All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the Translate Website button below the author’s name (only available in desktop version).

To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.

Click the share button above to email/forward this article to your friends and colleagues. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

Spread the Truth, Refer a Friend to Global Research

***

Image

July 13, 2021 – Cause Of Death Released For West Catholic Prep Student Who Died On Football Field

 

“He had received his second Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine on July 7, six days before collapsing on the Coatesville Area High School football field on July 13, officials said.”

“Officials noted that no COVID-19 respiratory disease was found, and cardiac examination showed no inflammation or myocarditis.”

“while there were features of hypertrophic cardiomyopathy, a condition frequently associated with sudden death in young athletes, the diagnosis could not be definitively made or ruled out in this case”

“Testing included autopsy, toxicology, specialized cardiac pathology, neuropathology and genetic testing. Key features were an enlarged heart and a thickened heart muscle that showed scarring…toxicology was negative….genetic testing was negative”

My Take…

Hundreds of teenagers have collapsed and died while playing sports, starting in 2021, after the COVID-19 mRNA Vaccines rolled out.

It’s extremely rare that we get details in mainstream media on the COVID-19 Vaccine status of such sudden deaths.

16 year old Ivan Hicks received his 2nd Pfizer COVID-19 mRNA Vaccine 6 days before he dropped dead on the field during a football scrimmage on July 13, 2021.

The autopsy was inconclusive.

Unfortunately, the pathologist did not stain his heart for the spike protein, the one test that probably would have given a definitive answer.

Pfizer & Moderna COVID-19 mRNA Vaccines Damage the Heart Within 48 Hours 

2023 Oct.12 – Schreckenberg et al – Cardiac side effects of RNA-based SARS-CoV-2 vaccines: Hidden cardiotoxic effects of mRNA-1273 and BNT162b2 on ventricular myocyte function and structure

  • “After 48 h, expression of the encoded spike protein was detected in ventricular cardiomyocytes for both mRNAs.”
  • “At this point in time, mRNA-1273 induced arrhythmic as well as completely irregular contractions associated with irregular as well as localized calcium transients, which provide indications of significant dysfunction of the cardiac ryanodine receptor (RyR2)”
  • “In contrast, BNT162b2 increased cardiomyocyte contraction via significantly increased protein kinase A (PKA) activity at the cellular level.”
  • “Here, we demonstrated for the first time, that in isolated cardiomyocytes, both mRNA-1273 and BNT162b2 induce specific dysfunctions that correlate pathophysiologically to CARDIOMYOPATHY”
  • “Both RyR2 impairment (Moderna) and sustained PKA activation (Pfizer) may significantly increase the risk of acute cardiac events.”

This is a Pfizer COVID-19 mRNA Vaccine sudden death until proven otherwise. 

There doesn’t need to be overt myocarditis for these kids to drop dead.

Within 48 hours of the first COVID-19 mRNA Vaccine injection, their heart cells suffer dysfunctions that “increase the risk of acute cardiac events”.

Within 48 hours.

How many kids have died in this manner since start of 2021?

Globally… THOUSANDS.

*

Note to readers: Please click the share button above. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

Dr. William Makis is a Canadian physician with expertise in Radiology, Oncology and Immunology. Governor General’s Medal, University of Toronto Scholar. Author of 100+ peer-reviewed medical publications.  


The Worldwide Corona Crisis, Global Coup d’Etat Against Humanity

by Michel Chossudovsky

Michel Chossudovsky reviews in detail how this insidious project “destroys people’s lives”. He provides a comprehensive analysis of everything you need to know about the “pandemic” — from the medical dimensions to the economic and social repercussions, political underpinnings, and mental and psychological impacts.

“My objective as an author is to inform people worldwide and refute the official narrative which has been used as a justification to destabilize the economic and social fabric of entire countries, followed by the imposition of the “deadly” COVID-19 “vaccine”. This crisis affects humanity in its entirety: almost 8 billion people. We stand in solidarity with our fellow human beings and our children worldwide. Truth is a powerful instrument.”

Reviews

This is an in-depth resource of great interest if it is the wider perspective you are motivated to understand a little better, the author is very knowledgeable about geopolitics and this comes out in the way Covid is contextualized. —Dr. Mike Yeadon

In this war against humanity in which we find ourselves, in this singular, irregular and massive assault against liberty and the goodness of people, Chossudovsky’s book is a rock upon which to sustain our fight. –Dr. Emanuel Garcia

In fifteen concise science-based chapters, Michel traces the false covid pandemic, explaining how a PCR test, producing up to 97% proven false positives, combined with a relentless 24/7 fear campaign, was able to create a worldwide panic-laden “plandemic”; that this plandemic would never have been possible without the infamous DNA-modifying Polymerase Chain Reaction test – which to this day is being pushed on a majority of innocent people who have no clue. His conclusions are evidenced by renown scientists. —Peter Koenig 

Professor Chossudovsky exposes the truth that “there is no causal relationship between the virus and economic variables.” In other words, it was not COVID-19 but, rather, the deliberate implementation of the illogical, scientifically baseless lockdowns that caused the shutdown of the global economy. –David Skripac

A reading of  Chossudovsky’s book provides a comprehensive lesson in how there is a global coup d’état under way called “The Great Reset” that if not resisted and defeated by freedom loving people everywhere will result in a dystopian future not yet imagined. Pass on this free gift from Professor Chossudovsky before it’s too late.  You will not find so much valuable information and analysis in one place. –Edward Curtin

ISBN: 978-0-9879389-3-0,  Year: 2022,  PDF Ebook,  Pages: 164, 15 Chapters

Price: $11.50 FREE COPY! Click here (docsend) and download.

You may also access the online version of the e-Book by clicking here.

We encourage you to support the eBook project by making a donation through Global Research’s DonorBox “Worldwide Corona Crisis” Campaign Page

All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the Translate Website button below the author’s name (only available in desktop version).

To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.

Click the share button above to email/forward this article to your friends and colleagues. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

Spread the Truth, Refer a Friend to Global Research

***

In this article, I examine the historical origins of two well known political symbols: the symbol utilised on the flag of Israel; and the swastika symbol we usually associate with Nazism. 

The Ancient Swastika (Svasktika)

The swastika, usually associated Nazism, actually originates from the ancient auspicious Sanskrit symbol and word ‘svasktika’, which means “It is,” “Well Being,” “Good Existence” and “Good Luck.”

It is notable that the 6-Pointed Star of David (associated with Judaism and utilized by political Zionism in modern times) also originates from a very ancient Vedic symbol, the ‘satkona’.

Before these symbols were seemingly ‘hijacked’ by modern political forces, the symbols were commonly and widely used for thousands of years throughout human history. Ancient Vedic motifs, such as the swastika and the satkona, can be seen on ancient architecture on all continents worldwide, from ancient standing stones and tombs in Ireland, the Caucasian civilizations of ancient Europe, ancient temples in Iraq and India, and amongst native tribal communities in North America. The video below evidences the existence of the ancient swastika in numerous countries worldwide. 

Incredibly the picture of a swastika, and other Vedic motifs, shown below, is from an ancient temple in what is today Zionist Israel. The temple is called the Second Temple. The appearance of the swastika as an ancient symbol in cultures worldwide is an indication that ancient civilisations worldwide were all once part of a ‘connected’ ancient ‘worldwide’ civilisation. I examine this subject in the book Godless Fake Science.

The Ancient Satkona

The six-pointed star symbol with a hexgram within, often associated with Zionist Israel, is actually an ancient Vedic symbol known as ‘satkona’ in Sanskrit language.  The sat-kona is constructed by joining two perfect triangles. The symbol is found not only on ancient architecture in India, but on ancient architecture throughout the world, see Endnote . Below is picture of the satkona on an ancient Vedic temple pillar in Kerala; and in a Vedic temple in Katmandu.

Given that the ‘political tenets of Zionist Isreal’ and ‘the literatures of ancient Vedic Vaisnavism’ (which pre-dates Christianity) appear to be poles apart – one may validly ask whether the satkona symbol has , in essence, been ‘politically hijacked’?

 

 

The satkona is the oldest spiritual symbol known to the world. In the oldest known Vedic literature, Sri Brahma-samhita, the Sat-kona is mentioned in a description of the supreme abode of Goloka, the abode of Krsna, God personified in ancient Vedic literature[2].

The use of the satkona is evidenced in ancient Vedic cultures dating back over 5,000 years ago. The satkona has been used throughout the ages in India, Nepal, China, Tibet, Sri Lanka, and other countries in Asia by proponents of Vedic Vaisnavism, Jainism, and also in Buddhism. In the west and the middle-east the Carthaginians, the Greeks, Romans, Christians [Catholic, Orthodox and Coptic], Muslims and Medieval Alchemists also used the satkona. Below is an image of a satkona in an ancient temple in Iraq – an area that is in modern times pre-dominantly Muslim.

Ancient temple in Iraq

Phoenician coin (500 BC)

Nepalese coin

Anglo-saxon sword hilt (200 BC)

Ancient Arabian jar

Ancient Fatmid weight (Egypt)

Freemason lodge Edinburgh

The satkona is evidenced in many cultures dating back long before the appearance of Jesus Christ. This includes in Sumeria, Iraq,  Crete , Mongolia, Japan (in some of the oldest shrines of Shinto), Sri Lanka, Egypt, as well as in the lands currently known as Israel[1].

According to the referenced research of Bhakti Gaurava Narasingha, “for the Jews themselves the use of Satkona… the Star of David only takes shape for the first time between the 12th and 14th centuries… From ancient times to the Middle Ages, the Jews possessed no particular national or religious symbol… It was only later that the term Star of David gradually became dominant in ‘Ashkenazi’ Jewish communities… as a popular Jewish symbol, sat-kona did not find its place permanently in Judaism until European Jews adopted it in 1648 CE.” 

World War 2

We have been led to believe by mainstream history that Nazism and Zionism were opposing forces, however, in my book Censored History of WW2 and Communism I also examine interesting connections and involving the Balfour Declaration, the creation of Nazism in Germany, the Zionist movement that established the state of Israel, and the transfer of Jews from Germany to Israel. 

Furthermore, it may be controversial to say, yet in defense of the people of Germany during WW2, it appears to me that there are many censored historical books and testimonies that provide a history of WW2 very different from that which we were all taught in school. These censored histories indicate that:

  • the German people, and the European people that did so, were absolutely correct in defending themselves from the expansion of genocidal communism – it is evident that communism resulted in the deaths of tens of millions of people; 
  • and that there is a deeper story involving the creation of Nazism, and the planned orchestration of WW2 by ‘behind the scenes’ financial and political ‘ulteriors’. A war that created mass death and destruction on both ‘sides’ whilst benefitting those financial and political ‘ulteriors’.  

The symbol of freemasonry also appears to be a hijacking of the Vedic shatkona. The intersecting lines of the two triangles are simply removed. The fact that non-Vedic sources have hijacked ancient Vedic symbols, should not be a reason for rejecting the satkona, or the swastika. The demonic forces hijacking these symbols invert the energy. However, when used consciously by God-conscious people they emanate their original auspicious energy as they have done for thousands of years.

The Very Ancient Vedic World

One wonders how could the ancient ‘svasktika’ and ‘satkona’ exist in cultures worldwide (in locations far apart) thousands of years ago? Does mainstream history not tell us that mankind only became capable of worldwide travel in relatively recent times? Based on my research it is clear to me that the mainstream historical timeline of human history is incorrect.

Furthermore, I note that many languages throughout the world, for example, the ancient Irish ‘Gaelic’ language, contain words that are clearly derived from ancient Sanskrit (the language the Vedas were written in). Sanskrit is purported by various Vedic scholars to be the world’s oldest language.

“Thus in any part of the world we, mortals, can trace our origin and genealogical table or tree…. The word Norway is derived from the Sanskrit narak, or hell. Soviet comes from sveta (white). Russia from rushis or rsis (sages), who meditated there. Siberia from the Sanskrit word for inhospitable camping. Scandinavia from Skanda, the commander of the denizens of heaven…. The word Viking and the English “king” is derived from the Sanskrit singh (lion)… In many places in Europe murti’s (images) of Krishna, Shiva and other divine manifestations were found.” – Authors, Gauranga Premananda dasa and Avadhuta Raya

In addition, my research indicates that the pyramids in Egypt are much older than mainstream history tells us. The pyramids were built on the model of the smasana-cit altars for the Vedic cremation rituals.

It also appears that ancient pyramids that similar in design can be found worldwide, including in China, Australia, Mexico, and the USA (in Illnois). Below is a fascinating picture of mountains in Russia and Bosnia. Some people assert that these are actually ‘very’ ancient pyramids, that have been subject to erosion and vegetation growth, and therefore now look like mountains.

Pyramid-like mountain in Russia

Pyramid of the sun in Bosnia

Could these structures of advanced engineering worldwide be proof standing that ancient mankind was not primitive, but highly advanced? and that civilisations capable of world-wide communication and travel existed in the very ancient past? This narrative is in contrast to the history we have been taught in school.

Could it be that the flood, as described in the Bible, was an event that caused such destruction it disconnected us from our very ancient past? Some Vedic scholars assert that a great flood occurred around 11,000 BC to the end of the Ice Age. I note that the flood story, and that of Noah, which, in the western world, we usually associate with the Judeo-Christian bible, is here referred as being in the ancient Vedic histories. 

“According to the puranas, the history books of the Vedas, and the smaller puranas, the Upa puranas, there were floods around 11,000 BC to the end of the Ice Age. Vaisvata Manu (Noah) and his family were, thanks to their boat, practically the only survivors.” – Authors, Gauranga Premananda dasa and Avadhuta Raya

Was Darwin correct? Is the theory of Darwinian evolution correct?

Incredibly, the Vedic histories, written in ancient Sanskrit, indicate that the modern-day theory of evolution is incorrect; and that human civilisations have existed not just for thousands of years, but for –  wait for it – ‘millions of years’. I refer to evidence supporting this assertion in the book Godless Fake Science. This includes reference to much archaeological evidence documented by Micheal Cremo that appears to have been ignored by the institutional orthodoxy of archaeology. It appears these evidences simply did not fit the ‘approved’ evolutionary narrative/timeline. 



Note to readers: Please click the share button above. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

Mark Keenan, is a former scientist at the UK Government Dept. of Energy and Climate Change, and at the United Nations Environment Division. He is a Research Associate of the Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG). He is author of the following books available on amazon.com:

Website: Reality Distinguished From Illusion

Donate for Mark’s articles here via Paypal.

Notes

[1] Source: https://gosai.com/writings/satkona-star-of-david-or-star-of-goloka

[2] Source: https://gosai.com/writings/satkona-star-of-david-or-star-of-goloka

All images in this article are from the author unless otherwise stated

Bird Flu Terror: Raw Milk Targeted

July 5th, 2024 by Ben Bartee

All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the Translate Website button below the author’s name (only available in desktop version).

To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.

Click the share button above to email/forward this article to your friends and colleagues. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

Spread the Truth, Refer a Friend to Global Research

***

As we watch the narrative surrounding bird flu and its alleged jump into the beef supply develop, the stage is increasingly set for a crackdown on raw dairy suppliers. 

Why target raw milk? The reason is, perhaps, two-fold:

a.) Raw milk proprietors tend to be small operations with limited political clout whom giant agricultural interests see as competition they would like to wipe;

b.)  Raw milk is full of beneficial bacteria that get wiped out during pasteurization. Parsing official narratives from the government and corporate state media is actually not so difficult once your central operating theory — which is proven correct time and time again — becomes: whatever is good for people, the governing authorities wish to stamp out by whatever means available to them.

First, we have the government now reassuring the public — with important caveats we’ll get to in short order — that pasteurization does actually kill viruses (which any middle school student should know).

Via US News (emphasis added):

“As bird flu continues to spread among U.S. dairy cows, reassuring new government research finds the pasteurization process widely used in the industry effectively kills all bird flu virus in milk.

In a health update posted Friday, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration said the results are the latest to show that pasteurized grocery store milk remains safe from the highly pathogenic avian virus H5N1.”

Via FDA (emphasis added):

The FDA, along with our federal partners at the U.S. Department of Agriculture, is announcing results from a first-of-its-kind study using the process typically used by commercial milk processors. The intention of this study was to further confirm that pasteurization is effective at inactivating Highly Pathogenic H5N1 Avian Influenza (H5N1 HPAI) virus in fluid milk and other dairy products made from pasteurized milk.

The study – the only one to date designed to simulate commercial milk processing – found that the most commonly used pasteurization time and temperature requirements were effective at inactivating the H5N1 HPAI virus in milk. These results complement the FDA’s initial retail sampling study in which all 297 samples of dairy products collected at retail locations were found to be negative for viable H5N1 HPAI virus.

Collectively, these studies provide strong assurances that the commercial milk supply is safe.”

So Pasteurization Kills Bird Flu (Obviously). However…

According to Forbes, “a certain type of pasteurization may not always be effective in killing the virus,” leaving the door ajar to dig up positive bird flu tests out of the commercial beef supply in the future if need be.

Via Forbes (emphasis added):

Dozens of cows infected with bird flu have either died or been slaughtered in Colorado, Ohio, Michigan, South Carolina and Texas, which is unusual since—unlike poultry—cows cost more to slaughter and around 90% usually make a full recovery

A new study with mice suggests that drinking infected milk can spread the disease—and that a certain type of pasteurization may not always be effective in killing the virus

The Food and Drug Administration announced it will commit an additional $8 million to ensure the commercial milk supply is safe, while the Department of Agriculture said it will pay up to $28,000 per farm to help mitigate the spread of the disease, totaling around $98 million in funds.”

So they’re not entirely done with the “pasteurized milk is going to kill you” narrative just yet; they’re going to throw $8 million more at it and see what they want to do with it in the future.

More immediately, though, it seems that the raw milk supply is in the crosshairs.

Via Forbes (emphasis added):

An alarming 14% of raw milk samples taken from four states with dairy herd outbreaks contained infectious H5N1 bird flu, according to new testing results released by the FDA.

The researchers took 275 milk samples from bulk storage tanks on farms in states where dairy cattle are confirmed to be infected by H5N1. The virus was actually detected in 57.5% of the samples, with further testing showing that a quarter of these contained infectious virus. However, the FDA was keen to stress that the study was not specifically designed to assess the prevalence of the virus in milk and that the numbers might not be more widely representative.

The goal of this study was to determine what range of viral load might be present in raw milk samples from farms that routinely send product for pasteurization, not to determine state-wide or national H5N1 virus prevalence in the overall milk supply,’ said a spokesperson for the FDA.”

*

Note to readers: Please click the share button above. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

This article was originally published on the author’s Substack, Armageddon Prose.

Ben Bartee, author of Broken English Teacher: Notes From Exile, is an independent Bangkok-based American journalist with opposable thumbs. Follow his stuff via Substack. Also, keep tabs via Twitter. He is a regular contributor to Global Research.

Featured image source

All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the Translate Website button below the author’s name (only available in desktop version).

To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.

Click the share button above to email/forward this article to your friends and colleagues. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

Spread the Truth, Refer a Friend to Global Research

***

Ever since the eruption of the Russo-Ukraine War in February 2022, the foremost insidious objective of the Western authoritarian regimes has been to somehow create a schism between Russia’s national security institutions and the general public. Because Western military strategists are acutely aware of the historically proven fact that popular wars supported by the public almost invariably end in glorious triumphs, whereas unpopular wars disliked by the public end in humiliating defeats.

Therefore, for the purpose of creating a rift between Russia’s military and the public, the rogue Western regimes have applied all available tactics in the Machiavellian playbook of hybrid warfare. They have imposed stringent economic sanctions on Russia in order to squeeze its typically vibrant economy. The Western deep states have literally coerced multinational corporations to wrap up lucrative and highly profitable businesses in Russia since the beginning of the war.

Against the established rules of the international financial system, the European Union has recently decided to allocate $300 billion of seized Russian assets for rearming Ukraine. But after all available tactics failed to break the spirit of the valiant Russian nation, then the security establishment of the United States decided to play the most effective trump card in its scaremongering playbook since the days of the Soviet-Afghan War of the eighties, the Islamic terrorism, in order to send a clear message to the Russian public that the war will impact their lives, too, and they wouldn’t be safe at home.

Image: HTS in Idlib, Syria 

For this nefarious purpose, four Tajiks, allegedly belonging to the Islamic State, were hired from a former Soviet republic in order to reduce suspicion of the CIA’s involvement. They were paid large sum of money to travel to Turkey, from where the Turkish intelligence, known for closely collaborating with the CIA in Syria’s proxy war since 2011, whisked the jihadists away across the border to northwest Syria in the territory controlled by the Turkish proxy al-Nusra Front, rebranded as Hayat Tahrir al-Sham (HTS).

Thus, after training for several months in Syria’s northwest Idlib Governorate with al-Nusra’s highly skilled fighters, the terrorists were let loose at Moscow’s fabled Crocus City Hall on March 22, where they massacred over 140 innocent civilians and wounded many more before being arrested by Russia’s security agencies.

Reportedly, two weeks before the terrorists staged the bloody attack in the suburbs of Moscow, the US government gave a vague warning of imminent terrorist attack to Russian officials. But one doesn’t have to be an Agatha Christie, the celebrated British detective novelist, to understand the simple fact that actually it’s quite common in the world of crime that the real perpetrator of the crime becomes the confidant of the victim in order to gain his trust, hence absolving himself from the crime and deploying diversionary tactics to implicate others.

The recent spate of terrorist attacks in Russia, specifically the Crocus City Hall massacre and the attacks on churches, synagogues and police posts in Dagestan on June 23 claiming 25 lives, clearly has the fingerprints of the CIA all over them in order to destabilize Russia amidst the Ukraine War.

It’s worth noting that both self-proclaimed caliphs of the Islamic State, Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi and his successor Abu Ibrahim al-Qurayshi, were killed in October 2019 and February 2022, respectively, in al-Nusra’s territory in Syria’s northwest Idlib Governorate, miles away from the Turkish border, which lends credence to the assertion that the caliphs of the Islamic State are merely Turkish stooges, and in fact the real caliph of the Islamic State is none other than neo-Ottoman Sultan Erdogan himself. Moreover, the artificial distinction between the Islamic State, al-Nusra Front and the rest of Syria’s jihadist proxies is more illusory than real.

The imperial United States’ steadfast NATO client, Turkish President Erdogan, has not only provided Bayraktar drones, military assistance and offer of joint production of weapons to Kyiv but he has also sent Syria’s battle-hardened jihadists to fight alongside Ukrainian forces against Russia.

Clearly, both the self-styled caliphs of the Islamic State, al-Baghdadi and his successor al-Qurayshi, were hiding in Syria’s Idlib with the blessings of al-Nusra leadership and the Turkish security forces, which have trained and armed myriad groups of jihadists during Syria’s proxy war since 2011, and were used as bargaining chips to extract geo-strategic concessions from Washington.

The scapegoating of both the ISIS caliphs by the Erdogan government, first in October 2019 to let Turkey mount Operation Peace Spring in northeast Syria and then in February 2022, was done to reconcile with the Biden administration as Erdogan was repeatedly snubbed by Biden throughout the maiden year as the president due to Erdogan’s personal friendship and business partnership with Biden’s predecessor and political rival Trump.

During the four years of the Trump presidency, Erdogan acted with impunity in regional conflicts, from Syria and Libya to Nagorno-Karabakh in Azerbaijan, because he had forged a personal bonhomie with Donald Trump, as Trump’s son-in-law Jared Kushner was a business partner of Erdogan’s son-in-law and former finance minister of Turkey Berat Albayrak, who was summarily dismissed from the ministry as soon as Trump lost the US presidential election in November 2020.

