rebuffed out of the paranoid fear that the USSR’s warnings were just a “conspiracy theory” designed to get them to collectively destroy the only nation capable standing in the way of the “communist domination of Europe”. The subsequent Old Cold War that settled over the continent almost immediately after the Nazis were defeated was manipulated by the Western governments in such a way as to blame the Soviet Union and retroactively “vindicate” their decision not to team up with it against Hitler a decade prior before tens of millions of people were slaughtered by the fascist war machine. Instead of disappearing after the end of the Old Cold War, this narrative continued into the present and was actually “reinforced” by the new notion that Stalin was supposedly just as bad as Hitler.

Proponents of this interpretation always point to the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact in alleging that the USSR was a one-time “aggressor state” that only “accidentally” joined the Allies after Hitler’s betrayal. This simplistic point, however, completely ignores the fact that none other than Stalin himself tried to assemble a continental coalition against the fascist threat all throughout the 1930s and only cut a pragmatic deal with the Nazis in order to buy time for the inevitable clash that he expected to have with them sometime in the coming future, albeit one that his country was prepared to fight alone when the moment arrived after seeing how unwilling Europe hitherto was in allying with him against Hitler. Seeing as how the Soviet Union was the first one to warn about the fascist threat and suffered the most during the war, it’s nothing less than a provocation not to invite the leader of its political successor to the 75th D-Day commemorative event that’s become part of Europe’s collective memory.

The grand strategic intent behind this malicious slight wasn’t just to pettily insult President Putin and his people personally, but to divide the European Allied camp during World War II into two opposing sides that supposedly continue to confront one another to this day. The inclusion of the Polish and Slovak leaders wasn’t incidental either, as their countries were liberated by the Red Army, formed part of the Eastern Bloc for decades, but are nowadays proud NATO members. With this observation in mind, it convincingly appears as though the 75th D-Day commemorative event was meant to celebrate NATO’s formation more so than the liberation of Europe from Nazi control, which was itself mostly achieved through the sacrifices of the Soviet Union and its allied partisan fighters. In civilizational terms, the implicit message is that neither the Soviet Union nor the modern-day Russian Federation are part of European civilization but are instead something else entirely.

While Russians themselves debate whether their country is European, Asian, or Eurasian, the historic fact is that Russia has consistently played a decisive role in European history over the centuries, especially when it came to defeating the Swedes, Poles, Napoleon, and Hitler, so pretending that it isn’t a part of European civilization is very dishonest but cynically “justifies” the post-2014 military build-up of NATO’s forces (conceived in this historically revisionist paradigm as the successor of the “true” European Allied coalition) along Russia’s borders. This is extremely dangerous because it sets the stage for framing the New Cold War as a “Clash of Civilizations” between the West and Russia, thus implying that it’ll continue for the indefinite future and be seen as an existential struggle by the US and its allies, one that might radicalize its populations with Russophobia and therefore make the possibility of an eventual rapprochement all the more difficult to achieve.

*

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.

“What’s gone on this morning sends clear and dangerous signals to journalists and newsrooms across Australia.  This will chill public interest reporting.” — News Corp Australia spokesperson, The West Australian, June 4, 2019

These are dark times for journalists and publishers.  It did not seem coincidental that Annika Smethurst, a News Corp journalist and political affairs editor, would be a target of an Australian Federal Police warrant.  Chelsea Manning, courtesy of a ruling by Judge Anthony Trenga, remains in federal custody in the United States.  Julian Assange is facing decline in the maximum security abode that is Belmarsh prison in the United Kingdom.    

The story supposedly linked to the AFP warrant had been published by Smethurst on April 29, 2018. More than a year had elapsed, with little in the way of public murmurings.  Australians have, for the most part, fallen under the anaesthetist’s spell regarding intrusive, unnecessary and dangerous national security laws.  Another set of them would hardly matter. 

But since the story, titled “Let Us Spy on Aussies” broke last year, the security wallahs have been attempting to root out the source, mobilising the AFP in the process.  The account detailed information on discussions between the Home Affairs and Defence departments on the possibility of granting the Australian Signals Directorate powers to monitor the emails, bank records and text messages of Australian citizens.  Letters between Secretary of Home Affairs Mike Pezzullo and Defence Secretary Greg Moriarty featured.

When the archaic official secrets provisions of the Crimes Act 1914 (Cth) were repealed in June 29 2018, leaving way for new regulations dealing with national security information, those dealing with publishing such material felt slight relief.  A public interest defence, lodged in the National Security Legislation Amendment (Espionage and Foreign) Interference Act 2018, had been introduced, protecting those “engaged in the business of reporting news, presenting current affairs or expressing editorial or other content in news media”.  

The content in question might cover what the Act designates to be “inherently harmful information”: security classified information; information obtained by, or made by or on behalf of, a domestic intelligence agency or a foreign intelligence agency in connection with the agency’s functions; or information on “the operations, capabilities or technologies of, or methods or sources used by, a domestic or foreign law enforcement agency.” 

It always pays, when reading such sections, to consider the exceptions.  Conduct deemed a contravention of provisions regarding intelligence sources (the publication of names or identity of staff, for instance), does not satisfy the test, nor conduct deemed to assist, directly or indirectly, “a foreign intelligence agency or a foreign military organisation.”  Logical, you might say. 

The ineffectual nature of those provisions is borne out by how narrow the protection is. The Law Council’s efforts to convince the federal government to extend the public interest defence to suppliers of the information was rejected, leaving the way open for such cases as Smethurst’s: spare the journalist but attack the source.  According to Law Council president Arthur Moses, the protection is shabby, a mere “mirage because it does not cover a journalist’s source.”

The other unspoken and unscripted assumption is how anaemic public interest defences work in Australian law.  Its operation starts from a reverse premise from US analogues, privileging the necessity of ignorance against the dangers of revelation.  The government keeps you ignorant for your own good; material published might be inimical to the public interest, but that “interest” is always that of the state, not the general citizenry.

So we come to the morning of June 4, with Smethurst readying to leave for work, only to witness Australian Federal Police bearing down heavily with a warrant.  A statement from the AFP subsequently confirmed that it had “executed a search warrant at a residence in the ACT suburb of Kingston today (4 June 2019)” on a matter relating “to an investigation into the alleged unauthorised disclosure of national security information that was referred to the AFP.”  The AFP “will allege the unauthorised disclosure of these specific documents undermines Australia’s security.” 

The gravity of the allegations was affirmed in an update:

“This warrant relates to the alleged publishing of information classified as an official secret, which is an extremely serious matter with the potential to undermine Australia’s national security.”

The incident in Canberra proved catching.  Hours after the AFP’s move on Smethurst, radio 2GB Drive presenter and Sky News contributor Ben Fordham revealed that he had also been the subject of an investigation after discussing the attempt of six asylum seeker boats to reach Australia.  The story piqued the interest of a Department of Home Affairs official, who proceeded to scold Fordham’s producer for discussing “highly confidential” material.  “In other words,” explained the broadcaster bluntly, “we weren’t supposed to know about it.” 

In the course of Wednesday morning, with no settling of dust in order, a second raid by the AFP was executed against the Sydney offices of the national broadcaster, the ABC. Those named in the warrant – investigative journalists Dan Oakes and Sam Clark, along with ABC director of news Gaven Morris – were linked to The Afghan Files, a set of ghoulish stories in 2017 revealing allegations of unlawful killings by Australian special forces in Afghanistan.  Australia’s national security state has gotten very busy indeed.

Australian Prime Minister Scott Morrison, when pressed about Smethurst’s case, was untroubled.  Having played the role of fatherly minder of the Australian nation, he was not going to let any alleged breach of security go by.  Currently on a visit to the United Kingdom, he expressed little concern about the morning raid on a journalist’s home: “it never troubles me that our laws are being upheld.”

While News Corp has its demonic familiars (Rupert Murdoch’s influence hangs heavily), it was hard to disagree with the premise advanced by a spokesperson. 

“This raid demonstrates a dangerous act of intimidation towards those committed to telling uncomfortable truths.  The raid was outrageous and heavy handed.”

The Federal Parliamentary Press Gallery, voicing agreement, considered the police raid “an outrageous move that should concern all Australians who value their freedom in an open society.”  With confidence, the statement asserted that it was “in the public interest for us to know of any plan for greater powers to monitor our messages.”

Chris Merritt, legal affairs editor of The Australian, saw the raid as an ominous signal to all investigative scribblers.  “Welcome to modern Australia – a nation where police raid journalists in order to track down and punish the exposure of leaks inside the federal government”.  But such an Australia was also chugging along merrily before the raid on Smethurst’s home.  (Like the unsuspecting priest living in a dystopian surveillance state, the police finally came for them.) 

Should Assange ever make a return to the country of his birth, he is unlikely to find peace in this US satellite state, with its flimsy public disclosure and whistleblowing laws, its mirage-like protections.  Hunting publishers, journalists and their sources is de rigueur down under.

*

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]

The recent presidential elections in Ukraine ended quite unexpectedly – the comedian Volodymyr Zelensky whose bid for presidency hadn’t been taken seriously by experts and voters in early 2019, defeated Petro Poroshenko and won a landslide victory. The margin between the two candidates was stunning (72.7% to 28.2%), and the only region where Poroshenko earned the majority of votes was Lviv region. In the neighboring Ternopil and Ivano-Frankivsk regions, more than 40% of voters supported the former president.

These regions are situated in Western Ukraine with predominantly nationalist population. However, there can be another reason for the former president’s success in Lviv, Ternopil and Ivano-Frankivsk. The majority of Christians in these regions are followers of the Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church (UGCC), and as a recently published document shows, it could have played a significant role in Poroshenko’s popularity there.

In May, Petro Poroshenko sent a letter to Sviatoslav Shevchuk, Major Archbishop of the UGCC, thanking him for his support during the electoral campaign.

“Thank you for your support during the electoral campaign for me personally and the ideas promoted by our team,” wrote Poroshenko.

At the bottom of the page, there is a phrase “Thanking you sincerely! Petro Poroshenko” personally handwritten by the former president.

What was the support given by Sviatoslav during the elections? One can only guess but it is clear that the former Ukrainian president turned to the UGCC leader for help. It’s just another example of the secular Ukrainian state’s interference in Church affairs. A year ago, Kyiv asked the Ecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople to initiate a process of granting autocephaly to the two schismatic “Churches”: the Ukrainian Orthodox Church – Kyivan Patriarchate (UOC-KP) and Ukrainian Autocephalous Orthodox Church (UAOC). The organizations united and formed the Orthodox Church of Ukraine (OCU) whose primate Metropolitan Epiphanius received the Tomos of autocephaly from Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew in January 2019, a couple of months before the elections. In his speeches, Bartholomew stressed that it was Poroshenko who significantly contributed to the process of creating an independent Ukrainian Church (besides the Ukrainian Orthodox church – Moscow Patriarchate (UOC-MP) which, unlike the newly established UOC, is recognized by the Orthodox world). This, however, didn’t become an advantage that helped Poroshenko to win the elections.

Poroshenko’s presidency will always be a painful thing for the Orthodox believers in Ukraine to remember. Churches across the whole country are being seized and desecrated by nationalists, the state see the faithful as a tool to boost its popularity, and the Ukrainian faithful have become puppets in a geopolitical game started by Poroshenko and Patriarch Bartholomew (some Greek authors already predicted this in 2018).

What can the elected president Zelensky do in this situation? Will he continue implementing Poroshenko’s policy or become a true leader who cares for his nation? Time will 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.

Featured image is from UNIAN

The current “trade war” owes its origins to the US’ failed Tiananmen Square Color Revolution that convinced the Chinese authorities that their late-Old Cold War-era American “allies” couldn’t be trusted, which in turn inspired the Communist Party to use the US’ own international trade rules against it in the emerging era of globalization in order to eventually surpass their new “frenemy”.

There’s been a lot of hype in the international media this year commemorating the 30th anniversary of the Tiananmen Square events, which are portrayed in the West as a “brave student-led democratic uprising” that was “brutally suppressed” by the “tyrannical Chinese communist regime”. The narrative is that thousands of students were peacefully protesting for “greater rights and freedoms” just like their counterparts had begun to do by that year in practically every socialist country worldwide, but the authorities “felt threatened” by this challenge to their rule and therefore ordered the military to “savagely kill all the demonstrators”. The infamous photo of a lone protester standing in front of a column of tanks mythologized this version of events, but the problem is that the storyline that’s now taken for granted worldwide isn’t all that true.

There’s no doubt that there were massive student-led demonstrations taking place in Beijing throughout the first part of 1989, but a leaked US diplomatic cable from the time released by Wikileaks in 2011 and first published by the UK’s Daily Telegraph proves that the military didn’t “massacre” the protesters like the rest of the world has been misled to believe.

The source also recounts how a Chilean diplomat confirmed that the majority of the armed forces that intervened in the square actually weren’t “armed” at all, at least not in the sense of having firearms, because he reported that they were mostly only equipped with standard anti-riot gear like truncheons and wooden clubs. Some people were indeed killed during the clashes, but those were terrorists who attacked military forces and even killed some servicemen. It’s the deaths of those terrorists, however, which were deliberately exaggerated by the West and perverted into the narrative of “mass student killings by the military”.

A photo of Pu Zhiqiang, a student protester at Tiananmen, taken on 10 May 1989. The Chinese words written on the paper say, “We want freedom of newspapers, freedom of associations, also to support the ‘World Economic Herald’, and support those just journalists.” (Source: CC BY 2.5)

Upon closer examination, the Tiananmen Square events were actually a Color Revolution attempt just like the many others that would later mature elsewhere in the socialist world by later that year, with there being no doubt that the vast majority of the participants in every case were well-intended peaceful participants but that their political movements were exploited by foreign actors for regime change purposes that also included the use of violent provocations like the ones that took place in other parts of Beijing during the military’s intervention. The US succeeded in almost every one of its attempts to overthrow socialist governments from within through this cutting-edge Hybrid War strategy, except of course for China’s, though the very fact that the People’s Republic was targeted at all must have been somewhat surprising to it.

The Sino-Soviet split was masterfully weaponized in the most powerful geostrategic sense by Kissinger after Nixon convinced China to ally with the US against the Soviet Union in the late-Old Cold War era. In exchange for risking nuclear war between the two formerly friendly communist nations, China would receive billions of dollars of American investment for modernizing its economy, which combined with the Communist Party’s responsible management of these resources to become the world’s fastest-ever poverty-alleviation program. The Chinese therefore felt betrayed by the US’ cunning Color Revolution attempt against them and henceforth resolved to use America’s own international trade rules against it in the emerging era of globalization, which gradually led to the economic imbalance between the two Great Powers that ultimately inspired Trump’s “trade war“.

Had the US not backstabbed China, then it’s very possible that the two could have cooperated in ruling the world after the end of the Old Cold War, but that was impossible to do after the Tiananmen Square Color Revolution because the Communist Party no longer trusted the American authorities. Having committed to ensuring that it’s never betrayed again, China started taking advantage of globalization and preparing for what would later be the Belt & Road Initiative (BRI) for revolutionizing International Relations by midwifing the birth of the emerging Multipolar World Order to replace the US’ fading unipolar one that arose after the Soviet Union’s dissolution. It’s this ongoing process that the US presently seeks to sabotage by all means possible, but it probably wouldn’t even have this colossal problem on its hands to begin with had it not betrayed China in the first place.

*

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

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.

ISIS terrorists, defeated by the Syrian Arab Army in the major battles of Der Ezzor and Albukamal east of Syria, have regrouped and launched a new wave of attacks against the SAA posts in the desert with the direct help of the USA and its illegal ‘International Coalition’ which moved its remnants from under fire to safe havens in the depth of the Syrian open desert bordering Iraq in the east and Jordan in the south.

Al-Mayadeen reporter in Damascus Mohammad Al-Khodr had this report in Arabic and we added the English subtitles to it, English transcript is below the video:

Al-Faydah desert, to the south of Al-Mayadeen, is another theater for the movement of remnants of ISIS in the Syrian desert.

Syrian army units and their allies in a fierce clash with a convoy of the (terrorist) organization resulted in a number killed and wounded in their ranks.

A growing activity which in details included attacking military points last April in the vicinity of Sokhna, an activity that followed the breaking of ISIS in Al-Baghouz and the International Coalition facilitating the moving of ISIS fighters deep into the desert to add pressure against the Syrian army.

Mohammed Abbas – Military expert: This enclave ends with the end of the war on Syria because it is covered today by fire, diplomatic, political, logistical and military through US forces, Is it a serious threat? Yes, it poses is a serious risk because it is a connected danger, a constant danger because the Americans invest in it.

No accurate figures of what remains of ISIS in the Syrian desert, estimates that the number is between1000 to 2000 armed men, Spread over a large area in the vicinity of Jabal al-Bishri southeast of Raqqa and Dafina southwest of Deir al-Zour and between the desert of Palmyra and Al-Sokhna and the vicinity of the 55th area in Al-Tanf.

Mohammed Abbas: We must remember well that the region is a strategic area and very important, and maybe the separation area in the US war on Syria, I mean the area stretching from Al-Tanf to Albuakmal and Al-Sukhna, and this desert area (Al-Badia) is the area of separation on which America bet on with its alternative armies, It’s called the US Alternative Army which wants to cut the road between Iraq and Syria, cut Iran’s way towards Syria.

The terrorist organization members benefited from the difficult terrain to hide in hills, valleys, and deep calcareous caves, and wide maneuvering areas that they know well as being from the region or due to their staying in it for years.

The solid structure of ISIS was broken during major battles fought by the Syrian army and its allies along the Syrian desert. To eliminate the remnants of ISIS requires a major military effort, in parallel with finishing the American presence in Al-Tanf, which formed a source of support for the movements of this (ISIS) organization.

End of Mohammad Al-Khodr’s report.

*

Another pressure of all sorts militarily, political, financial by unprecedented sanctions, media, and diplomatic is being exerted by the USA and its barking squad against Syria with the latest decision by Trump in arming Al-Qaeda terrorists there with anti-tank missiles through his poodle Erdogan.

And when the #SAA drops Bombs on these prehistoric creatures we're shown one of the 20,000 hospitals in a 15 square kms strip blown up, the UNSC convenes and the criers flood the UN building with their fake tears:https://t.co/nuWYBBv26p#Syria #FSA #alQaeda #ISIS #Nusra #Trump https://t.co/NlIKwLqmVo

— Arabi Souriعربي سوري (@3arabiSouri) June 3, 2019

*

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 Syria News

It was 4am when Masih Ur-Rahman Mubarez’s wife Amina called, an unusually early time for their daily chat. When he picked up the phone, he could hear the panic in her voice.

Amina was calling from the Afghan province of Wardak, where she brought up their children while he worked over the border in Iran to support them. She told him that soldiers were raiding their village. Some of them were speaking English. Amina was told to turn off her phone but Masih asked her not to – how would he know they were ok?