This is the reason Erdogan is bending over backwards to reconcile with the Biden administration to regain their lost international prestige. For the purpose, Erdogan took a trip to Ukraine in 2022, offered to mediate in the crisis while ironically selling armed drones and lethal weaponry to Ukraine, and is recruiting and sending Syria’s battle-hardened jihadists to fight alongside Ukrainian forces against Russia, some of whom have been tasked by the CIA and SBU to infiltrate across the border to mount subversive activities inside Russia, including the four Tajik jihadist who were reportedly fleeing toward the Ukraine border after perpetrating the Crocus City Hall massacre before they were caught by Russia’s vigilant security forces.

*

Note to readers: Please click the share button above. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

Nauman Sadiq is an Islamabad-based geopolitical and national security analyst focused on geo-strategic affairs and hybrid warfare in the Middle East and Eurasia regions. His domains of expertise include neocolonialism, military-industrial complex and petro-imperialism. He is a regular contributor of diligently researched investigative reports to Global Research.

Featured image: Russian Crocus City Hall amphitheater interiors, day after terrorist attack on 22 March 2024 (Licensed under CC BY 4.0)

All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the Translate Website button below the author’s name (only available in desktop version).

To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.

Click the share button above to email/forward this article to your friends and colleagues. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

Spread the Truth, Refer a Friend to Global Research

***

Despite its reputation as a professional military that prides itself on being “the most moral military in the world,” the Israel Defense Forces’ (IDF) campaign against Hamas and other militant groups in Gaza has exposed serious command and control problems.

Before proceeding, it is worth noting that while the Israeli military is operating in an incredibly challenging environment in Gaza, where Hamas uses civilians as human shields, the human costs of its operations have been staggering; more than 38,000 Palestinians, many of them women and children, are dead, and over a million have been displaced in more than eight months of war. While some have argued that the IDF has done more than any army in history to protect enemy civilians, others have highlighted how Israel has not done nearly enough to protect innocent Palestinians in Gaza.

As Israel continues operations in Rafah, pushing into the city’s center, questions surrounding the use of U.S. military equipment will continue to proliferate, as seen in the catastrophic May 26 Israeli airstrike on a tent camp in Rafah that killed at least 45, which was conducted utilizing U.S. munitions.

Strategically speaking, the regional situation remains fraught. Hezbollah attacks on Israel in May were the most intense since October, as the IDF warns of offensive military action against its northern neighbor. In early June, an Israeli airstrike near Aleppo in Syria killed a top Iranian military advisor. (When the Israeli military killed a top Iranian general in Damascus in April, it led to the first direct Iranian attack on Israeli territory in history.)

Clearly, then, there is plenty of room for escalation. This renders the seeming lack of proper chain of command in Israel an even more urgent problem—and one in which U.S. support and arms are entangled.

Israel’s command and control issues are clearest in its alleged war crimes. The purpose of this piece is not to litigate which allegations are true but rather to examine the implications of those war crimes for the Israeli chain of command. Though these categories overlap, Israeli violations of international humanitarian law and the law of armed conflict in the war may be broadly grouped as follows: starvation, torture, mass executions, and the indiscriminate use of bombs, drones, and missiles.

Here are a handful of cases that most clearly suggest the command and control problems.

First, the Israeli military has blamed midlevel officers for the killing of seven World Central Kitchen volunteers in an early April drone strike. Numerous experts and nongovernmental organizations have noted the need for better coordination processes between humanitarian organizations and the IDF. Statements from the Israeli military and Coordination of Government Activities in the Territories (an Israeli governmental body responsible for implementing Israeli policies in the West Bank and Gaza Strip) indicate that World Central Kitchen properly coordinated its movements with the IDF but midlevel commanders made the decision to fire anyway. This suggests that the Israeli military’s command and control structures are not as strong as they ought to be.

Click here to read the full article on Foreign Policy.

*

Note to readers: Please click the share button above. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles. 

, a Ph.D. candidate in history at the University of Texas at Austin, where he specializes in U.S. foreign and national security policy since 1945, especially toward the Middle East and Russia.

Featured image: Israeli soldiers around Gaza Strip on Oct. 7. (IDF Spokesperson’s Unit, Wikimedia Commons, CC BY-SA 3.0)

All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the Translate Website button below the author’s name (only available in desktop version).

To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.

Click the share button above to email/forward this article to your friends and colleagues. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

Spread the Truth, Refer a Friend to Global Research

***

A couple of weeks ago, I attended as a speaker (together with astrophysicist Willie Soon and geologist Gregory Wrightstone) at Clintels five year anniversary conferencein the Netherlands. It was a very well organised event with around 140 guests. I contributed with a talk called “The Climate Emergency Illusionists”.

It also gave me the opportunity for some meetings and interviews as well as visiting some well-known Dutch landmarks. One of these was the Peace Palace in the Hague.

Image: Andrew Carnegie (1835-1919)

Andrew Carnegie | Peace Palace

The beautiful building was inaugurated in 1913, with financing from the wealthy Scottish steel magnate Andrew Carnegie with the intention to serve as a “Temple of Peace”.

It now hosts the International Court of Justice (established 1945 as one of United Nations six main organs), the Permanent Court of Arbitration (founded 1899) and The Hague Academy of International Law (established 1923).

The decision to build the palace was made at the “First Hague Peace Conference” in 1899, initiated by Russian Tsar Nicholas II. The conference wasn’t a great success as Russia’s war with Japan broke out five years later, resulting in a humiliating defeat for Russia, while the Tsar was executed by the Bolsheviks in 1918.

Andrew Carnegie supported the construction of the “Temple” with a 5 million dollar donation in 1903. He also lent his name to the Carnegie Foundation in the Netherlands that was set up with the purpose to own and manage the Peace Palace.

Today the foundation receives financial grants from the Dutch Ministry of Foreign Affairs, as well as the Carnegie Corporation of New York. It is a joint venture by Carnegie and the state of the Netherlands.

Just a year after the inauguration ceremony, the Great War broke out. The president of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, Nobel Peace laureate and former US Secretary of War, Elihu Root, advocated for American entry into the war.

In other words, the great ideal of universal peace had a price that counted in millions of lives.

The Peace Palace was a part of Carnegie’s internationalist aspirations, and the march towards a global governance system. A goal shared by the Dutch royals. The first step was The League of Nations in 1920, followed by the successor United Nations in 1945. The two world wars acted as a catalyst for a new international order.

The Peace Palace has ever since been an important venue to further the internationalists goals for the world.

Bilderberg Group

Hotel Bilderberg, in Oosterbeek, the Netherlands.

These aspirations are also reflected in the Bilderberg Group, which was founded in 1954 to gather prominent movers and shakers to influence the future direction of world events, as well as inviting politicians to carry out the agenda in their respective countries.[1] Prince Bernhard of the Netherlands was one of the co-founders, together with David Rockefeller (Chase Manhattan Bank) and Polish politician Józef Retinger, and served as chairman until the Lockheed bribe scandal in 1976 forced him to step down.

Earth Charter

Earth Charter Launch Ceremony. Peace Palace, The Hague. June 2000

On June 29, 2000, the Earth Charter was launched at a ceremony in the Peace Palace. The Earth Charter Commission had been initiated by Bernhards daughter, Queen Beatrix, and her Prime Minister Ruud Lubbers (with oil executive Maurice Strong and former Soviet Union leader Mikhail Gorbachev as co-chairs) with the mission to create an ethical framework for the planet. The Dutch government provided financial support to the project. Steven Rockefeller, chairman of the Rockefeller Brothers Fundand David Rockefellers nephew, served as the commission’s coordinator.

The sixteen principles share similarities with the UN 2030 Agenda with its seventeen Sustainable Development Goals.

The Albright-Gambari Commission

The launch of the Commission on Global Security, Justice & Governance, at the residence of the Dutch ambassador in Washington D.C. 21 November 2014.

Fourteen years later “The Albright-Gambari Commission on Global Security, Justice & Governance” was set up by the Hague Institute of Global Justice (supported by the Dutch government) and Stimson Institute (supported by Carnegie Corporation, and US Department of Defense).

They launched their report Confronting the Crisis of Global Governance, at the Peace Palace in The Hague on 16 June 2016. The intent was to promote global governance innovations and, “to encourage a broad-based global policy dialogue and an institutional reform agenda aimed at 2020”.

These new governance innovations would be presented at a proposed “World Conference on Global Institutions” during United Nations seventy-fifth anniversary in 2020.

New Shape Prize and Bahá’í Faith 

The Swedish Global Challenges Foundation heeded the call and launched the New Shape Prize competition in November 2016.

New Shape Forum and Prize | International Environment Forum

The winners of the New Shape Prize with Laszlo Szombatfalvy from Global Challenges Foundation

One of the winning contributions were “Global Governance and the Emergence of Global Institutions for the 21st Century”, by Maja Groff, a teacher at the Hague Academy of International Law in the Peace Palace, Professor Arthur Dahl from the International Environment Forum and Augusto Lopez-Claros, a former chief economist at the World Economic Forum and the World Bank Group.

The three of them are Bahá’ís. Believers of a religion that preaches the unification of the world under a world government. This will according to their teachings bring universal peace and harmony. As expressed in “The World Order of Bahá’u’lláh” from 1936:

A world executive, backed by an international Force, will carry out the decisions arrived at, and apply the laws enacted by, this world legislature, and will safeguard the organic unity of the whole commonwealth. A world tribunal will adjudicate and deliver its compulsory and final verdict in all and any disputes that may arise between the various elements constituting this universal system. — The World Order of Bahá’u’lláh, The Unfoldment of World Civilization

These ideas closely align with Carnegie’s visions. The winning trio has since the prize ceremony in 2018 been awarded key positions to develop new governance arrangements.

Climate Governance Commission

UN75 Global Governance Forum - Join the Conversation! | One Earth Future

 

The “World Conference on Global Institutions”, that was arranged as the virtual event United Nations Global Governance Forum in September 2020, birthed the Climate Governance Commission with Groff as convener (with Dahl and Lopez Claros as experts). The COVID-19 pandemic had in their opinion high-lighted the need for closer international cooperation to manage global risks.

The commission (with former Irish president Mary Robinson as chair, and Swedish “climate tsar” Johan Rockström as one of the co-chairs) serve as advisors to the ongoing reform of the United Nations, initiated at the seventy-fifth session of the UN General Assembly (which resulted in the report Our Common Agenda report a year later).

In September 2023, The Climate Governance Commission, funded by Global Challenges Foundation, Stimson Center, Rockefeller Foundation and Baha’i International, proposed the declaration of a Planetary Emergency at the United Nation’s Summit of the Future in September 2024. If their advice is granted, it will trigger the establishment of a Planetary Emergency Platform, and a Planetary Emergency Plan. They advocate collective management of the “Planetary Commons”.

Maja Groff and the New Institute 

Maja Groff recently joined The New Institute, a think-tank founded 2020 by German social democrat politician Erck Rickmers and led by the former secretary-general of the Volkswagen Foundation, Wilhelm Krull.

Groff will chair the program Planetary Governance with the mission to “design and implement the needed global governance reforms to address the planetary emergency.” This includes developing a Global Environmental Agency and an International Court of the Environment. We can assume that the location of the latter will be in Carnegie’s “Temple of Peace”.

As with the world wars, the climate crisis scaremongering acts as a leverage to further the construction of their envisioned “peaceful global order”. And as Groffs colleague Arthur Dahl said during a meeting with the Global Governance Forum:

Maybe the best solution to climate change would be a nuclear winter for a few years to cool down the planet very quickly. And maybe, in the longer term, that would be in our best interest than any other solutions tried at the moment.

The Bahá’ís supreme goal of universal peace comes at a high price. To quote George Orwell: “War is Peace”.

*

Note to readers: Please click the share button above. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

Note

[1] dspace.cuni.cz/bitstream/handle/20.500.11956/172172/140100744.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y

All images in this article are from the author unless otherwise stated

All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the Translate Website button below the author’s name (only available in desktop version).

To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.

Click the share button above to email/forward this article to your friends and colleagues. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

Spread the Truth, Refer a Friend to Global Research

***

The Brandon entity, from the start of its career in the executive branch, has been a synthetic creation of the corporate state, sponsored by the donor class, foisted on the American people with no due consideration to their will.

(The reason, incidentally, Biden has always been a useful tool for the donor class is because it has publicly acknowledged that it is a prostitute in very clear, literal terms — subtlety not being a personality trait it is known for.)

“I Tried To Prostitute Myself”

Via Washington Free Beacon (emphasis added):

Former Vice President Joe Biden said during a 1974 discussion on campaign finance that he tried to ‘prostitute’ himself to big donors during his first run for U.S. Senate but failed to get their money because he was too young.

His youth, however, was what enabled Biden to raise enough money to win, he explained.

‘I’m like the token black or the token woman,’ Biden said. ‘I was the token young person.’”

Unlike bona fide party stars like Barack Obama and Bernie — who, whatever one might think of them, have legitimate grassroots bases of support — Biden never had and never will have any significant popular support.

The only reason it ascended to its current position is because Obama’s handlers handpicked it out of obscurity in 2008 for VP — an avowed segregationist racist to balance out the first black top-of-the-ticket — after having run two failed campaigns itself, the first of which in 1988 it had to abandon because it was discovered it had plagiarized an entire speech from a British politician.

Joe Biden: Political Plagiarism, 1988 Presidential Campaign 

No matter: a proven liar multiple times over — that was rejected by the voters and would have languished in obscurity until the unceremonious end of its career — was named VP anyway.

In 2020, it was again Obama who swooped in to salvage Biden’s failing campaign, at which time even then it was obvious it had dementia, to prevent Bernie Sanders from clinching the win.

Via CNN, April 8, 2020 (emphasis added):

Former President Barack Obama played an active, albeit private, role in the Democratic presidential primary that effectively ended on Wednesday when Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders dropped out of the race.

Obama and Sanders spoke multiple times in the last few weeks as the Vermont senator determined the future of his campaign, a source familiar with the conversation tells CNN. Sanders’ decision to get out on Wednesday paves the way for Joe Biden, who served as Obama’s vice president for eight years, to become the Democratic nominee.

Obama’s eventual endorsement of Biden and fulsome entry into the campaign, whenever it occurs, will signal a new phase in Democrats’ efforts to defeat President Donald Trump.”

After it was announced as the nominee, the message was disseminated publicly and privately that pointing out Biden’s dementia was verboten, which I have previously written about, and so the team players in the party and the corporate state media never brought it up again until last week when the lie became unmanageable.

 

Via CNN, October 2019 (emphasis added):

“In yet another sign of trouble for Sen. Kamala Harris in the 2020 presidential race, the California Democrat has slid from an enviable front-runner position in her home state into the single digits in a new poll of likely voters in the Golden State.

As the state’s March 5 primary draws closer, Sen. Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts (23%), former Vice President Joe Biden (22%) and Sen. Bernie Sanders of Vermont (21%) are now tied as the leaders in the field among likely voters who are either registered as Democrats or identify as Democratic-leaning independents in the new Public Policy Institute of California poll, which was conducted in mid- to late September after Harris’ uneven performance in the last debate.

Harris tumbled from 19% in July to 8% in the new poll by the institute, failing to sustain the momentum she sparked with her first debate performance in June. She lost significant ground over the summer, while her chief rivals all solidified their standing among California voters.”

No matter: for its remarkably poor performance and total rejection by even the citizens of its own state, the Karamel-uh entity was crowned VP.

In this election cycle, the party of Democracy™ canceled all primary debates — despite Brandon essentially pledging to be a one-term president back in 2020 — that would have exposed its dementia much sooner, perhaps in time to swap it out before hitting the current crisis point.

Via ABC News, June 2, 2023 (emphasis added):

Democrats have so far opted to tune out the primary challenges levied against him, with the Democratic National Committee throwing its support behind Biden. And while some in the party have criticized the organization and Biden as ‘un-democratic’ for presuming he’s the de facto nominee, there’s precedent in sitting it out: No incumbent president has participated in a primary debate since the first modern debate was held in 1948, even when presented with high-profile primary challengers.

As former President Donald Trump sought re-election in 2020, the Republican National Committee didn’t hold primary debates, nor did former President Barack Obama during his second bid. The same pattern can be traced as far back as Gerald Ford.

And Democrats today show no signs of changing course.

Biden’s candidacy is being challenged by two Democrats, Robert F. Kennedy Jr. and Marianne Williamson, who have remained critical of the DNC’s expected decision to unite behind the incumbent president.”

None of this, you will further note, has anything whatsoever to do with the will of the voters. In fact, appointing the Karamel-uh entity and the Brandon entity to their posts was in direct contradiction to the expressed will of the voters.

To the extent there are any card-carrying Democrats left out there with any self-respect who still believe in advancing the party’s political agenda — whatever that is at this point; child trannyism and state-funded abortion drive-thru service, I guess — the extraordinary anti-democratic lengths to which the party went to rig the political process up until this current date should enrage them.

This is what comes from making lying and gaslighting and manipulating and rigging the political machinery the modus operandi.

I know from personal experience, as the Soviet Union leadership also learned the hard way: on a long enough timeline, dirty deeds come back to haunt you.

All things come to light; it’s only a matter of time.

*

Note to readers: Please click the share button above. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

This article was originally published on the author’s Substack, Armageddon Prose.

Ben Bartee, author of Broken English Teacher: Notes From Exile, is an independent Bangkok-based American journalist with opposable thumbs. Follow his stuff via Substack. Also, keep tabs via Twitter. He is a regular contributor to Global Research.

Featured image: U.S. President Joe Biden preparing to disembark Marine One, July 2021. (White House, Adam Schultz)

Finland Gives US Control Over 15 Military Bases, on Russia’s Doorstep

By Drago Bosnic, July 04, 2024

Starting from July 1, Washington DC has access to at least 15 Finnish military bases, with the possibility of deploying heavy weapons. It wasn’t specified what sort of arms and equipment that refers to, but it’s not that difficult to imagine.

“Alarming 3000% Increase in Unexplained Child Deaths in Alberta”: Medical Doctors and Scientists’ Press Conference

By Dr. Mark Trozzi, Dr. Byram W. Bridle, Dr. William Makis, and et al., July 04, 2024

The morning after the landmark event “An Injection of Truth” in Calgary, where a delegation of Canadian MDs and scientists presented crucial scientific information, a press conference was held. This event addressed the alarming 3000% increase in unexplained child deaths in Alberta and aimed to provide essential knowledge to Albertans and the global community.

Iran Elections: Shame or War?

By Konrad Rękas, July 05, 2024

The second round of the presidential elections in Iran on Friday, 5th July, is not only a continuation of the clash between pro-Western liberals and traditionalists attached to the ideals of the Islamic Revolution and determined to maintain the independence of Persian civilisation.

Can We Rest Assured That Just Because of the Unacceptably High Costs of Nuclear War and World War III, These Will Never Happen?

By Bharat Dogra, July 04, 2024

In the middle of several very serious questions haunting humanity today the one which looms over all others is this terrible one—how high is the possibility of World War III/nuclear war and how destructive this will be?

Russia Finally Acknowledges That She Is at War with Washington

By Dr. Paul Craig Roberts, July 04, 2024

Russia responded to Washington’s cluster bomb attack on civilians in Crimea by informing Washington that the two countries are now at war. What it means, if anything, remains to be seen. It does not seem to have caused any consternation in Washington.

Julian Assange Is Finally Free, But Let’s Not Forget the War Crimes He Exposed

By Prof. Marjorie Cohn, July 04, 2024

Under the terms of a plea deal with the U.S. Department of Justice, Assange pled guilty to one count of conspiracy to obtain documents, writings and notes connected with the national defense under the Espionage Act. Assange was facing 175 years in prison for 18 charges in the indictment filed by the Trump administration and pursued by the Biden administration.

Biden and Trump Battle Over a Rattle

By Edward Curtin, July 04, 2024

The spectacle of presidential politics and people’s addiction to it is a depressing commentary on people’s gullibility.  To think that the candidates are not puppets manipulated by the same hidden powerful elite forces is a form of illiteracy that fails to grasp the nature of the fairy tale told through the looking-glass.

All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the Translate Website button below the author’s name (only available in desktop version).

To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.

Click the share button above to email/forward this article to your friends and colleagues. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

Spread the Truth, Refer a Friend to Global Research

***

33 year old Drag Racer Lizzy Musi (Driver on Street Outlaws) died from Stage 4 Triple Negative Breast Cancer on June 27, 2024.

 

 

Image

 

She was diagnosed with Stage 4 TNBC in April 2023.

June 28, 2024 – ‘Street Outlaws: No Prep Kings’ star Lizzy Musi dead at 33

 

Lizzy Musi.

 

Lizzy Musi has died at 33.

The driver and reality TV star, best known for “Street Outlaws: No Prep Kings,” passed away after a battle with breast cancer.

Her father, Pat Musi, announced her death in a post shared via Facebook on Thursday.

“Surrounded by her Family, in the comfort of her own home, Lizzy was called to heaven at 11:25pm tonight,” the post read.

“Thank you for all the prayers and support throughout her battle

Lizzy Musi was a driver and the director of Musi Racing. Lizzy Musi/Instagram

Lizzy Musi was a car racer and reality TV star. Lizzy Musi/Instagram

Musi, who grew up in North Carolina, rose to fame on the Discovery Channel series “Street Outlaws: No Prep Kings,” a spinoff of 2018’s “Street Outlaws,” a docu-series about drag racers competing on rough terrain.

She starred on the show with her father Pat, an eight-time PDRA Pro Street World Champion, according to his website.

In addition to being a driver, she was also the director of Musi Racing in Mooresville, North Carolina.

Musi revealed her cancer diagnosis in an April 2023 Instagram post.

“Hey Everyone, I haven’t been able to have much time to post due to an unexpected life change. A few days ago I have been Diagnosed with Triple Negative Stage 4 Breast Cancer that has moved to my lymph nodes to my liver,” she wrote, adding, “I have a rough journey ahead of me. I appreciate everyone’s messages and calls.

Lizzy Musi shared selfies after shaving her head during her cancer battle. Lizzy Musi/Instagram

In June 2023, she showed off “the new me” after shaving her head.

“Never thought in a million years I would post a picture like this. I want to share every raw moment with you guys through my journey,” Lizzy captioned the image. “2 nights ago I had to shave my head due to extreme hair loss,” adding that her ex-fiance, Kye Kelly, helped her shave her head.

“Some days are tough to look in the mirror,” she wrote.

After winning the 2023 “Street Outlaws: No Prep Kings” invitational at Tulsa Raceway Park in Tulsa, Oklahoma, Musi told Drag Illustrated in August, “I swear I haven’t been this happy in my whole life. I just feel like I can do my job as a driver, and it just came so naturally. It felt so good to be able to be myself again and race.”

She added, “I can’t even begin to explain everything I’ve been going through and dealing with this cancer diagnosis – a lot of people had their doubts about me. I’m very thankful and blessed that I can keep doing what I’m doing.”

“I still have the fire in me,” Lizzy Musi said in a 2023 interview. Lizzy Musi/Instagram

She noted that her health struggles didn’t put her down, saying: “I still have the fire in me.”

“I have such a huge support system that keeps me going. My family has been so supportive. It’s incredible, and I’m so thankful for that.”

Musi continued, “I’ll sit in treatment rooms, getting this chemo done, and here I am a couple of days later in a race car, and now we won this race – it feels like the biggest accomplishment ever. We struggled so much, so I feel like going through all those struggles makes a win so much more worthwhile.  Me and my dad got emotional at the top end, but we both know that we went through hell and back to get to where we’re at. I look up to him so much.”

“But there are days where I feel stronger than ever.”