The call ended with Masih saying he would call again when things had calmed. But at 9am, when he dialled his wife’s number, her phone was off. He tried again at 9.30am. Still off. Through the whole of that day and the next, he repeatedly called. But Amina’s phone remained off.

It took another day for him to the learn the truth. Relatives avoided his calls or gave vague replies to his questions, until finally his brother broke the news. “He tried to avoid telling me the whole story, but I insisted that he tell me the truth,” Masih recalled in a wavering voice. “He told me to have patience in God – no one is left.”

Image on the right: Masih spent months working alongside journalists to prove who had killed his family

An airstrike on Masih’s house had killed his wife and all his seven children, alongside four young cousins. His youngest child was just four years old.

In the following weeks, as grief consumed Masih, so did an intense need for answers. Who had killed his family and why?

His journey to find out would last more than eight months, pit him against military and government officials, and see him face obfuscation and denials. It would lead him to work alongside the Bureau and journalists from The New York Times, putting together a puzzle piece by piece. Ultimately it would lead to one definitive conclusion – the US military had dropped the fatal bomb.

His story is one window into the struggles faced by families across Afghanistan every day. Airstrikes are raining down on the country, with US and Afghan operations now killing more civilians than the insurgency for the first time in a decade. But getting confirmation of who has carried out a fatal strike is often impossible. An apology, or any form of public accountability, is even harder to obtain.

The US denied repeatedly that it had bombed Masih’s house, or even that any airstrike in his area had taken place. But using satellite imagery, photos and open source content, we proved that denial false. Following our investigation, the military has now admitted that it did conduct a strike in that location, but it still denies it resulted in civilian deaths.

A happy life destroyed

“Prior to my house being bombed, I had a normal life. I was married, had four daughters and three sons,” Masih told our reporter in Kabul. “Our life was full of love.”

Masih was the headteacher in a local school run by a Swedish organisation before financial issues forced him to seek employment in construction in Iran in 2014. He still reminisces about his days in the village of Mullah Hafiz, where he split his time between farming, teaching and his children. “We were so happy,” he says.

Exactly what happened on the day of the strike is not clear. Villagers say that overnight on September 22 2018, bombs were dropped in Mullah Hafiz, which lies in a Taliban-controlled area. The same night, they said, soldiers carried out a raid on the village as part of an operation on a Taliban prison, which was about 200 metres away from Masih’s house. One of the villagers said Taliban fighters had fired on the soldiers from some civilian homes.

A cousin of Masih’s told us he and and other male relatives were taken away and detained, alongside some other villagers. At some point the next morning, a strike hit Masih’s house. When his relatives returned, they found the building flattened. In the rubble were the bodies of Amina, the seven children and their four cousins, they say.

Masih’s children were aged between four and 14 years old; his wife Amina was 32. The cousins, all girls, were aged from 10 to 16.

Clockwise from top left: Masih’s children Mohammad Elyas (8), Mohammad Wiqad (10), Fahim (5), Samina (7) and Mohammad Fayaz (4) all died in the strike, alongside their two elder sisters, Anisa (14), and Safia (12), and their mother Amina (32). (Fahim appears in both photos in the bottom row)Photo supplied by family. We do not have photos of the teenage girls or Masih’s wife Amina

The full list of those who died in the strike

On finding out his family had been killed, Masih returned immediately to Afghanistan. The return journey was tough – having been working illegally in construction in Iran he says he had to hand himself to the Iranian police and wait for deportation. It took him three days to get back to his village. It was then that he began hunting for the truth.

Masih claims government officials acknowledged in private that his family died. However while both the Afghan Ministry of Defence and the provincial police publicly announced in the days following the attack that an operation on a Taliban prison had killed large numbers of Taliban fighters, they did not acknowledge that any civilians died in a strike.

“I have repeatedly told them that it was my children, that it was my wife, that it was my cousins, that they were all civilians and that my house was destroyed,” Masih said. “When they say that they have bombed a [Taliban] prison, they have absolutely not done that.”

Journalists investigate

As Masih was investigating, so was the Bureau. We had independently heard of a strike that had killed multiple children in Mullah Hafiz on September 23, and were trying to establish who had carried it out.

The Bureau has been recording strikes in Afghanistan for over four years. Getting to the bottom of what has happened is often difficult. The attacks mostly take place in remote areas under Taliban control. They are often not reported by local media and neither the US nor the Afghan military is fully transparent.

We faced all these same barriers with this strike. But this time, over the course of several months, working with Afghan reporters on the ground and the Visual Investigations unit of The New York Times, we were able to prove that the US was responsible for a strike which killed multiple children.

Our first step was to contact both the Afghan and the US militaries.

Officials in the Afghan Ministry of Defence told us no one was available for comment.

When we went to the US military, we were met with contradictory statements. Its story changed repeatedly as our reporting developed and the New York Times got involved.

A US spokesperson first stated in October that there were “no connections” between their actions and the allegations of civilian casualties in Mullah Hafiz. In a later email in February, they claimed to have no record at all of a strike in the district on September 23.

In a Pentagon report released this month the strike on Masih’s house was not included in a list of confirmed civilian casualties.

Finally, as we prepared to go to press earlier this week, they admitted they had bombed Masih’s house. Days later, there was yet another statement. American soldiers had reported being fired on from the house, they said, and a strike had been carried out “in self-defence.” But they did not kill Masih’s family, they said.

The military has not told us what information it used to reach its conclusion. It is not uncommon for the US to rely, for the most part, on pre-strike and post-strike footage filmed by aircraft to investigate claims that an air attack has harmed civilians. But when a strike hits a building, as in the case of Masih’s home, it can be difficult to tell what’s under the rubble.

Crucial evidence

Masih wanted the world to know what had happened. Interviews he did with Afghan media led us to contact him, and in April we were able to meet him in Kabul. By this time, he had been knocking on doors for months in search for answers. He had carefully collected evidence he hoped would shine a light on what happened that day.

Some of this helped our investigation. First we needed to do the basics – to verify that a strike had hit his house. We had to do this without visiting the village, because it was not safe for reporters to go to the Taliban-controlled area. From metadata contained in photos supplied by Masih, we were able to obtain the coordinates of his home. We used these to get satellite images which showed the house had been attacked, with the damage consistent with a strike. A team from the Bureau and the The New York Times’ Visual Investigations unit also reviewed photos of Masih’s children’s graves and found satellite images of the burial site. Both the damage to the house and the burial site are only visible in satellite images after September 23.

Crucially, we also were given photos of weapon fragments said to be found at the site of the strike. While most were nondescript, a few pieces had distinctive markings. On one piece we could see what is known as a “CAGE code” – this is a unique identifier given to companies which supply government or defence agencies. This code linked the fragment to a US-based company called Woodward, that makes components for a missile kit known as a JDAM. These enable bombs to be guided by GPS.

Weapons experts then reviewed the photos, and saw something else – the distinctive pattern of four bolts on a tail fin that identified it as part of a JDAM.

We trawled defence and aviation news archives and found the Afghan military did not have capability to use JDAMs. The only other military carrying out strikes in Afghanistan is America’s.

We asked the weapons experts which military could have dropped the bomb and they confirmed what we had learned – only the US military has the capability to use JDAMs in Afghanistan.

The weapon fragments said to be found in the rubble from the strike on Masih’s house Via Masih

A close-up of the tail fin with distinctive arrangement of four bolts that indicated it was from a JDAM Via Masih

After four and a half years of recording civilian casualties from strikes in Afghanistan, we were finally able to say for certain who pushed the button on one.

Answering the why

While we believe our investigation answers the who, the why is less clear.

The US’s final statement – that they dropped a bomb on the house after American soldiers reported being fired on – tallies in part with one villager who said the soldiers were shot at from civilian homes. However two others say everything was quiet in the area by the time the strike happened.

Perhaps a clue lies in the location of the house, which was set apart from the rest of the village, very close to a Taliban prison. We know an operation on the prison was carried out, with villagers claiming that a number of security force members being held inside were rescued during the raid. It’s possible that Masih’s house was hit by accident.

This panorama shows how close the two buildings were:

Panorama of the outskirts of Mullah Hafiz, showing the Taliban prison on the left and Masih’s family home on the right Photo sent via Masih

Without full military transparency, these questions will remain unanswered. And whatever the reason for the attack, the US still claims it did not kill any civilians.

Soaring civilian deaths

Our investigation raises serious questions about US military accountability.

Last year, the UN found that US military operations in Afghanistan killed and injured 632 civilians – more than double the year before. The US military has admitted to just over 20 percent of that figure. The reason for the discrepancy, says the US, is that they have access to intelligence such as drone footage which shows that “what often looks like civilian harm from US actions was actually a result of other causes.”

In its first statement back in October, the US spokesperson had warned us: “It isn’t uncommon for insurgents to use these accusations to drive a wedge between the military and the population. As Secretary Mattis has said: ‘We do everything humanly possible consistent with military necessity, taking many chances to avoid civilian casualties at all costs.

“’We’re not perfect guys, but we are the good guys. And so we’re doing what we can.’”

There have been calls for change, even from the Pentagon itself. It released a report in February highlighting concerns about how the US military investigates and responds to civilian casualties. The military was sometimes seen as “restrictive” in how it assessed allegations of civilian harm received from organisations like the Bureau or NGOs, it said.

700,000 illegal settlers, economic migrants from Israel who have built temporary homes on Palestinian land, are proposed to be legitimised under a Kushner family plan dubbed the ‘confidence trick of the century’.

The son-in-law of Donald Trump, Jared Kushner is a real estate developer who has convinced his wife’s father that his idea of a Greater Israel now, would be advantageous in currying favour with AIPAC the powerful Israel Lobby in Washington, (and London), that will determine whether Trump will win a second term as President.

Kushner’s plan is to permanently weaken the Palestinian goal for an independent state by annexing huge swathes of occupied land in the West Bank and East Jerusalem in direct violation of UN Security Council Resolution 2334. In other words, he proposes a criminal act by the Israeli state.

In return, the Kushner-Trump family would persuade adjoining states with Palestinian refugees, which includes Lebanon and Jordan, to offer permanent residency, citizenship and civil rights to those affected.

Also proposed is some type of land swap plus a permanent Israeli military police presence throughout all Palestinian lands in order to permanently weaken any possibility of an independent Palestinian state. The entire proposal is a calculated nonsense by a property developer who thinks he’s an internationally recognised statesman because he married a daughter of another property man in the same town who, with significant help from a casino mogul, beat the odds and became the 45th US President, in an aberration of the democratic process that would be unlawful in Britain and most European democracies.

Let us hope that the average American citizen will see sense and elect a 46th President of the great United States who is a world-class statesman, who will work for global peace not global war. An acknowledged leader who respects life and people; has integrity as well as the ability to bring men and countries together to work, trade and live in a spirit of mutual support.

*

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.

Hans Stehling (pen name) is an analyst based in the UK.

Featured image is from The Unz Review

Wilder Pérez Varona (WPV): My first question to you is about the issue of bureaucracy.

Before 1917 the issue of the socialist transition is one thing. The 1848 Revolution, the Paris Commune (which is a crucial episode, but of a momentary nature) were always limited to matters of theory, principles, projections (we know that Marx and Engels were reluctant to be very detailed about these projections). The Revolution of 1917 placed this problem of transition in another way, on to a different level; a level that involved essentially practical elements. One of them involved the issue of bureaucracy, which gradually appeared throughout the 1920s. On the issue of bureaucracy as it was being developed in those circumstances, how do you define the function of bureaucracy by according it an autonomous role of such a relevant actor at the level of the class triad: the working class / peasantry and the bourgeoisie? Why this important place? I would also like you to say something on the distinctness of “class”. You are cautious to talk about the bureaucracy as a class; however, other authors do.

Eric Toussaint (ET): Well, it is clear that the Russian experience and then that of the Soviet Union is, I would say, almost the second experience of attempting to take power to begin a transition to break away from capitalism. The first experience, the Paris Commune, lasted three months in 1871, was as such limited to the boundaries of Paris, isolated from French territory and attacked. So, it is clear that revolutionaries like Lenin, Trotsky, and other leaders of the Bolshevik Party had no other experiences as a point of reference and conceived the problem of transition, as I mentioned in my presentation,[1] in a triangular manner, that is, the need for an alliance between the proletariat and the peasantry to defeat the bourgeoisie and imperialism, and to resist imperialist aggression after the seizure of power.

And the issue of something like the subsistence and weight of the Tsarist state apparatus, which had a bureaucracy, and so the fight against bureaucracy and bureaucratism was rather conceived at the beginning as a struggle against something that was part of the past, of the Tsarist heritage. Within the framework of the development of the transition, from the first years, both Lenin and Trotsky and others were faced with a new problem that they had to start analysing and specifying, etc. Lenin did not manage to develop, I would say, a theory of bureaucracy because he died in January 1924, but what is absolutely true in the case of Lenin is that he, in several very clear and important interventions, complained about the bureaucratic deformation of the workers’ state in construction. Already in the debate on the unions in 1920-1921 he said that the workers state led by the Bolshevik Party had bureaucratic deformations and, therefore, the workers and their unions have to maintain a certain level of independence from the bureaucratically deformed workers state. That seems very important to me.

Another aspect of Lenin’s position at the end of 1922 and the beginning of 1923 is found in his criticism of an institution created by the same government, called the People’s Commissariat of the Workers’ and Peasants’ Inspectorate (Rabkrin). Lenin said that this institution, which was supposed to serve in the fight against bureaucratism and where each citizen (proletarian or peasant) could go and complain about the bureaucratic behaviours, was itself totally bureaucratized. And that institution which had twelve thousand officials was directed by Joseph Stalin. Lenin proposed its complete reform. So, the People’s Commissariat of the Workers’ and Peasants’ Inspectorate which was supposed to fight against bureaucracy, actually helped bureaucratization and aggravated the problem in which the bureaucratically deformed workers’ state already found itself. It should also be mentioned, because it is little known, that Stalin did everything necessary to make it disappear publicly or even to prevent the public knowledge of Lenin’s letters saying that Stalin should be removed from the post of Party Secretary General.

That is in reference to Lenin. So, I said in my presentation that the problem of the transition to socialism was not limited to the bourgeoisie / proletariat / peasantry triangle, but there was a fourth actor which is the bureaucracy. And, the bureaucracy was not limited to being a legacy of the past – in Russia’s case of the Tsarist past – but emerged within the process of transition and consolidated itself as an actor that gradually gained confidence, in the course of the transition, of own its interests, and its interests (in the case of the Russian experience) began drifting away from the interests of both the proletariat and the peasantry and, in a way, the bourgeoisie. That is to say, the bureaucracy did not consciously aim for the restoration of capitalism and the power of the bourgeoisie. The bureaucracy was not, I would say, an aid to the capitalist restoration, but pursued its own interests and in that case its own interests were to have a monopoly of political power and use the state apparatus to direct, lead the process and, in some way, transform the party into an instrument of the bureaucracy, transform the unions into a transmission belt of bureaucratic power to the rank and file and have an economic development in which the proletariat and the peasantry can not really act in defence of their own interests, but begin to be (in the case of Russia) exploited by the bureaucracy. The bureaucracy headed by Stalin not only promoted a level of authoritarianism, but also of dictatorship over the working people of both the rural and the industrial sector or other state-controlled economic sectors.

But of course, the bureaucracy did not create a new ideology. The bureaucracy did not assert bourgeois ideology because it was officially being fought. So, the bureaucracy, in general, took the “official” socialist programme as an ideological garb and as a programme. It spoke in the name of deepening the process of building a socialist society as the bureaucracy did not create its own ideology. The latter would have implied distancing itself from the official program of the revolution. Somehow the bureaucracy operated underhandedly with its own interests. It could destroy both organizations and people who really wanted a deepening of the process. It could destroy them by officially resorting to the “defence of socialism”.

In the course of the 1920s, leaders like Christian Rakovsky, an important Bolshevik leader, revolutionary, and then Trotsky, began to understand the specificity of the bureaucracy (Christian Rakovsky,  The “Professional Dangers” of Power, August 1928, (see this). It took years to really understand what it was and in 1935 while writing the book, The Revolution Betrayed (see this), Trotsky arrives at a complete elaboration of the analysis of a bureaucratic state not only deformed, but degenerated. That is to say, the ties that those in power of the Soviet Union had with the revolution in 1935 had totally distanced themselves from those of the first years. There remained a society that was no more capitalist, there were no capitalists in the Soviet Union, but the process towards socialism, which implies democracy, workers control, forms of self-management, independent and free cultural expression, possibility of debate among revolutionaries, open debates –  all had been totally degraded and destroyed and there were no more these scopes. That is why Trotsky calling for a political revolution said that it was not so much a social revolution against property relations in the productive sector, it was not a revolution of the anti-capitalist type with social characteristics. A political revolution is necessary to allow the proletariat, the peasantry, all the workers who produce wealth, and the people in general, to regain political power. Hence the term “political revolution”. Hence the demands that are mainly political: freedom of expression, freedom of organization, worker control, self-management, pluralism of parties respecting the constitution.

Trotsky also launched a debate on extending the revolution or not. What good does it do? What is the purpose of the Communist International? Trotsky advocated the extension of the revolution to the international level and for permanent revolution. It is necessary to remember that a Communist International had been built, the 3^rd International founded in 1919, then led by Lenin, Trotsky, Zinoviev, Radek (Stalin at the beginning of the Communist International had no real presence, was not a leader known internationally to head the process of extending the revolution). It was only when Stalin succeeds in expelling Trotsky from the Communist Party in 1927 and expelling him from the country in 1929 that he begins to fully lead the Stalinised Third International and puts that International at the service of the interests of the very bureaucracy of the Soviet Union, and no longer to really extend the revolution internationally.

WPV: And despite the fact that the bureaucracy does not create its own ideology, nevertheless in practice (after the historical evolution of the so-called “real socialisms”), it actually managed the capitalist restoration in those countries. You also pointed out that they exploited the classes of peasants and workers, of producers in general. How do you, then, distinguish that bureaucratic management and exploitation with respect to capitalist exploitation; between the one carried out by the bureaucracy and the bourgeoisie?

ET: During that long period of bureaucratic rule, the same bureaucracy considered that the conditions were not yet ripe to shift to a process in which – as a social layer – it is transformed into a class for the private accumulation of wealth. Which is, I would say, typical of the capitalist class: a private accumulation of wealth.

But at the same time the lesson of the Soviet Union is that, after all, that bureaucracy that is not building a new type of system chooses the capitalist restoration and the bureaucrats themselves become capitalists. That is to say, in some way, they pass the frontier as a social layer and transform themselves into a capitalist class. As bureaucrats, before the capitalist restoration, they can accumulate levels of wealth, privileges, etc., but their privileges come from the management of a society in which large private property, the capitalist property, does not exists or is totally marginal and that does not have a great future. But it can last for decades till the given moment when the social layer (or a part, a fraction of the social layer) decides that it is time to restore capitalism. This is what happened in the late eighties and early nineties of the last century in the Soviet Union. Personally, I think that is what happened in China after the Deng Xiaoping reforms in the late eighties as well, and in Vietnam we also had such evolution.