Her father wrote in his Facebook post about her death, “At this time, the family would like to have time to process, grief and make arrangements in peace. We will give an update as soon as we have information to share.”

My Take… 

Lizzy didn’t push COVID-19 vaccines but with all the sponsors, TV show on Discovery, racing on various racetracks during 2021-2023, etc, she is presumed vaccinated.

Triple Negative Breast Cancer (TNBC) has the worst prognosis.

COVID-19 mRNA Vaccines cause Turbo Cancer. Breast cancer is in the top 3 most common Turbo Cancers. Of the Turbo Breast Cancers, TNBC is the most common type.

Look at the features:

  1. Very young age: 33 is much too young, we start screening at 50
  2. Stage 4 Presentation. No warning signs.
  3. Triple Negative – this is the most common type after mRNA injection
  4. Died 14 months after diagnosis – progression much too rapid and also suggests the cancer did not respond to chemo.

All of these features are typical of mRNA-induced turbo cancer.

r/dragracing - VIDEO: Street Outlaws Lizzy Musi Cancer Treatment Update | #LIZZYSTRONG

r/StreetOutlaws - Lizzy Musi passed away today :(

*
 

Note to readers: Please click the share button above. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

Dr. William Makis is a Canadian physician with expertise in Radiology, Oncology and Immunology. Governor General’s Medal, University of Toronto Scholar. Author of 100+ peer-reviewed medical publications.   

Featured image is from COVID Intel


The Worldwide Corona Crisis, Global Coup d’Etat Against Humanity

by Michel Chossudovsky

Michel Chossudovsky reviews in detail how this insidious project “destroys people’s lives”. He provides a comprehensive analysis of everything you need to know about the “pandemic” — from the medical dimensions to the economic and social repercussions, political underpinnings, and mental and psychological impacts.

“My objective as an author is to inform people worldwide and refute the official narrative which has been used as a justification to destabilize the economic and social fabric of entire countries, followed by the imposition of the “deadly” COVID-19 “vaccine”. This crisis affects humanity in its entirety: almost 8 billion people. We stand in solidarity with our fellow human beings and our children worldwide. Truth is a powerful instrument.”

Reviews

This is an in-depth resource of great interest if it is the wider perspective you are motivated to understand a little better, the author is very knowledgeable about geopolitics and this comes out in the way Covid is contextualized. —Dr. Mike Yeadon

In this war against humanity in which we find ourselves, in this singular, irregular and massive assault against liberty and the goodness of people, Chossudovsky’s book is a rock upon which to sustain our fight. –Dr. Emanuel Garcia

In fifteen concise science-based chapters, Michel traces the false covid pandemic, explaining how a PCR test, producing up to 97% proven false positives, combined with a relentless 24/7 fear campaign, was able to create a worldwide panic-laden “plandemic”; that this plandemic would never have been possible without the infamous DNA-modifying Polymerase Chain Reaction test – which to this day is being pushed on a majority of innocent people who have no clue. His conclusions are evidenced by renown scientists. —Peter Koenig 

Professor Chossudovsky exposes the truth that “there is no causal relationship between the virus and economic variables.” In other words, it was not COVID-19 but, rather, the deliberate implementation of the illogical, scientifically baseless lockdowns that caused the shutdown of the global economy. –David Skripac

A reading of  Chossudovsky’s book provides a comprehensive lesson in how there is a global coup d’état under way called “The Great Reset” that if not resisted and defeated by freedom loving people everywhere will result in a dystopian future not yet imagined. Pass on this free gift from Professor Chossudovsky before it’s too late.  You will not find so much valuable information and analysis in one place. –Edward Curtin

ISBN: 978-0-9879389-3-0,  Year: 2022,  PDF Ebook,  Pages: 164, 15 Chapters

Price: $11.50 FREE COPY! Click here (docsend) and download.

You may also access the online version of the e-Book by clicking here.

We encourage you to support the eBook project by making a donation through Global Research’s DonorBox “Worldwide Corona Crisis” Campaign Page

Iran Elections: Shame or War?

July 5th, 2024 by Konrad Rękas

All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the Translate Website button below the author’s name (only available in desktop version).

To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.

Click the share button above to email/forward this article to your friends and colleagues. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

Spread the Truth, Refer a Friend to Global Research

***

The second round of the presidential elections in Iran on Friday, 5th July, is not only a continuation of the clash between pro-Western liberals and traditionalists attached to the ideals of the Islamic Revolution and determined to maintain the independence of Persian civilisation.

The choice of the Iranians may also have serious international implications, affecting the situation in Palestine, within the so-called Fertile Crescent (Lebanon-Syria-Iraq), and even the result of the US presidential elections.

Who Assassinated President Raisi?

Only 39.93 percent of Iranians went to the polls on 28th June 2024.

This is the lowest turnout in the history of the Islamic Republic, which has clearly not yet recovered from the shock of the death of President Ebrahim Raisi, perhaps not liked by everyone but widely respected. 

His death in a plane crash on 19th May is widely considered to the assassination inspired either by Zionists and Americans, or by the members of corrupt elites whom the president ordered a ruthless fight against.  In the unanimous opinion of the Iranian faithful, Ebrahim Raisi had the highest predispositions to become, after the end of his almost certain second term, the future spiritual leader of Iran, of course through the longest possible life of Ayatollah Ali Khamenei and in accordance with the tradition strengthened by the example of Great Ayatollah Khomeini. The criminals who committed the attack clearly wanted not only to interrupt Raisi’s presidency and destroy the threat of his re-election, but also to disrupt the entire political continuity of the Islamic Republic of Iran. And so far, they continue to do everything to complete such a destructive work.

Love’s Labour’s Lost

I was in Iran during the 2017 presidential campaign, won overwhelmingly by reformist candidate Hassan Rouhani (image on the right), who promised to quickly lift international sanctions against the Republic by reaching an agreement with a U.S.-led coalition interested in ending Iran’s nuclear program.  Ebrahim Raisi, who was defeated in those elections, warned that the West cannot be trusted and all the false promises are and intended only to further weaken Iran’s economic and military potential.  The course of events very quickly proved that Raisi’s position was right, and the liberal bloc was also severely disgraced by corruption, widespread under President Rouhani’s rule.  

I also remember well the situation in Iran before the 2021 presidential elections.  It has been perfectly summarised by the Supreme Leader himself, the great Ayatollah Ali Khamenei called on candidates to compete for programs and to focus on solving real problems, especially socio-economic:

“People don’t care about candidates’ views on social media or foreign policy. Our people are worried by things like unemployment and low income, in particular being the result of wrong policies that suppress national production.”

That was the real reason why the people Iran supported the real God’s Man, Ebrahim Raisi.  Even his greatest enemies always have to admit that he was a politic who had never involved in even the slightest scandal. He was always incorruptible and steadfast and He guaranteed that enemies of Iran have not been able to bribe the Iranian elites in a purpose of social ties breakdown and the destruction of the society, what happened for example to the Central European countries and all other societies affected by the disease of democratisation, liberalisation and any pro-Western political transformation.  Today, however, that fight must be repeated again.

Consolidation

Images are licensed under CC BY 4.0

Of the six candidates registered by the Council of the Guardians of the Revolution, four finally  took part in the first round, including Saeed Jalili, forcing the continuation of the Raisi’s line and loyalty to the Supreme Leader’s instructions, and Masoud Pezeshkian, announcing a return to the Rouhani’s line, once discredited, but still attractive to many today.

Jalili, a disillusioned long-time negotiator with the West, was ultimately supported by, among others, the incumbent vice president of Iran, Amir-Hossein Ghazizadeh Hashemi, and the mayor of Tehran, Alireza Zakani. 

The third in the race, Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf, the Speaker of the Islamic Consultative Assembly, who was considered a candidate particularly close to military circles, also called for voting for Jalili. 

Pezeshkian, however, is supported by the liberal establishment from the past, including former president Mohammad Khatami and former speaker of Parliament Mahdi Karroubi. 

So we are dealing with a clash similar to those in 2017 and 2021, a clash that would not have happened without the death of Raisi, who was unanimously considered to be certain of re-election. 

Only the president’s death gave the liberals a chance, and Pezeshkian obtaining 44.36 percent of votes in the first round keeps these hopes alive.

Zionists Just Wait…

Though, Dr. Jalili is now the hope of both traditionalists, gained around the Supreme Leader, and populists of former president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, in whose administration the current candidate served as deputy minister of foreign affairs for European and American affairs, must unite. 

For both groups, Iran’s unilateral surrender to the demands of Western negotiators equals to defeat in an undeclared but ongoing war with Tel Aviv, which is only waiting for the disarmament of the Islamic Republic to attack Lebanon and Syria again and complete the pacification of the Palestinian territories. 

The election of Dr. Pezeshkian, a former health minister calling for compromise with the West, may be the final death sentence for Gaza, the Palestinian Autonomy, and ultimately also Beirut and Damascus. The Zionists will not forget Tehran’s drone attack that compromised their anti-aircraft defence, and they want to take revenge through ballot boxes filled by Iranians tormented by sanctions. However, they should not forget about other important international circumstances: the US presidential elections and the expected change of Government in the UK.

Best Friends of Israel

Both Donald Trump and Sir Kier Starmer announced a significant tightening of Anglo-Saxon policy towards Tehran after their expected election victories. 

For Trump, the war with Iran would become the final proof that he is “Israel’s greatest friend” among American presidents, and the leader of the British Labour Party would thus culminate his campaign of ruthlessly eliminating all critics of Zionism and opponents of the genocide in Gaza from the ranks of the Labor Party. Even being victorious, but at the same time unable to openly war with China (as he would like), nor able to end the war in Ukraine (which the Washington establishment will probably not allow him to do), Trump will face the huge temptation of a third armed conflict, in the Middle East, with an attempt at land including the invasion of Iran. It would be naive for the Iranians to believe that they would avert such a threat by choosing a capitulator ready to hand over the Republic to Western foundations and globalist capital. 

If the battered and frightened inhabitants of Iran choose shame, they may get war too.

*

Note to readers: Please click the share button above. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

Konrad Rękas is a regular contributor to Global Research.

Featured image is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International license. Attribution: Tasnim News Agency

All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the “Translate Website” drop down menu on the top banner of our home page (Desktop version). 

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @crg_globalresearch.

First published on December 15, 2021, Update May 21, 2023, April 8, 2024 

Author’s Introduction and Update

“Hell is Empty and the Devils are All Here”. William Shakespeare, “The Tempest”, 1623 

***

The World Economic Forum (WEF) which represents the Western financial elites, played a key role in the launching of the March 11, 2020 corona lockdown, which was conducive to a Worldwide process of economic and social chaos. It also supported the launching of the Covid-19 vaccine in November 2020, which (amply documented) has been conducive (Worldwide) to an upward trend in mortality and morbidity

And now they are “promising” us a Crisis which is “Much Worse than Covid”. 

Over the last four years, starting in January 2020, “the deliberate triggering of  chaos” has become part of a broad and complex agenda:

  • the war in Ukraine,
  • the hike in energy prices,
  • the triggering of bankruptcies,
  • the collapse of economic activity,
  • widespread poverty, famine and despair. 

In recent developments, Washington has endorsed 

  • Israel’s genocide directed against the People of Palestine,
  • An unfolding US-NATO-Israel military agenda against the broader Middle East.
  • US Threats against Iran
  • US-NATO threats directed against the Russian Federation 
  • Confrontation directed against China

Cyber-Attacks

The article below focusses on the dangers of Cyber Warfare, which were first announced by the World Economic Forum (WEF) in 2020

In 2021, the WEF conducted a simulation of Cyber Attacks involving a scenario of Paralysis of the Power Supply, Communications, Transportation, The Internet. 

Klaus Schwab intimated in no uncertain terms based on “a simulated scenario” that a cyber-attack:  

Could bring a complete halt to the power supply, transportation, hospital services, our society as a whole …

 The COVID-19 crisis would be seen in this respect as a small disturbance in comparison to a major cyberattack.” (emphasis added) 

Barack and Michelle Obama’s “Leave the World Behind” Movie: Cyberattack, “Synchronized Chaos”, Collapse, “Civil War”

Another controversial element has recently emerged. Available on Netflix, Hollywood has released “Leave the World Behind” produced by former President Barack Obama and First Lady Michelle Obama, based on the script of Rumaan Alam‘s novel. The film director is Sam Esmail.

“Leave the World Behind” “depicts the unraveling of society in the wake of a surprise attack by an unknown assailant, which “predicts a cyberattack on the U.S. power grid”.

Rumaan Alam’s novel “Leave the World Behind,” was published in October 2020, several month following the fear campaign and the March 11, 2020 Covid-19 “Lockdown”. In an interview with The Guardian: (October 26, 2021) Rumaan Alam says:  

I’d never even heard the word coronavirus prior to February 2020. On a very basic level, the book dramatises being trapped in at home and not having enough information – and it happened to be published into a reality in which many readers felt that they were trapped in their homes and didn’t have enough information. So it’s a strange resonance. [namely]… the individual relationship to anxiety over the climate, the absurdity of the contemporary moment, our warped relationship to technology. People are thinking and talking about this stuff so it makes sense that there will be books about it.  

… The people I’m talking about are the person I am. The day lockdown began, what was the first thing we did? Aside from grocery shopping, everyone I know, myself included, went shopping …  

According to Joseph Mercola in a carefully researched review of the “Leave the World Behind” movie:

“Leave the World Behind” depicts the unraveling of society in the wake of a surprise attack by an unknown assailant. Many believe the film, produced by Barack and Michelle Obama, predicts a cyberattack on the U.S. power grid

A cyberattack that will make the COVID pandemic look like a minor inconvenience in comparison to what has been repeatedly “promised” in recent years by World Economic Forum (WEF) founder Klaus Schwab

“Leave the World Behind” doesn’t preach preparedness ideologies or indulge in apocalyptic fantasies. Instead, it offers a glimpse into the potential ramifications of societal breakdowns and the human condition’s capacity for both despair and resilience  (See Mercola’s analysisJanuary 7, 2024, see Schwab quotation above) 

Rumaan Alam’s novel depicts the social impacts of a Blackout affecting the entire U.S. East Coast.

There is no concrete evidence at this stage that the producers and director of “Leave the World Behind” were cognizant of the World Economic Forum’s (WEF) Simulation of a Cyber Attack first conducted in July 2020. The matter requires further investigation. 

Video: “Leave the World Behind”

 

Video: the WEF Cyber Polygon 2020 Simulation. “The Year that has Changed the World”

An engineered “Cyber Terrorist Attack” conducive to unprecedented disruptions? Is this something that we should take seriously?

The World Economic Forum warns us of a new crisis of “even more significant economic and social implications than COVID19.”

“Protect People Properly”, Says former UK Prime Minister Tony Blair in the above video.

What threat could possibly be more impactful?”

The Ice Age Farmer in the video below: 

“breaks down the WEF’s “Cyber Polygon” tabletop exercise, its participants, and predictive programming around a looming large scale cyberattack on critical infrastructure that would unleash a Dark Winter and help to usher in the Great Reset.”

Video: The Next Crisis “Bigger than Covid”

Jeremy Jurgens, WEF Managing Director:

In the words of Jeremy Jurgens, who is the WEF’s  Managing Director and Head of the WEF’s Centre for the Fourth Industrial Revolution: 

“I believe that there will be another crisis. It will be more significant. It will be faster than what we’ve seen with COVID. The impact will be greater, and as a result the economic and social implications will be even more significant.” (emphasis added) 

The 2020 Cyber Polygon Simulation was followed by a Second Simulation in 2021


What does Klaus Schwab have up his Sleeve? A Geopolitical Slant: The 2021 Cyber Polygon Simulation 

The 2021 WEF cyber polygon simulation scenario had an obvious “contradictory” geopolitical slant: 

The event was chaired by Russia’s Prime Minister  Mikhail Mishustin, numerous Russian financial institutions, media and communications entities had been invited by the WEF.

 

Forty-eight countries participated in the Event, there were 41 partners of which 10 were from Russia and Kazakhstan: these included News Agency TASS, NTVSberbank, Russia’s largest bank and a leading global financial institution,  the Mail.ru Group, Russia’s largest internet provider, MTS, Russia’s leading telecommunications group, the State Legal Department of the Omsk Region, Siberia. Powerful banking financial institutions from Kazakstan. Among others.

See also the assumptions of the Training Program, which are predicated on terrorist cyber hackers.

Amply documented, the World Economic Forum (WEF) has been instrumental in endorsing US-NATO’s military agenda in regards to Ukraine.

Was this July 2021 Cyber Polygon event (which occurred less than 8 months prior to the outset of the Ukraine War) intent upon creating political divisions within the Russian Federation by establishing partnerships with a number of powerful Russian media, communications, banking and financial institutions, etc.

Not a single representative from the People’s Republic of China. Was the Cyber Polygon Simulation (July 2021) intended to foster confrontation between China and Russia? Are Cyber attacks contemplated as part of a Global Military agenda?

The Process of “All-Digitization”

In November 2023, as documented in an article by Peter Koenig, the Financial Elites passed from the “simulation of scenarios” to outright  “implementation”. They  entrusted the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD) “as the flag-carrier … for the deadly onslaught of All-Digitization.” 

Koenig focusses on the “Take Down of a Society That is Digital.which could be conducted in the form of  a Worldwide Cyber Attack (as outlined by Klaus Schwab in his 2021 statement):  

“If everything around us is run by digital signals that are controlled by the “Globalist Cabal” (Financial Elites) one or a few switches can turn off our different networks:

water supply, electricity, gas, all kinds of energy, food supply, fuel deliveries, traffic signals, all transportation, all communication, the money in our accounts, and much more.” (Peter Koenig, November 18, 2023

 

Bear in Mind, the July 2021 WEF “Cyber Attack Simulation was co-chaired by Klaus Schwab and the PM of Russia Mikhail Mishustin, Barely 7 months later, the WEF suspends it relationship with the Kremlin following the launching of President Putin’s Special Military Operation (SMO) against Ukraine on February 24, 2022.

 

Michel Chossudovsky, Global Research, May 21, 2023, July 5, 2024

***

Below is the text of Michel Chossudovsky’s December 2021 article

 

Another Crisis “Much Worse than Covid”,

Paralysis of Power Supply,

Communications, Transportation.

The WEF “Cyber Attack” Scenario

by Michel Chossudovsky  

December 15, 2021 

Introduction

The World Economic Forum (WEF) which represents the Western financial elites, played a key role in the launching of the March 11, 2020 lockdown, which was conducive to a Worldwide process of economic and social chaos. 

The WEF is now pointing to: “A cyber-attack with COVID-like characteristics”, which promises to be far more devastating and chaotic than the Covid-19 pandemic.

The World Economic Forum’s “Concept 2021”. Cyber Polygon Scenario


The World Economic Forum (WEF) which co-sponsored Event 201, the table top simulation of the corona pandemic together with John Hopkins and the Gates Foundation in October 2019, has been involved in another strategic exercise entitled Concept 2021. The latter is described as an:

“international capacity building initiative aimed at raising the global cyber resilience”.

It is not a table top simulation comparable to Event 201. 

Last year it was conducted at the height of the lockdown via video conferencing. This year, the 2021 Conference “discussed the “key risks of digitalization”.

Those participating in the Cyber Polygon Exercise (2020) included high tech companies including IBM, numerous banks and financial institutions, internet companies, cyber security agencies, corporate and government media, think tanks, law enforcement agencies including Interpol with representatives from 48 countries.

The exercise was an obvious means to secure reliable partners and develop strategic alliances. In this regard, there were numerous representatives from Russia and countries of the former Soviet Union, including major Russian banking interests, communications and media companies. All in all 42 partners. No corporate /governmental partners from China, participated in the simulation. 

There was also a training program with 200 teams from 48 countries. Cyber Attack With Covid-like Characteristics

Simulation of A Cyber-Attack. Towards A Complete Halt to Power Supply, Communications, Transportation

Klaus Schwab, founder and Executive Director of the WEF and architect of the “Great Reset” describes the crisis scenario as follows:

The frightening scenario of a comprehensive cyber attack could bring a complete halt to the power supply, transportation, hospital services, our society as a whole. The COVID-19 crisis would be seen in this respect as a small disturbance in comparison to a major cyberattack.” (emphasis added)

Jeremy Jurgens, WEF Managing Director:

“I believe that there will be another crisis. It will be more significant. It will be faster than what we’ve seen with COVID. The impact will be greater, and as a result the economic and social implications will be even more significant.” (emphasis added)

The implications of these bold “predictions” which represent the interests of the financial establishment are far-reaching.

What they describe is a scenario of economic and social chaos involving the disruption of communications systems, the internet, financial and money transactions (including SWIFT), the power grid, global transportation, commodity trade, etc., as well as likely “geopolitical dislocations”.

The opening session (July 2021) of Cyber Polygon 2021 was conducted (video below) by the Prime Minister of the Russian Federation Mikhail Mishustin together with the Director General of the WEF Klaus Schwab.

According to Mikhail Mishustin, Prime Minister of the Russian Federation

“Addressing cyberthreats and securing our common digital future are among the priorities of every government and company.  …”

Video. Opening Session Featuring Russia’s Prime Minister and Klaus Schwab (July 2021).

Removed from the WEF website

 

The WEF has suggested in no uncertain terms that another devastating Worldwide economic and social crisis is likely to occur in the wake of the so-called Covid-19 pandemic.  

Video: The Next Crisis Bigger than Covid

 

Is this Scenario a “Dress Rehearsal” for a Forthcoming Cyber Crisis? 

The geopolitics of this exercise are complex. While Russia is routinely threatened by US-NATO, the Russian Federation [was] is a partner of this WEF initiative, which is largely dominated by Wall Street and the Western financial establishment.

Why was China –which is an ally of Russia– excluded from the Cyber Polygon Exercise?

The Cyber Attack is categorized as a Terrorist Act. Ask yourself the question: Who has the capabilities of carrying out such an attack?

Russia’s financial and banking establishment were actively involved in the Cyber Scenario. Was the exercise intended to create divisions between China and Russia?

While one cannot speculate, the matter must nonetheless be addressed.

And who will be blamed if the Cyber Scenario goes live?

Engineered economic and social chaos. Is that not part of a US hegemonic project?

About the Author

Michel Chossudovsky is an award-winning author, Professor of Economics (emeritus) at the University of Ottawa, Founder and Director of the Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG), Montreal, Editor of Global Research.

He has undertaken field research in Latin America, Asia, the Middle East, sub-Saharan Africa and the Pacific and has written extensively on the economies of developing countries with a focus on poverty and social inequality. He has also undertaken research in Health Economics (UN Economic Commission for Latin America and the Caribbean (ECLAC),  UNFPA, CIDA, WHO, Government of Venezuela, John Hopkins International Journal of Health Services (1979, 1983)

He is the author of thirteen books including The Globalization of Poverty and The New World Order (2003), America’s “War on Terrorism” (2005),  The Globalization of War, America’s Long War against Humanity (2015).

He is a contributor to the Encyclopaedia Britannica.  His writings have been published in more than twenty languages. In 2014, he was awarded the Gold Medal for Merit of the Republic of Serbia for his writings on NATO’s war of aggression against Yugoslavia. He can be reached at [email protected]

See Michel Chossudovsky, Biographical Note

Michel Chossudovsky’s Articles on Global Research

  • Posted in English, Mobile, NO READ MORE LINK
  • Comments Off on The Next Crisis “Bigger than Covid”: Paralysis of Power Supply, Communications, Transportation. The WEF “Cyber Attack” Scenario, “Usher In the Great Reset”

Israel Burning Down

July 5th, 2024 by Karsten Riise

All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the Translate Website button below the author’s name (only available in desktop version).

To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.

Click the share button above to email/forward this article to your friends and colleagues. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

Spread the Truth, Refer a Friend to Global Research

***

Israel is burning down.

More than 200 Hezbollah missiles have hit Israel the past day and night.

Though Hezbollah’s 200 missiles have been reported in western media, it has always been with the addition from censored Israeli public information, that Israel either “shoots down all Hezbollah missiles”, or “Hezbollah missiles strike empty land”. The images in the video prove that evidently Hezbollah is doing tremendous real damage, burning down Israel.

The devastation by Hezbollah in the video is not reported on CNN, NYT or WaPo.

Not even reported by Israeli media.

As Israel cannot defeat Hamas in little Gaza, taking on far bigger Hezbollah is an impossible task for Israel.

The fire will therefore grow until it consumes Israel.

*

Note to readers: Please click the share button above. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

Karsten Riise is a Master of Science (Econ) from Copenhagen Business School and has a university degree in Spanish Culture and Languages from Copenhagen University. He is the former Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer (CFO) of Mercedes-Benz in Denmark and Sweden.

He is a regular contributor to Global Research.

Featured image is a screenshot from the AFP video

This Week’s Most Popular Articles

July 5th, 2024 by Global Research News

13 Nations Sign Agreement to Engineer Global Famine by Destroying Food Supply

Hunter Fielding, June 18, 2024

Breakthrough Study Uncovers ‘Off Switch’ for COVID mRNA Shots

Dr. Joseph Mercola, July 1, 2024

Why Is NATO Suddenly Backing Off in the Black Sea?

Drago Bosnic, July 1, 2024

“I am Not Made for War”: More and More Ukrainians Don’t Want to Go to the Front

Ahmed Adel, July 1, 2024

Cancer Success Stories: Stage 4 Pancreatic Cancer – Fenbendazole Protocol Shrinking Tumors and Dropping Cancer Markers

Dr. William Makis, July 1, 2024

COVID-19 Vaccine Victims, Japanese Families Speak Out, Doctors Warning About mRNA Dangers, Speeches and Japanese TV Spots

Dr. William Makis, July 2, 2024

The Presidential Debate That Wasn’t

Dr. Jack Rasmus, July 3, 2024

Our Identity as Homo Sapiens Threatened by Synthetic Biology, Humans Fiddle While Humanity Burns, Will It be Near-Term Death or Transhuman Slavery?

Robert J. Burrowes, July 1, 2024

Inside the Assange Plea Deal: Why the US Government Abruptly Ended the Case

Mohamed Elmaazi, July 2, 2024

Journalist Bisan Owda Trapped in Gaza: “It’s a Game of Death and Hunger” There Is No Place to Go. “Genocide by Design”

Mark Taliano, July 2, 2024

Bird Flu — Another Attempt to Control the Food System and Make a Profit. A New Wave of Fearmongering Begins – Should You Be Concerned?

Dr. Ashley Armstrong, July 2, 2024

Putin: The Protector of Ukraine

Dr. Paul Craig Roberts, July 1, 2024

WEF’s Klaus Schwab Crossing the Line on Sexual Harassment and Discrimination. Exposed by WSJ

Peter Koenig, July 1, 2024

Articles and Protocols for Cancer, Research Studies and Access to Ivermectin Pills

Dr. William Makis, July 3, 2024

Large Maneuvers of War in Europe Under US Command. Manlio Dinucci

Manlio Dinucci, July 3, 2024

Video: Israel Destroys Gaza to Control World’s Most Important Shipping Lane? The Ben Gurion Canal Linking the Eastern Mediterranean to the Gulf of Aqaba

Richard Medhurst, June 30, 2024

America’s Distortion of the History of the 20th Century: “The Legacy of World War II and the Holocaust”

Dr. David Stea, July 2, 2024

NATO May Drag Us Into World War III to Delay U.S. Election ’24!

Drago Bosnic, July 1, 2024

Immediate Ban on mRNA Gene Therapy Over Escalating Turbo Cancer Crisis: UK’s Top Oncologist Prof. Angus Dalgleish

Aussie17, July 2, 2024

Trump or Blinken – That Is the Question. Will the Dems Pull a Last Minute Wild Card? So, the fight will be fierce from now to November 6, 2024

Peter Koenig, July 2, 2024

O regime de Kiev continua a tomar decisões perigosas que podem levar a uma grave escalada do conflito com a Federação Russa. Recentemente, tropas ucranianas começaram a ser posicionadas na fronteira com a República da Belarus, o que é um passo sério, considerando que qualquer ataque à soberania bielorrussa será respondido militarmente por Moscou, uma vez que ambos os países têm um pacto de defesa mútua. A Ucrânia está consciente deste risco de escalada, mas procura abertamente internacionalizar o conflito.

Em 29 de Junho, o vice-comandante das forças de operações especiais bielorrussas, coronel Vadim Lukashevich, afirmou que Kiev está a posicionar soldados, veículos blindados e sistemas de artilharia fornecidos pelos EUA ao longo da fronteira de 1.000 km entre os dois países. Além disso, foram criados campos minados na região, o que é claramente um sinal de preparação para um possível conflito aberto. Além do exército ucraniano, o serviço de fronteira bielorrusso também relatou a presença de mercenários neonazistas na fronteira.

Pouco depois das declarações das autoridades bielorrussas, o regime de Kiev confirmou as acusações, admitindo que está a realizar movimentos militares na fronteira norte. De acordo com Andrey Demchenko, porta-voz do Serviço de Fronteiras da Ucrânia, a Ucrânia vê a fronteira com a Belarus como “perigosa”, razão pela qual Kiev “continua a fortalecê-la… para evitar quaisquer ações que possam vir do território de Belarus”.

Demchenko não explicou porque é que o seu país considera Belarus uma ameaça. Figuras públicas ucranianas e pró-ucranianas salientam frequentemente que alguns dos primeiros ataques russos durante a primeira fase da operação militar especial foram realizados com tropas que se deslocavam através do território bielorrusso. De fato, alguns dos militares russos envolvidos na operação cruzaram a fronteira norte da Ucrânia em direção a Kiev para realizar uma manobra diversiva que permitiu que as tropas ucranianas se distraíssem enquanto posições de verdadeiro interesse russo eram facilmente tomadas em Donbass.

Esses movimentos militares, contudo, terminaram na Primavera de 2022. A Rússia retirou-se dos subúrbios de Kiev depois de ganhar posições estratégicas no Donbass. Além disso, Moscou deixou claro que o fim das ações na região de Kiev foi também um gesto de boa vontade diplomática para avançar nas negociações de paz, razão pela qual a Ucrânia já não precisava de temer quaisquer novas incursões nos arredores da capital.

No momento do início da operação militar especial, Belarus tinha declarado a sua neutralidade no conflito, embora tenha permitido o trânsito de tropas russas através do seu território. A presença militar russa no país é absolutamente legal, uma vez que ambos os países estão amplamente integrados no Tratado do Estado da União. Devido às constantes provocações ucranianas, Belarus mudou o seu estatuto no conflito, apoiando agora abertamente a Rússia, mas deixando claro que não está interessada em participar em quaisquer movimentos militares. No entanto, se a Ucrânia continuar a lançar manobras provocativas, Minsk poderá ser forçada a agir de forma mais decisiva para proteger o seu povo.

As autoridades russas deixaram claro em diversas ocasiões que não tolerarão qualquer tipo de ataque ao seu aliado. O Estado da União estabelece apoio militar mútuo em caso de conflito, razão pela qual um ataque a Belarus será visto como um ataque à própria Rússia. No entanto, Kiev já realizou diversas provocações nas fronteiras, incluindo incursões de drones e tentativas de ataques terroristas. Minsk tem sido paciente e ignorou as ações ucranianas, mas se mais atividades deste tipo forem realizadas, é possível que o governo bielorrusso peça o apoio russo para reforçar a segurança fronteiriça. Além disso, Moscou poderia lançar outra operação no norte, semelhante à do início do conflito, com o objetivo de dissuadir os ucranianos de se retirarem da fronteira com Belarus.

Para Kiev, a internacionalização do conflito é uma prioridade. Com o seu exército à beira do colapso e a derrota total sendo uma mera questão de tempo, a única esperança da Ucrânia é tornar o conflito tão sério e internacional quanto possível, tentando assim angariar mais apoio ocidental e uma possível intervenção da OTAN. Belarus tem sido um dos maiores alvos de provocações, tal como a república separatista da Transnístria, onde já foram reportadas diversas manobras terroristas e incursões de drones. Kiev, contudo, não conseguirá envolver tão facilmente mais actores na guerra. Minsk, por exemplo, já deixou claro que só entrará diretamente no conflito se houver um ataque militar ucraniano direto. Apesar de ser provocativo, o regime neonazista está ao mesmo tempo agindo de forma covarde, não querendo arriscar as suas já frágeis e altamente enfraquecidas forças militares.

É digno de nota que a Ucrânia está enviando tantas tropas para uma fronteira pacífica, apesar de ter sofrido pesadas perdas no campo de batalha. Talvez a esperança de Kiev com estes movimentos seja precisamente distrair as forças russas, fazendo parecer que o regime abrirá uma nova frente para tentar reduzir as ações russas nas Novas Regiões e em Kharkov, que são atualmente os principais flancos do conflito. Esta tentativa de distração, no entanto, é fútil, uma vez que Moscou continua a utilizar apenas uma pequena percentagem das suas capacidades militares, tendo força suficiente para atuar em várias frentes ao mesmo tempo.

Se Kiev intensificar as provocações na fronteira com a Belarus, a Rússia poderá facilmente entrar na Ucrânia pelo norte, sem reduzir as suas ações nas outras frentes. Por outro lado, um novo flanco poderia desgastar ainda mais a Ucrânia e levar rapidamente ao seu colapso militar.

Lucas Leiroz de Almeida

 

Artigo em inglês :

Kiev Regime Worsening Tensions by Sending Troops to Belarussian Border

InfoBrics, 2 de Julho de 2024.

Imagém : InfoBrics

*

Lucas Leiroz, membro da Associação de Jornalistas do BRICS, pesquisador do Centro de Estudos Geoestratégicos, especialista militar.

Você pode seguir Lucas Leiroz em: https://t.me/lucasleiroz e https://x.com/leiroz_lucas

 

All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the Translate Website button below the author’s name (only available in desktop version).

To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.

Click the share button above to email/forward this article to your friends and colleagues. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

Spread the Truth, Refer a Friend to Global Research

***

In the middle of several very serious questions haunting humanity today the one which looms over all others is this terrible one—how high is the possibility of World War III/nuclear war and how destructive this will be?

Even those who take an optimistic view of the existing situation do not deny the obvious fact that weapons of mass destruction that exist with just the two biggest nuclear weapon powers (over 10,000 nuclear weapons plus other weapons) have the capacity to destroy most life on earth several times over.

They base their optimism mainly on their view that just because the risks of a large-scale nuclear war are so unacceptably high, this will never be allowed to actually happen by the world leadership and no matter how serious the hostilities become, some solution will always be found to avoid a war that has the capacity to destroy all sides.

Can this optimism be accepted? Is this optimism justified?

Is this optimism good for reducing worries and tensions of people, or is it likely to prove extremely harmful by creating a false assurance of safety and thereby avoiding much-needed safety steps? Do the actual risks remain unacceptably high?

What is at stake here is so huge—the very survival of life on planet—that even a low probability of an all-out nuclear war should be seen as extremely dangerous. If for example a 5% probability of this existed till about a few years ago, then this was a very serious matter and if this has now increased to about 10% then this is a much more serious matter. If this probability now appears to show a further increasing trend then this makes the situation even more alarming.

On the whole we can say definitely that the probability of a life-destroying nuclear war today is unacceptably high and it shows all the signs of worsening further.

There are two aspects that need to be considered here, firstly the state of world leadership and governance and secondly certain technological factors.

It is extremely unfortunate that when international peace and cooperation are needed more than ever before to avoid the most catastrophic situations, the world leadership has been increasingly exposed in recent times for its glaring failures to achieve such peace and cooperation. In fact it is no exaggeration to say that at a time when the need for moving fast on the path of peace, disarmament and cooperation is the highest, world leadership has been instead moving in the reverse direction, as evident from increasing superpower rivalries and tensions as well as breakdown and non-renewal of important disarmament treaties or agreements.

In addition there are several serious environmental problems which together threaten to disrupt life-nurturing conditions of earth if not checked in time. To resolve these in time, apart from strong community actions, close international cooperation is also needed but this too is denied by increasing big power disputes and rivalries, as well as inability of the most of the rich countries to adopt a caring attitude towards the needs of poorer and most vulnerable countries. This is mentioned here as another example of the failure of world leadership to get its priorities right and resolve the most urgent problems before it is too late.

The most dangerous aspect of increasing irresponsibility shown by the leadership of big powers is their apparent willingness to pursue their rivalries and hostilities in ways that bring them closer to the possibilities of direct war (in addition to the several proxy wars they have fought and are fighting). Despite warnings by some of their most senior statesmen and diplomats, the USA and its close allies persisted with the relentless eastward expansion of NATO, thereby increasing tensions with Russia. This worsened with a coup in Ukraine assisted by them, followed by pushing Ukraine relentlessly towards increasing hostility with Russia. In the course of the Ukraine-Russia conflict, USA and close allies have increasingly taken decisions that can lead to direct confrontation of Russia with USA and its close allies/ NATO. New red lines have been drawn and crossed several times in the recent past.

The spread of dangerous ideas among elites and the absence of adequate training in commitment to peace makes them more susceptible to pursue irrational hostility rather than peace, and it is from these elites that the most decisive posts are filled and it is these elites that comprise the deep establishment. 

Secondly, regarding the technological aspects, the extremely high speed at which nuclear weapons can be made to reach their targets makes it difficult to correct serious mistakes. It is possible in times of high tensions to mistake normal weapon delivery as nuclear weapon delivery and take retaliatory actions. There are possibilities of accidents and misunderstandings that can start a nuclear war. 

There is huge irrationality and recklessness involved in perpetually living in a state of being just minutes away from doomsday. 

The fact that world leadership sees nothing wrong in living this way year after year, endangering the life of billions of people and other life forms, is further evidence of its glaring failure to protect the most crucial interests of the planet and its life.

The previous two world wars were fought over several years and involved prolonged battles in many countries. World War 3 can take a very different shape as so much harm is caused within just a few days that it cannot continue beyond this. However it will be worse than the previous two world wars taken together as within a few days of nuclear warfare and the resulting nuclear winter most people and other life-forms will die or will be left to die. The actual use of just 10% of the existing stock of nuclear weapons will be enough to achieve such a hugely destructive result.  

It is not just a question of whether the probability of this ever happening is 5% or 10%, more or less. The fact is that by any rational reckoning any probability of this happening even at minimum levels is unacceptable. This is a betrayal by world leadership of their most essential responsibility towards people, towards this generation and the next, towards completely innocent children, towards all forms of life.

Hence it is time for the people of the world to rise, led by women and youth, to create an entirely different world where the probability of such huge destruction by weapons and wars is zero, and where all people can live in peace and cooperate to resolve the most important environmental problems in time and ensure that all people can have creative, satisfactory livelihoods to meet their basic needs on a sustainable basis. In short, the world should be firmly on a path based on peace, safety, environment protection and justice.

*

Note to readers: Please click the share button above. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

Bharat Dogra is Honorary Convener, Campaign to Save Earth Now. His recent books include Planet in Peril, Protecting Earth for Children, Earth without Borders, Man over Machine and A Day in 2071. He is a regular contributor to Global Research.

Featured image is from Countercurrents

O primeiro debate eleitoral evidenciou a milhões de cidadãos americanos que eles são governados por uma esponja. Talvez a antecipação dos debates (nas eleições anteriores o primeiro debate ocorreu somente no final de setembro) tenha ocorrido precisamente com o objetivo de testar o recebimento da (falta de) capacidade cognitiva de Joe Biden pelo grande público para que houvesse tempo de substituí-lo por outro candidato, caso necessário. Como em 2020, Biden deu um golpe interno no Partido Democrata, impedindo a concorrência e os debates para não expor sua completa incapacidade de governar.

Mas todas as vozes da grande burguesia imperialista americana agora estão clamando desesperadamente pela sua substituição.

Mais influente porta-voz do establishment, o New York Times pediu em um editorial: “para servir a seu país, o presidente Biden deve deixar a disputa”, rasgando elogios ao “presidente admirável”, sob cuja liderança “a nação prosperou e começou a abordar uma série de desafios antigos”. Porque Biden está concorrendo contra o demônio personificado. “Donald Trump se provou um perigo significativo para a democracia – uma figura errática e egoísta que não merece a confiança do público”, opinou o jornal.

Entretanto, os democratas e a grande burguesia americana não têm ninguém com a mesma popularidade de Donald Trump. A maioria das pesquisas de opinião aponta o republicano como favorito e vem crescendo o número de adeptos às ideias e políticas defendidas por ele, como o combate à imigração, ao envio de armas à Ucrânia e à “cultura woke”. Pesquisa publicada no início de janeiro pelo Washington Post e a Universidade de Maryland indicou que 36% dos americanos acham que a eleição de Biden em 2020 não foi legítima. Trump conseguiu arrecadar 53 milhões de dólares para sua campanha em 24 horas após ser condenado em maio pela justiça de Nova York e conquistou 3 milhões de seguidores quase imediatamente após abrir uma conta no Tik Tok. É um fenômeno ainda mais arrasador do que em 2016.

Sabendo, no entanto, que não é a vontade do povo, mas sim as maquinações dos poderosos interesses dentro das instituições do Estado que realmente decidem o próximo presidente dos Estados Unidos, é preciso analisar as estruturas da burguesia americana e de seus tentáculos e medir a força de seus setores que neste momento estão em clara contradição. É a correlação de forças dentro do sistema político e econômico dos EUA que irá decidir qual camada das classes dominantes, a superior ou a inferior, terá o seu representante na Casa Branca em 2025.

O poder dos republicanos nos estados

Levando em conta o maior ou menor controle da máquina política estatal (executivo, legislativo e histórico nas últimas três eleições presidenciais), os republicanos deverão vencer em todos os “red states” e em outros 17 estados, incluindo o “swing state” da Geórgia. Terão garantidos, assim, 255 delegados para o colégio eleitoral, na soma dos delegados que cada um desses estados têm direito. Já os democratas tendem a vencer em todos os “blue states” e em mais 10 estados, incluindo os “swing states” de Nevada e Michigan e os estados de Minnesota e Maine, onde, ao contrário de todos os outros, o partido que obtêm a maioria dos votos populares no estado não elege automaticamente todos os delegados, mas têm regras próprias – nossa conta leva em consideração que os democratas controlam a máquina política nesses dois estados, portanto têm condições de manejar o resultado das eleições. Os democratas obterão, assim, 243 delegados para o colégio eleitoral.

Para que seu candidato seja o vencedor das eleições presidenciais, um partido deve ter ao menos 270 delegados no colégio eleitoral. Daí a importância essencial dos “swing states” onde o controle político não é definido (Pensilvânia, Wisconsin e Arizona). Conquistando aqueles 255 delegados, para se eleger bastará para Trump vencer em apenas um deles (a Pensilvânia), ou, se perder na Pensilvânia, se vencer nos outros dois. Já o candidato democrata será obrigado a vencer na Pensilvânia e em mais um dos outros dois “swing states” chave, se obtiver apenas 243 delegados.

Considerando, assim, o controle da máquina política nos estados, somado à tendência de maior preferência dos eleitores nas pesquisas de intenção de voto, Donald Trump tem maiores chances de se eleger presidente do que o candidato democrata.

O Deep State contra Trump

“Com uma maioria favorável ao MAGA [o movimento trumpista “Make America Great Again”] na Suprema Corte, dezenas de aliados nos tribunais federais inferiores, bem como no Congresso, nas legislaturas estaduais e nas mansões dos governadores, e uma base considerável, extremamente leal e fortemente armada de apoiadores políticos, Trump terá considerável margem de manobra e muitos apoiadores”, diz um artigo da Foreign Affairs publicado em 10 de junho, assinado por Jon D. Michaels.

O autor teme que o trumpismo esteja construindo um Deep State próprio, o que poderia ser consolidado com a volta de Trump ao governo. Os analistas tradicionais da intelectualidade ocidental costumam caracterizar os países que não pertencem à América do Norte e à Europa Ocidental como regimes extremamente burocráticos, corruptos e antidemocráticos, onde reinam as conspirações internas como forma de luta pelo poder. Pois na verdade essa caracterização cabe perfeitamente aos Estados Unidos das últimas décadas. Os EUA têm uma das maiores e certamente a mais poderosa burocracia estatal do mundo. Esqueçam as supostas preocupações com os LGBT ou os negros. Quem domina o poder nos EUA não liga para os direitos ou a falta de direitos dessas pessoas. Eles se importam com coisas mais fundamentais, como manter o estrito controle do regime político.

E Trump é uma perigosa ameaça a esse controle. Ele tende a concentrar os poderes na presidência, com um poder maior de intervenção e controle sobre as agências de inteligência e os órgãos de defesa nacional. Aprendeu com os erros de seu primeiro mandato e agora irá colocar apenas pessoas de total confiança nos postos-chave – e a tendência é que ele troque a maior parte das cabeças das principais áreas do governo. Um outro artigo da Foreign Affairs, publicado por Risa Brooks em 20 de março, mostra preocupação sobre a crescente politização das forças armadas americanas, alimentada tanto pela propaganda trumpista quanto pelos vetos de legisladores republicanos à promoção de oficiais supostamente liberais nas forças armadas. Então os chefes do Pentágono também detestam a ideia da volta de Trump ao governo. E os oficiais do Pentágono sempre são selecionados entre os quadros das empresas armamentistas, que estão de cabelos em pé com a possibilidade de que os Estados Unidos retirem suas bases militares e suas tropas da Ásia e da Europa, pois seu lucro vem justamente da venda de material ao governo dos EUA e de seus países-clientes. Os outros órgãos do Deep State, como a CIA e o Conselho de Segurança Nacional, também são alimentados com quadros da indústria militar, assim como do Vale do Silício e de Wall Street, que reúnem os grandes monopólios tecnológicos e financeiros dos Estados Unidos e do mundo. Trump já declarou também que poderia abrir os arquivos secretos sobre o assassinato de John Kennedy, o que revelaria mais um pouco sobre a podridão da CIA e do Deep State, prováveis responsáveis por aquele magnicídio.

Trump pode fazer uma reconfiguração inédita no Deep State, o verdadeiro governo dos EUA. Está mexendo com os piores instintos do imperialismo americano.

Quem são os homens de Trump?

O âmago do conflito entre Trump e o aparato que comanda os EUA são as contradições de classe. Neste caso, as contradições dos setores marginalizados da burguesia, da classe média e do proletariado, com a alta burguesia imperialista.

Jeffrey Sonnenfeld, um proeminente acadêmico da alta sociedade americana que trabalha diariamente com os maiores capitalistas dos EUA, tem enfatizado essa contradição em artigos para a imprensa. No New York Times, ele destacou que, até agora, nenhum dos 100 maiores bilionários na lista da Fortune doou um mísero centavo para a campanha presidencial de Trump – assim como nenhum CEO doou em 2016 e apenas dois dos top 100 o fizeram em 2020. Além disso, muitos empresários que financiaram Trump em 2016 abandonaram o barco ao longo de seu governo.

Alguns poucos financistas têm apoiado o líder republicano, mas, “na realidade, esses financistas representam um pequeno segmento da comunidade de negócios”, ressaltou Sonnenfeld na Time.

Está claro por essas informações e pela campanha nos principais meios de comunicação que a alta burguesia americana não apoia Trump. Mas quem o apoia?