Of course, the historical perspective could have been different, that is, a capacity of the producers (proletariat, peasantry or intellectual worker) to regain power through a political revolution, but that did not happen and it was not Gorbachev’s perspective. He spoke of Glasnot, in terms of freedom of political debates, but Perestroika was already introducing reforms in favour of progressive capitalist restoration. So that is the great challenge for a transitional society: how to face the problem of bureaucratisation and the consolidation of the bureaucracy as a dominant social layer in the leadership. Moreover, when the country is isolated, and has problems to really increase production, increase its endogenous development, and respond to the needs of workers.

WPV: To a large extent all the reforms of the 1980s were also made with the slogan of the democratisation of bureaucratised socialism. However, the history of the relationship between socialism and democracy has involved many conflicts, many contradictions, many misunderstandings …

ET: It is extremely complicated because (you know perfectly well in Cuba) the transition to socialism leads imperialism to a policy of aggression that can take various forms. Therefore, this aggressive attitude makes it complicated to have a total freedom of expression within the framework of the process. The same aggression produces reactions of limitation of expression, and so on; but of course, at any given moment the bureaucracy uses the external threat to keep political debates limited because it is not really interested to let people have political debates that could weaken their bureaucratic control over society.

So, the issue is very complex. I would say that it is clear that we have to face an external aggression that can take various forms, but we cannot, under this situation of aggression, limit in an exaggerated way the possibility of expression, of organisation, of protests, and so on.

In my presentation I made reference to Rosa Luxemburg, who fully supported the Bolshevik Revolution. As you know, she was murdered in January 1919 under orders of German Social Democratic ministers. In 1918 she wrote several letters to the Bolsheviks, which she made public, to tell “Comrades Lenin, Trotsky, beware of the measures that you are taking to limit the political liberties”, etc., because that can lead to a process that is going to be fatal for the Soviet revolution. I would say, what is the balance that we must find in the transition? And in that perspective we must also evaluate the attitude of Lenin, Trotsky and others …? What happened with Kronstadt, the sailors’ rebellion near Petrograd? What happened to the secret police (the Cheka), which had the possibility of extrajudicial execution processes, imprisonment of opponents? … the issue of trade unions? It is clear that we must be able to analyse this.

For us it is also important to analyse what happened in a country like Cuba. The whole libertarian issue in the 1960s in Cuba, then followed by the increase of the negative influence of the USSR bureaucracy from the economic difficulties after the 1970 harvest. We have to analyse and also draw lessons from the Cuban experience. It is also very important.

WPV: Of course we have to analyse the processes in their particular contexts, but we must also take into account certain limits in the prerogatives of the revolutionary government itself, let’s say, to assume the direction and control of the process. In this link between socialism and democracy, you are in favour of a dimensioning of democracy. In other words, it is not just democracy, it is not the democracy that has been hegemonised by capitalist perspectives, but a limited democracy (socialist or of any other kind, a workers’ democracy).

ET: For example, for me one of the lessons of the Russian experience is the need for a multi-party system saying that, within the framework of the transition, the existence of several parties should be allowed if they accept, respect, the socialist, workers’ constitution. In the transitional society towards socialism, one can not allow a pro-imperialist party calling for outside intervention, or supporting foreign intervention, or let it freely organize, recruit and prepare a pro-imperialist strategy. But there may be different parties, which have different visions of the transition, and which may coexist; and the people must be able, thanks to their political training and its development, to choose between several options. Of course, debates must be promoted and consultations convened on decisions to be taken.

I would also say that one of the lessons of the so-called societies with “real socialism” of the twentieth century is that, and it seems to me fundamental, at the economic level they must have an important sector of private economy, small private property. The small private property of land, the small private property of workshops, restaurants, shops. The Soviet experience also had an influence on Cuba, nationalising almost everything at any given moment, which damaged the process. I was here in 1993 when the freedom for self-employed to pursue their activities was announced and it seemed to me to be a good measure or the peasant free markets where peasants can come to the city and sell their products. That space should have been maintained in the Soviet Union, where the forced collectivisation imposed by Stalin from 1929 was a disaster, and had tremendous consequences on agriculture. That is to say, there is the question of political democracy, but also for me there must be a differentiation of statutes of producers and small private production, and small private property or private initiative must be guaranteed during the process.

In the case of China, Vietnam and the Soviet Union, which disappeared in 1991, followed by the Russian Federation, Ukraine, etc., there were no limits put on private property leading to a restoration of large private capitalist property. And bureaucrats or friends of the bureaucrats transformed themselves into oligarchs and accumulated tremendous wealth as new capitalists, even very aggressive towards the workers and robbing the nation of a large part of the wealth generated by the producers.

So the debate is not just about democracy, it is also about economic reforms and the social content of economic reforms.

WPV: On the question of limits to the market, the limits to private enterprise, in these socialist experiences (including Cuba) the discussion has often turned in terms of the Plan / Market relationship. In other words, to what extent the centrally planned state must intervene, must limit the expansion of the market. However, it is presupposed that there must be a central Plan; in general, it is something implicit, something that is not questioned. In relation to this, it can be assumed that the plan thus conceived is also one of the most effective instruments available to the bureaucracy, what is your opinion on the matter?

ET: I remember discussions in Cuba about the role of the market, etc., for example the debate that took place when Che was Minister of Industry.[2] In the 1990s the discussions about the role of the market came back, I remember very well, I was invited to all the events on globalisation between 1998 and 2008-2009. Fidel [Castro] participated in all the events that lasted three, four days, in the Palacio de las Convenciones with thousand or thousand two hundred Cuban and foreign guests, Fidel on several occasions asked exactly about the role of the market and the limits to be set to the market.[3]

Personally, my answer is as follows. It is fundamental to allow and support the small private initiative, the small agricultural production, which may even be a majority but small, that is, a majority of peasant families producing most of the agricultural production. It is one of the incentives to increase production and achieve food sovereignty, to also improve their standard of living thanks to increased production with the sale of more products, it is a powerful incentive to achieve a high level of production and quality because the farmer knows that if he does not produce quality products he will not be able to sell them on the market or to the state.

So, I think that at that level there were serious errors in the conduct of the agricultural policy of many countries called socialist, where they wanted to nationalise or impose cooperatives that were not really efficient. But, at the same time, for me, planning is fundamental and I would tell you that in modern economies it is even more important. Let’s imagine for a moment a socialist revolution in Europe or the United States. Planning is fundamental, how can you imagine the fight against climate change, if you are not planning to put an end to power stations with coal, oil or gas, and change it for forms of renewable energy? That has to be planned, because it is not the local communities, the families, who can make that decision, because the production of energy at this time is on a large scale. Therefore, combating climate change has a relationship with what I said about family production using organic methods of agricultural production, in order to combat climate change or to limit the effects of ecological crisis that is already underway.

So, planning is important. The issue is how to ensure that the people, the citizens, can influence decisions about planning. And for me the answer is in any way, it can happen through the internet, the media we have, television, and so on. Several options can be presented to the people to arrive at a decision, if we take such an option we can foresee that it will have such consequences on their living conditions, if we take another option, it would have these negative effects; allow the debate on these options, and at a given moment, that people pronounce on options taking into considerations the priorities of the Five-Year Plan, for the decade, and so on.

For me the lesson of the so-called socialist experiences of the last century, is that it was a planning led by bureaucratic apparatuses that decided what was the most interesting and imposed priorities. On the contrary, it would have been necessary to discuss different options. So for me it is not necessary to finish with the planning, it is necessary to democratise the planning.

We need a new socialist, self-managed, ecologist, socialist, feminist option. We have to advocate for that perspective.

WPV: Returning, finally, to the setting of the event, which has been the opportunity to interview you, what does it mean for you to hold in Cuba this international event about Trotsky? What importance do you attach to dialoguing about Trotsky today?

ET: This conference about Trotsky is a very positive initiative for me. It is an academic conference, not a forum for political organizations to recruit, but a debate on many different aspects of the writings, contribution and struggle of Leon Trotsky. During the conference the struggle of Trotsky against the bureaucracy, the struggle for the extension of the revolution, the struggle to face the external aggression was analysed. Trotsky was the head of the Red Army who managed to defeat the counter-revolution and external aggression in 1919-1920 in Soviet Russia, we must not forget it. Trotsky’s contributions on the problems of daily life, his contributions on literature, culture (it was an important subject in this conference), the reality of the Soviet society of the twenties were also analysed during the conference …

And, why is it important to do it in Cuba? Because Cuba is, I would say, the only country of what were called “socialist countries” where capitalism has not been restored. There is a fundamental debate for Cuba on how, taking into account the lessons of the last century, the internal struggles in the Soviet Union between the 1920s and 1930s, on the one hand; and the recent experiences of capitalist restoration in Russia, in China, and in other countries, how to position themselves as Cubans, in a sovereign way, and direct the way to the future. Of course it is complicated because the external aggression continues. We have Trump, who is restricting the small space that had been opened during Obama’s mandate for Cuba, which was somewhat limited but indicated an opening. Now with Trump they are closing spaces again.

As an internationalist, I have always supported the Cuban revolution, I have supported the fight against the blockade imposed on Cuba. And to see that there is a space in Cuba to rethink Trotsky’s contribution, the meaning that this contribution can have in today’s debates in Cuba, is a joy for me. There are dozens of comrades here who are revolutionaries in their countries, who may have different positions, different visions of Trotskyism, there are of course different visions of Marxism, different visions of Leninism, Fidelismo, Guevarism, there is not just one vision. There are discussions, but I can tell you that I feel the enthusiasm of comrades who have been fighting for decades and who consider this initiative in Cuba to be very positive.

*

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 interview was originally published on 31 May 2019 by the Cuban blog.

Eric Toussaint is a historian and political scientist who completed his Ph.D. at the universities of Paris VIII and Liège, is the spokesperson of the CADTM International, and sits on the Scientific Council of ATTAC France.  He is the author of Bankocracy (2015); The Life and Crimes of an Exemplary Man (2014); Glance in the Rear View Mirror. Neoliberal Ideology From its Origins to the Present, Haymarket books, Chicago, 2012 (see here), etc.

Wilder Pérez Varona is deputy director of the Institute of Philosophy of La Havana. 

After the fall of the Berlin Wall, there was a widespread sense that liberal capitalism had triumphed in the battle of ideas, and that socialism as a plausible alternative was pretty much dead. But the many crises of contemporary capitalism – obscene levels of economic inequality, looming ecological disaster, the rise of the racist and anti-democratic populist right, the new threats of surveillance capitalism and the surveillance state – threaten dystopia, an unbearable future. In response, the idea of socialism has been re-discovered by a layer of activists struggling for radical change, especially young people.

But what is socialism? If we are against capitalism, what are we for? Is the socialism we have in mind a more robust version of social democracy, despite its past accommodations to a capitalist economy, or a renewal of past visions of a post-capitalist economy and society, or of utopia? These questions are being debated in recent books and left journals, which will help shape contemporary progressive politics.

As underscored in a new book by Bhaskar Sunkara, the editor of the American magazine, Jacobin, democratic socialists believe that the ultimate goal of the left is to build a post-capitalist society and economy (The Socialist Manifesto, Basic Books, 2019). But, unlike Leninists, they recognize that building a socialist society will be a protracted process, as opposed to a single revolutionary rupture. It will involve building a mass movement, including a renewed labour movement and extra-parliamentary politics. However, such a transformation will require working through the institutions of the liberal democratic state, with a strong commitment to the rule of law, civil rights, and democratic and political rights such as freedom of speech and multi-party elections. This process can be thought of as extending democracy from the political to the social and economic sphere, including through the extension of social and economic rights and expansion of public and other collective forms of ownership, as well as creating more democratic work-places. Socialism is about creating a society in which all individuals are free to develop their full potential, as opposed to a single collective goal.

The Trajectories of Democratic Socialism

Unlike many social democrats, democratic socialists think that our long-term goal is more than a market-based capitalist economy, even one with a large public sector, strong unions, and a redistributive welfare state. In the social democratic heyday of the post-War period, enormous advances were indeed made toward what the sociologist Gosta Esping-Anderson termed the “decommodification of labour,” and the lives of working people were transformed in the process. Many services, notably health, education, culture and recreation, and housing came to be delivered outside of the market on the basis of citizen entitlement rather than ability to pay. Sustained near full employment plus unemployment insurance, public pensions, child benefits, and training programs gave working people a substantial degree of security in what remained a capitalist labour market. Unions played a major (albeit junior) co-government role in the workplace. Corporate economic power was subject to effective regulation in the public interest.

In the context of the steady growth of wages and social programs and genuine economic security, it is little wonder that many social democrats said that our historic goals had been essentially achieved well short of the original goal of socialization of the means of production. In Canada, echoing debates in Britain and Germany, the Winnipeg Declaration that preceded the formation of the New Democratic Party (NDP) in 1961 replaced the avowedly anti-capitalist Regina Manifesto of the CCF, explicitly limiting the goals of the left to a mixed economy and a full-employment welfare state. Public ownership and state economic planning, which was the common understanding of the left until the age of post-War mass affluence, came to be widely seen as an anachronistic means of making social progress.

Yet this perspective neglected the dependence of the social democratic compromise upon a unique set of circumstances – the experience of the Great Depression and Fascism that had discredited the right, as well as international economic arrangements after the War that allowed states to make their own choices free of the pressures of global capital mobility. And, as emphasized by Sunkara, strong economic growth and healthy profits underpinned the post-War class compromise, securing the cooperation of capital for an extended period. At least temporarily, social democrats did not feel they paid a price for leaving investment and the levers of economic power in the hands of private corporations. This changed when profitability came to be threatened by rising real wages and slumping growth in the 1970s.

The neoliberal era that began in the early 1980s saw corporations and the right attack the post-War social democratic settlement, putting the left on the defensive, at best. Many social democrats such as Tony Blair in the UK, Gerhard Schröder in Germany and liberal democrats such as Bill Clinton and Barack Obama in the United States became, in effect, slightly progressive neoliberals. They embraced global “free trade” and capital mobility as opposed to regulated national economies, celebrated the market, imposed austerity, and no longer had any interest in radical redistribution or fundamental institutional change beyond a shallow commitment to greater equality of opportunity and less poverty.

This bastard strand of social democracy has been hugely discredited by the inexorable rise of economic inequality to appalling levels, the concentration of enormous wealth and power in the hands of the uber-rich, the stagnation of wages and living standards for the vast majority of working people, increased economic insecurity, and the rise of precarious and low-paid work. To that dismal litany should be added the failure of existing governments of almost all stripes to deal at all seriously with catastrophic climate change and the wider ecological crisis. Saving the planet, it is safe to say, will involve far more comprehensive economic planning than is possible under corporate dominated capitalism. On top of the inequality and ecological crises, many fear the threat of automation and the end of work due to the rise of machine learning, artificial intelligence (AI), and robots. Technological change has been used to further entrench corporate monopolies, especially over so-called intellectual property, further increasing corporate power and threatening democracy through control of big data and technologies of mass surveillance.

The Threat of Dystopia

There is a rich tradition of dystopian fiction and film that has anticipated barely liveable futures as current trends in twenty-first century capitalism inexorably unfold. Think of Blade Runner, a world in which the robots have escaped human control, the planet has been badly damaged by climate change, and huge inequalities of wealth and power are the norm. The movie Elysium describes a world in which the rich have severed themselves off from an almost unlivable and brutal world, enjoying lives of material and psychic abundance, unlike the great mass of humanity. The reality of surveillance capitalism and the all-knowing state has rekindled the dark vision of George Orwell’s 1984 in which the individual is crushed by the omniscient and all-powerful state.

Shoshana Zuboff argues that we are already well beyond Orwellian dystopia due to big data, artificial intelligence, machine learning, and the explosion of computing capacity to analyze huge quantities of information (The Age of Surveillance Capitalism: The Fight for a Human Future at the New Frontier of Power, Public Affairs, 2019). “Big Other” is made up of a handful of monopolistic and unscrupulous corporate giants such as Google and Facebook that know as much and more about us, their users, than we do ourselves. They know our interests, our attitudes, our emotions, our movements, and our purchases. These technologies were first developed to target ads more effectively to consumers based on search behaviour and social media posts, but companies have gone well beyond informed prediction to actually mould and shape behaviour. In China, the surveillance state has used facial recognition and other technologies to monitor individuals in order to give them a “social credit” score, with high marks being needed to access travel privileges. Surveillance capitalism driven by profit-seeking giants is creating a “sanitized tyranny,” relatively unconstrained by the state, which uses this knowledge base for its own national security purposes as was revealed to the world by Edward Snowden.

“Big Other” increasingly monitors us at work, as in the electronic bracelets worn by Amazon warehouse workers, and is being used to gather information on our formerly private lives. Our phones with their cameras, microphones and GPS systems track us in real time and potentially listen in on us in our homes along with our smart televisions. Apps we download and whose terms of service we approve routinely without reading them are often deeply intrusive, giving third parties access to our data. Insurance contracts are being written that give us lower premiums in return for real time monitoring of our driving behaviour, setting the stage for possible monitoring of our health-related behaviour in return for health insurance.

Employers often contract out hiring decisions to third-party companies, which then draw on vast stores of personal data to vet candidates. And work is being transformed to make us more compatible with machine intelligence. Proposals for so-called Smart Cities seek to capture the totality of our lives, supposedly in return for greater convenience. The internet of things can go so far as to deprive us of control of functions in our home environment, just as self-driving cars threaten surveillance of where we are and control of our movements. Facebook algorithms have been used to target messages that do not just predict behaviour but also shape what we think and what we do, including the ability to send us “fake news” to influence our votes. Zuboff thinks we are well on our way to a “hive machine” in which individual and human choice shrink to the margins, and machine intelligence and logic prevail.

Plausible Utopias

By contrast, we lack plausible utopias in which humanity has responded successfully to the great challenges of our time. Past socialist utopias in fiction such as Edward Bellamy’s Looking Backward and William Morris’s News from Nowhere were best-sellers at the heyday of industrial capitalism in the late nineteenth century, presenting a highly desirable post-capitalist world of material abundance, equality, and social harmony. They certainly presented socialism, in the sense of common ownership of property and equal shares for all, as both desirable and possible, and consistent with human nature, which was held to be co-operative and capable of transcending a purely individualist ethos. In truth, both novels are poor, overly didactic works of literature, and shared many Victorian beliefs on gender and other issues which ring badly today. But at least they conveyed a vision that made socialism plausible and tangible. A few contemporary “social science fiction” writers such as Cory Doctorow (for example, in his recent novel Walkaway) have suggested that new technology and automation could be used to build a much better world, but there is a well-founded sense that, in the wake of the demise of Communism and the exhaustion of mainstream social democracy, we lack a vision of socialism as a viable utopia.