Basta dar uma olhada para as posições políticas de Trump. Ele é protecionista, isolacionista e anti-imigrantes. Ataca a globalização e promete cuidar da situação interna dos Estados Unidos e diminuir a intervenção nos assuntos de outros países, o que significaria um duro golpe sobre o regime imperialista global, ainda mais em uma época de insurreições contra esse regime no mundo todo.

Obstaculizar a entrada dos imigrantes elevaria a taxa salarial dos trabalhadores americanos, pois os imigrantes que entram nos EUA aceitam receber salários baixíssimos, reduzindo a média salarial dos trabalhadores americanos. Por isso os grandes empresários atacam a pauta migratória de Trump, a fim de manter os baixos salários com a competição dos imigrantes. Muitos trabalhadores apoiam Trump porque querem, naturalmente, salários melhores.

Há mesmo uma ala esquerdista dentro do trumpismo, como existia no fascismo italiano e no nazismo alemão. Isso se dá justamente pela influência de trabalhadores desorganizados e com pouca consciência política que têm sofrido intensamente com décadas de neoliberalismo, desindustrialização e governos democratas e republicanos tradicionais. Em ambos os artigos, para o NYT e para a Time, Sonnenfeld opina que a política econômica de Trump é muito mais parecida com a da esquerda socialista do que com as posições tradicionais do Partido Republicano, “e são frequentemente mais progressistas que as da Administração Biden”.

As corporações são muito impopulares entre toda a população americana e mesmo entre membros dos dois partidos, por isso até Biden tem de criticá-las a adotar medidas que as desagradam. Mesmo setores poderosos dentro dos EUA foram afetados pelo domínio dos monopólios sobre a economia, pois estes suprimiram a concorrência de empresários que ficaram à margem do poder. De fato, se uma minoria tão reduzida governa, inclusive setores ricos da sociedade terminam prejudicados. E eles não gostaram de ter sua vida e seus negócios espionados pela NSA ou de perder seus clientes e quase falir devido à concorrência de produtores estrangeiros, principalmente chineses.

Nos últimos anos os EUA se tornaram dependentes da China em diversas áreas, como eletrônicos, vídeo games, maquinário, têxteis, produtos químicos, metais etc. Isto é, principalmente com relação aos produtos manufaturados. As empresas de Elon Musk, um notório apoiador de Trump, são competidoras das companhias chinesas de fornecimento de internet e carros elétricos. Todo esse vasto ramo empresarial, que abarca multidões de empresas e empresários, concorda quando Trump diz que os EUA precisam se proteger da competição chinesa e de outros países. Tanto é assim que exerceram grande pressão para que a administração Biden seja a mais anti-China da história ao impor altas tarifas e sanções, controle e banimento de investimentos e estar a ponto de proibir o Tik Tok. Na esfera geopolítica, a administração Biden talvez seja a mais agressiva contra  China, ameaçada de uma guerra contra os EUA por Taiwan. Muitos entendem que o principal inimigo geopolítico dos EUA não é o terrorismo, o Irã ou a Rússia, mas sim a China. Sua penetração no mercado interno dos EUA gera acusações de espionagem tanto industrial e tecnológica quanto política e o fortalecimento econômico de uma potência desafiadora da hegemonia americana.

O protecionismo e o isolacionismo de Trump foram vistos em seu primeiro mandato, quando ele retirou os EUA da Parceria Trans-Pacífico, dos Acordos Climáticos de Paris, da OMS e do acordo nuclear com o Irã, todos criados graças ao establishment imperialista americano. Trump é representante dos setores da burguesia que eram dominantes antes de os EUA se tornarem uma potência imperialista hegemônica, quando a maioria dos negócios da burguesia se resumia ao próprio território estadunidense e ao continente americano. Quando o desenvolvimento capitalista levou ao surgimento e ao monopólio da indústria e dos bancos por poucos conglomerados, aqueles setores perderam espaço na economia e na política. O capital financeiro americano se disseminou pelo mundo e exigiu a entrada dos EUA na I e na II Guerra Mundiais exatamente para que o governo protegesse os seus negócios. A ala dos políticos que representava esses interesses se autointitulou “internacionalista”, um eufemismo hipócrita para imperialista. A burguesia marginalizada pelo capital financeiro cuja área de atuação era muito mais limitada não estava interessada em entrar em guerras tão devastadoras para defender esses monopólios que a subjugavam. Por isso criou o movimento “America First”, símbolo do isolacionismo apregoado pelos políticos que representavam esse setor marginalizado da burguesia.

Durante muito tempo, até a era neoliberal, tanto o Partido Democrata quanto o Partido Republicano tinham membros ligados a esse setor. Mas isso não significa que Trump tenha apenas retomado uma política tradicional dos isolacionistas. Esta é uma nova era, influenciada pela experiência neoliberal que devastou ainda mais os negócios da burguesia marginalizada e também a qualidade de vida das classes média e trabalhadora. Ao mesmo tempo, levou a uma crise sem precedentes da própria alta burguesia imperialista. Esse fenômeno é o que os intelectuais do regime americano chamam de “crise da democracia”. E não é Trump que está fazendo essa democracia erodir. Essa “democracia” nada mais é do que a ditadura estável dos monopólios imperialistas, cuja estabilidade já não existe mais por sua própria natureza. A contribuição de Trump para isso é liderar um movimento de insurreição da grande burguesia marginalizada, da pequena burguesia urbana e rural empobrecida e do proletariado desorganizado. Qualquer semelhança com a Alemanha e a Itália da década de 1920 não é mera coincidência. Durante mais de 100 anos a política norte-americana permaneceu uma ditadura bipartidária em que os dois partidos eram gêmeos siameses e sua política quase idêntica garantiu a estabilidade do regime. Donald Trump chegou para abalar essa estabilidade, subverter o Partido Republicano, polarizar o país e estremecer as estruturas do regime político. Por isso é tão odiado pelas elites política e econômica.

Trump também tem o apoio de setores poderosos da burguesia europeia que sofrem com a competição desleal dos monopólios americanos que colonizaram a Europa a partir do Plano Marshall. A exigência de Trump para que a Europa pague uma cota maior de financiamento da OTAN favorece a redução da dependência desses países diante dos EUA, o que significa a diminuição da submissão política. Certamente vários setores da burguesia europeia veem essa possibilidade como uma pequena libertação do jugo americano. Por outro lado, a alta burguesia imperialista americana ataca sistematicamente a possibilidade de redução da participação americana na OTAN e em outros órgãos internacionais, porque sabe que a participação americana não é igual a dos outros países, mas sim uma participação dominante, cuja força econômica compra os funcionários e os chefes dessas organizações para que atendam aos interesses dos Estados Unidos.

O governo Netanyahu também é um claro patrocinador de Trump, com seus tentáculos no poderoso lobby sionista americano. Outros governos de direita de tipo nacionalista burguês, em várias partes do mundo, mesmo que não tenham condições de influenciar de maneira decisiva o resultado das eleições americanas, dão um suporte maior ou menor à candidatura do republicano, porque veem nela uma possibilidade de contenção do domínio dos monopólios imperialistas sobre a sua economia e o favorecimento da burguesia local, asfixiada pelas companhias americanas.

Uma verdadeira revolução política no regime americano?

Em seu primeiro mandato, Trump não conseguiu levar sua política até as últimas consequências. Foi sabotado dentro do próprio partido e governo. Agora, ele tomou conta do Partido Republicano e tende a integrar apenas pessoas de alta confiança no núcleo duro do governo. Pessoas que atendam aos mesmos interesses que ele. Trump pode reestruturar por completo a burocracia estatal dos Estados Unidos. Isso seria como uma revolução política no regime, ou seja, substituir os dirigentes e o sistema político sem mexer drasticamente nas bases da economia capitalista-monopolista.

A principal semelhança de Trump com o fascismo não é a sua xenofobia, seu machismo, ou seu racismo, mas sim a sua base social. A eleição de Trump poderia ser a tomada do poder pelas classes médias e pela baixa e média burguesia, a base social tradicional do fascismo em sua fase embrionária, isto é, antes da sua chegada ao poder. As experiências fascistas do século passado, como os regimes de Hitler e Mussolini, foram domesticadas e controladas pela alta burguesia imperialista quando era inevitável que tomassem o poder. Ou seja, os grandes monopólios abraçaram o fascismo naquela época. Eles não se incomodariam em fazer isso novamente por algum princípio ideológico ou ético, como o fazem em vários lugares do mundo, mas nada indica que estejam dispostos a se aliar a Donald Trump. O mais provável é que, se tudo correr como se anuncia, os EUA se afoguem em um caos jamais visto nos últimos 150 anos e cheguem à beira da guerra civil. Seria um regime absolutamente instável e insustentável, o que poderia acelerar exponencialmente o declínio do império americano.

A grande burguesia financeira e imperialista dos Estados Unidos não pode permitir uma vitória de Trump de modo algum. Pelo contrário, ela precisa retomar o controle dos EUA sobre o mundo todo, o que vai de encontro aos interesses econômicos do MAGA. Mas vai também de encontro à própria realidade objetiva: a crise desse controle e do regime imperialista liderado pelos Estados Unidos é irreversível. Para impedir uma vitória de Trump, levando em conta todo o seu apoio popular, o controle da burocracia estatal pelos republicanos em muitos estados e o respaldo que tem Trump entre setores econômicos poderosos, embora marginalizados, a grande burguesia imperialista terá de executar um golpe de Estado eleitoral. Mas ela não parece ter muita margem de manobra. Por isso não descarto, por exemplo, uma tentativa de assassinato. Se não houver um golpe, Trump será eleito.

E se Trump for eleito, é melhor se pensar em outro golpe de Estado. Caso contrário, se Trump conseguir aparelhar totalmente o Estado como seus opositores temem, os grandes capitalistas terão de fazer como fizeram com Hitler e Mussolini: domesticar a fera, comprando membros do trumpismo, extirpando sua ala mais radical e inserindo homens de confiança do imperialismo para fazer um pacto e estabilizar minimamente a situação. Mas não será nada fácil executar esse plano. É bem provável que o caos se instale. O apodrecimento violento e destruidor não é nada mais senão a tendência natural de um regime imperialista em decadência como o americano.

Eduardo Vasco

*

Eduardo Vasco é jornalista especializado em política internacional, correspondente de guerra e autor dos livros-reportagem “O povo esquecido: uma história de genocídio e resistência no Donbass” e “Bloqueio: a guerra silenciosa contra Cuba”.

All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the Translate Website button below the author’s name (only available in desktop version).

To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.

Click the share button above to email/forward this article to your friends and colleagues. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

Spread the Truth, Refer a Friend to Global Research

***

Featuring Dr. Byram Bridle, Dr. William Makis, Darrell Komick, Dr. Chris Shoemaker, Dr. David Speicher, and Dr. Mark Trozzi addressing journalists’ questions.

The morning after the landmark event “An Injection of Truth” in Calgary, where a delegation of Canadian MDs and scientists presented crucial scientific information, a press conference was held.

This event addressed the alarming 3000% increase in unexplained child deaths in Alberta and aimed to provide essential knowledge to Albertans and the global community.

This knowledge is vital for making informed decisions regarding the modified mRNA C-19 injections, commonly known as Covid-19 vaccines. Here is the video recording of the press conference, featuring myself and other experts.

Click here to watch the video

*

Note to readers: Please click the share button above. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

Dr Mark Trozzi, is a veteran ER physician and trauma expert, who has taught at three top medical schools. Since 2020, he’s opposed the criminal COVID agenda, fighting for human rights, justice, and the World Council for Health.

Featured image is a screenshot from the video

Our Right to Abolish Government

July 4th, 2024 by James Roguski

All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the Translate Website button below the author’s name (only available in desktop version).

To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.

Click the share button above to email/forward this article to your friends and colleagues. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

Spread the Truth, Refer a Friend to Global Research

***

Governments are instituted to serve We the People.

We have authority over our government.

We have the power to reform, alter or even abolish our state governments.

What are WE waiting for?

Exercising the right, and the duty, to reform and to even abolish government when it no longer serves us, is how the United States of America began 248 years ago.

In Congress, July 4, 1776

The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America, When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.–That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, –That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security. 

See this.

 

Amending the United States Constitution:

The Constitution provides that an amendment may be proposed by the Congress with a two-thirds majority vote in both the House of Representatives and the Senate. The Congress proposes an amendment in the form of a joint resolution. Since the President does not have a constitutional role in the amendment process, the joint resolution does not go to the White House for signature or approval. The original document is forwarded directly to NARA’s Office of the Federal Register (OFR) for processing and publication.

A proposed amendment becomes part of the Constitution as soon as it is ratified by three-fourths of the States (38 of 50 States).

See this.

The Right to Alter Or Abolish the Government

According to the Declaration of Independence, the people have the right and duty to abolish any government that has committed a long train of abuses and usurpations.

The Declaration of Independence listed 27 items of complaint, constituting what they believed was a long train of abuses and usurpations.

Below are just some of the abuses and usurpations committed by our Presidents, Congress, Supreme Court and government. 

  1. The President has appointed numerous officials to new offices or positions not authorized by Congress.

  2. The President has legislated from the Oval Office by issuing rules and regulations for the general public by executive fiat.
  3. The President has decided which laws he will enforce or not and refuses to enforce those laws ow which he does not personally approve when he has no discretion in the matter.
  4. The President has refused to secure our national borders or enforce existing valid immigration laws.
  5. Congress has passed burdensome laws without knowing what was in them and openly mocked the requirement to read aloud and debate legislation prior to passage.
  6. Congress has farmed out the writing of major pieces of legislation to private interest groups and then adopted the same as their own work product.
  7. Congress has placed many burdensome requirements on the people which Congress exempts its own members and their staffs from sharing.
  8. Congress has failed to pass annual budgets as required by law or to restrain its own spending habits.
  9. Congress has authorized unprecedented increases in the national debt limit which have endangered the national economy.
  10. Congress has failed to hold the Federal Reserve accountable or to reign in its inexcusable printing of fiat currency in large quantities.
  11. Congress has established phony courts such as the FISA court which operate in secrecy.
  12. Congress has violated the separation of powers and usurped judicial power by taking testimony, administering oaths and using subpoenas to compel testimony in non-judicial hearings.
  13. Congress has used the tax laws to achieve a coercive redistribution of wealth under the guise of social welfare programs and individual tax subsidies.
  14. Congress has created a sizable fourth branch of government and has delegated legislative authority (rule-making) to so-called independent agencies which have no accountability to the people.
  15. The Supreme Court has allowed Congress and the President to expand the scope of federal powers well beyond anything envisioned by the Constitution and has failed to act as guardians of the rights of the people.
  16. The Supreme Court has colluded with Congress to deprive the states of their proper spheres of sovereignty and to defeat the will of the people.
  17. The government has used national security as an excuse to deprive individuals of the due process of law in interrogations.
  18. The government has engaged in intrusive government tracking of individual movements, electronic activities and transactions which are private in nature.
  19. The government has limited the time, place and manner of free speech based on the content of that speech.
  20. The government has restricted and regulated parents in the discharge of their natural rights and duties to educate their children in any manner they see fit.
  21. The government has deprived or subverted the rights of private property by telling people what crops they can or cannot grow on their own land.
  22. The government has deprived or subverted the rights of private property by taking private property in the name of a ‘public use’ but in reality turning such property over to another private owner.
  23. The government has deprived or subverted the rights of private property by designating various agricultural crops which God has made as contraband, making it illegal to grow, sell or possess them.
  24. The government has deprived or subverted the rights of free enterprise by using taxpayer monies to fund the bailout of private enterprises.
  25. The government has deprived the rights of private employers by involuntarily conscripting every private employer as a tax collection agent by making them collect, pay and account for taxes owed by others, namely, their employees.
  26. The government has deprived the rights of private employers by regulating business endeavors, by imposing fees, licensing requirements, as well as time, place and manner restrictions, arbitrarily making illegal what is inherently lawful by natural right.
  27. The government has further deprived or subverted the rights of free association and contract by requiring individuals to enter into private contracts for the purchase of auto or health insurance under penalty of law and dictating the terms of those policies.

Whatever people have the right to institute among men by the consent of the governed, they also have the right to alter or abolish by consent. These two great powers are two sides of the same coin, for one cannot possibly exist without the other.

People not only have the right or ability to do these things, they have the duty or obligation to do them. It is just as irresponsible to fail to correct the situation when government gets so out of whack that the justice it administers is no longer just, and the individual rights of the people are no longer secure.

We as a people cannot do nothing. If not for ourselves, we owe it to our children – our posterity – to provide new guards for their future security when the existing ones have failed. This power is not to be taken lightly.

The struggle we are now facing is not about tweaking the government so that it can run better. It is about significantly paring back the size and scope of government. The government is simply doing too many things it shouldn’t be doing at all. Eliminating fraud, excess and corruption isn’t the issue. It’s about eliminating usurpation and setting the people free from their governmentally imposed chains.

All the jousting between political parties (Republican, Democrat, Independent) and philosophical camps (progressive, establishment, tea party) is just a distraction. If there’s one thing we should recognize by now, the problems we face with our government’s excesses and tyrannization of the people cannot be solved by any election, or series of elections. Merely getting “our” people in and “their” people out isn’t the solution if the entrenched interests and bureaucratic machinery currently in place remain intact.

Ultimately, we as a nation must reject the idea that the state (i.e., civil government in general) is the supreme achievement of mankind. Instead, we must embrace the ideal that the true foundation of every society is self-government, and those people are most free who have learned how to effectively stop the growth of civil power. Progressivism holds that progress is measured by an increased centralization of power. But I say the real progress of history is the ability to limit tyranny. That is the goal we must press toward.

See this.

What Are We Waiting For?

The constitutions of the 16 states listed below clearly state that the people of those states have the right to ABOLISH their state government whenever the people deem it to be appropriate. (Maine’s constitution states that the people may “totally change” their government.)

The people in the remaining 34 states clearly have the right to reform their government by amending their state constitutions or by holding state constitutional conventions to completely reform their state government.

  • I am not suggesting violence or rebellion.
  • We the People are fed up with state government controls and actions, and the normal processes like public testimony, initiatives, referenda, elections, and recall efforts have failed to make any of the changes that the public wants. We are left with no other recourse.

  • We the People have the right right to dramatically reform or abolish state governments by adopting several amendments at the same time.
  • We the People have the right to call a state-wide constitutional convention and dramatically reform their state government.
  • The government would be simultaneously replaced by something that was still a republican form of government.
  • All processes will follow pre-abolishment laws.
  • The new constitution will still be legal under federal laws.
  • The state name will not change.

Colorado 

Article II, Bill of Rights

Bill of Rights

In order to assert our rights, acknowledge our duties, and proclaim the principles upon which our government is founded, we declare:

Section 1. Vestment of political power. All political power is vested in and derived from the people; all government, of right, originates from the people, is founded upon their will only, and is instituted solely for the good of the whole.

Section 2. People may alter or abolish form of government proviso.

The people of this state have the sole and exclusive right of governing themselves, as a free, sovereign and independent state; and to alter and abolish their constitution and form of government whenever they may deem it necessary to their safety and happiness, provided, such change be not repugnant to the constitution of the United States.

See this.

Idaho 

ARTICLE I – DECLARATION OF RIGHTS

SECTION 2. POLITICAL POWER INHERENT IN THE PEOPLE.

All political power is inherent in the people. Government is instituted for their equal protection and benefit, and they have the right to alter, reform or abolish the same whenever they may deem it necessary;

See this.

Maine 

Article I.

Declaration of Rights.

Section 2.  Power inherent in people.  All power is inherent in the people; all free governments are founded in their authority and instituted for their benefit; they have therefore an unalienable and indefeasible right to institute government, and to alter, reform, or totally change the same, when their safety and happiness require it.

See this.

Maryland 

Article 1.

That all Government of right originates from the People, is founded in compact only, and instituted solely for the good of the whole; and they have, at all times, the inalienable right to alter, reform or abolish their Form of Government in such manner as they may deem expedient.

See this.

Mississippi 

SECTION 6. Regulation of government; right to alter.

The people of this state have the inherent, sole, and exclusive right to regulate the internal government and police thereof, and to alter and abolish their constitution and form of government whenever they deem it necessary to their safety and happiness; Provided, Such change be not repugnant to the constitution of the United States.

See this.

Missouri

Article I, Section 3. Powers of the people over internal affairs, constitution and form of government.—

That the people of this state have the inherent, sole and exclusive right to regulate the internal government and police thereof, and to alter and abolish their constitution and form of government whenever they may deem it necessary to their safety and happiness, provided such change be not repugnant to the Constitution of the United States.

See this.

 

Click here to read the full article.

*

Note to readers: Please click the share button above. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the Translate Website button below the author’s name (only available in desktop version).

To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.

Click the share button above to email/forward this article to your friends and colleagues. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

Spread the Truth, Refer a Friend to Global Research

***

For nearly half a century, Scandinavia’s neutrality (with the obvious exception of Norway) was an important segment of keeping various buffer zones between the Soviet Union and NATO. And interestingly, despite the fact that the USSR was much more powerful than Russia nowadays, while also being virtually unopposed in the Baltic Sea, for some reason, neither Sweden nor Finland felt the need to become part of NATO.

What’s more, if there ever was a danger of a mythical Soviet invasion of either country, it was gone in 1991. Up to that point, Moscow’s access to the Baltic Sea stretched from Finland to Denmark (nearly, that is). Nowadays, Saint Petersburg and Kaliningrad are Russia’s only access points.

Thus, if the Kremlin hadn’t invaded Sweden and Finland during the (First) Cold War, it surely wouldn’t be doing it now. However, as rabid Russophobia is an extremely damaging degenerative disease, it clouds people’s judgment, leading them to make all sorts of rash and inexplicable decisions. On the other hand, it’s impossible to explain NATO expansionism in Scandinavia without seeing it as part of a wider offensive build-up that aims to surround Russia with hostile states and other entities (including terrorist ones). In one of the latest such moves, Helsinki just gave the United States the legal permission to station troops in the country. The vote in the Finnish Parliament was unanimous.

Thus, starting from July 1, Washington DC has access to at least 15 Finnish military bases, with the possibility of deploying heavy weapons. It wasn’t specified what sort of arms and equipment that refers to, but it’s not that difficult to imagine.

The US is already trying to surround both Russia and China with the previously banned medium and intermediate-range missiles, which is precisely why it’s setting up new military bases all across Europe and the Asia-Pacific region. The latest agreement with Finland, aptly termed the “Defense” Cooperation Agreement (DCA), “will allow the United States to bring defense equipment, supplies, materials, and soldiers to Finland”, according to local sources.

Worse yet, the DCA gives America legal grounds to create military exclusion zones, areas that will be accessible to US personnel only. What this really means is that Finland effectively relinquished its sovereignty so it could become a legitimate target for Russian missiles.

Congratulations, Helsinki! You just exposed 5.5 million Finns to virtually immediate thermonuclear annihilation in case of (an increasingly possible) military conflict between NATO and Russia. Considering the fact that the US has similar “exclusive access” facilities all over the world and that the Pentagon usually uses them for illegal programs and experiments, including with deadly biological materials, Russia will respond.

In fact, the Kremlin certainly anticipated such moves, which is why it started deploying new missile brigades in northwestern Russia, including those armed with ballistic and hypersonic weapons. Moscow’s second-to-none missiles such as those used by the “Iskander-M” platform or the MiG-31K strike fighters with 9-A-7660 “Kinzhal” systems (carrying the 9-S-7760 air-launched hypersonic missiles) put the entire Scandinavia in range. In addition, the sheer speed of these unrivaled weapons gives the Kremlin the ability of a virtually instantaneous retaliation in case anyone gets any ideas. Unfortunately, none of this seems to have deterred the (obviously suicidal) ruling elite in Helsinki.