Writing in 1916 amidst the horrors of the First World War, the famous German-Polish socialist Rosa Luxemburg argued that humanity faced a stark choice between socialism and barbarism. The latter, in the form of fascism, was only narrowly defeated, setting the stage for social democracy. Naomi Klein has similarly argued that the real choice we face today is between the status quo and radical change, given the scale of the ecological crisis and its deep relationship to capitalism, and given that growing economic inequality is deeply rooted in capitalist economic dynamics. Many commentators and activists have come to accept the socialist argument that deep equality is impossible if a small elite control economic, and thus political, power.

An especially provocative and succinct recent book by Peter Frase (Four Futures: Life After Capitalism, Verso 2016) argues that in a world confronted by multiple crises caused by or associated with twenty-first century capitalism – inequality, the ecological crisis and corporate-driven automation and surveillance – we must choose between a socialist future and dystopia. More specifically, he argues that massive technological and organizational change, artificial intelligence, and the rise of the robots, as well as the new connecting information technologies, open up the possibility of socialism, doing away with bad jobs, and enabling much richer lives for all through a fair sharing of the fruits of possible abundance. But, he argues, new technologies under the sway of capitalism threaten to create ever more unequal, brutal, and ecologically unsustainable societies.

Frase, who is also associated with the American left journal Jacobin, describes four possible futures based on social science and speculative “social science fiction.” These are not predictions but informative outlines of possible social trajectories which will be determined by politics – how we collectively deal with inequality, automation, and the ecological crisis.

Four Possible Futures

The first dystopia, “rentierism” is the most plausible continuation of the path on which we are now embarked. The production problem is well on its way to being solved through rapidly advancing productivity as was envisaged by Marx and also by Keynes in his famous essay on economic possibilities for our grand-children. However, the capitalist elite extract and control huge and rising economic rents or surplus profits based upon control of markets that fuel compounding wealth and income inequality, as has long been argued by economist Joseph Stiglitz. (See his new book People, Power and Profits, Norton, 2019). As Keynes also argued, mature capitalism opens up the way to the dominance of “rentiers” who extract surplus profits while making no real productive contribution to society.

The key issue is who will own the robots and the intellectual property rights that generate these rents. Meanwhile, technological and organizational innovations progressively destroy many good jobs and create cut-throat competition for the jobs that cannot be automated out of existence. Needed labour shrinks to a small creative class, guard labour, needed to control dissent, and servants pandering to the needs of the rich. This creates a chronic tendency for wages to fall, and thus, for demand to stagnate.

“Exterminism” is an even worse dystopia, marked by extreme hierarchy and scarcity. As in Elysium, a small elite live in luxury in the ultimate gated community above the Earth, while the great mass live horrible lives on a poisoned planet. One is reminded of the large estates in New Zealand and Argentina that are apparently being purchased by Silicon Valley tech billionaires as possible bolt-holes. The central problematic of exterminism is that “abundance and freedom from work are possible for a minority, but material limits make it impossible to extend the same way of life to everyone. At the same time, automation has rendered masses of workers superfluous. The result is a society of surveillance, repression, and incarceration always threatening to tip over into one of outright genocide.”

Frase’s two more utopian visions pre-suppose the political overthrow of the global elite, a project that could itself have dystopian consequences. “If the rich won’t relinquish their privileges voluntarily, they would have to be expropriated by force, and such struggles can have dire consequences for both sides.”

Under communism, based on abundance and lack of hierarchy, life would cease to be centred around wage labour, and the expansion of free time would allow for individual self-realization, which Marx thought of as the realm of freedom, while Keynes spoke of the possibility for all to lead full and meaningful lives. Non-alienated labour would still exist to manage the machines and engage in activities like “deep caring,” but there would be a radical decommodification of labour through a universal basic income that would force the desirable automation of routinized jobs and provide all with a decent and substantively equal standard of living. This is not, however, the end of history if only because class relations are not the only source of hierarchy and political debate and conflict.

Socialism based on continued scarcity with equality plus ecological sensitivity seems a more plausible trajectory for the foreseeable future. Frase argues that we can have an egalitarian solution to the ecological crisis, but this will require planning, a much more limited role for markets, and radical re-distribution to end large concentrations of wealth and income. Again, he envisages a non-residual basic income, combined with a major expansion of collective consumption through public services. “If we can tackle the inequalities that make our current market societies so brutal, we might have a chance of deploying market mechanisms to organize consumption in an ecologically limited world, allowing all of us to come through capitalism and climate change as equals.” Socialism is not utopia, but it can still be a world of freedom.

Plausible Socialism

Frase’s interest in a plausible socialism is but one example of a significant revival of interest in sketching out just what a post-capitalist society would look like starting from where we sit today. As widely noted, classical Marxism offers surprisingly little. Marx had no developed alternative model in mind. Indeed, he poured scorn on utopian socialist blueprints and “recipes for the kitchens of the future.” Writing early in the expansion of industrial capitalism, he expected socialism to arise in a distant future when capitalism had exhausted its incredible productive potential and capitalist class relations had become a fetter on the advance of humanity to a better world. He did not even theorize much about politics, though he anticipated that the struggles for socialism and political democracy would be closely intertwined and that the latter would set the ground for the former in countries such as Britain.

In the twentieth century, socialism in the sense of a post-capitalist economy came to largely mean political democracy plus national economic planning through nationalization of at least the commanding heights of the economy, as in the CCF program and the platform on which the Labour government of Britain was elected in 1945. Nationalization was partly intended to end concentrated wealth, and also to set the basis for planning the economy to meet human needs.

Alternatively, socialism came to be conflated with Stalinist central economic planning, which was not only brutal, inhumane, and profoundly anti-democratic, but also failed to deliver the goods and emerged as a serious rival to liberal democratic capitalism in terms of growth (though we should note that Communism played the major role in defeating fascism, and that it achieved some economic successes in the Khrushchev era as the Gulag was dismantled). There are many cautionary lessons to be drawn from the Soviet experience, not least that democracy is incompatible with highly centralized state planning and a fully socialized economy that concentrates power in the hands of a small elite.

Given that radical change must necessarily come through the democratic political process anchored in specific countries, it is hard to envisage a socialism that does not involve a significant expansion of the economic role of existing states, including socialization of the “commanding heights” of finance and concentrated corporate power. To be sure, the reassertion of democratic control over capital will have to take place at both the international and the national level, especially in countries like Canada, which are deeply implicated in global markets and are very far from the relative self-sufficiency that enables purely national economic planning. But the traditional emphasis of the left upon expanding the economic role of the state remains highly relevant.

Mention should also be made of visions and even blueprints of a “bottom up” socialism based upon workers’ councils. There was a minority tradition in the British Labour Party in support of greater worker control of the nationalized industries, but in the event, only ownership changed while the managers remained in place. The dominant tendency on the left has been to think of a division of labour between strong unions and/or workers’ councils at the workplace playing a subordinate role compared to a social democratic or socialist party working through the state to build a socialized economy. Some socialist intellectuals have outlined various models of participatory and democratic socialist planning and models of a pluralistic market-based socialism on a national level. In the 1970s, Tony Benn in the UK and Rudolf Meidner in Sweden belonged to a current that saw moving to collective ownership and democratic socialist planning as an alternative to the stagflation crisis. Meidner proposed that ownership and the investment process be ultimately socialized by gradually transferring ownership from private capital to pools of socially-owned pension funds, while Benn advocated some combination of worker control at the workplace and an expansion of public ownership to take over “the commanding heights.”

As Erik Olin Wright has noted, some socialists in recent times have advocated much greater civil-society and democratic control of the post-capitalist economy as opposed to, or in combination with, centralized state control.

In this broad tradition of thought, there has been interest in expanding non-state but also non-capitalist forms of ownership such as worker and consumer co-operatives, not-for-profit enterprises and credit unions, social enterprises, pools of pension funds, and community and municipally-based corporations. Also, there have been advocates of civil-society regulation as opposed to state regulation of large corporations by expanding the role of workers and other “stakeholders” through reforms to corporate governance. Wright talks of “voyages of exploration” in which these kinds of examples and experiments expand the economic role of civil society in the interstices of a capitalist economy. Encouragingly, there has recently been a significant revival of interest in thinking about new institutions and practices to move beyond capitalism and old-style centralized state socialism. Most notably, the Labour Party in the United Kingdom has debated new forms of social ownership – favouring the expansion of co-operatives and not just public enterprises, and calling for much greater worker control at the workplace through the expansion of works councils and a gradual transfer of minority equity stakes in large enterprises to workers. (See Economics for the Many, edited by John McDonnell, Shadow Chancellor of the Exchequer under Jeremy Corbyn.)

A recent book by Leigh Phillips and Michal Rozworski makes the convincing and important argument that the technological and organizational sophistication of contemporary capitalism has laid the ground for much less reliance on the so-called free market to organize production (People’s Republic of Walmart – How the World’s Biggest Corporations are Laying the Foundation for Socialism, Verso, 2019). The key imperative is to move from production for profit to production to meet human needs based on common ownership and much more equal incomes. The conventional wisdom has been that markets are needed to match demand and supply efficiently and that state planners simply could not process the vast amounts of information needed to reach optimal prices. But, as the economist Ronald Coase noted long ago in the 1930s, large firms often choose to produce goods and services in-house rather than buy on the market and exist as islands of planning to minimize transaction costs. Further, capitalist economies have been planned in times of war, and innovation has long involved large scale public investment and planning.

Phillips and Rozworski bring this story up to date, showing that our economy is planned on a massive scale but by monopolistic corporations in search of profits. For example, Walmart uses big data, advanced logistics, and long-term relationships with suppliers to ensure that stocks on the shelf are continuously replenished. Manufacturing suppliers respond to sales almost minute by minute. Amazon uses advanced logistics and robots in warehouses to achieve super fast delivery times. These firms have gained dominance not just through cut-throat pricing and brutalized working conditions, which are definitely part of the story, but also through massive investments in information technology. They actually shape demand in real time through closely targeted messages to consumers. The authors conclude that “(p)lanning is already everywhere, but rather than functioning as a building block of a rational economy based on need, it is woven into an irrational system of market forces driven by profit. Planning works. Just not yet for us.”

Sam Gindin (“Socialism for Realists,” Catalyst, Volume 2, Issue 3, Fall 2018) has provided an important sketch of what democratic economic planning might look like. To my mind, he correctly suggests that we need planning plus markets. The state must necessarily play a major role in a planned economy, perhaps including through socialization of finance and through large state-owned enterprises. But there is a role for community-based small enterprises to provide variety to consumers and to produce high quality goods and services in local communities/economies. And there will and should be a labour market in the sense that individuals choose where to work in response to incentives, even while we decommodify labour through comprehensive public services and income supports that substantially reduce reliance on wages. The scale of necessary wage differentials will have to be determined.

He argues that nationalization is not enough. Even if we own the means of production, perhaps including the information technology giants, social choices will have to be made about what to produce. We do not live in a post-scarcity world and will have to choose, for example, between increasing consumption on the one hand and expanding public services and/or reducing working-time on the other. Of necessity, these choices will be political. We must also choose how to produce, to the degree that there is some trade-off between productivity and new technologies, and healthy working conditions. We will also have to balance consumption with ecological imperatives.

Gindin argues that socialism must combine social ownership with popular/workers’ control. A more democratic economy will demand the development of new capacities and the ability to make real choices at the level of the community and the workplace and not just at the level of the state. But this involves many important tensions. Worker co-ops or other collectives must somehow fit into a broader economic plan, but they will have a tendency to promote their own specific interests. Too much decentralization of economic decision-making to even post-capitalist enterprises can generate new inequalities if we are not careful. At the same time, we have to think about democratizing political processes that are now centralized, for example, by bringing together producers and users of public services like healthcare. Could democratic social media allow for greater deliberation and decentralization of political decision-making?

The fact that the left is beginning to think about a plausible socialism is indeed welcome in a context where the status quo is leading us to dystopia. But we need much more debate and discussion about the new world we want to build. That is what utopias are for.

*

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.

Do you value the reporting and in-depth analysis provided by Global Research on a daily basis?

Click to donate or click here to become a member of Global Research.

.

.

*     *     *

President Lopez Obrador of Mexico’s Letter to Donald Trump. “I Don’t Want Confrontation…”

By President Andrés Manuel López Obrador, June 04, 2019

I am aware of your latest position in regard to Mexico. In advance, I express to you that I don’t want confrontation. The peoples and nations that we represent deserve that we resort to dialogue and act with prudence and responsibility, in the face of any conflict in our relations, serious as it may be

Top US Journalists Spread Fake News Claiming North Korean Official Was ‘Purged’ – Then He Shows Up on TV

By Ben Norton, June 04, 2019

In the latest example of fake news disseminated without any hint of skepticism by America’s top journalists, virtually every major media outlet reported that a senior North Korean official named Kim Yong-chol was supposedly forced into a “labor camp,” as part of a larger deadly “purge.”

Trudeau Government Squeezes Cuba

By Yves Engler, June 05, 2019

Ottawa faces a dilemma. How far are Trudeau’s Liberals prepared to go in squeezing Cuba? Can Canadian corporations with interests on the island restrain the most pro-US, anti-socialist, elements of the ruling class?

US Bans Educational and Recreational Travel to Cuba

By Telesur, June 05, 2019

As of June 5, U.S. citizens will be prohibited from making group educational and cultural trips known as “people to people” travel to Cuba, Secretary of Commerce Steve Mnuchin of the U.S. Treasury Department confirmed in a statement Tuesday.

From Glyphosate to Front Groups: Fraud, Deception and Toxic Tactics

By Colin Todhunter, June 05, 2019

There are shockingly high levels of weed killer in UK breakfast cereals. After testing these cereals at the Health Research Institute in Iowa, Dr Fagan, director of the centre, said: “These results are consistently concerning. The levels consumed in a single daily helping of any one of these cereals, even the one with the lowest level of contamination, is sufficient to put the person’s glyphosate levels above the levels that cause fatty liver disease in rats (and likely in people).”

EU Sued at International Criminal Court over Mediterranean Migration Policy – As More Die at Sea

By Maurice Stierl, June 05, 2019

It emerged on June 3 that the ICC had received a legal submission calling for the EU and some of its member states to face prosecution for enacting migration policies “intended to sacrifice the lives of migrants in distress at sea”.

Video: War Propaganda and US Military Buildup Against Iran

By South Front, June 05, 2019

In early May, the US deployed the USS Abraham Lincoln strike group as well as the USS Arlington amphibious transport dock, additional marines, amphibious vehicles, rotary aircraft, Patriot missiles and a bomber strike force to the region claiming that this is a needed measure to deter Iran, which allegedly prepares to attack US troops and infrastructure.

From the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) Summit to the G20: United Eurasia Stands, Divided It Falls?

By Andrew Korybko, June 04, 2019

The SCO Summit will see Russia, India, and China make a pretense of unity in spite of their many fault lines, while the G20 Summit will see Trump attempt to exploit these points of contention in a bold bid to divide and rule the supercontinent.

*

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.

Ottawa faces a dilemma. How far are Trudeau’s Liberals prepared to go in squeezing Cuba? Can Canadian corporations with interests on the island restrain the most pro-US, anti-socialist, elements of the ruling class?

Recently, the Canadian Embassy in Havana closed its Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship section. Now most Cubans wanting to visit Canada or get work/study permits will have to travel to a Canadian embassy in another country to submit their documents. In some cases Cubans will have to travel to another country at least twice to submit information to enter Canada. The draconian measure has already undercut cultural exchange and family visits, as described in a Toronto Star op-ed titled “Canada closes a door on Cuban culture”.

It’s rare for an embassy to simply eliminate visa processing, but what’s prompted this measure is the stuff of science fiction. Canada’s embassy staff was cut in half in January after diplomats became ill following a mysterious ailment that felled US diplomats sent to Cuba after Donald Trump’s election. Four months after the first US diplomats (apparently) became ill US ambassador Jeffrey DeLaurentis met his Canadian, British and French counterparts to ask if any of their staff were sick. According to a recent New York Times Magazine story, “none knew of any similar experiences afflicting their officials in Cuba. But after the Canadian ambassador notified his staff, 27 officials and family members there asked to be tested. Twelve were found to be suffering from a variety of symptoms, similar to those experienced by the Americans.”

With theories ranging from “mass hysteria” to the sounds of “Indies short-tailed crickets” to an “outbreak of functional disorders”, the medical questions remains largely unresolved. The politics of the affair are far clearer. In response, the Trump Administration withdrew most of its embassy staff in Havana and expelled Cuban diplomats from Washington. They’ve rolled back measures the Obama Administration instituted to re-engage with Cuba and recently implemented an extreme measure even the George W. Bush administration shied away from.

Ottawa has followed along partly because it’s committed to overthrowing Venezuela’s government and an important talking point of the anti-Nicolás Maduro coalition is that Havana is propping him up. On May 3 Justin Trudeau called Cuban president Miguel Díaz-Canel to pressure him to join Ottawa’s effort to oust President Maduro. The release noted,

“the Prime Minister, on behalf of the Lima Group [of countries hostile to Maduro], underscored the desire to see free and fair elections and the constitution upheld in Venezuela.”

Four days later Foreign Minister Chrystia Freeland added to the diplomatic pressure on Havana. She told reporters,

“Cuba needs to not be part of the problem in Venezuela, but become part of the solution.”

A week later Freeland visited Cuba to discuss Venezuela.

On Tuesday Freeland talked with US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo about Venezuela and Cuba. Afterwards the State Department tweeted,

“Secretary Pompeo spoke with Canada’s Foreign Minister Freeland to discuss ongoing efforts to restore democracy in Venezuela. The Secretary and Foreign Minister agreed to continue working together to press the Cuban regime to provide for a democratic and prosperous future for the people of Cuba.”

Ottawa supports putting pressure on Cuba in the hopes of further isolating/demonizing the Maduro government. But, the Trudeau government is simultaneously uncomfortable with how the US campaign against Cuba threatens the interests of some Canadian-owned businesses.

The other subject atop the agenda when Freeland traveled to Havana was Washington’s decision to allow lawsuits for property confiscated after the 1959 Cuban revolution. The Trump Administration recently activated a section of the Helms-Burton Act that permits Cubans and US citizens to sue foreign companies doing business in Cuba over property nationalized decades ago. The move could trigger billions of dollars in legal claims in US courts against Canadian and European businesses operating on the island.

Obviously, Canadian firms that extract Cuban minerals and deliver over a million vacationers to the Caribbean country each year don’t want to be sued in US courts. They want Ottawa’s backing, but the Trudeau government’s response to Washington’s move has been relatively muted. This speaks to Trudeau/Freeland’s commitment to overthrowing Venezuela’s government.

But, it also reflects the broader history of Canada-Cuba ties. Despite the hullabaloo around Ottawa’s seemingly cordial relations with Havana, the reality is more complicated than often presented. Similar to Venezuela today, Ottawa has previously aligned with US fear-mongering about the “Cuban menace” in Latin America and elsewhere. Even Prime minister Pierre Trudeau, who famously declared “viva Castro” during a trip to that country in 1976, denounced (highly altruistic) Cuban efforts to defend newly independent Angola from apartheid South Africa’s invasion. In response, Trudeau stated, “Canada disapproves with horror [of] participation of Cuban troops in Africa” and later terminated the Canadian International Development Agency’s small aid program in Cuba as a result.

After the 1959 Cuban revolution Ottawa never broke off diplomatic relations, even though most other countries in the hemisphere did. Three Nights in Havana explains part of why Ottawa maintained diplomatic and economic relations with Cuba: “Recently declassified State Department documents have revealed that, far from encouraging Canada to support the embargo, the United States secretly urged Diefenbaker to maintain normal relations because it was thought that Canada would be well positioned to gather intelligence on the island.” Washington was okay with Canada’s continued relations with the island. It simply wanted assurances, which were promptly given, that Canada wouldn’t take over the trade the US lost. For their part, Canadian business interests in the country, which were sizable, were generally less hostile to the revolution since they were mostly compensated when their operations were nationalized. Still, the more ideological elements of corporate Canada have always preferred the Cuban model didn’t exist.

If a Canadian company is sued in the US for operating in Cuba Ottawa will face greater pressure to push back on Washington. If simultaneously the Venezuelan government remains, Ottawa’s ability to sustain its position against Cuba and Venezuela is likely to become even more difficult.

*

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: Chrystia Freeland and Cuban Foreign Minister Bruno Rodriguez (Source: author)

As of June 5, U.S. citizens will be prohibited from making group educational and cultural trips known as “people to people” travel to Cuba, Secretary of Commerce Steve Mnuchin of the U.S. Treasury Department confirmed in a statement Tuesday.

According to the commercial director at Cuba’s tourism ministry, Michel Bernal, the island nation received about 250,000 U.S. visitors in the first four months of 2019, which represented a 93.5 percent increase from the same period in 2018.

For the time being, commercial airline flights and travel for university groups, academic research, journalism and professional meetings will continue to be allowed.

In response to the new sanctions, Cuba Foreign Minister Bruno Rodriguez wrote on Twitter that he “strongly rejects new sanctions announced by the U.S., which further restrict  U.S. citizens’ travels to Cuba, aimed at suffocating the economy and harming the living standards of Cubans in order to forcefully obtain political concessions. Once again they will fail.”

The “strategic decision to reverse the relation of sanctions and other restrictions” limiting Cuba-bound travellers was fueled, allegedly, by the belief that the foreign government’s principles play a “destabilizing role in the Western Hemisphere.”​​​​​​​ However, Mnuchin admitted that the decision was just one of many tied to the battle being waged against Venezuela’s government — which is supported by Cuba, Nicaragua, China, and Russia, among others. ​​​​​​​

#Cuba will not be frightened or distracted with new threats and restrictions. Work, creativity, efforts and resistance is our response. They haven't been able to suffocate us. They won't be able to stop us. #SomosCuba #SomosContinuidad pic.twitter.com/TC85FLICaQ

— Miguel Díaz-Canel Bermúdez (@DiazCanelB) June 4, 2019

James Williams, president of Engage Cuba, an activist organization that seeks to end the 60-year old blockade, criticized the Trump administration of using Cuba as a political pawn and policing where Americans travel.

“Our core freedoms ought to no longer be held hostage by politicians for bare partisanship,” he said, adding that “Cubans should not be used as political pawns. They are human beings … As of late’s news is highly opposed for the Cuban folk, particularly the burgeoning Cuban personal sector, who rely on American vacationers to toughen their firms and families.”

This latest sanction is just one of dozens imposed against the Caribbean nation since President Donald Trump rose to office and reimposed the 1950’s economic and tourism embargo.

*

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

In the same week that more migrant lives were lost at sea, the EU’s migration policy in the Mediterranean has been brought to the attention of the International Criminal Court (ICC).

It emerged on June 3 that the ICC had received a legal submission calling for the EU and some of its member states to face prosecution for enacting migration policies “intended to sacrifice the lives of migrants in distress at sea”.

The sharply worded submission was brought by international lawyers who have asked the ICC to open an investigation into EU migration policies and whether a prosecution could be mounted under international law.

The lawyers assessed European migration policies in the Mediterranean over recent years, paying particular attention to the end of Italy’s military-humanitarian rescue operation Mare Nostrum in 2014 and the subsequent shift to policies focused on deterrence. Their submission claims that this shift toward deterring migrants from crossing the Mediterranean to reach the EU resulted in:

(i) the deaths by drowning of thousands of migrants, ii) the refoulement of tens of thousands of migrants attempting to flee Libya, and iii) complicity in the subsequent crimes of deportation, murder, imprisonment, enslavement, torture, rape, persecution and other inhuman acts, taking place in Libyan detention camps and torture houses.

According to the ICC submission, these “crimes against humanity” were consciously perpetrated by the EU and member states in the belief that sacrificing migrant lives at sea would stop other migrants from making risky voyages across the Mediterranean.

Sending migrants back to Libya

The authors assert that European authorities have “channeled their policies” of deterrence through the so-called Libyan coastguard. Interceptions of migrant boats by the Libyan authorities have resulted in tens of thousands of people being sent back, or refouled, to Libya in recent years – and my research is showing they are increasingly being co-ordinated by Italian and EU authorities from the air.

I’ve have been told by people working for NGO search and research organisations, that a greater presence of European helicopters and aeroplanes patrolling the Mediterranean, for example those of the EU military operation Eunavfor Med, have been observed over the Mediterranean in the last few months. These aircraft have reportedly informed the Libyan coastguard about the whereabouts of migrants boats so that they can intercept them.

This increased aerial involvement of Eunavfor Med aircraft and helicopters stems from a European Council decision in late March 2019 to suspend the deployment of the operation’s ships, but strengthen surveillance by air and reinforce its support for the Libyan coastguard.

The result is that migrants are being forcibly returned to Libya, an active war-zone, where they are held in inhumane detention camps. NGOs have documented that many migrants have been exposed to systematic forms of torture, sexual violence, and extortion at these camps.

The submission to the ICC highlights clearly what migrants and their supporters continue to experience and witness on a daily basis: the violent consequences of European border and security policies that have turned the Mediterranean Sea into the deadliest border in the world.

In response to the ICC submission, an EU spokesperson highlighted the EU’s respect for human rights and international and European conventions, emphasising that its: “Priority has always been and will continue to be protecting lives and ensuring humane and dignified treatment of everyone throughout the migratory routes”. But the reality at sea is a different one – European non-assistance has become routine in the Mediterranean.

Spotted from the air

On June 2, a shipwreck occurred off the coast of Libya leaving dozens of people presumed dead. This will further raise the Mediterranean death toll that has surpassed 500 fatalities in 2019 already, despite a dramatic decrease in migrant crossings. On the same day, the survivors of another Mediterranean voyage testified after disembarking in Genoa, that they had lost travel companions at sea – despite the fact that Italian and other authorities had been alerted to their odyssey and were monitoring it.

After spotting the migrant boat with about 100 people on board on May 29 and relaying their distress, the civil reconnaissance aircraft Moonbird, run by the NGO Sea-Watch, observed that the Italian navy vessel P490 didn’t carry out a rescue operation despite being in the vicinity of the boat in distress. In the evening that day, the Alarm Phone, an activist hotline supporting migrants in distress at sea, of which I am a member, was also alerted to this boat.

Despite raising awareness about the emergency situation in public and directly with European coastguards, it took nearly a day until a rescue operation was launched. Because of this delay, the migrants, including many children, had to endure a second night at sea.

The daily dramas in the Mediterranean are not the result of a lack of European engagement at sea. As the submission to the ICC highlights, they are the consequence of European migration policies that have actively “turned the central Mediterranean to the world’s deadliest migration route.”

Decades of research has shown that the unabated criminalisation of migration has led to an increase in migrant fatalities around the world as those seeking to escape by crossing borders have had to revert to longer, more expensive, and more dangerous migration routes. Those dying in the Mediterranean today are the inevitable result of Europe “protecting” its borders.

*

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.

Maurice Stierl is a Leverhulme Research Fellow, University of Warwick

Featured image: Migrant boat spotted by Moonbird aircraft on May 29 in the Mediterranean. Moonbird/Sea-Watch

Tensions continue to grow in the Persian Gulf.

In early May, the US deployed the USS Abraham Lincoln strike group as well as the USS Arlington amphibious transport dock, additional marines, amphibious vehicles, rotary aircraft, Patriot missiles and a bomber strike force to the region claiming that this is a needed measure to deter Iran, which allegedly prepares to attack US troops and infrastructure.

On May 21, Acting Defense Secretary Patrick Shanahan claimed that the US had succeeded in putting the potential of Iranian attacks “on hold.” The declared victory over the mythical “Iranian threats” did not stop the US from a further military buildup.

On May 25, President Donald Trump declared that the US is sending 1,500 troops, 12 fighter jets, manned and unmanned surveillance aircraft, and a number of military engineers to counter Iran.

Trump also approved an $8 billion sale of precision guided missiles and other military support to Saudi Arabia, using a legal loophole. The Trump administration declared an emergency to bypass Congress, citing the need to deter what it called “the malign influence” of Iran.

The forces deployment was accompanied with a new round of fear-mongering propaganda.

On May 24, Adm. Michael Gilday, director of the Joint Staff, issued a statement saying  that “the leadership of Iran at the highest level” ordered a spate of disruptive attacks including those targeting an Aramco Saudi oil pipeline, pumping facilities, the recent sabotage of four tankers near the Strait of Hormuz, as well as a May 19 lone rocket attack on the area near the US embassy in Baghdad. Besides this, he repeated speculations about “credible reports that Iranian proxy groups intend to attack U.S. personnel in the Middle East”. Nonetheless, Adm. Gilday offered nothing that may look like hard proof to confirm these claims.

On May 28, National Security Adviser John Bolton blamed “naval mines almost certainly from Iran” for the incident with oil tankers off the UAE.

On May 30, Saudi Arabia’s King Salman went on an anti-Iran tirade during an emergency meeting of Arab leaders hosted in Mecca. He described the Islamic Republic as the greatest threat to global security for the past four decades, repeated US-Israeli accusations regarding the alleged Iranian missile and nuclear activities and urged the US-led bloc to use “all means to stop the Iranian regime” from its regional “interference”.

Despite the war-like rhetoric of the US and its allies and the recent deployment of additional forces in the region, Washington seems to be not ready for a direct confrontation with Iran right now. The USS Abraham Lincoln strike group remains outside the Persian Gulf, in the Arabian Sea, demonstrating that the Washington establishment respects the Iranian military capabilities and understands that the US Navy might lose face if the carrier were to make an attempt at demonstrating US naval power too close to Iranian shores.

Iran, in its own turn, stressed that it is not going to step back under these kinds of threats. Iran’s President Hassan Rouhani said that his country would not be coerced into new negotiations under economic sanctions and threat of military action.

“I favor talks and diplomacy but under current conditions, I do not accept it, as today’s situation is not suitable for talks and our choice is resistance only,” Rouhani said.

In the coming months, the US-Iranian confrontation in the diplomatic, economic and military spheres will continue to develop. Threats and aggressive actions towards Iran will not go without response. Nonetheless, it is unlikely that Teheran would move to instigate a hot conflict by its own accord, if no red lines, such as a direct attack on Iranian vital infrastructure or oil shipping lines, are crossed.

*

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

Featured image is from Veterans Today

Environmentalist Dr Rosemary Mason has just written to the Editor-in-Chief of the British Medical Journal and the British Medical Association Council Chairman, Chaand Nagpaul.

Her purpose is to not only draw attention to the impact of biocides, not least that of glyphosate, on health and the environment but also to bring attention to the corruption that allows this to continue.

Along with her letter, she enclosed a 13-page document. Readers can access the fully referenced document here: European Chemicals Agency classifies glyphosate as a substance that causes serious eye damage. It is worth reading in full to appreciate the conflicts of interest and the corruption that has led to the rise in certain illnesses and the destruction of the natural environment.

By way of a brief summary, the key points raised by Dr Mason and her claims include the following:

• The European Chemicals Agency classifies glyphosate as a substance that causes serious eye damage. There has been a massive increase in the use of glyphosate in recent years. An increase in cataracts has been verified by epidemiological studies in England and by a 2016 WHO report.
• There are shockingly high levels of weed killer in UK breakfast cereals. After testing these cereals at the Health Research Institute in Iowa, Dr Fagan, director of the centre, said: “These results are consistently concerning. The levels consumed in a single daily helping of any one of these cereals, even the one with the lowest level of contamination, is sufficient to put the person’s glyphosate levels above the levels that cause fatty liver disease in rats (and likely in people).”
• The amount of glyphosate in tap water in South Wales has increased tenfold in a very short period.
• Glyphosate is largely responsible for the destruction of biodiversity and an increase in the prevalence of many serious health conditions.
• There are massive conflicts of interest throughout various agencies in the EU that ensure harmful agrochemicals like glyphosate come to market and remain there.
• In fact, a global industry has emerged to give ‘advice’ on biocides regulation. This results in regulatory bodies effectively working to further the commercial interests of the pesticide industry.
• The European Food Safety Authority sanctioned increased maximum pesticide residue levels (MRL) at the request of industry (Monsanto in this case, to 100 times the previously authorised MRL).
• The Washington-based International Life Sciences Institute (ILSI) is used by corporate backers to counter public health policies. Its members have occupied key positions on EU and UN regulatory panels. It is, however, an industry lobby group that masquerades as a scientific health charity. The ILSI describes its mission as “pursuing objectivity, clarity and reproducibility” to “benefit the public good”. But researchers from the University of Cambridge, Bocconi University in Milan, and the US Right to Know campaign assessed over 17,000 pages of documents under US freedom of information laws to present evidence of influence peddling.
• ILSI Vice-President, Prof Alan Boobis, is currently the Chairman of the UK Committee on Toxicity of Chemicals in Food, Consumer Products and the Environment (CoT) (2015-2021). He was directly responsible for authorising chemicals such as glyphosate, chlorothalonil, clothianidin and chlorpyrifos that are destroying human health and creating a crisis in biodiversity. His group and others have authorised glyphosate repeatedly. He and David Coggon, the previous Chairman of CoT (2008-2015), were appointed as experts on Science Advice for Policy by European Academies (SAPEA), a group allied with the agrochemical industry and is fighting for higher pesticide exposure.
• Jean-Claude Juncker the President of the European Commission who, against a petition from more than 1.5 million European citizens, re-authorised glyphosate in December 2017 for a further five years. He set up the Science Advisory Mechanism, aiming to put industry-friendly personnel on various committees.

There are many more claims presented by Rosemary Mason in her report. But the take-home point is that the reality of the agrochemical industry is masked by well-funded public relations machinery (which includes bodies like the UK’s Science Media Centre). The industry also subverts official agencies and regulatory bodies and supports prolific lobby organisations and (‘public scientists’) which masquerade as objective institutions.

When such organisations or figures are exposed, they frequently cry foul and attempt to portray any exposure of their lack of integrity as constituting an attack on science itself; no doubt many readers will be familiar with the ‘anti-science’ epithet.

The industry resorts to such measures as it knows its products are harmful and cannot stand up to proper public scrutiny. And under a system of sustainable agroecology that can produce plentiful, nutritious food, it also knows its markets would disappear.

Motivated by fraud and fear of the truth emerging, it therefore tries to persuade politicians and the public that the world would starve without it and its products. It co-opts agencies and officials by various means and embeds itself within the policy agenda, both nationally and internationally.

And now, with increasingly saturated markets in the West, from Africa to India the industry seeks to colonise new regions and countries where it attempts to roll out its business model. Whether, say, through trade agreements, the WTO or strings-attached loans, this again involves capturing the policy ground and then trapping farmers on a financially lucrative chemical (-GMO)-treadmill, regardless of the consequences for farmers’ livelihoods, food, public health and the environment.

*

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

Colin Todhunter is a frequent contributor to Global Research and Asia-Pacific Research.

Três italianos foram convidados este ano para a reunião do grupo Bilderberg, realizada em Montreux, na Suíça, de 30 de Maio a 2 de Junho. Ao lado de Lilli Gruber, a apresentadora televisiva do La7, agora  convidada permanente do Bilderberg, foi convidado outro jornalista: Stefano Feltri, Vice-Director do ‘Fatto Quotidiano’, dirigido por Marco Travaglio. O “terceiro homem” escolhido pelo Bilderberg é Matteo Renzi, senador do Partido Democrata, antigo Presidente do Conselho.

O grupo Bilderberg, constituído formalmente em 1954, por iniciativa de “cidadãos eminentes” europeus e americanos, foi na verdade criado pela CIA e pelo serviço secreto britânico MI6 para apoiar a NATO contra a URSS. Após a Guerra Fria, manteve a mesma função de apoio à estratégia USA/NATO.

Às suas reuniões são convidados a participar todos os anos, quase exclusivamente da Europa Ocidental e dos Estados Unidos, cerca de 130 representantes do mundo político, económico e militar, dos meios de comunicação mediática de destaque e dos serviços secretos, que participam formalmente a título pessoal. Reúnem-se à porta fechada, cada ano num país diferente, em hotéis de luxo blindados por sólidos sistemas de segurança militar. Não é admitido nenhum jornalista ou observador, nem é publicado qualquer comunicado. Os participantes estão sujeitos à regra do silêncio: não podem sequer revelar a identidade dos oradores que lhes forneceram certas informações (perante a proclamada “transparência”). Só sabemos que este ano falaram principalmente da Rússia e da China, de sistemas espaciais, de uma ordem estratégica estável, do futuro do capitalismo. As presenças mais destacadas eram, como de costume, as dos Estados Unidos:

Henry Kissinger, “figura histórica” do grupo ao lado do banqueiro David Rockfeller (fundador de Bilderberg e da Trilateral, falecido em 2017); Mike Pompeo, antigo Director da CIA e actual Secretário de Estado; David Petraeus, Antigo General da CIA [3]; Jared Kushner, Conselheiro (e genro) do Presidente Trump para o Médio Oriente e amigo íntimo do Primeiro Ministro israelita Netanyahu.  A estes segue-se Jens Stoltenberg, Secretário Geral da NATO, que recebeu um segundo mandato pelos serviços aos EUA.

Durante quatro dias, em reuniões secretas multilaterais e bilaterais, esses e outros representantes das grandes potências (abertas e ocultas) do Ocidente, fortaleceram e expandiram a rede de contactos que lhes permite influenciar as políticas governamentais e a opinião pública.

Os resultados são visíveis. No “Fatto Quotidiano”, Stefano Feltri defende o grupo Bilderberg explicando que as suas reuniões são realizadas à porta fechada “para criar um contexto de debate franco e aberto, precisamente porque não é institucional”, e expõe “os múltiplos teóricos da conspiração” que espalham “lendas” sobre o grupo Bilderberg e também sobre a Comissão Trilateral.