The Finnish Parliament’s rather senseless decision to antagonize its much larger nuclear-armed neighbor cannot possibly be justified by any excuses of “defense” or any similar reasoning. The simple fact that Finland is allowing the presence of American offensive capabilities on the border with Russia will be enough for the latter to deploy weapons that the former simply has no means of defending against. As the DCA creates a legal framework for a permanent American military presence in Finland, this also means that the Kremlin will surely respond in kind, making Helsinki far less safe than was the case before it joined NATO, thus defeating the very purpose of its membership in this racketeering cartel.

However, according to Finnish sources, there might even be some opposition to this in the country, as MP Anna Kontula submitted a proposal calling on other MPs to reject the DCA, although her motion received no backing. Therefore, the Finnish Parliament “did not vote on the agreement, but approved it unanimously”, local sources report. This alone puts the legality of the agreement in serious question, although we’re extremely unlikely to see any major opposition to it. Last month, Helsinki’s Constitutional Law Committee concluded that the “[DCA] would have to be approved by a two-thirds majority in Parliament, as it affects several aspects of the Finnish constitution” (i.e. it’s unconstitutional).

In other words, Finland is going out of its way to please the US and NATO, just like it did with Nazi Germany (their geopolitical predecessor) over 80 years ago. This was in the making for quite some time, even predating the special military operation (SMO), as Helsinki wanted to acquire the troubled F-35 fighter jets back in 2021. Having such aircraft in one’s arsenal also means that a country is relinquishing its sovereignty. Namely, the US has control over the F-35’s systems, as the jet keeps sending data back to Lockheed Martin and the US military, meaning that even if the then “neutral” Finland didn’t join NATO, the Pentagon would effectively control a crucial branch of the country’s armed forces, forcing Russia to respond either way.

*

Note to readers: Please click the share button above. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

This article was originally published on InfoBrics.

Drago Bosnic is an independent geopolitical and military analyst. He is a regular contributor to Global Research.

Russia Finally Acknowledges That She Is at War with Washington

July 4th, 2024 by Dr. Paul Craig Roberts

All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the Translate Website button below the author’s name (only available in desktop version).

To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.

Click the share button above to email/forward this article to your friends and colleagues. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

Spread the Truth, Refer a Friend to Global Research

***

Today is July 4 when we get our annual dose of patriotic propaganda that serves to wrap us in self-righteousness which enables Washington to conduct its wars. Washington has got away with it for a long time, but now has created and brought us into conflict with a powerful adversary.

According to reports, Russia responded to Washington’s cluster bomb attack on civilians in Crimea by informing Washington that the two countries are now at war. What it means, if anything, remains to be seen. It does not seem to have caused any consternation in Washington.

In actual fact hot war between Russia and Washington began in 2008 when Washington surprised Putin by sending a US trained and equipped Georgian army into South Ossetia. The American sponsored invasion resulted in the deaths of civilians and Russian peace keepers. It only took the Russian Army 5 days to defeat the American trained Georgian Army, so Washington did not have time to get more involved.

Putin was again surprised when Washington overthrew the Ukrainian government in 2014.

Persecution and murder of Donbas Russians followed. Donbas asked to be reincorporated into Russia like Crimea, but Putin refused. Instead, Putin tried to keep Donbas in Ukraine with the Minsk Agreement. Ukraine and Donbas agreed and France and Germany agreed to enforce the agreement, but in fact the agreement was used to deceive Putin while the West built and equipped a large Ukrainian army to retake the self-declared Donbas republics. In February, 2022,

Putin was forced by Washington to defend the Donbas Russians from being slaughtered like Israel is doing to the Palestinians. But Putin limited Russia’s intervention in a way that prevented Russia from obtaining a quick victory before Washington could get the West involved and widen the war. Now Putin is presented with US missiles targeting Russian civilians and with French troops in Ukraine.

Washington has been at war with Russia since 2007 when Putin said at the Munich Security Conference that Russia did not accept Washington’s unipolar world. This challenge to Washington’s hegemony put crosshairs on Putin.

Now 17 years later Putin acknowledges the fact that Washington and Russia are at war.

The question is what is Putin going to do with his belated recognition of reality?

*

Note to readers: Please click the share button above. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

Paul Craig Roberts is a renowned author and academic, chairman of The Institute for Political Economy where this article was originally published. Dr. Roberts was previously associate editor and columnist for The Wall Street Journal. He was Assistant Secretary of the Treasury for Economic Policy during the Reagan Administration. He is a regular contributor to Global Research.

Featured image is from OneWorld

All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the Translate Website button below the author’s name (only available in desktop version).

To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.

Click the share button above to email/forward this article to your friends and colleagues. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

Spread the Truth, Refer a Friend to Global Research

***

We are women from across the world who deeply love our planet. We cherish the universal principles of equality, justice and peace enshrined in the United Nations Charter and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. We fight for the rights of women and peoples of the world against all forms of violence, exploitation and discrimination.

For decades, we have been engaged in the search for global peace, for a world system that abolishes war. We recognise the role that capitalism plays in generating militarism and war, and we want a new, non-militarized security, to ensure the life and health of present and future generations of all on this planet – and of the planet itself. 

NATO is not a democratic institution. It is an elite club of the world’s major nuclear armed militaries. NATO views war and the threat of war as the solutions to all problems. There are no preparations for peace and dialogue, only preparations for war. 

The increasingly global NATO, acting in the interests of the wealthy nations of the “West”, has extended its activities to the rest of the world. NATO seeks to impose a “model of civilization” well beyond the Euro-Atlantic area of the original Treaty. The New Strategic Concept is completely at odds with the “Helsinki spirit” that seeks peaceful cooperation between states and the rejection of threat or use of force. This offensive reconfiguration of NATO is in stark contrast with the constitutional principles of member states and often approved without the consent of national governments. It is also at odds with the manifest desire for peace of so many of the citizens of the NATO states. 

As women of peace, we reject NATO and its worldview. It foments instability and exacerbates international conflict. It is irreconcilable with our principle of taking care of the world – a principle that we strive to affirm globally.

No to global NATO – No to increasingly militarised blocs!

No to war as a way of settling international disputes!

*

Note to readers: Please click the share button above. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

Featured image is from the Alliance for Global Justice

All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the Translate Website button below the author’s name (only available in desktop version).

To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.

Click the share button above to email/forward this article to your friends and colleagues. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

Spread the Truth, Refer a Friend to Global Research

***

US presidential candidate Donald Trump is reportedly wanting to make a deal with Moscow to not expand NATO into Ukraine and Georgia. At the same time, citing a senior US State Department official, The Telegraph reported that the Kiev regime would be notified at a NATO summit in Washington on July 9 that Ukraine will not join the bloc due to corruption concerns, putting further doubt that the Eastern European country could ever become an alliance member.

The Telegraph reported on July 3 that at the NATO summit, alliance members are expected to ask Kiev for “additional steps” to combat corruption ahead of accession talks. The official said this position will be set out in writing in a NATO communiqué that will be signed at the summit on July 9.

“We have to step back and applaud everything that Ukraine has done in the name of reforms over the last two-plus years,” the official told The Telegraph. “As they continue to make those reforms, we want to commend them, we want to talk about additional steps that need to be taken, particularly in the area of anti-corruption. It is a priority for many of us around the table.”

It is recalled that US President Joe Biden acknowledged in an interview with Time magazine earlier this year that he had witnessed “significant corruption” in Ukraine during his visits to the country as vice president.

In late September 2022, Zelensky said his country was applying for accelerated NATO membership. Russian President Vladimir Putin reiterated that Moscow considers Ukraine’s non-aligned status vital to ending the years-long conflict. Kiev’s stated goal of joining the US-led alliance was one of Russia’s reasons for launching its special military operation in February 2022.

A US defence official told The Telegraph that NATO diplomats and officials have given Kiev a list of reforms it must carry out before its membership ambitions can be realised.

“That’s something NATO has been doing quietly under the radar that helps them get closer to membership,” the source added.

However, even if corruption is reduced, Ukraine faces a litany of issues in achieving NATO membership. In fact, NATO members disagree on whether they should promise Kiev an “irreversible” path to membership, with Washington preferring to use the term a “well-lit bridge.”

Another issue for the Kiev regime is the prospect of Trump’s return to the White House. According to Politico, the former president is considering making a deal with Moscow not to expand NATO into Ukraine and Georgia if he is re-elected in November.

His campaign has not yet named a national security team or released a new NATO agenda, but the magazine outlined a possible plan.

“As part of a plan for Ukraine that has not been previously reported, the presumptive GOP nominee is mulling a deal whereby NATO commits to no further eastward expansion — specifically into Ukraine and Georgia — and negotiates with Russian President Vladimir Putin over how much Ukrainian territory Moscow can keep, according to two other Trump-aligned national security experts,” the article said, citing two national security experts close to billionaire.

An anonymous source reportedly familiar with Trump’s thinking said he was “open to something foreclosing NATO expansion and not going back to the 1991 borders” but did not rule out any other options, “including supplying large amounts of weapons” to Kiev.

While Trump is unlikely to withdraw from NATO immediately, he could potentially reshape the US-led bloc to require its European members to take on more responsibility—something the magazine’s sources fear they are not capable of.

“The United States does not have enough military forces to go around,” Elbridge Colby, Trump’s deputy assistant secretary for strategy, told Politico. “We can’t break our spear in Europe against the Russians when we know the Chinese and Russians are collaborating, and the Chinese are a more dangerous and significant threat.”

Following Biden’s humiliating performance at the recent presidential election debate, Trump, according to the latest polls, now has a 3-point lead over the current president across the battleground states collectively and a 2-point edge nationally. There is a very real prospect that Trump will be re-elected, meaning that even if corruption is reduced to a level satisfactory to the Europeans, any prospect for Ukraine’s NATO membership path could be sacrificed so that the new US administration can reach a deal with Russia and focus on challenging China.

*

Note to readers: Please click the share button above. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

This article was originally published on InfoBrics.

Ahmed Adel is a Cairo-based geopolitics and political economy researcher. He is a regular contributor to Global Research.

Featured image is from InfoBrics

All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the Translate Website button below the author’s name (only available in desktop version).

To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.

Click the share button above to email/forward this article to your friends and colleagues. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

Spread the Truth, Refer a Friend to Global Research

***

After a 14-year struggle, including five years spent in Belmarsh, a maximum-security prison in London, WikiLeaks publisher Julian Assange is finally free. Under the terms of a plea deal with the U.S. Department of Justice, Assange pled guilty to one count of conspiracy to obtain documents, writings and notes connected with the national defense under the Espionage Act. Assange was facing 175 years in prison for 18 charges in the indictment filed by the Trump administration and pursued by the Biden administration.

The Justice Department agreed to the plea bargain a little over a month after the High Court of England and Wales ruled that Assange would be allowed to appeal an extradition order. The High Court found the U.S. government didn’t provide satisfactory assurances that Assange could rely on a First Amendment defense if extradited and tried in the U.S. The Justice Department, now fearful it would lose the case, scrambled to strike a deal with Assange.

The plea agreement requires that before entering his plea, Assange must have done everything he could to either return or destroy “any such unpublished information in his possession, custody, or control, or that of WikiLeaks or any affiliate of WikiLeaks.”

As stipulated in the plea deal, Ramona Manglona, U.S. Chief Judge of the District Court for the Northern Mariana Islands, sentenced Assange to 62 months with credit for the time he served in Belmarsh Prison. The U.S. sentencing guidelines say the range for this “offense” is 41-51 months, so Assange served 11 to 21 months longer than this type of case would typically garner.

Assange was prosecuted because WikiLeaks exposed U.S. war crimes in Iraq, Afghanistan and Guantánamo Bay. In 2010, U.S. Army intelligence analyst Chelsea Manning, who had a “TOP SECRET” U.S. security clearance, furnished WikiLeaks with 700,000 documents and reports, many of which were classified “SECRET.”

These documents included the “Iraq War Logs,” 400,000 field reports documenting 15,000 unreported deaths of Iraqi civilians, as well as systematic rape, torture and murder after U.S. forces transferred detainees to a notorious Iraqi torture squad.

Source Exposure in WikiLeaks Documents Raises Security Questions

They also contained the “Afghan War Diary,” comprising 90,000 reports that documented more civilian casualties by coalition forces than the U.S. military had reported. And they included the “Guantánamo Files” — 779 secret reports containing evidence that 150 innocent people had been held at Guantánamo Bay for years. The reports explain how the nearly 800 men and boys there had been tortured and abused, which violated the Geneva Conventions and the Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment.

Manning also provided WikiLeaks with the infamous 2007 “Collateral Murder” video, which depicts a U.S. Army Apache attack helicopter crew targeting and killing 12 unarmed civilians in Baghdad, including two Reutersjournalists, as well as a man who came to rescue the wounded. Two children were injured in the attack. A U.S. Army tank drove over one of the bodies, severing it in two. In a conversation after the attack, one pilot said, “Look at those dead bastards,” and the other responded, “Nice.” The video reveals evidence of three violations of the Geneva Conventions and the U.S. Army Field Manual.

WikiLeaks provided material for news outlets around the world to report on U.S.-led atrocities. Informing the public about the illegality of George W. Bush’s “war on terror” resulted in calls for accountability.

“10 years on, the War Logs remain the only source of information regarding many thousands of violent civilian deaths in Iraq between 2004 and 2009,” John Sloboda, co-founder of Iraq Body Count (IBC), wrote in his submitted testimony for Assange’s extradition hearing in October 2020. IBC is an independent NGO that has done the only comprehensive monitoring of credibly reported casualties in Iraq since Bush’s 2003 invasion.

“WikiLeaks cables have contributed to court findings that US drone strikes are criminal offences and that criminal proceedings should be initiated against senior US officials involved in such strikes,” Clive Stafford Smith, co-founder of Reprieve and attorney for seven Guantánamo detainees, wrote in his submitted testimony.

“They took a hero [Assange] and turned him into a criminal,” Vahid Razavi, founder of Ethics in Tech, told Common Dreams. “Meanwhile, all of the war criminals in the files exposed by WikiLeaks via Chelsea Manning are free and never faced any punishment or even their day in court.”

The Iraq War Logs

The Iraq War Logs contained extensive evidence of U.S. war crimes. Several reports of detainee abuse were supported by medical evidence. Prisoners were blindfolded, shackled and hung by their ankles or wrists. They were subjected to punching, whipping, kicking, electrocution, electric drills, and cutting off fingers or burning with acid. Six reports document the apparent deaths of detainees.

Secret U.S. Army field reports revealed that U.S. authorities refused to investigate hundreds of reports of murder, torture, rape and abuse by Iraqi soldiers and police. The coalition had a formal policy of ignoring these allegations, marking them “no investigation is necessary.”

Although U.S. and U.K. officials maintained that no official records of civilian casualties existed, the logs document 66,081 noncombatant deaths out of 109,000 fatalities from 2004-2009.

The log describes video footage of Iraqi army officers executing a prisoner in Tal Afar. It says, “The footage shows approximately 12 Iraqi army [IA] soldiers. Ten IA soldiers were talking to one another while two soldiers held the detainee. The detainee had his hands bound … The footage shows the IA soldiers moving the detainee into the street, pushing him to the ground, punching him and shooting him.”

The Afghan War Diary

The Afghan War Diary also revealed evidence of U.S. war crimes from 2004-2009. The reports describe how a secret “black” unit composed of special operations forces hunted down accused Taliban leaders for “kill or capture” without trial. Secret commando units — classified groups of Navy and Army special operatives — used a “capture/kill list,” which resulted in the killing of civilians, angering the Afghan people.

Moreover, the CIA expanded paramilitary operations in Afghanistan, carrying out ambushes, ordering airstrikes and conducting night raids. The CIA financed the Afghan spy agency, operating it like a subsidiary.

A 2007 meeting between Afghan district officials and U.S. civil affairs officers was documented in the reports. Afghan officials are quoted as saying, “The people of Afghanistan keep loosing [sic] their trust in the government because of the high amount of corrupted government officials. The general view of the Afghans is that the current government is worst [sic] than the Taliban.”

The logs recorded numerous civilian casualties from airstrikes, shootings on the road, in villages and at checkpoints; many were caught in the cross fire. The victims weren’t suicide bombers or insurgents. Several deaths were not reported to the public.

The Guantánamo Files

The Guantánamo Files say that only 220 of the 780 people held at the prison camp since 2002 were classified as “dangerous international terrorists.” Of the rest of the detainees, 380 were classified as low-level foot soldiers and 150 were considered innocent Afghan or Pakistani civilians or farmers.

Many detainees were held at Guantánamo for years based on paltry evidence or confessions extracted by torture and abuse. Among the detainees, for example, were an 89-year-old Afghan villager with senile dementia and a 14-year-old boy who was the innocent victim of a kidnapping.

The files document a system aimed more at extracting intelligence than detaining dangerous terrorists. One man was transferred to Guantánamo because he was a mullah with special knowledge of the Taliban. A taxi driver was sent to the prison camp because he had general knowledge of certain areas in Afghanistan. An Al Jazeera journalist was held at Guantánamo for six years to be interrogated about the news network.

Nearly 100 detainees were classified with depressive or psychotic disorders. Several joined hunger strikes to protest their indefinite detention or attempted suicide, the files revealed.

No One Was Harmed by WikiLeaks’s Revelations

Although the U.S. government alleged that WikiLeaks’s publication of information had caused “great harm,” they “admitted there was not a single person anywhere that they could produce that was harmed by these publications,” Assange’s attorney Barry Pollack said at a June 26 press conference in Australia.

The plea agreement says, “Some of these raw classified documents were publicly disclosed without removing or redacting all of the personally identifiable information relating to certain individuals who shared sensitive information about their own governments and activities in their countries with the U.S. government in confidence.”

The U.S. government claims that Assange endangered U.S. informants who were named in the published documents. But John Goetz, an investigative reporter who worked for Germany’s Der Spiegel, testified at the 2020 extradition hearing that Assange went to great lengths to ensure that the names of informants in Iraq and Afghanistan were redacted. Goetz said that WikiLeaks underwent a “very rigorous redaction process” and Assange repeatedly reminded his media partners to use encryption. Indeed, Goetz said, Assange tried to stop Der Freitag from publishing material that could result in the release of unredacted information.

Moreover, WikiLeaks’s revelations actually saved lives. After WikiLeaks published evidence of Iraqi torture centers established by the U.S., the Iraqi government refused then-President Barack Obama’s request to grant immunity to U.S. soldiers who committed criminal and civil offenses there. As a result, Obama had to withdraw U.S. troops from Iraq.

Obama took credit for ending U.S. military involvement in Iraq. But he had tried for months to extend it beyond the December 31, 2011, deadline his predecessor negotiated with the Iraqi government. Negotiations broke down when Iraq refused to grant criminal and civil immunity to U.S. troops.

What Assange’s Plea Bargain Means for Free Speech

Before she accepted Assange’s guilty plea, Judge Manglona asked him what he did to violate the law.

Working as a journalist, I encouraged my source to provide information that was said to be classified,” Assange said. “I believed the First Amendment protected that activity, but I accept that it was a violation of the espionage statute.” Assange then added, “The First Amendment was in contradiction with the Espionage Act, but I accept that it would be difficult to win such a case given all these circumstances.”

Even though Assange will go free, his plea deal raises concerns for First Amendment advocates in the U.S.

The United States has now, for the first time in the more than 100-year history of the Espionage Act, obtained an Espionage Act conviction for basic journalistic acts,” David Greene, head of civil liberties at the Electronic Frontier Foundation, told The New York Times. “These charges should never have been brought.”

Charlie Savage, who has covered the Assange case extensively for years, warned that Assange’s plea sets a “new precedent” that “will send a threatening message to national security journalists, who may be chilled in how aggressively they do their jobs because they will see a greater risk of prosecution.” But, Savage noted, since Assange pled guilty and didn’t mount a constitutional challenge to the Espionage Act, that eliminated the risk that the U.S. Supreme Court would ultimately sanction a narrow interpretation of First Amendment press freedoms.

“WikiLeaks published groundbreaking stories of government corruption and human rights abuses, holding the powerful accountable for their actions,” WikiLeaks said in a statement announcing the plea agreement. “As editor-in-chief, Julian paid severely for these principles, and for the people’s right to know. As he returns to Australia, we thank all who stood by us, fought for us, and remained utterly committed in the fight for his freedom.”

There is no doubt that but for the sustained activism of people around the world and the work of his superb legal team, Julian Assange would still be languishing behind bars for revealing evidence of U.S. war crimes.

*

Note to readers: Please click the share button above. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

Copyright © Truthout. May not be reprinted without permission.

Marjorie Cohn is professor emerita at Thomas Jefferson School of Law, dean of the People’s Academy of International Law and past president of the National Lawyers Guild. She sits on the national advisory boards of Assange Defense and Veterans For Peace. A member of the bureau of the International Association of Democratic Lawyersshe is the U.S. representative to the continental advisory council of the Association of American Jurists. Her books include Drones and Targeted Killing: Legal, Moral and Geopolitical Issues.  

Featured image is from HoweStreet.com

Selected Articles: The Presidential Debate That Wasn’t

July 4th, 2024 by Global Research News

The Presidential Debate That Wasn’t

By Dr. Jack Rasmus, July 03, 2024

In the days immediately following the first US presidential debate between Joe Biden and Donald Trump, countless analyses have appeared. Nearly all have focused on the candidates’ delivery, less on what they said, and almost nothing about what should have been but was not said.

George C. Marshall, Architect of U.S. Military Expansion, the Post-War European Reconstruction Marshall Plan, Founder of the Orwellian “Deep State”?

By Nauman Sadiq, July 04, 2024

Few people know that as Chief of Staff of the US Army during World War II, Gen. George C. Marshall organized the largest military expansion in the US history, inheriting an outmoded, poorly equipped army of 189,000 men that grew into a force of over eight million soldiers by 1942, a fortyfold increase within the short span of three years.

The Houthis’ Hypersonic Missile Is a Game-Changer in Red Sea

By Mike Whitney, July 04, 2024

If the Houthis had these “advanced” weapons at their disposal, the Red Sea would be littered with smoldering US warships headed for Davy Jones locker. But that isn’t the case, so we have to assume that—who ever is supplying the Houthis—is not yet prepared to give them their top-of-the-line hypersonic missiles.

Political Deadlock Continues in Efforts to Open Peace Talks in Sudan

By Abayomi Azikiwe, July 04, 2024

War erupted on April 15, 2023 between the leading state-sponsored military units, the Sudanese Armed Forces (SAF) under General Abdel Fattah al-Burhan and the Rapid Support Forces (RSF), headed by General Mohamed Hamdan Degalo (Hemedti). Since the fighting began, reports indicate that approximately 14,000 people have been killed with tens of thousands of others being injured.

Zelensky Opens to Talks with Moscow Through Third Parties

By Ahmed Adel, July 03, 2024

In an interview with the Philadelphia Inquirer, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky said he could start peace talks with Russia through intermediaries, a similar model already used in the Ukrainian grain corridor negotiations, where agreements were reached through the UN and Turkey.

The Dawn of a New Era of Meaningful and Rigorous Arms Control

By Emanuel Pastreich, July 03, 2024

We must forcefully and confidently sketch out a new vision for our common future, starting with the United States, starting with peace, one that gives hope to humanity and that provides a path forward towards peace and cooperation, and not war and competition. But that is not where we are now under the militarist and benighted Biden administration. And it is not where we will be under a militarist and unhinged Trump administration.