Não diz que, entre “os múltiplos teóricos da conspiração”, está o Magistrado Ferdinando Imposimato, Presidente Honorário do Supremo Tribunal de Cassação (falecido em 2018), que resumiu, assim, o resultado das investigações realizadas: “O grupo Bilderberg é um dos responsáveis da estratégia de tensão e, portanto, também dos massacres” a partir do sucedido na Piazza Fontana, em concerto com a CIA e com os serviços secretos italianos, com a Gladio e com os grupos neofascistas, com a P2 e com as lojas maçónicas USA, nas bases da NATO.”

Neste prestigiado clube também foi admitido Matteo Renzi. Excluindo que o convidaram pelos seus dotes de analista, resta a hipótese de que os poderosos de Bilderberg estão a preparar, de maneira oculta, algumas operações políticas em Itália. Pedimos desculpa a Feltri de nos juntarmos também aos “múltiplos teóricos da conspiração”.

Manlio Dinucci

Artigo original em italiano :

Le lunghe mani del gruppo Bildenberg

ilmanifesto.it

Tradutora: Maria Luísa de Vasconcellos

BILDERBERG MEETING 2019

Montreux, 30 May – 2 June 2019

BOARD

Castries, Henri de (FRA), Chairman, Steering Committee; Chairman, Institut Montaigne
Kravis, Marie-Josée (USA), President, American Friends of Bilderberg Inc.; Senior Fellow, Hudson Institute
Halberstadt, Victor (NLD), Chairman Foundation Bilderberg Meetings; Professor of Economics, Leiden University
Achleitner, Paul M. (DEU), Treasurer Foundation Bilderberg Meetings; Chairman Supervisory Board, Deutsche Bank AG

PARTICIPANTS

Abrams, Stacey (USA), Founder and Chair, Fair Fight
Adonis, Andrew (GBR), Member, House of Lords
Albers, Isabel (BEL), Editorial Director, De Tijd / L’Echo
Altman, Roger C. (USA), Founder and Senior Chairman, Evercore
Arbour, Louise (CAN), Senior Counsel, Borden Ladner Gervais LLP
Arrimadas, Inés (ESP), Party Leader, Ciudadanos
Azoulay, Audrey (INT), Director-General, UNESCO
Baker, James H. (USA), Director, Office of Net Assessment, Office of the Secretary of Defense
Balta, Evren (TUR), Associate Professor of Political Science, Özyegin University
Barbizet, Patricia (FRA), Chairwoman and CEO, Temaris & Associés
Barbot, Estela (PRT), Member of the Board and Audit Committee, REN (Redes Energéticas Nacionais)
Barroso, José Manuel (PRT), Chairman, Goldman Sachs International; Former President, European Commission

Barton, Dominic (CAN), Senior Partner and former Global Managing Partner, McKinsey & Company
Beaune, Clément (FRA), Adviser Europe and G20, Office of the President of the Republic of France
Boos, Hans-Christian (DEU), CEO and Founder, Arago GmbH
Bostrom, Nick (UK), Director, Future of Humanity Institute, Oxford University
Botín, Ana P. (ESP), Group Executive Chair, Banco Santander
Brandtzæg, Svein Richard (NOR), Chairman, Norwegian University of Science and Technology
Brende, Børge (NOR), President, World Economic Forum
Buberl, Thomas (FRA), CEO, AXA
Buitenweg, Kathalijne (NLD), MP, Green Party
Caine, Patrice (FRA), Chairman and CEO, Thales Group
Carney, Mark J. (GBR), Governor, Bank of England
Casado, Pablo (ESP), President, Partido Popular
Ceviköz, Ahmet Ünal (TUR), MP, Republican People’s Party (CHP)
Champagne, François Philippe (CAN), Minister of Infrastructure and Communities
Cohen, Jared (USA), Founder and CEO, Jigsaw, Alphabet Inc.
Croiset van Uchelen, Arnold (NLD), Partner, Allen & Overy LLP
Daniels, Matthew (USA), New space and technology projects, Office of the Secretary of Defense
Davignon, Etienne (BEL), Minister of State
Demiralp, Selva (TUR), Professor of Economics, Koç University
Donohoe, Paschal (IRL), Minister for Finance, Public Expenditure and Reform
Döpfner, Mathias (DEU), Chairman and CEO, Axel Springer SE
Ellis, James O. (USA), Chairman, Users’ Advisory Group, National Space Council
Feltri, Stefano (ITA), Deputy Editor-in-Chief, Il Fatto Quotidiano
Ferguson, Niall (USA), Milbank Family Senior Fellow, Hoover Institution, Stanford University
Findsen, Lars (DNK), Director, Danish Defence Intelligence Service
Fleming, Jeremy (GBR), Director, British Government Communications Headquarters
Garton Ash, Timothy (GBR), Professor of European Studies, Oxford University
Gnodde, Richard J. (IRL), CEO, Goldman Sachs International
Godement, François (FRA), Senior Adviser for Asia, Institut Montaigne
Grant, Adam M. (USA), Saul P. Steinberg Professor of Management, The Wharton School, University of Pennsylvania
Gruber, Lilli (ITA), Editor-in-Chief and Anchor «Otto e mezzo», La7 TV
Hanappi-Egger, Edeltraud (AUT), Rector, Vienna University of Economics and Business
Hedegaard, Connie (DNK), Chair, KR Foundation; Former European Commissioner
Henry, Mary Kay (USA), International President, Service Employees International Union
Hirayama, Martina (CHE), State Secretary for Education, Research and Innovation
Hobson, Mellody (USA), President, Ariel Investments LLC
Hoffman, Reid (USA), Co-Founder, LinkedIn; Partner, Greylock Partners
Hoffmann, André (CHE), Vice-Chairman, Roche Holding Ltd.
Jordan, Jr., Vernon E. (USA), Senior Managing Director, Lazard Frères & Co. LLC
Jost, Sonja (DEU), CEO, DexLeChem
Kaag, Sigrid (NLD), Minister for Foreign Trade and Development Cooperation
Karp, Alex (USA), CEO, Palantir Technologies
Kerameus, Niki K. (GRC), MP; Partner, Kerameus & Partners
Kissinger, Henry A. (USA), Chairman, Kissinger Associates Inc.
Koç, Ömer (TUR), Chairman, Koç Holding A.S.
Kotkin, Stephen (USA), Professor in History and International Affairs, Princeton University
Kramp-Karrenbauer, Annegret (DEU), Leader, CDU
Krastev, Ivan (BUL), Chairman, Centre for Liberal Strategies
Kravis, Henry R. (USA), Co-Chairman and Co-CEO, Kohlberg Kravis Roberts & Co.
Kristersson, Ulf (SWE), Leader of the Moderate Party
Kudelski, André (CHE), Chairman and CEO, Kudelski Group
Kushner, Jared (USA), Senior Advisor to the President, The White House
Le Maire, Bruno (FRA), Minister of Finance
Leyen, Ursula von der (DEU), Federal Minister of Defence
Leysen, Thomas (BEL), Chairman, KBC Group and Umicore
Liikanen, Erkki (FIN), Chairman, IFRS Trustees; Helsinki Graduate School of Economics
Lund, Helge (GBR), Chairman, BP plc; Chairman, Novo Nordisk AS
Maurer, Ueli (CHE), President of the Swiss Federation and Federal Councillor of Finance
Mazur, Sara (SWE), Director, Investor AB
McArdle, Megan (USA), Columnist, The Washington Post
McCaskill, Claire (USA), Former Senator; Analyst, NBC News
Medina, Fernando (PRT), Mayor of Lisbon
Micklethwait, John (USA), Editor-in-Chief, Bloomberg LP
Minton Beddoes, Zanny (GBR), Editor-in-Chief, The Economist
Monzón, Javier (ESP), Chairman, PRISA
Mundie, Craig J. (USA), President, Mundie & Associates
Nadella, Satya (USA), CEO, Microsoft
Netherlands, His Majesty the King of the (NLD)
Nora, Dominique (FRA), Managing Editor, L’Obs
O’Leary, Michael (IRL), CEO, Ryanair D.A.C.
Pagoulatos, George (GRC), Vice-President of ELIAMEP, Professor; Athens University of Economics
Papalexopoulos, Dimitri (GRC), CEO, TITAN Cement Company S.A.
Petraeus, David H. (USA), Chairman, KKR Global Institute
Pienkowska, Jolanta (POL), Anchor woman, journalist
Pottinger, Matthew (USA), Senior Director, National Security Council
Pouyanné, Patrick (FRA), Chairman and CEO, Total S.A.
Ratas, Jüri (EST), Prime Minister
Renzi, Matteo (ITA), Former Prime Minister; Senator, Senate of the Italian Republic
Rockström, Johan (SWE), Director, Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research
Rubin, Robert E. (USA), Co-Chairman Emeritus, Council on Foreign Relations; Former Treasury Secretary
Rutte, Mark (NLD), Prime Minister
Sabia, Michael (CAN), President and CEO, Caisse de dépôt et placement du Québec
Sanger, David E. (USA), National Security Correspondent, The New York Times
Sarts, Janis (INT), Director, NATO StratCom Centre of Excellence
Sawers, John (GBR), Executive Chairman, Newbridge Advisory
Schadlow, Nadia (USA), Senior Fellow, Hudson Institute
Schmidt, Eric E. (USA), Technical Advisor, Alphabet Inc.
Scholten, Rudolf (AUT), President, Bruno Kreisky Forum for International Dialogue
Seres, Silvija (NOR), Independent Investor
Shafik, Minouche (GBR), Director, The London School of Economics and Political Science
Sikorski, Radoslaw (POL), MP, European Parliament
Singer, Peter Warren (USA), Strategist, New America
Sitti, Metin (TUR), Professor, Koç University; Director, Max Planck Institute for Intelligent Systems
Snyder, Timothy (USA), Richard C. Levin Professor of History, Yale University
Solhjell, Bård Vegar (NOR), CEO, WWF – Norway
Stoltenberg, Jens (INT), Secretary General, NATO
Suleyman, Mustafa (GBR), Co-Founder, Deepmind
Supino, Pietro (CHE), Publisher and Chairman, Tamedia Group
Teuteberg, Linda (DEU), General Secretary, Free Democratic Party
Thiam, Tidjane (CHE), CEO, Credit Suisse Group AG
Thiel, Peter (USA), President, Thiel Capital
Trzaskowski, Rafal (POL), Mayor of Warsaw
Tucker, Mark (GBR), Group Chairman, HSBC Holding plc
Tugendhat, Tom (GBR), MP, Conservative Party
Turpin, Matthew (USA), Director for China, National Security Council
Uhl, Jessica (NLD), CFO and Exectuive Director, Royal Dutch Shell plc
Vestergaard Knudsen, Ulrik (DNK), Deputy Secretary-General, OECD
Walker, Darren (USA), President, Ford Foundation
Wallenberg, Marcus (SWE), Chairman, Skandinaviska Enskilda Banken AB
Wolf, Martin H. (GBR), Chief Economics Commentator, Financial Times
Zeiler, Gerhard (AUT), Chief Revenue Officer, WarnerMedia
Zetsche, Dieter (DEU), Former Chairman, Daimler AG

Temas abordados:

1  – A ordem estratégica estável.

2  – O que se segue na Europa?

3  – Mudança Climática e Sustentabilidade.

4  – China.

5  – Rússia.

6  – O futuro do capitalismo.

7  – O Brexit.

8  – A ética da Inteligência Artificial.

9  – O armamento (weaponization) dos meios de comunicação mediática.

10 – A importância do Espaço.

11 – Ameaças cibernéticas.

This month’s SCO and G20 Summits will see Eurasia first make a pretense of unity in Bishkek prior to Trump exploiting its preexisting fault lines in Osaka, with the US attempting to play Russia, India, and China off against one another in order to divide and rule the supercontinent.

The month of June will see two very important summits taking place in Eurasia, the first of which is the SCO one in Bishkek from 13-14 while the second is the G20 in Osaka from 28-29. The SCO Summit will see Russia, India, and China make a pretense of unity in spite of their many preexisting fault lines — practically all of which have to do with Russia and China’s concerns with India’s “Indo–Pacific” alliance with the US — while the G20 Summit will see Trump attempt to exploit these points of contention in a bold bid to divide and rule the supercontinent. It’s noteworthy that US Defense Secretary Shanahan just spoke exuberantly about his country’s military alliance with India at the Shangri-La Dialogue forum in Singapore, specifically remarking that the two Great Powers are “increasing the scope, complexity, and frequency of [their] military engagements” while sharing the summary of the US’ newly released “Indo-Pacific Strategy Report” with his audience. This can’t help but deepen the distrust that Russia and China feel towards their notional BRICS and SCO “partner” India ahead of the SCO Summit, which might have also been one of the reasons why he did that.

During the upcoming gathering in the Kyrgyz capital, it can be expected that India will try to emphasize economic cooperation with its counterparts (apart from the global pivot state of Pakistan) in order to improve its hand for negotiating with the US on trade after Washington global pivot state New Delhi’s participation in the duty-free “Generalized System of Preferences”, which is part of Trump’s coercive measures to squeeze more concessions out of Modi. In the interests of having at least some positive outcome of their summit, all three leaders might agree to put aside the issue of India’s alliance with the America in order to talk trade. Whatever superficial progress is made on this front, however, would just be a bluff that the US is already well aware of since it’s highly doubtful that New Delhi would abandon its trade talks with Washington at the same time as it’s strengthening its military alliance with it. Trump, being the successful billionaire businessman that he is, would obviously see through this charade even if Presidents Putin and Xi might temporarily be fooled by Modi if he plays to their wishful thinking expectations of “balancing” between the unipolar and multipolar blocs.

The positive photo-ops that will expectedly emerge from the SCO Summit will probably soon be forgotten two weeks later once the G20 Summit begins. The overarching theme will inevitably be the US-Chinese “trade war“, and Trump — being the masterful perception manager that he is — will likely try to stage his own positive photo-ops with Putin and Modi in order to strongly contrast with the negative one that he might have with Xi, therefore causing China to “lose face” on none other than the soil of its historic Japanese rival, to say nothing of the visible wedge that he’ll try to drive between the People’s Republic and Russia & India after their superficially “successful” SCO Summit. It shouldn’t be forgotten that Russia is negotiating a “New Detente” with the US at the same time as India is unprecedentedly allying with it, so China is left as the “odd man out” of the three in being the only one that’s refusing to cede any strategic ground to their shared interlocutor. This doesn’t mean that the US will automatically turn all three of these Eurasian Great Powers against one another, but just that it’s obvious that this is its grand strategic intent and could pave the way for more power plays 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.

This article was originally published on Oriental Review.

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.

With attribution to Mark Twain’s remark about false reports of his death, a Wall Street Journal report on Russia withdrawing defense support to Venezuela is greatly exaggerated. See below.

Trump is Exhibit A proof that all politicians lie, and nothing they say can be believed. Once a serial liar, always one. On Monday, he tweeted the following fake news:

“Russia has informed us that they have removed most of their people from Venezuela.”

No such report exists. See below.

Source: The Wall Street Journal

According to a June 2 Journal report, Russia “withdr(ew) key defense advisors from Venezuela,” adding:

“Russian state defense contractor Rostec,” working with Venezuela’s military, “cut its staff in (the country) to just a few dozen from about 1,000 (for) lack of new contracts (and claim that Maduro) no longer has…cash” to pay Rostec — citing an unnamed source allegedly “close” to Russia’s Defense Ministry.

Another unnamed source allegedly “close” to the Kremlin claimed Rostec “believe(s) the fight is being lost,” adding:

“Since the Venezuelans aren’t paying, why should Rostec stay there and foot the bill on its own.”

A Rostec statement refutes the Journal’s report, saying  “(t)he composition of (its presence in Venezuela) has not changed for many years.”

“Technical specialists periodically come to the country to carry out repairs and maintenance of previously supplied machines.”

“The figures (reported by the WSJ) have been exaggerated tens of times.” According to Russian arms producer Rosoboronexport, Moscow and Maduro’s government intend to increase cooperation, adding:

Russian companies “remain committed to deepening cooperation with the Ministry of Defense and other departments of the Venezuelan government.”

Hundreds of Russian military and security personnel remain in Venezuela. Nothing suggests Vladimir Putin is drawing down Kremlin support for the Bolivarian Republic and Maduro as its legitimate president.

Responding to the Journal’s Sunday report, Moscow’s envoy to the Bolivarian Republic Vladimir Zaemsky refuted the claim on Monday, saying:

“This is another piece of (fake) ‘news’ which has absolutely nothing to do with reality. Work is being carried out in accordance with existing obligations, and there is no talk of any cuts.”

Based on a bilateral 2001 agreement, Russia is involved with Venezuela cooperatively, a mutually beneficial alliance unacceptable US demands to leave the country won’t change.

Weeks earlier, the Kremlin rejected the Trump regime’s demand that Russian personnel leave. In recent months, Russian and Venezuelan officials discussed deepening bilateral ties, including ways to counter and circumvent illegal US sanctions Moscow rejects.

Both countries have been working on ways to increase Venezuelan oil exports, imports of food and medicines, along with protecting the nation’s electrical grid and other infrastructure from further US orchestrated sabotage.

Their ruling authorities have been deepening cooperation on science and technology, aerospace, defense, agriculture, electricity, oil, industrial development, and other areas of Venezuela’s economy.

Weeks earlier, Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Sergey Ryabkov said

“(w)e are concerned over the continuing actions by the United States toward the countries of the Latin American region. We see the sanctions as absolutely unlawful and illegitimate.”

“We will oppose them. Venezuela and Cuba are our allies and strategic partners in the region. We will do everything we can to let them feel our support.”

Around the same time, Putin spokesman Dmitry Peskov said Moscow will defend its interests in Venezuela with “all mechanisms available to us.”

Russian Energy Minister Alexander Novak and his Venezuelan counterpart Manuel Quevedo have been working on ways to increase state oil company PDVSA’s exports.

Venezuelan Vice President Delcy Rodriguez said the Bolivarian Republic “continue(s) strengthening our relations with Russia” politically, economically, financially, on trade, and militarily.

Earlier, Rosoboronexport said the company and other Russian enterprises are “partaking in the Russian-Venezuelan military-technical cooperation, remain committed to deepening partnership with the defense ministry and other government bodies of Venezuela.”

Russian minister counselor at its embassy in Caracas, Alexey Seredin, said relations “between (both countries) are excellent. At the moment, we are working to strengthen cooperation.”

The record of Russian Federation relations with allied countries shows Kremlin support, cooperation, and good faith are firm.

The Journal’s report claiming otherwise about Russia’s military involvement in Venezuela lacks credibility.

Establishment media are militantly hostile to Bolivarian social democracy and Maduro’s legitimacy as president.

Since imposter Guaido illegally self-declared himself interim president in January, they’ve waged intense propaganda war on Venezuela, vilifying Maduro, ignoring his legitimacy, supporting unlawful regime change.

They’re virtual imperial press agents for the diabolical plot to remove him and transform the Bolivarian Republic into a US client state — supporting what demands denunciation.

*

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

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

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

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

Visit his blog site at sjlendman.blogspot.com.

Featured image is from Moscow Times

Virtually every major Western corporate media outlet and a who’s who of pundits circulated a blatantly false report that North Korean nuclear negotiators were killed and imprisoned, exposing their non-existent editorial standards on Official Enemies.

***

The corporate media’s editorial standards for reporting on Official Enemies of the US government, especially North Korea, are as low as ever. Blatantly false stories are regularly circulated by leading news outlets without any kind of accountability.

In the latest example of fake news disseminated without any hint of skepticism by America’s top journalists, virtually every major media outlet reported that a senior North Korean official named Kim Yong-chol was supposedly forced into a “labor camp,” as part of a larger deadly “purge.”

Two days later, that same official turned up alive at a public art performance, seated next to North Korean leader Kim Jong-un.

Bloomberg kicked off the fake news frenzy on May 30 by publishing a report claiming, “North Korea executed its former top nuclear envoy to the U.S. and four other foreign ministry officials in March after a failed summit between Kim and Donald Trump.”

Bloomberg’s source for this false story was South Korea’s far-right newspaper Chosun Ilbo, which has a long history of fabricating stories about North Korea. In turn, Chosun Ilbo’s story was based on a single unidentified source.

That is to say, the fake report obediently echoed by the Western press corps was based entirely on the claims of one unnamed person.

This obvious lack of evidence did not stop credulous reporters from jumping on the sensationalist propaganda. The false story was circulated by The New York Times, Reuters, The Wall Street Journal, The Hill, The Daily Beast, Fox News, CNBC, TIME, ABC News, The Financial Times, The Telegraph, VICE, Rolling Stone, The Independent, The Washington Times, The New York Post, HuffPost, France 24, The Japan Times, Haaretz, The Times of Israel, the US government’s Radio Free Europe / Radio Liberty, and many more.

North Korea has executed its former top nuclear envoy Kim Hyok Chol as part of a deadly purge after the collapse of the #TrumpKimSummit in Vietnam, Chosun reports #북한

More @business: https://t.co/gTEgsDoJq2 pic.twitter.com/ttWYx77aU1

— TicToc by Bloomberg (@tictoc) May 31, 2019

Twitter even went out of its way to create a shareable Moment based on the fake news.

North Korea charged and executed multiple government officials involved in February’s Trump-Kim summit, South Korean newspaper Chosun Ilbo reports. https://t.co/61QbQL0nk0

— Twitter Moments (@TwitterMoments) May 30, 2019

Careful readers (only a small percentage of total readers) might have noticed that Bloomberg quietly admitted in its original report, “Previous South Korean media reports about senior North Korean officials being executed following the talks have proven false.” But this concession didn’t stop the rest of the corporate media from running with this fake story.

On June 2, the commentariat’s favorite fable fell apart: North Korea’s nuclear negotiator Kim Yong-chol showed up on state media, sitting a few seats away from Kim Jong-un at a musical performance.

The Associated Press, Reuters, The New York Times, and CNN quickly published new reports making light of the news  — but none of these contained mea culpas or official retractions.

As of June 3, the vast majority of blatantly false reports published in dozens of outlets remain uncorrected.

The Grayzone has documented the long history of the US corporate media printing cartoonish lies about North Korea(officially known as the DPRK), especially in the form of execution stories that are quickly debunked. (The New York Times once even cited an obvious parody Twitter account as if it were the DPRK’s real state media.)

A few actual experts on Korea did raise concerns about the latest hoax. Among them was veteran reporter Tim Shorrock, who has spent decades reporting on Korea, and who joined prominent peace activists Christine Ahn and Simone Chun in questioning the bogus story.

Incredible that Bloomberg would run this story based on one source quoted by the completely irresponsible and rarely accurate Chosun Ilbo. I don't care if it is South Korea's largest newspaper, as the Post constantly refers to it. It has a history of false stories. https://t.co/EU2BKYXiOa

— Tim Shorrock (@TimothyS) May 31, 2019

Shorrock cautioned on May 31,

“It’s important to keep tabs on this one, which if uncorroborated could turn out to be one of the biggest fiascos in journalism history.”

As usual, Shorrock was right — but he was an outlier whose critical thinking was drowned out by a mob of mainstream pundits.

Below is a list of some of the top journalists in the US corporate media and political class, including ostensible “progressives,” who spread this blatantly false story. Many of these self-styled progressives promoted the hoax in hopes of embarrassing Donald Trump for embarking on a historic peace process with the DPRK.

Journalists and activists who spread the fake news

Chris Hayes, a media celebrity and MSNBC host who used the fake news to get in a cheap joke about Trump

Good God. https://t.co/BF1LIZwLXu

— Chris Hayes (@chrislhayes) May 30, 2019

Anxiously hoping the President doesn't tweet something about how the DPRK's envoy deserved what he got and Kim Jong Un is great.

— Chris Hayes (@chrislhayes) May 30, 2019

Julia Ioffe, a prominent journalist, GQ Magazine correspondent, and so-called “Russia expert”

"He speaks and his people sit up at attention. I want my people to do the same." Trump on Kim Jong Unhttps://t.co/PUDNn8GveP

— Julia Ioffe (@juliaioffe) May 31, 2019

Yashar Ali, a contributor to New York Magazine and the Huffington Post and liberal mini-celebrity

2. Remember this moment?

Well the North Korean official standing next to POTUS, Kim Yong Chol, is now in a North Korean labor camp on the orders of Kim Jong-Un pic.twitter.com/siV3HKUbOj

— Yashar Ali 🐘 (@yashar) May 30, 2019

Peter Baker, chief White House correspondent for The New York Times and an analyst for MSNBC

North Korea executed its special envoy to the US by firing squad in March and put four other Foreign Ministry officials to death as part of a purge following the failure of Kim Jong-un’s summit with Trump in Hanoi, South Korean paper reports. @choesanghun https://t.co/eZalCusUo6

— Peter Baker (@peterbakernyt) May 31, 2019

Jon Cooper, the chairman of the Democratic Coalition Against Trump, which proudly boasts, “We help run #TheResistance”

OUCH: North Korea has reportedly executed its special envoy to the U.S. and four other Foreign Ministry officials after the February U.S.-North Korea summit in Hanoi didn’t work out. https://t.co/kzppQNkzKC

— Jon Cooper (@joncoopertweets) May 31, 2019

Katie Phang, a legal contributor for NBC and MSNBC

🚨 Trump’s bestie, Kim Jong Un, has “executed [his] former top nuclear envoy with the U.S. along with four other foreign ministry officials in March after a failed summit” with Donald Trump in Vietnam.
https://t.co/30e95ZUpkr

— Katie Phang (@KatiePhang) May 31, 2019

David Roberts, a reporter for Vox

"North Korea executed its former top nuclear envoy to the U.S. and four other foreign ministry officials in March after a failed summit between Kim Jong Un and Donald Trump, South Korea’s Chosun Ilbo newspaper reported." https://t.co/bjUBz7AmDt

— David Roberts (@drvox) June 2, 2019

Caroline Orr, a neoliberal “Resistance” influencer who rose to prominence by pumping up the Russiagate narrative

Holy crap. North Korean envoy Kim Hyok Chol was reportedly executed over the failed summit between Kim Jong Un & Trump. Four other NK foreign ministry officials were reportedly executed, too, and a top aide for Kim Jong Un was punished with hard labor. https://t.co/4r8Xfu1RSf

— Caroline Orr (@RVAwonk) May 30, 2019

Oz Katerji, a rabid pro-military intervention regime-change activist dedicated to harassing anti-imperialists online

A North Korea official was executed in March over the Trump-Kim summit, Chosun Ibo newspaper reports https://t.co/SFuTIKnBfL via @bpolitics

— Oz Katerji (@OzKaterji) May 30, 2019

Josh Smith, a Reuters senior correspondent covering North and South Korea

South Korean newspaper Chosun Ilbo reports that North Korea has executed several officials involved in working level talks before the Hanoi Trump-Kim summit, including Kim Hyok Chol the former ambassador to Spain who (briefly now it seems) served as Steve Biegun’s counterpart

— Josh Smith (@joshjonsmith) May 30, 2019

Vivian Salama, a White House reporter for the Wall Street Journal, who previously worked as AP’s Baghdad bureau chief

😳😳😳😳 North Korea executed Kim Hyok Chol, its special envoy to the United States, and foreign ministry officials who carried out working-level negotiations for the second US-North Korea summit in February, holding them responsible for its collapse. https://t.co/4LAaQDJuME

— Vivian Salama (@vmsalama) May 30, 2019

Matt Bevan, the host and writer of ABC News Australia’s “Russia, If You’re Listening” podcast

Kim Jong-in executed the officials who organised his failed summit with Trump in Hanoi.

Interested to see what Trump says about his good friend Kim after this. https://t.co/zTm74Jwdn6

— Matt Bevan 🎙 (@MatthewBevan) May 30, 2019

Kaitlan Collins, a CNN White House reporter

"North Korea executed Kim Hyok Chol, its special envoy to the United States, and foreign ministry officials who carried out working-level negotiations for the second U.S.-North Korea summit, a South Korean newspaper reported on Friday." https://t.co/NgsQaMnRyv

— Kaitlan Collins (@kaitlancollins) May 30, 2019

Geoff Bennett, a White House correspondent for NBC News

Bloomberg: North Korean envoy executed over failed Trump-Kim summithttps://t.co/ifXP2bFbk6

— Geoff Bennett (@GeoffRBennett) May 30, 2019

Andrew Desiderio, a political reporter at Politico

New reporting tonight — that North Korea’s top US envoy was executed after the Hanoi summit & Kim’s top aide is undergoing hard labor — comes as Trump continues to heap praise on Kim and excuse his recent sanctions violations. https://t.co/f86bMiMfvf

— Andrew Desiderio (@desiderioDC) May 31, 2019

David Nakamura, a Washington Post reporter

South Korean paper reports Kim Jong Un has executed top envoy in wake of Hanoi summit collapse. If true, another stark reminder of brutality of the North Korean leader Trump has sided with over Biden, US intel agencies, Bolton, Shinzo Abe and Warmbier. https://t.co/ImcDC20khL

— David Nakamura (@DavidNakamura) May 30, 2019

Amy Siskind, a prominent liberal anti-Trump activist and former Wall Street executive

Trump buddy – and we knew this, Pompeo was asked about it weeks ago:
“Kim Hyok Chol, North Korea's special envoy to the U.S., was executed in March along with four other North Korean foreign ministry officials involved in the Hanoi, Vietnam, summit.” https://t.co/GMUaJoJ3yU

— Amy Siskind 🏳️‍🌈 (@Amy_Siskind) May 30, 2019

Steve Silberman, a longtime writer for Wired Magazine

This is the monster whose ass Trump kisses to mock Joe Biden. If a Democratic president did this to mock a GOP opponent, @FoxNews pundits would be invoking the 2nd Amendment. https://t.co/A7xjqhHWgV

— Steve Silberman (@stevesilberman) May 30, 2019

Rare exceptions

There were a few exceptions to the norm. Some reporters who specialize on Korea did raise concerns, pointing out South Korean media outlets have a long history of publishing false stories about the DPRK.

If you’ve read South Korean newspaper reports that Kim Hyok Chol and other North Korean officials involved in the US – DPRK talks in Hanoi have been executed – it’s also worth reading this. https://t.co/4BnkxUQXxD

— Laura Bicker (@BBCLBicker) May 31, 2019

These warnings, however, were ignored.

We need better sourcing for this @Chosun report saying #NorthKorea’s lead US negotiator was executed. I remember the time South Korean media reported in 2010 that a #NorthKorea soccer coach had been executed. And then I ran into him at #Pyongyang airport. https://t.co/gCy2av9gCE

— Jean H. Lee (@newsjean) May 31, 2019

*

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.

Ben Norton is a journalist and writer. He is a reporter for The Grayzone, and the producer of the Moderate Rebels podcast, which he co-hosts with Max Blumenthal. His website is BenNorton.com, and he tweets at @BenjaminNorton.

Global Research has over 50,000 subscribers to our Newsletter.

Our objective is to recruit one thousand committed “volunteers” among our 50,000 Newsletter subscribers to support the distribution of Global Research articles (email lists, social media, crossposts). 

Do not send us money. Under Plan A, we call upon our readers to donate 5 minutes a day to Global Research.

Global Research Volunteer Members can contact us at [email protected] for consultations and guidelines.

If, however, you are pressed for time in the course of a busy day, consider Plan B, Consider Making a Donation and/or becoming a Global Research Member. 

*     *     *

Video: “Plutocracy V: Subterranean Fire”. Capitalism and the Historical Trampling of the Working Class

By Kim Petersen, June 04, 2019

The film provides the historical context that allows the viewer to understand why inequality reigns while social justice and peace lag today.

President Lopez Obrador of Mexico’s Letter to Donald Trump. “I Don’t Want Confrontation…”

By President Andrés Manuel López Obrador, June 04, 2019

I am aware of your latest position in regard to Mexico. In advance, I express to you that I don’t want confrontation. The peoples and nations that we represent deserve that we resort to dialogue and act with prudence and responsibility, in the face of any conflict in our relations, serious as it may be.

A Second Israeli Election Proves Netanyahu’s Grip on Power Is Slipping

By Jonathan Cook, June 04, 2019

Netanyahu was forced to dissolve the 120-member parliament to block his chief rival, Benny Gantz, from getting a chance to assemble an alternative governing coalition.

The Murdering of Julian Assange

By Peter Koenig, June 04, 2019

Julian Assange is being slowly murdered by “Her Majesty’s Prison Service” at Belmarsh prison in the south-east of London. The prison is notorious for holding people who have never been charged with a crime indefinitely. It is also called the British version of Guantanamo, and, typically used to detain so-called terrorists, thus called by the British police and secret service and aped by the British MSM and establishment.

Pompeo’s Phony Outreach to Iran

By Stephen Lendman, June 03, 2019

Since its 1979 revolution, ending a generation of US-installed fascist dictatorship, Washington has been militantly hostile toward Iran — especially since Trump took office.

5G Wireless Technology Is War against Humanity

By Claire Edwards, June 03, 2019

This phoney war is also silent, but this time shots are being fired – in the form of laser-like beams of electromagnetic radiation (EMR) from banks of thousands of tiny antennas^[1] – and almost no one in the firing line knows that they are being silently, seriously and irreparably injured.

US-Iran: Inverted Reality, Real War. America’s Al Qaeda Mercenaries. Iran is Fighting the Largest State Sponsor of Terror

By Tony Cartalucci, June 03, 2019

In its march toward yet another war, the United States accuses Iran of using military force to establish itself as a “regional hegemon.” It accuses Iran of being the largest state sponsor of terrorism in the world. It accuses Iran of aiding rebels in Yemen, the government in Syria, and Hezbollah in 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.

When the “Islamic State” (ISIS) occupied large territories in Iraq and Syria, it shifted Middle East and world attention to it, moving the focus away from the Palestinian cause. The countries affected by the ISIS horror concentrated on recovering their occupied territories in the Levant and Mesopotamia, eliminating the infrastructure of the terrorist group, and stopping its recruitment of national and foreign fighters. The goal was to freeze the expansion of ISIS and to prevent it from spilling over into other countries in the Middle East.

Many militant members of Palestinian groups such as Hamas took up arms in support of either al-Qaeda or ISIS, mainly in Syria and but also to some extent in Iraq. Between 2012 and 2018 the political leadership of Hamas even supported NATO’s war for regime-change in Syria, earning the enmity of President Bashar al-Assad, whose government had defended Hamas and the Palestinian cause for decades. For years Assad resisted US demands to expel Hamas from Syria, and was rewarded with treachery. 

But in the last two years President Donald Trump and his team have given a huge boost to the Palestinian cause and restored its lustre despite the betrayals and distractions of the last decade. Today, all those supporting the Palestinian cause are not only united against one enemy (the US-Israeli coalition) but ready to fight as one body on multiple fronts.

Trump’s gifts to the Israeli Prime Minister Benyamin Netanyahu of the Syrian Golan occupied by Israel and of the whole of Israeli-occupied Jerusalem gave an enormous boost of adrenaline to all non-state actors and resistance movements in the Middle East. These groups, who enjoy financial and military support from Iran, are united not only against US hegemony but have also effectively linked themselves and their struggle to form a united front against the US and Israel. This new unity is evident from Yemen, Iraq, Iran, Syria, and Lebanon to Palestine.

During the month of May, the sabotage attack on the United Arab Emirates harbour of al-Fujairah followed by the armed drone attack on Aramco in Saudi Arabia by Yemen’s Houthis were clear and strong messages. Both the Emirates and Saudi hubs make it possible to export millions of barrels of Middle Eastern oil while bypassing the Straits of Hormuz; these hubs will become more important in coming years. Thus the importance of the message: the sabotage and the drone attack are a foretaste of what could happen next, even if alternatives are found to shipping global supplies through the Strait. No country in the Middle East will be allowed to export its oil if Iran is prevented from doing so.

Moreover, the Israeli policy of strangling Gaza has united the various Palestinian groups operating in the city into one military operational room against the Israeli army. Twelve Palestinian military groups have joined forces in Gaza and have coordinated the bombing of Israeli cities and other targets to stand against Netanyahu’s strangulation of Gaza and its inhabitants.

The conclusion is simple: the more blatantly the US establishment and Israel disregard the rights of Middle Eastern countries and populations to live in peace among each other and recover their occupied territories from Israel, the stronger non-state actor groups will become among the populations where they operate.

Iran benefits tremendously from the consequences of the US-Israeli policies. It thereby increases its influence in various parts of the Middle East. It can ask its partners to defend its interests and stand with it in case of danger to its national security.

The US no doubt is financially profiting from maintaining instability among Middle Eastern countries, which reinforces US hegemony over oil-rich countries. Keeping Iran as a model enemy has helped promote US weapon sales to an unprecedented level. Tribal and ethnic struggles in the Middle East serve to keep the countries in this party of the world divided. Regional strife also prevents coordination of policies among oil-rich countries, ensuring that no commercial market exchange or monetary unification is possible in the medium or long term.

During this latest crisis between Tehran and Washington, the US administration has failed to protect the Gulf countries from the Emirates sabotage and the Aramco attack. Nevertheless, its show of force and verbal threats – sending jet carrier and B-52 bombers to face the alleged threat from Iran – helped sell more US made military equipment, including $8 billion of Patriot interception missiles to oppose the threat of Iranian missiles being launched against Gulf countries.

Of course, no war took place and both Iran and the US have shown their willingness to avoid it at all costs. US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo seems now to be disregarding his earlier 12-point ultimatum and now says that his country is willing to negotiate without pre-conditions with Iran. Pompeo’s willingness for unconditional negotiations means very little because Iran has clearly stated its pre-conditions for talks with the US establishment: honour the JCPOA nuclear deal and lift the sanctions. On this basis Iran would open discussions, but would be unlikely to make any concessions until the end of Trump’s mandate in 2020. Iran looks much stronger today and the US much weaker.