Articles and Protocols for Cancer, Research Studies and Access to Ivermectin Pills

By Dr. William Makis, July 03, 2024

Ivermectin has proven anti-cancer activity against some 20 cancer types, although these are pre-clinical studies. We will never see clinical studies because Ivermectin is off patent and cheap.

All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the Translate Website button below the author’s name (only available in desktop version).

To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.

Click the share button above to email/forward this article to your friends and colleagues. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

Spread the Truth, Refer a Friend to Global Research

***

A United Nations Security Council resolution was passed on June 13 calling for an end to the Rapid Support Forces (RSF) siege upon the North Darfur capital city of El Fasher.

In a 14-0 vote with the Russian Federation abstaining, the highest decision-making structure of the international body demanded the end to the fighting in one of the most restive areas inside the country.

The resolution was sponsored by United Kingdom (UK) Ambassador Barbara Woodward who pointed to the worsening humanitarian crisis in the area. Civilians are being prevented from moving freely in and out of El Fasher while essential infrastructure such as hospitals are being shelled by the RSF.

Several days later on June 18, there was a heated exchange between the Sudanese Ambassador to the UN, Al-Harith Idriss Al-Harith and his counterpart from the United Arab Emirates (UAE), Mohamed Abushahab. The Sudanese envoy once again accused the UAE of providing weapons to the RSF in violation of the arms embargo on Darfur located in the western region of the vast oil-rich state.

In response Abushahab accused the Sudanese government of refusing to participate in negotiations with the RSF. Sudanese General Abdel Fattah al-Burhan rejected an invitation to appear or send an envoy to proposed peace talks in late May in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia. (See this)

Worsening Humanitarian Crisis

War erupted on April 15, 2023 between the leading state-sponsored military units, the Sudanese Armed Forces (SAF) under General Abdel Fattah al-Burhan and the Rapid Support Forces (RSF), headed by General Mohamed Hamdan Degalo (Hemedti). Since the fighting began, reports indicate that approximately 14,000 people have been killed with tens of thousands of others being injured.

In addition to the growing casualties in the war, millions of others have been forced to leave their homes to relocate both inside and outside of the Republic of Sudan. Most of the refugees have fled to Chad and the Republic of South Sudan. The UN says that 25 million people in Sudan are in desperate need of assistance including access to food, water and medical care which has been disrupted over the last 14 months. (See this)

Sudan refugees in neighboring Chad (Source: Abayomi Azikiwe)

18 million people are suffering from food deficits with 9 of those million being children. Another subset of those living without adequate food supplies includes 5 million on the brink of starvation.

The UN-affiliated World Food Program (WFP) has stated that it will urgently escalate its assistance to meet the growing need. Small-scale farmers are being selected for cash grants, the distribution of seeds and other agricultural inputs due to the fact that many working in the food production sector have been displaced.

WFP Regional Director for East Africa Michael Dunford said of the food crisis in Sudan:

“The situation in Sudan is not so much forgotten as neglected. It is already the largest displacement crisis in the world, and it has the potential to become the world’s largest hunger crisis. As global leaders focus elsewhere, it is not receiving the necessary attention and support to avert a nightmare scenario for the people of Sudan. The world cannot claim it doesn’t know how bad the situation is in Sudan or that urgent action is needed.” 

The UN Coordinator for Humanitarian Affairs in Sudan, Clementine Nkweta Salami, has made a public plea for the silencing of the guns in the North Darfur capital of El Fasher. Salami was prompted to make this call after a pharmacist, Amna Ahmed Bakhit, working in the Saudi Hospital in El Fasher, was killed as a result of shelling by the RSF.

The Sudan Tribune noted in a recent report that:

“In an emotional statement issued on Sunday, the UN official wrote, ‘Another day of violence in Sudan brings another human tragedy in Darfur’s Al Fasher. This time, the person who won’t be going home to their family was a pharmacist. Died when an explosive artillery hit the corner of the hospital where she worked’, she added.’ Nkweta-Salami said the pharmacist was ‘killed on the job, prescribing and administering medicine to women, men, and children in a place that should have been safe’.” 

Over the last 14 months, the war in Sudan has raged on despite the repeated regional efforts to reach a negotiated settlement. Former Interim Prime Minister Abdalla Hamdok has reemerged as the leader of a coalition of political groupings known as the Coordination of Civil Democratic Forces (Tagadum).

Tagadum is attempting to initiate an internal dialogue within Sudan which could reach consensus on a long-term solution to the present situation. This coalition is oriented towards the African Union (AU) which is hosting an emergency meeting on Sudan scheduled for July 10-14 in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia.

Hamdok has requested discussions with the AU Commission based in Addis Ababa to review the list of invitees, agenda items and parameters of the dialogue for the emergency summit. The AU Peace and Security Council (PSC) has encouraged broad participation in the gathering including the former ruling National Congress Party (NCP).

Reports suggest that Tagadum has rejected the involvement of the NCP. The High-Level Panel on Sudan (HLP-Sudan) sent a delegation into the country in March to begin dialogue with the Sovereign Council headed by General al-Burhan as well as leaders of various mass organizations and political parties.

The SAF leadership under General al-Burhan has expressed its hostility towards Hamdok and the Tagadum grouping. Tagadum has been accused of acting as a front for the RSF since General Hemedti agreed to join the proposed internal negotiating process.

Apparently the SAF wants a complete military victory over the RSF. With this reality in mind, the AU Commission and PAS alongside HLP-Sudan and the regional Inter-Governmental Authority on Development (IGAD) are continuing in their plans to convene the emergency summit at AU headquarters in Addis Ababa.

Domestic and International Dimensions of the Sudanese Conflict

The Kingdom of Saudi Arabia and the UAE have invested much in the governance process in Sudan since they provided billions of dollars to shore up the Transitional Military Council (TMC) which emerged after the overthrow of former President Omar Hassan al-Bashir in April 2019. A popular upsurge in political activity from a variety of organizations beginning in December 2018 created the atmosphere for the removal of al-Burhan.

Nonetheless, the coup against al-Burhan and the NCP was not sufficient for the democratic movement inside the country. The emergence of the Forces for Freedom and Change (FFC) in 2019 brought together a broad spectrum of organizations including the Sudanese Professional Association (SPA), Resistance Committees, No to Oppression Against Women Initiative, Sudan Revolutionary Front (SRF), among others. These developments led to a negotiated settlement aimed at implementing a three-year process towards democratic transition.

Although this dialogue took place with the involvement of the SAF and RSF, there was never a complete understanding reached over the prospective role of the military within a democratic state. As the transitional process became stalled and suffered setbacks with the continued state repression carried out by the military units and security forces, the demands of the popular democratic groupings were violently pushed into the background within the national political situation.

The quagmire deepened with the outbreak of the war involving the SAF and RSF in April 2023. At present there is ongoing widespread destruction in the state of Khartoum and in the Darfur region.

Sudan smoke fills the sky (Source: Abayomi Azikiwe)

In addition to the roles of Saudi Arabia and the UAE, the United States has been attempting to control the political situation in Sudan for several decades. As a former British colony, the U.S., as in other geo-political regions, has become the leading imperialist power seeking to remake these areas in their own neo-colonized image.

Washington and Wall Street were clearly opposed to the possibility of a genuine revolutionary democratic transformation in Sudan. The role of the former administration of President Donald Trump and the current White House under President Joe Biden has been aimed at maintaining western influence in Sudan.

Nonetheless, it is the responsibility of the Sudanese people themselves to forge ahead with a program for transformation. Obviously, the military elites within the SAF and RSF have forfeited their capacity to assist in the establishment of a civilian government based upon the interests of the majority of workers, farmers and youth in Sudan.

*

Note to readers: Please click the share button above. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

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

Featured image: Sudan military leaders in conflict (Source: Abayomi Azikiwe)

All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the Translate Website button below the author’s name (only available in desktop version).

To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.

Click the share button above to email/forward this article to your friends and colleagues. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

Give Truth a Chance. Secure Your Access to Unchained News, Donate to Global Research.

***

On July 2, Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban visited Kiev for the first time since 2012 when he met the last legitimate (and sovereign) Ukrainian President Viktor Yanukovych. A harsh critic of the NATO-backed Neo-Nazi junta, Orban isn’t exactly a favorite among his hosts. Thus, it may seem strange that he would ever visit the NATO-occupied country. However, as Hungary took over the EU’s rotating presidency for the rest of the year, it can only be expected that Brussels will put additional pressure on Budapest, which might be one of the main reasons Orban decided to do so. As previously mentioned, the hosts weren’t exactly thrilled and Orban himself certainly didn’t expect a warm welcome.

In line with his repeated calls for peace negotiations (the real ones, not the ludicrous kind that Switzerland apparently likes to host), Hungary’s PM reiterated it this time as well, urging Volodymyr Zelensky “to consider a quick ceasefire”. In a press briefing right after the private meeting during which he said it, Orban stated that “[he] asked the president to think about whether we could approach this a little differently, to take a break, to cease fire, and then proceed with negotiations”. The Kiev regime didn’t take this too kindly, as it still insists on the withdrawal of the Russian military, an extremely unlikely prospect. In contrast, Orban called for an immediate ceasefire and negotiations between the two sides.

“A ceasefire connected to a deadline would give a chance to speed up peace talks. I explored this possibility with the president and I am grateful for his honest answers and negotiation,” he stated.

Orban argues that this could bring about the conditions for a real negotiated settlement that could result in a permanent peace deal. Even before the meeting, the Neo-Nazi junta frontman’s reaction was some sort of “I don’t really care”, just wrapped in a “diplomatic” form. Zelensky’s office officially said that “it will be a much-needed, important conversation about the future of Europe, security, international law, and the Formula of Peace”. The last part of the statement refers to the Kiev regime’s laughable “peace formula” that boils down to Russia’s capitulation. Knowing just how out of touch and ridiculous the very idea of it is, Orban didn’t really comment on this, focusing on other matters.

In his view, developing neighborly relations between the two countries is far more important, stressing the need to build a better partnership and highlighting that Hungary would want to have close ties to Ukraine just like with all of its other neighbors. However, the Neo-Nazi junta seems to be less excited about this, as its political leadership doesn’t really appreciate that Orban repeatedly tried blocking EU/NATO “military aid” and other initiatives that Hungary sees as escalatory and dangerous. This also includes Orban’s active opposition to the Kiev regime’s NATO membership, a stance that resulted in the mainstream propaganda machine’s regular smear campaigns targeting him and his associates.

Thus, Orban is usually referred to as a “pro-Putin” leader. The political West always uses such ad hominem attacks on “non-compliant” individuals (particularly leaders) to put additional pressure and force foreign policy changes. However, Budapest has repeatedly stated that it won’t budge, insisting on negotiations and diplomacy to end the NATO-orchestrated Ukrainian conflict. Instead, we have the policy of perpetual escalation through the shipments of ever more advanced and longer-range weapons. And to say nothing of NATO’s increasingly possible direct military involvement that Hungary doesn’t want to take part in, as Orban himself has openly stated on several occasions. Thus, this peace deal offer sounds all the more peculiar.

The timing is particularly interesting, as Orban decided to pay Zelensky this surprise visit on the second day of Hungary’s EU presidency. Perhaps it was long in the making, but another possibility is that Brussels itself okayed the move as a way to prevent “unpleasant” changes on the battlefield. Namely, NATO has up to 500,000 battle-ready soldiers whose task is to directly occupy Ukraine and engage Russian troops. As this is a less-than-ideal (or, more precisely, a desperate) move, the political West might be looking for alternatives to prevent the Neo-Nazi junta’s total defeat. Russian strike capabilities are such that any large troop concentrations would be in grave danger, leading to massive casualties.

A ceasefire could give NATO a window of opportunity to deploy all the way to the contact line and take around 80% of Ukraine without firing a single shot. Obviously, this would be a strategic defeat for Russia, which is something that the Kremlin will want to avoid, particularly now that the Russian military’s already massive advantage keeps growing. In addition, Zelensky’s statements might suggest that he’s also onboard with the idea, saying that he and Orban discussed “how to bring about a just and lasting peace”. Hungary’s PM himself told the Kiev regime frontman that he wants to hear “[his] vision of the chances for peace”. Once again, this could be an indicator that such ceasefire plans might be in effect.

Obviously, this is not to say that Hungary is working toward such a settlement because of its apparent “loyalty to NATO”, but simply because it’s in its interest for the conflict to end. However, the real danger of such a ceasefire is that it wouldn’t provide long-lasting peace. On the contrary, it would further increase the chances of strategic conflict between NATO and Russia.

In addition, the Kremlin knows that the political West cannot give any legal guarantees, simply because its politicians cannot be trusted. Empirical evidence suggests that every word that comes from their mouth could easily be a blatant lie, meaning that Moscow can only rely on its armed forces as the one true guarantee of its strategic security.

*

Note to readers: Please click the share button above. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

This article was originally published on InfoBrics.

Drago Bosnic is an independent geopolitical and military analyst. He is a regular contributor to Global Research.

Featured image is from Global Times vis InfoBrics

All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the Translate Website button below the author’s name (only available in desktop version).

To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.

Click the share button above to email/forward this article to your friends and colleagues. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

Give Truth a Chance. Secure Your Access to Unchained News, Donate to Global Research.

***

 

Most geopolitics’ nerds know George C. Marshall as President Harry S. Truman’s Secretary of State, 1947-49, and Secretary of Defense, 1950-51, credited with initiating $13 billion Marshall Plan for rebuilding European economies devastated by the war.

But few people know that as Chief of Staff of the US Army during World War II, Gen. George C. Marshall organized the largest military expansion in the US history, inheriting an outmoded, poorly equipped army of 189,000 men that grew into a force of over eight million soldiers by 1942, a fortyfold increase within the short span of three years.

Rumors circulated by the end of the war that Marshall would become the Supreme Allied Commander for the Allied invasion of Normandy in June 1944. However, Franklin D. Roosevelt selected relatively modest Gen. Dwight D. Eisenhower for the momentous march to victory, because Roosevelt felt threatened by Marshall’s power and ambitions.

Image: President Dwight D. Eisenhower (National Archives)

Thus, after the war, Eisenhower was hailed as liberator of Europe from the Nazi occupation who subsequently rose to prominence as the president, whereas the principal architect of the US deep state and a military genius who was instrumental in making the United States a global power died in relative obscurity.

Ever since Marshall, however, the United States has been ruled by the top brass of the Pentagon while presidents have been reduced to the ceremonial role of being public relations’ representatives of the deep state, pontificating and sermonizing like priests to gullible audiences at home and abroad on the virtues of supposed American democracy, rule of law and civil liberties.

Though a clarification is required here that US presidents indeed have the power to order withdrawal of troops from inconsequential theaters of war, such as the evacuation of US forces from Iraq as directed by former President Obama in 2011 or the withdrawal of troops from Afghanistan as ordered by President Biden in 2021, as the perceptive military brass is courteous enough to bow to sane advice of purported chosen representatives of the people and ostensible commander-in-chief of the armed forces in order to maintain the charade of democracy in the eyes of the public.

But in military oligarchy’s perpetual conflict with other major world powers deemed existential threats to the US security interests, such as arch-rivals Russia and China, as in the Ukraine War, civilian presidents, whether Biden or Trump, don’t have the authority to overrule the global domination agenda of the Pentagon.

In fact, the deep state has murdered US presidents in cold blood for appeasing adversaries and daring to stand up to the deep state, for instance the assassination of the Kennedy brothers in the sixties after the Cuban missile crisis in 1962.

Though credulous readers of mainstream media designate alternative media’s erudite writers casting aspersions over perfectly “natural murders” of John and Robert F. Kennedy that were nothing more than “coincidences” as cynical “conspiracists.”

The gullible sheeple believe the Kennedy brothers didn’t die at all. In fact, they were raised from the dead by the Almighty and ascended alive into heaven like Jesus Christ and will be resurrected on the Day of Judgment to give credible testimony regarding their real executioners. Religiously held beliefs regarding the purported strength of American democracy are just beliefs, no matter how absurd, hence there is no cure for “the united state of denial.”

Sarcasm aside, it’s noteworthy the national security and defense policies of the United States are formulated by the all-powerful civil-military bureaucracy, dubbed the deep state, whereas the president, elected through heavily manipulated electoral process with disproportionate influence of corporate interests, political lobbyists and billionaire donors, is only a figurehead meant to legitimize militarist stranglehold of the deep state, not only over the domestic politics of the United States but also over the neocolonial world order dictated by the self-styled global hegemon.

All the militaries of the 32 NATO member states operate under the integrated military command led by the Pentagon. Before being elected president, General Dwight Eisenhower was the first commander of the Supreme Headquarters Allied Powers Europe (SHAPE).

The commander of Allied Command Operations has been given the title Supreme Allied Commander Europe (SACEUR), and is always a US four-star general officer or flag officer who also serves as the Commander US European Command, and is subordinate to the Chairman Joint Chiefs of Staff.

The incumbent Godfather of the Cosa Nostra is Gen. Charles Q. Brown since October 2023 following the retirement of Gen. Mark Milley who completed his tenure of four tumultuous years, including the Ukraine War and the Capitol riots, in September as the Chairman Joint Chiefs of Staff.

Although officially the CIA falls under the Department of State, the FBI under the Department of Justice and the NSA under the Department of Defense, all of these security agencies take orders from the Pentagon’s top brass, the de facto rulers of the imperial United States.

Moreover, it’s worth pointing out that although the Pentagon is officially headed by the Secretary of Defense, who is typically a high-ranking retired military officer, the Secretary is simply a liaison between the civilian president and the military’s top brass, and it’s the Chairman Joint Chiefs of Staff who calls the shots on military affairs, defense and national security policy.

In Europe, 400,000 US troops were deployed at the height of the Cold War in the sixties, though the number has since been brought down after European clients developed their own military capacity following the devastation of the Second World War. The number of American troops deployed in Europe now stands at 50,000 in Germany, 15,000 in Italy and 10,000 in the United Kingdom.

Since the beginning of Ukraine War in 2022, the United States has substantially ramped up US military footprint in the Eastern Europe by deploying tens of thousands of additional NATO troops, strategic armaments, nuclear-capable missiles and air force squadrons aimed at Russia, and NATO forces alongside regional clients have been provocatively exercising so-called “freedom of navigation” right in the Black Sea and conducting joint military exercises and naval drills.

Regarding the global footprint of the United States troops, 275,000 US military personnel are currently deployed across the world, including 45,000 in Japan, 28,500 in South Korea and 36,000 in the Middle East, in addition to the aforementioned number of US troops deployed in Europe.

Clearly, through the transatlantic NATO military alliance, the overseas deployment of US forces in client states and the presence of aircraft-carriers in the international waters that are similar to floating air bases, the deep state rules not only the imperial United States but the entire unipolar world.

*

Note to readers: Please click the share button above. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

Nauman Sadiq is an Islamabad-based geopolitical and national security analyst focused on geo-strategic affairs and hybrid warfare in the Middle East and Eurasia regions. His domains of expertise include neocolonialism, military-industrial complex and petro-imperialism. He is a regular contributor of diligently researched investigative reports to Global Research.

Featured image: General of the Army George Catlett Marshall, Chief of Staff. U.S. Army, 1 September 1939-18 November 1945 (From the Public Domain)

All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the Translate Website button below the author’s name (only available in desktop version).

To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.

Click the share button above to email/forward this article to your friends and colleagues. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

Spread the Truth, Refer a Friend to Global Research

***

The screenshot captured from a video released by Yemen’s Houthi group on June 26, 2024 shows that a hypersonic missile is launched from an undisclosed desert area in Yemen. Xinhua

Is this Iran’s revenge?

Is this how Iran pays-back Israel for bombing its consulate in Damascus in late March; by providing the Houthis with hypersonic missiles to fight the “Great Satan”?

On June 26, Yemen’s Houthi rebels launched an attack on a commercial ship in the Arabian Sea using a long-range, solid-fuel hypersonic ballistic missile. It was the first time the group had used the state-of-the-art missile in its military operations. The significance of the development cannot be overstated. Hypersonic missiles—which feature technological advances that are still unavailable in the West—are more accurate, harder to shoot down, and travel longer distances than earlier models. These unique, cutting-edge weapons are a force-multiplier that give the Houthis a decided advantage in future attacks in the Red Sea and beyond. They will allow the Houthis to tighten their grip on commercial traffic while putting US warships at greater risk. They will also significantly improve the Houthis chances of prevailing in their war with the United States and its coalition partners. This is from an article at the Maritime Executive:

The Houthis…. are asserting that they have launched for the first time a hypersonic missile which was used to target an MSC containership far out in the Gulf of Aden….

For the first time, the identity of the missile that targeted the… MSC Sarah V in the Arabian Sea,” was being revealed according to a posting by the Houthi spokesperson Yahya Saree. “It is a locally made hypersonic missile that possesses advanced technology, is accurate in hitting, and reaches long ranges.”…

Media reports in March said the Houthis had begun manufacturing their hypersonic missile… capable of reaching Mach 8. The reports said it would be used to threaten shipping further into the Indian Ocean. Video: Houthis Claim First Launch of Hypersonic Missile Targeting MSC Ship, Maritime Executive

First of all, the Houthis do not have advanced missile production facilities, so whatever hybrid ballistic missile they are presently using in their military operations, they did not manufacture it themselves.

Secondly, experts suggest that the missile that was fired in the Arabian Sea incident earlier in the week was probably a version of the Iranian-made Fattah-1, which can travel at speeds of up to Mach 3 or three times the speed of sound. The Fattah-1 represents a significant upgrade from the missiles the Houthis have been using, but they do not pose the same grave threat to commercial shipping as advanced, cutting edge hypersonic ballistic missiles. State-of-the-art solid-fuel hypersonic missiles are in a class of their own. Some of them travel at speeds that exceed Mach 5 and are highly maneuverable and able to change course during flight. Here’s some background:

The ability to launch highly maneuverable weapons at hypersonic speeds gives any country a considerable advantage, because such weapons can evade just about any defense system currently in use.

“It doesn’t matter what the threat is. If you can’t see it, you can’t defend against it,” General John Hyten, the former vice chairman of the U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff, told an audience in Washington in January 2020.

As the commander of U.S. Strategic Command in 2018, Hyten said, “We don’t have any defense that could deny the deployment of such a weapon against us. … Our defense is deterrent capability.” What Are Hypersonic Weapons and Who Has Them?, VOA

Bottom line: If the Houthis had these “advanced” weapons at their disposal, the Red Sea would be littered with smoldering US warships headed for Davy Jones locker. But that isn’t the case, so we have to assume that—who ever is supplying the Houthis—is not yet prepared to give them their top-of-the-line hypersonic missiles. Here’s more from an article at Business Insider:

Markus Schiller, director of ST Analytics, a Munich-based consulting firm that researches missiles and space technology, told Business Insider that the missile was likely designed in Iran.

“Definitely something from the Iranian Fattah family of missiles, which date back to the 1990s and were continuously advanced since then,” Schiller said. Tehran has recently touted the latest versions of its Fattah missiles as hypersonic.,,, Houthi rebels say they’ve fired a new ‘homemade hypersonic missile,’ posting footage of its launch at a civilian ship, Business Insider

It’s actually better that the Houthis do NOT have the best ballistic missiles available. After all, the point of their blockade is not to obliterate US warships and kill thousands of people, but to persuade Israel to allow humanitarian aid into Gaza by applying pressure to the Israeli economy. In truth, the success of the Houthi strategy is largely attributable to the fact that it has been mostly peaceful which is why their cause has garnered support from people around the world. If they change their MO and start blowing ships out of the water right-and-left, popular support will vanish overnight. This is from an article at Foreign Policy:

…..eight months on, the disruption to shipping has suddenly gotten a lot worse. In late June, Houthi attacks sank a ship—the second since they began their attacks—and damaged another. The list of attempted and successful attacks is a year-to-date litany; U.S. Central Command’s public messaging is a near-daily drumbeat of reports of U.S. vessels swatting away drones, missiles, and uncrewed surface vessels. The Houthis, who’ve used anti-ship missiles to great effect, are now increasingly resorting to those surface drones, including the so-called Houthi’s Blowfish….