Hezbollah is said to be ready to go to war for Iran and to bomb Israel. Yemen is already serving Iran’s objectives with its use of drones against Saudi oil facilities. The Iraqi non-state actors showed their capacities and the US got the message: US forces will be targeted in Iraq. In Gaza, the Palestinian groups deployed their new weapons and showed their readiness to join the common front in case of war against Israel. This general mobilisation has twisted the arms of the US and Israel, imposing a no-war situation in the Middle East for the foreseeable future. Today, the US and Israel have advanced weapons and the latest military technology, but their adversaries in the Middle East are also well-equipped, even if not at the same level. Their precision missiles and armed drones may be enough to maintain “the necessary” balance of power.

*

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

All images in this article are from the author

On June 2, the Syrian Arab News Agency reported on Israeli aggression on the T4 airbase, located in the eastern countryside of Homs province. It’s recognized that the Syrian Air Defense System managed to destroy two missiles. The remaining rockets hit targets on the territory of the base, resulting in one death, two injured servicemen, and damage to an arms depot and other equipment.

For the past several days the Israeli aviation repeatedly attacked the Syrian territory. Tel-Aviv struck artillery and two anti-missile batteries not far from Damascus, on the night of June 2. Three Syrian soldiers were killed, and seven others were severely wounded.

The Israeli forces hasted to declare that the strikes were retaliation for the launches of the Syrian missiles towards Mount Hermon in the Israeli-occupied Golan Heights.

The Israeli Prime Minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, said he had ordered the strike.

“We won’t tolerate fire at our territory and will respond forcefully to any aggression against us,” he said.

The Prime Minister also held a meeting on security issues after the Syrian attacks on the Golan Heights.

However, the actual reasons for the Israeli attacks are entirely different. Currently, the country is preparing for the parliamentary elections, so Netanyahu needs good public relations to demonstrate his determination. He does his best to score points in the domestic arena, including the acts of aggression against the sovereign state. Thus, he proves the intention not to retrieve the occupied territories to Damascus. Notably, in the lead-up to the Knesset elections in April, the same provocation was seen.

Since the beginning of 2019, the Israeli side more than ten times has carried out massive strikes on various objects in Syria that allegedly belonged to Iran.

Apart from open aggression against Damascus Tel-Aviv often use another method of influence, namely accusing the Syrian government of preparing chemical weapons provocation. The Israeli Foreign Ministry has repeatedly stated without a shred of evidence that Bashar Assad possesses vast reserves of chemical weapons, and even is capable of producing a new shipment of arms, violating the international rules and restrictions.

Last month it became known that the Israeli government had been responsible for staging several White Helmets’ videos on the alleged use of the chemical weapons against civilians in Idlib province by the Syrian Arab Army.

It’s reported that the Israeli personnel has written scripts, trained the representatives of Civil Defense in the territory of the Golan Heights, then transferred them to Idlib province, and also looked for volunteers for staging fake videos. Later the footages were submitted to the mainstream media for further replication.

The actions of Israel in Syria are illegal. Tel-Aviv is not interested in the early resolution of the Syrian crisis. Hiding behind the fight against the presence of Iranian forces, supporting the White Helmets, Israel continues to violate the sovereignty of Syria, as well as provisions of UN Security Council resolutions. The UN is an international organization designed to watch the peacekeeping process all around the World. When is it going to pay precious attention at the Israeli aggression towards Syria?

*

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

Featured image is from Times of Israel

President Donald Trump,

I am aware of your latest position in regard to Mexico. In advance, I express to you that I don’t want confrontation. The peoples and nations that we represent deserve that we resort to dialogue and act with prudence and responsibility, in the face of any conflict in our relations, serious as it may be.

The greatest President of Mexico, Benito Juárez, maintained excellent relations with the Republican hero, Abraham Lincoln. Later, when Mexico nationalized its oil resources and industry, Democratic President Franklin D. Roosevelt understood the profound reasons that led our patriotic President Lázaro Cárdenas to act in favor of our sovereignty. By the way, President Roosevelt was a titan of freedom who proclaimed the four fundamental rights of man: the right to freedom of speech; the right to freedom of religion; the right to live free from fear; and the right to live free from misery.

With this in mind, we frame our policy on immigration. Human beings do not leave their villages for pleasure but out of necessity. That’s why, from the beginning of my government, I proposed opting for cooperation in development and aid for the Central American countries with productive investments to create jobs and resolve this painful situation.

You also know that we are fulfilling our responsibility to prevent, as much as possible and without violating human rights, any passage of the persons concerned through our country. It is worth remembering that – in a short time, Mexicans will not need to go to the United States and that migration will be optional, not forced. This is because we are fighting, like never before, the main problem in Mexico, corruption. And, in this way, our country will attain a powerful social dimension. Our countrymen will be able to work and be happy where they were born, where their families, their customs and their cultures are.

President Trump, social problems are not resolved by tariffs or coercive measures like turning a neighboring country overnight into a ghetto, an enclosed place for the migrants of the world, where they’re stigmatized, abused, persecuted, and excluded and the right to justice is denied to those who seek to work and to live free from want. The Statue of Liberty is not an empty symbol.

With all due respect, although you have the sovereign right to say it, the slogan “United States First” is a fallacy because universal justice and fraternity will prevail until the end of time, even over national borders.

Specifically, citizen President, I propose to deepen our dialogue, and seek alternatives to the immigration problem. And, please remember that I do not lack courage, that I am not cowardly or timorous, but that I act on principles. I believe that politics was invented to avoid confrontation and war, among other things.  I do not believe in the Law of Talon, in a ‘tooth for a tooth’ or an ‘eye for an eye’ because, if we practiced it, we would all be toothless and one-eyed. I believe that as statesmen and even more so as patriots, we are obliged to seek peaceful solutions to controversies and to practice the beautiful ideal of non-violence, forever.

Finally, I suggest that you instruct your officials, if it doesn’t cause any inconvenience. that they attend to representatives of our government, headed by the Secretary of Foreign Relations, who will be in Washington tomorrow to reach an agreement for the benefit of our two nations.

Nothing by force. Everything by reason and human rights.

Your friend,

Andrés Manuel López Obrador

President of México

*

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 was translated from Spanish by The Mazatlan Post

Featured image is from the government of Mexico.

According to Speaker Pelosi’s aides, impeachment proceedings against Trump may be coming though nothing is certain at this point. 

Third-ranking House Dem Jim Clyborn said the groundwork is being laid. “I think we’ve already begun,” he said on Sunday, dubiously claiming grounds exist to impeach related to the Mueller report. More below on this below.

According to the NYT, 54 House Dems support impeachment, 58 against, 123 uncommitted so far. A majority of the 435 House members is needed to launch proceedings, support for taking this step nowhere near the number needed if the above tally is right.

According to the anti-Trump CNN, an SSRS poll conducted for the cable channel found 76% of Dem supporters favoring impeachment compared to 41% of voters overall for it.

Anti-Trump media are pushing for impeachment. On Tuesday, the NYT headlined “Democratic Voters Want Impeachment. The House Dawdles,” saying:

“(O)rdinary people care about Trump’s lawbreaking…Across the country, Democratic voters have begun demanding that their representatives take a position on impeachment.”

“Opening a formal impeachment inquiry would put the question of Trump’s lawbreaking at the center of national life…The moment demands (impeachment), so do the people who put Democrats in charge.”

A late May Times opinion piece headlined “Democrats, Do Your Damned Duty,” calling for Trump’s impeachment, adding: “What the hell is it going to take, Democrats?!”

The  Washington Post opinion piece called for impeaching Trump for the following dubious reasons:

• attempting to fire Mueller — false; see below;

• trying to curb his investigation — false;

• ordering White House counsel “Donald McGahn to falsify the record to conceal his attempts to fire Mueller;” no evidence suggests Trump tried to fire him, just the oppose; see below;

• firing former FBI director James Comey (the president’s prerogative, not an impeachable offense);

• obstructing the Mueller probe by urging “Michael Flynn, Paul Manafort, Michael Cohen, Roger Stone, and other witnesses” not to cooperate with it, along with obstructing congressional inquiries relating to the probe, his taxes and business records;

No obstruction of justice evidence exists. See below.

• violating his oath of office to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution and fully execute the laws of the land;

The above applies to virtually all US presidents since the beginning of the republic.

• wanting his relationship with porn star Stormy Daniels concealed;

• misusing his emergency powers to spend funds for his border wall; and

• retaining ownership of his businesses — a likely unethical, not illegal act.

Most of the above accusations are false or dubious. Should Trump be impeached for spending funds for border wall construction and not wanting information about his extramarital affair disclosed?

Federal law requires candidates for federal office, as well as current office holders and their senior staff — including congressional members, the president and vice president, their cabinet members, senior administration staff, as well as Supreme Court Justices — to file annual disclosures of their personal finances.

Most likely, the above requirements include full disclosure of federal income tax returns as requested by Congress which Trump refused to comply with.

Should he be impeached for nondisclosure while appealing a federal judge’s order to release his personal tax returns for the 2013-18 period, along with other returns for several of his businesses?

Speaker Pelosi accused him of “engag(ing) in a coverup” with little or no elaboration. Are she and other Dems claiming improper or illegal DJT ties to Russia despite Mueller finding no evidence of either behavior?

Do they want him impeached for AG Barr only releasing around 98% of the Mueller report to congressional leaders, not all 535  House and Senate members? The portion they got omitted redacted material.

In May, the Dem controlled House Judiciary Committee reached a deal with the White House and DOJ to release less than the full Mueller report and related documents.

The special counsel found no evidence of Trump team collusion with Russia or obstruction of justice. There’s no case for impeaching him on these grounds.

The Mueller report includes 11 instances of possible obstruction of justice by Trump and his campaign staff – short of accusing anyone of this crime, because no proof beyond a reasonable doubt exists.

According to Law Professor Jonathan Turley, “obstruction theories against (Trump) far outstrip the available evidence of the crime…Trump appears more guilty of obsessive rather than obstructive conduct” – the former a personality trait, not a crime.

Following release of the Mueller report, Turley explained that Trump “did not fire anyone involved in the investigation. He did not destroy any evidence. He did not end the investigation prematurely.”

“He took no actual obstructive acts. To charge him would have amounted to a virtual thought crime.”

“…Trump not only ordered senior staff to cooperate with Mueller, but he did not withhold evidence. Most important, he waived executive privilege over the entirety of the report in an unprecedented degree of transparency.”

There’s plenty about Trump to criticize and hold him accountable for, including high crimes of war and against humanity, along with serving monied interests at the expense of the general welfare, and much more.

Dems and establishment media for impeachment want him held accountable for the wrong reasons, not the right ones.

No president in US history was removed from office by impeachment.

Under the Constitution’s Article II, Section 4, impeachment and conviction require proving “treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors.”

The Constitution’s Article I, Section 2 empowers House members to impeach a sitting president. Senate members alone are empowered to try them.

If impeachment occurs, the GOP controlled Senate is highly unlikely to convict Trump. The move could backfire on Dems, perhaps increasing his 2020 reelection chances.

After 1998-99 impeachment proceedings against Bill Clinton, his approval rating reached 73%, the highest point of his presidency.

Trump could benefit the same way if impeached and acquitted by the Senate, perhaps elevating his approval rating to its highest level ahead of the November 2020 presidential election, boosting his chance for another term.

*

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 Pentagon has announced the abrupt firing of the commander of the infamous US prison camp at the Guantanamo Bay Naval Base in Cuba.

In a statement released Sunday, the US Southern Command (SOUTHCOM), which oversees the extra-legal detention center, claimed that Rear Adm. John C. Ring (image below), the camp commandant, had been relieved of his command because of a “loss of confidence in his ability” to lead. The facility has a staff of 1,800 troops and civilian personnel deployed to continue the imprisonment of 40 remaining detainees.

The dismissal comes just weeks before Ring was to complete his tour as the 18th commander of the prison camp, which was opened in 2002 as part of the “war on terror” launched under the administration of George W. Bush. The timing suggests retaliation by the top brass over what it sees as the rear admiral’s overly frank statements to the media.

Last December, he gave an interview at one of Guantanamo’s detention centers to NBC News in which he complained about the deterioration of the camp facilities and the failure of Congress to appropriate funds for their replacement or repair. He also warned that the aging of the prisoners could soon turn the notorious site of torture, rendition and illegal detention into something resembling a nursing home.

Ring had estimated last year that $69 million was needed to replace the most dilapidated of the camp’s facilities, which houses the 15 so-called “high-value detainees” who were transferred to Guantanamo in 2006–2007 after being imprisoned and tortured at CIA “black sites” around the world.

His firing came on the same day that the New York Times published a lengthy article titled “Guantánamo Bay as Nursing Home: Military Envisions Hospice Care as Terrorism Suspects Age.” Written by Carol Rosenberg, who has reported from Guantanamo since 2002, previously for the Miami Herald, the article included extensive statements made by Ring during a recent press trip to the prison camp.

“Unless America’s policy changes, at some point we’ll be doing some sort of end of life care here,” the Times quoted the commander as saying. “A lot of my guys are pre-diabetic… Am I going to need dialysis down here? I don’t know. Someone’s got to tell me that. Are we going to do complex cancer care down here? I don’t know. Someone’s got to tell me that.”

The oldest prisoner at Guantanamo is now 71, while the average age is 46. Many have been held since the facility opened in 2002, and the majority of them, 26 in all, have never been charged, much less tried for any crime.

Defense One quoted Ring as stating:

“I’m sort of caught between a rock and a hard place. The Geneva Conventions’ Article III, that says that I have to give the detainees equivalent medical care that I would give to a trooper. But if a trooper got sick, I’d send him home to the United States. And so I’m stuck. Whatever I’m going to do, I have to do here.”

Any US military personnel with serious health problems are airlifted to the US Naval Hospital in Jacksonville, Florida. Laws passed by Congress, however, bar any Guantanamo detainees from being brought onto US soil for any purpose whatsoever. As a result, detainees who suffer serious medical conditions, in many cases the result of systematic torture, receive either inadequate care or none whatsoever.

The Times article cited the case of Abd al Hadi al Iraqi, accused of leading resistance to US troops who invaded Afghanistan. He was left untreated for degenerative disc disease and back injuries exacerbated by torture until he lost the use of his legs and became incontinent. What followed was a series of botched spinal surgeries performed in the prison camp that has left Hadi, 58, in a wheelchair and dependent upon painkillers. While medical personnel concluded that he needed complex surgery that could not be performed at the camp, the law bars his being transferred to a US military hospital.

The Times article also cited the case of Mustafa al Hawsawi, a Saudi man alleged to have provided assistance with travel and expenses to the 9/11 hijackers. He “has for years suffered such chronic rectal pain from being sodomized in the CIA prisons that he sits gingerly on a pillow in court, returns to his cell to recline at the first opportunity and fasts frequently to try to limit bowel movements.”

Another prisoner, an Indonesian man known as Hambali, who is accused of being a leader of the Southeast Asian Islamist group Jemaah Islamiyah, requires a knee replacement as a result of injuries suffered during torture at CIA black sites, including being continuously shackled by his ankles.

No doubt Ring’s statements to the media rankled both the Trump administration and the Pentagon’s senior command on two scores. First, they gave the lie to the continuous claims made that Guantanamo is needed to house the “worst of the worst,” rather than an aging and infirm population, and, second, they exposed the fact that Washington is continuing to carry out war crimes against those it subjected to torture, denying them the level of medical treatment required under the Geneva Conventions.

Opened during the Bush administration, Guantanamo was kept in operation under the presidency of Barack Obama, despite his vow to shut it down. Obama codified into law the system of drumhead trials by “military commissions,” which deny the accused every fundamental right a genuine court affords to a defendant under the US Constitution.

These tribunals are caught in a web of contradictions that have kept the rigged trials from moving forward. Earlier this month, the US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit threw out more than two years of decisions by Col. Vance Spath, a military commission judge who presided over the case of Abd al-Rahim al-Nashiri, accused in connection with the 2000 bombing of the warship USS Cole in the port of Aden, Yemen. The court found that Spath had a conflict of interest that he should have disclosed. During the proceedings, he had applied for and obtained a job as an immigration judge in the US Justice Department, whose officials were prosecuting the case.

Spath’s rulings included the denial of a motion by al-Nashiri’s defense attorneys that they be allowed to notify their client that their discussions were being bugged by the military. When the civilian lawyers withdrew from the case because of these conditions, Spath convicted the tribunal’s chief defense counsel, a Marine brigadier general, of contempt for allowing them to do so, ordering him to be fined and confined to quarters, a ruling that was subsequently overturned.

Obama handed over this barbaric legacy to Trump, who vowed during his campaign to fill up the prison with “bad dudes” and reintroduce waterboarding and “worse.” In January of 2018, Trump signed an order to keep Guantanamo open and vowed to continue treating captured “terrorists” as “unlawful enemy combatants” and send more of them to the Cuban prison camp.

While as yet no new detainees have been transferred to Guantanamo, the Pentagon has been ordered to draw up plans to continue the detention facility’s operations for another 25 years.

It was reported this month that the Department of Homeland Security was reviewing the feasibility of sending immigrant children captured on the US southwestern border to be imprisoned at Guantanamo.

This would not be the first time that Guantanamo has been used for such a criminal purpose. In 1991, some 12,500 Haitians fleeing the repression that followed the 1991 coup that overthrew the elected government of President Jean-Bertrand Aristide were imprisoned there. The island’s refugee prison camps swelled to 50,000 by 1994 under the Clinton administration. The policy was introduced by then-Attorney General William Barr, who now holds the same post under Trump.

Among the early investigative exposures carried out by WikiLeaks and its founder Julian Assange in 2007 was the publication of the “Standard Operating Procedures for Camp Delta,” outlining official US policy at the Guantanamo Bay prison. The document exposed the fact that Washington was preventing the Red Cross from accessing some of the prisoners, a claim Washington had previously denied.

Assange is now being held in Belmarsh prison, dubbed “the UK’s Guantanamo,” facing extradition to the US and into the clutches of the war criminals he has done so much to expose. Chelsea Manning, the courageous US Army whistleblower who provided a trove of evidence to WikiLeaks in 2010 exposing US war crimes, is being subjected to punitive imprisonment for refusing to testify before a grand jury created to fabricate criminal charges against Assange.

Right-wing politicians and government officials have described Assange as a “terrorist” and an “enemy combatant,” and WikiLeaks as a “hostile non-state intelligence agency.”

The order to keep Guantanamo open for another quarter of a century is directed not merely at preparing space for Al Qaeda-connected fighters captured overseas. It is also intended to maintain a prison beyond the reach of any constitutional rights for those–both at home and abroad–accused of exposing the crimes of the US government and opposing the interests of the ruling capitalist oligarchy.