The deployments, and constant interceptions, have eaten into the U.S. Navy’s own magazines. Congressional aides said the United States isn’t producing nearly enough of the standard air defense missiles used by U.S. escort ships in the Red Sea to shoot down Houthi drones and missiles. “As long as the burn rate remains as precipitously high as it’s been over there, we’re in a bit more of a precarious position,” one aide said, speaking on condition of anonymity to talk candidly about U.S. munitions shortfalls. Why Can’t the U.S. Navy and Its Allies Stop the Houthis?, Foreign Policy

You can sense the frustration in the author’s analysis, and you can understand why. Washington does not want to get bogged-down the Red Sea fighting an insurgent group that poses no national security threat to the US. No. Nor does Biden want to commit more resources or ground troops to an effort that does not advance America’s broader geopolitical ambition of rolling-back Russia’s operation in Ukraine or containing China. In short, the fracas in the Red Sea is generally perceived to be a nuisance that US foreign policy honchos wish would just “go away”. But instead of going away, it’s getting worse, which is forcing Biden to make choices he doesn’t want to make. This is from an article at gCaptain:

A naval force deployed by the European Union to protect vessels in the Red Sea needs to more than double in size because of escalating attacks by Iran-backed Houthi rebels, the head of the operation said.

Four EU vessels have been patrolling the waters off the coast of Yemen since February. In that time, they’ve provided “close assistance” to 164 ships, shot down more than a dozen unmanned aerial vehicles and destroyed four anti-ship ballistics missiles, Rear Admiral Vasileios Gryparis said in an interview on Wednesday.

The Yemen-based Houthis … has roiled global shipping, forcing many vessels to sail thousands of miles around southern Africa instead — despite the EU operation and US and UK bombing that began in January….

“There are daily about 40 or 50 ships going up and down the strait so it needs a significant amount of ships to be able to provide this close protection,” he said. “There are cases where we are not able to provide this close protection but we try and cope with the volume.”….

US and UK bombing campaigns have failed to stop the attacks and instead led to vessels associated with the two countries being targeted more often. The Houthis have warned of an expanded operation to potentially attack ships in the Mediterranean Sea…

“We don’t believe that hitting the Houthis might solve the problem,” he said. “Some other countries tried similar actions some years ago and some other countries still do and we see that it is not contributing to the solution to the problem.” Fending Off Houthis Requires Double the Fleet, EU Force Says, gCaptain

Think about what the author is saying: He’s saying that the current approach is not working so we should double-down on the same strategy. Isn’t that the definition of insanity?

What’s clear is that the US has just one tool in its foreign policy toolkit: military force. And when that tool proves ineffective, then more force is applied. We need to understand how this is going to impact the outcome of the current stand-off in the Red Sea where Uncle Sam is beating his head against a rock without achieving anything. Wouldn’t it be better to pressure Israel into lifting the siege of Gaza?

The question policymakers should be asking themselves is fairly obvious: Is there a military solution to this problem?

The answer is “No”. Nor is there a clearly defined strategic objective or exit strategy, both of which were ignored in the rush to war and the determination of foreign policy mandarins to implement their favorite operational theory: “Shoot first and ask questions later.” As a result, the US is bogged down in another pointless conflagration that cannot be won by conventional means. This is from Business Insider:

The Houthis have scored a string of successful hits in recent weeks on commercial vessels — even sinking one of them — and demonstrated their ability to effectively strike targets with drone boats, signaling that they’re getting smarter with their attacks….

Some of the incidents have also revealed dangerous new tactics. Most notably, on June 12, the Houthis struck a commercial vessel in the Red Sea with an explosive-laden drone boat for the first time since they began attacking merchant shipping in November….

The initial drone boat attack on the commercial bulk carrier MV Tutor caused flooding and damage to the engine room. Hours later, a Houthi missile hit the ship. The double-tap strike forced the crew to abandon the vessel, and it eventually sank…

The same week, the Houthis fired two anti-ship missiles, hitting the MV Verbena in the Gulf of Aden. Not even 24 hours later, the bulk cargo carrier was struck by another missile, marking the week’s second double-tap strike. The ship’s crew eventually abandoned the vessel due to the damage sustained by the attacks.

British security firm Ambrey said the attacks on the Tutor and Verbena, in addition to successful strikes on two other vessels in the days prior, were indicative of a “significant increase in effectiveness” of Houthi operations.

“Every single Houthi attack, the Houthis are probably learning something about what works and what doesn’t,” Carter said. “If you think about how a military organization operates, they’re definitely taking away lessons from the different strike packages that they’re using.”….

It is difficult to not only prevent the rebels from obtaining their “low-tech, low-cost” means of attack and to deter them from launching attacks, Alex Stark, an associate policy researcher who covers Middle East security at the RAND Corporation, told BI.

These attacks are an “ongoing problem without an obvious or useful solution at hand,” she added. The Houthis are getting smarter with their Red Sea attacks, and the ships sailing these waters are paying the price, Business Insider

Ms. Stark is wrong. There is “an obvious… solution at hand”. The Biden administration needs to suspend all weapons shipments to Israel until they lift their blockade of food, water and medical aid to the people in Gaza. That is the only policy that will bring an end to the crisis in the Red Sea. More importantly, it’s the right thing to do.

*

Note to readers: Please click the share button above. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

This article was originally published on The Unz Review.

Michael Whitney is a renowned geopolitical and social analyst based in Washington State. He initiated his career as an independent citizen-journalist in 2002 with a commitment to honest journalism, social justice and World peace.

He is a Research Associate of the Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG).  

Featured image is a screenshot from Xinhua via TUR

Biden and Trump Battle Over a Rattle

July 4th, 2024 by Edward Curtin

All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the Translate Website button below the author’s name (only available in desktop version).

To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.

Click the share button above to email/forward this article to your friends and colleagues. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

Spread the Truth, Refer a Friend to Global Research

***

“Twas brillig, and the slithy toves
Did gyre and gimble in the wabe:
All mimsy were the borogoves,
And the mome raths outgrabe.”
– Lewis Carroll, Through The Looking-Glass

Once you understand that profound poem, you are ready to fathom the great debate between our dumb and dumber candidates for the Highchair in the Oval Office.

In light of Julian Assange’s release from an English prison and President Biden’s dementia-riddled debate performance against dumb-mouthed Donald Trump – Tweedledum and Tweedledee, whom Alice, when through the looking-glass, said looked exactly like a couple of schoolboys – I have been thinking about a famous proverb – “acta, non verba” (action, not words).  Like most platitudes and effective propaganda, it contains both truths and contradictions and can therefore be spun in multiple ways depending on one’s intent.

Killing people is an action that needs no words to accompany it.  It can be done silently.  Even when it is the killing of millions of people, it can be carried out without fanfare or direct responsibility.  Without a whisper, with plausible deniability, as if it were not happening.  As if you were not responsible.  The playwright Harold Pinter, in his Nobel Prize Address, wrote truthfully about U. S. war crimes:

It never happened. Nothing ever happened. Even while it was happening it wasn’t happening. It didn’t matter. It was of no interest. The crimes of the United States have been systematic, constant, vicious, remorseless, but very few people have actually talked about them. You have to hand it to America. It has exercised a quite clinical manipulation of power worldwide while masquerading as a force for universal good. It’s a brilliant, even witty, highly successful act of hypnosis.

I put to you that the United States is without doubt the greatest show on the road. Brutal, indifferent, scornful and ruthless it may be but it is also very clever. As a salesman it is out on its own and its most saleable commodity is self-love. It’s a winner. Listen to all American presidents on television say the words, ‘the American people’, as in the sentence, ‘I say to the American people it is time to pray and to defend the rights of the American people and I ask the American people to trust their president in the action he is about to take on behalf of the American people.’

Trust, of course, is a sick joke when it comes from the mouths of U.S. presidents, just as the two bloodthirsty debaters want the American people to trust them and agree with their support for the US/Israel genocide of Palestinians, as does Robert Kennedy, Jr., another aspirant for the position of Killer-in-Chief.

“I know what you’re thinking about,” said Tweedledum, “but it isn’t so nohow.”

“Contrariwise,” said Tweedledee. “if it was so, it might be; and if it were so, it would be; but as it isn’t, it ain’t. That’s logic.”

And the boys continue to battle over Tweedledum’s “nice new rattle” that he accused Tweedledee of spoiling.

The spectacle of presidential politics and people’s addiction to it is a depressing commentary on people’s gullibility.  To think that the candidates are not puppets manipulated by the same hidden powerful elite forces is a form of illiteracy that fails to grasp the nature of the fairy tale told through the looking-glass. The real rattle is not a toy, but the sound of the rattling of the marionettes’ chains.  In the 2020 presidential election, more than 155 million Americans voted for Tweedledum and Tweedledee, the highest voter turnout by percentage since 1900.  More so than the population at large, these voters are dumb and getting dumber by the day.  They think they live in a democracy where to get into the Highchair candidates will spend 10 billion dollars or so.

“Ditto,” said Tweedledum.

“Ditto, ditto!” cried Tweedledee.

Like the voters in 2020, those this year will echo the boys in illusionary expectations of political change – “Ditto, ditto, ditto” – as they look in the mirror of their cell phones and hope to take selfies with the candidates to mirror the narcissistic mendacious marionettes of their illusions.

Image: Assange. boards plane at Stansted Airport in London a free man after striking a deal with the U.S. government. (WikiLeaks video via X)

Julian Assange killed no one, but he suffered greatly at the hands of the U.S. military-industrial-security state and its evil accomplices because he used words and images to reveal their atrocities.  In other words, his words were his courageous actions to counteract the murderous actions of the U.S. government.  He gave voice to the previously unspeakable, a void in confronting systematic evil that seems beyond imagining or words to convey.  Assange’s words were his deeds and therefore reversed the proverb or turned it on its head or upside down.  He showed that the words of denial from the U.S. government were lies, language used to obscure thought about its war crimes.  That is why they tortured him for so many years.

Despite such treatment, he never bowed to their violence, remaining steadfastly true to his conscience.  A true individual.  He was betrayed by the corporate mainstream media such as The New York Times, The Guardian, and others who published what Julian published, then trashed him and ignored him, and finally hypocritically supported him to save their own asses after he suffered for 14 years.  It is a very typical tale of elite betrayal.

Those who serve and wish to serve as American presidents are so lacking in Assange’s moral conscience that one should never expect truth from them, neither in words nor actions.  Assange stands head and shoulders above these craven creeps.  Here, as recounted by Marjorie Cohn, are some of their atrocities that journalist  Assange, a free man, published for all the world to read and see.

The relationship between words and actions is very complex.  Even Shakespeare compounds the complexity by having  a character say that words are not deeds.  But they are.

Neither Biden nor Trump ever personally killed a Syrian or Palestinian, but they gave orders to do so.  They made sure as young men that they would never serve in the military and kill with their own hands, having received between them nearly ten deferments.  What’s the term for such Commanders-in-Chief?   Pusillanimous armchair warriors?  Jackals with polished faces who know ten thousand ways to order others to kill and torture while keeping their hands clean but their souls sordid?

Obama had his Tuesday kill list that included American citizens whom he chose for death; Trump gave the orders to “terminate” Iranian General Qasem Soleimani; we can only imagine what orders Biden (or his handlers) has given, while Ukraine, Russia, and Gaza have suffered terribly from them.  Now Tweedledum, desperate to retain his rattle, pushes the world close to nuclear war.

But notice the expensive suits these boys wear, the crisp white shirts and pocket handkerchiefs, the elegant watches and shiny shoes.  But they are killers whose orders to kill are whispered, action words, passed down the line.  With a smile, a grin, a shrug, or completely indifferently, as if they were ordering a bagel with cream cheese to go.

Yet true it is, as the forgotten but great American poet Keneth Rexroth wrote in his 1955 poem Thou Shall Not Kill: “You killed him!  You killed him./ In your God damned Brooks Brothers  suit,/ You son of a bitch.”

Like many writers, I am politically powerless.  My words are my only weapon.  Are they actions?  I believe they are.  They are deeds.  I move my pen across the paper and try to write something meaningful.  Sometimes I succeed in this action; at others, I fail.  Who can say?  I surely can’t.  As my father used to always remind me, “Quien sabe?” (Who knows?)

There are those who claim that wordsmiths are all full of shit.  Why don’t they just shut up and do something, is what they say.  They fail to grasp the paradoxical relationship between action and words.  For writers who write to defend humanity from the predations of the ruthless ruling classes, their words are not orders to kill.  Just the opposite.

Our words are reminders that killing is wrong, that waging wars are wrong, that genocide is wrong, that assassinating people is wrong – simple truths that almost everyone knows but forgets when they get caught up in the antics of the Tweedledums and Tweedledees who come and go with the breezes as the system that creates them rolls merrily along.

So if words, contrary to the famous proverb – action, not words – are a form of action, we are caught in a paradox of our own making.  This is not uncommon.  For there are silent and wordy acts as well as words as actions, some noisy, others sotto voce.  There are violent deeds and violent words; and there are peaceful words meant to encourage peaceful deeds.

Tweedledum Biden and Tweedledee Trump are prime examples of how far my country (I write that with a lump in my throat), the United States of America, has descended into illiteracy, evil, and delusion.

The philosopher Frederick Nietzsche once wrote that the “Greeks were superficial out of profundity.” Too many Americans have become superficial out of stupidity by believing the words and deeds of con men battling over a rattle.

“No Way! We landed on the moon!”

– Jim Carrey, playing Lloyd in Dumb and Dumber

*

Note to readers: Please click the share buttons above or below. Follow us on Instagram, Twitter and Facebook. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

This article was originally published on the author’s blog site, Behind the Curtain.

Edward Curtin is a prominent author, researcher and sociologist based in Western Massachusetts. He is a Research Associate of the Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG).

All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the Translate Website button below the author’s name (only available in desktop version).

To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.

Click the share button above to email/forward this article to your friends and colleagues. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

Spread the Truth, Refer a Friend to Global Research

***

In a 3 July interview, judge Andrew Napolitano asked the University of Chicago political scientist, John Mearsheimer: “Why would the United States be putting missiles in the Philippines but to be provocative toward China?”

Mearsheimer: “I don’t think that the United States is trying to be provocative. I think what the United States is interested to do, doing is improving its deterrence capability in East Asia. The fact is that if you put the United States up against China in East Asia, and if you include the United States’ allies with the United States, right, you are up against a very formidable adversary. China is effectively a giant aircraft carrier. It has thousands and thousands of missiles, and the United States feels that it is at something of a disadvantage, and for that reason it is increasing its missile capability and other capabilities in Asia as well.”

If China were to put missiles in Cuba and Mexico, then that is not provocative? The US should have no problem because China is only improving its deterrence, yes? What is good for the goose is also good for the gander, no?

And why does Mearsheimer resort to using US government propaganda by referring to China as an “adversary”? Does China call the US an adversary? Is China looking for confrontation with the US?

If China is “effectively a giant aircraft carrier,” then is not the US also effectively a giant aircraft carrier? It is obvious that Mearsheimer is taking a page from the US propaganda booklet on the threat of China, in this case a militaristic threat. Mearsheimer, however, avoids referring to China as a “threat.”

From the FBI website: “Chinese Government Poses ‘Broad and Unrelenting’ Threat to U.S. Critical Infrastructure, FBI Director Says.” The drumbeat is effective. According to a 2023 Pew Research Center survey, half of Americans name China as the US’s greatest threat.

The question raised by Mearsheimer and left unanswered is whether China is a militaristic adversary? China, for its part, publicly eschews militarism and seeks peaceful relations.

Mearsheimer: “We pushed the Russians and the Chinese closer together which makes no sense at all.”

Even if there were no United States, it is extremely rational for Russia and China to form a friendly and close relationship. They are neighbors. They are well suited to be trade partners. It is a win-win relationship that China and Russia seek from trading partners. No push was needed from the US, although US belligerence assuredly was another point in favor of a deepening Russia-China rapprochement.

Mearsheimer: I am one of a number of people who would defend Taiwan if China attacked it because I think Taiwan is of great strategic importance.

Isn’t the US aircraft carrier known as Israel considered of great strategic importance because of its location amid the Middle Eastern oil patch? Yet Mearsheimer says there is no geopolitical benefit from US support of Israel. In fact, the professor says Israel is an albatross around the US neck. What, then, is the great strategic importance Mearsheimer sees in Taiwan? It hardly seems sufficient to just state that his view is realist. In Mearsheimer’s mind moralism does not factor in.

The US has signed on to the One China Policy. Ergo, realistically, Taiwan is de jure a province of one China.

*

When one comes across analysis expressed by personalities, whether they be professors, news anchors, or laypersons, one ought to consider how these persons support their views. Ipse Dixit refers to the logical fallacy of making unsubstantiated assertions. It is arguably more difficult to substantiate one’s arguments in an interview, but to merely state that something is realist is hardly compelling, especially when that realism seems rooted in opinion. Question everything.

*

Note to readers: Please click the share button above. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

Kim Petersen is an independent writer. He can be emailed at: kimohp at gmail.com. He is a regular contributor to Global Research.

Featured image is a screenshot from the video

All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the Translate Website button below the author’s name (only available in desktop version).

To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.

Click the share button above to email/forward this article to your friends and colleagues. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

Spread the Truth, Refer a Friend to Global Research

***

This is what many are voicing after the June 24 release of Wikileaks founder and publisher Julian Assange. The cry “sometimes the impossible happens”, was uttered a decade ago after this same U.S. Department of Justice suddenly acquiesced on an unjust sentence. It came January 1, 2014 from American civil rights attorney Lynne Stewart on her discharge from a federal prison. After serving more than 3 years into a 10-year sentence imposed in 2010 at the age of 72, Stewart went home. (In the late stages of cancer by then, she passed away in February 2017.) It was hardly medical advice or a bureaucrat’s compassion that finally freed her but a long  relentless campaign led by her family.

Image: Lynne Stewart

Besides the unexpected resolution in these cases, both Stewart and Assange endured years of injustice, ill-health, media slander and imprisonment. Like Assange, Stewart was hounded by the U.S. federal government (initiated in 2002 by then U.S. Attorney General John Ashcroft). As with Assange, Stewart’s pursuit by U.S. authorities was endorsed by the American media. Already well known for her defense of individuals with anti-imperialist ideals, Stewart refused to abandon legal representation of an outspoken Muslim cleric. It was 1995, well before 2001, when anti-Muslim sentiment, stoked by media’s anti-terrorist fervor, was on the rise. As the U.S. government’s charges against Assange threatened the protection of journalists’ sources, its legal pursuit of Stewart chilled any attorney who might take up the defense of Muslims. (The attack was highly effective in Stewart’s case since more than a decade would pass before civil rights specialists demanded judicial processes for hundreds of imprisoned and deported Muslims. Assange release, while celebrated, leaves uncertainty if the U.S. could again invoke the 1917 Espionage Act against journalists.)

Those welcoming Assange’s release rightly point out how, when media colludes with government, they threaten an entire profession and a principle of our democracy. Stewart’s indictment hinged on the democratic principle of client-attorney privilege.

Once, leading international newspapers widely welcomed Wikileaks’ revelations and utilized them to their advantage. Then all summarily abandoned Assange. After Wikileaks exposed the Democratic Party files, the U.S. liberal community – heavily Democrat loyalists – likewise discarded Assange and Wikileaks. A handful of smart, dedicated attorneys and individuals like film-maker John Pilger known for championing the rights of journalists, along with others began a vigorous campaign in support of Assange. This grew after his kidnapping from the Ecuadorian embassy (where he had sought asylum) and imprisonment without charge in Britain’s Belmarsh Prison. A dedicated team of legal scholars and attorneys engaged in petitions and appeals to the British high courts, a process reviewed in articles and discussions published since Assange’s release. Also noteworthy is Richard Medhurst’s recent forum with 6 journalists long-involved with Assange’s case.

The rallying cry “journalism is not a crime” was slow to gain traction. Eventually this changed, doubtless helped by the involvement of John Shipton, Assange’s father, and his brother Gabriel Shipton. Their film “ithaka” and their tour of 18 U.S. cities sometimes addressed a mere handful of attendees. Yet their persistence probably helped arouse the attention of more Australians; hitherto, its leaders seemed unconcerned by Assange’s imprisonment and the American indictment. In May 2022, a new government in Australia brought in Prime Minister Anthony Albanese who elevated hopes with his promise to raise Assange’s case with U.S. authorities. While appeals to British courts continued in London, a cross-party Australian delegation visited Washington to speak with American legislators about Assange. Congressmembers’ responses were not encouraging. But the Australians were undeterred. Within Australia, Assange’s wife Stella and John and Gabriel Shipton joined Wikileaks’ editor Kristinn Hrafnsson and attorneys to urge Australians’ backing for their countryman’s freedom. From outside it was difficult to assess the effectiveness of the Australian campaign.

But in the Canberra Airport press conference on Assange’s arrival there last week, Stella Assange and attorney Jennifer Robinson emphasized how essential the Australian government’s role was in wrapping up the case. (Summarized in these BBC and ABC- Australia TV clips.) Those efforts, they explained, went hand in hand with an anticipated appeal to the British court on July 9 that would question Assange’s first amendment rights in a U.S. court, an appeal that might not go well for the Americans. Details and analyses of these issues have been posted here in the past week.

Unsurprisingly, our shameless, mean-spirited U.S. government could not resist imposing a final injustice—the half million-dollar charge for a private jet it obliged Assange to take from the U.K. via the Pacific Mariana Islands to his home in Australia. Thus, a new appeal for financial support to assist his family to meet that ignoble jab.

What is acknowledged by everyone concerned with Assange long ordeal is the effect of the massive international outcry against the U.S. extradition order and Assange’s cruel imprisonment. (Stewart’s release would never have happened without sustained public pressure too.) Whatever exposés of malfeasance, however much personal and family resolve, what legal acumen and changed political atmosphere helped secure Assange’s freedom, one should not lose sight of the enormous number of letters, articles, symposia, demonstrations, forums, talks, and films generated by supporters. One by one, they accumulated, giving encouragement to a hard-working legal team and Assange’s remarkable family.

Injustices designed and pursued to protect the capitalist and military structure are bound to recur; the impossible will be possible if and only when the public understands the truth and forces their leaders to act.

*

Note to readers: Please click the share button above. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

Barbara Nimri Aziz whose anthropological research has focused on the peoples of the Himalayas is the author of the newly published “Yogmaya and Durga Devi: Rebel Women of Nepal”, available on Amazon

She is a regular contributor to Global Research.

All images in this article are from the author

Important article first published by Global Research in 2002.

Today is July 4, 2024

Let us reflect on America’s history of unending wars

***

Image: Iraqi children

The issue of War Crimes emerged after World War I at the Versailles Conference, but it was not until the end of World War II that a more comprehensive definition of what constitutes war crimes was developed. First among new international conventions addressing war crimes was the 1950 Charter of the Nuremberg Tribunal. Its fundamental premise was that the conduct of war in violation of international treaties was a crime against peace. Ill treatment of prisoners of war, killing hostages, plunder of public or private property, wanton destruction of cities, towns, or villages was a war crime. Crimes against humanity include murder, extermination, deportation, and prosecution based on political, racial or religious grounds.

The 1949 Geneva Convention gave recognition to the development of new technologies which exposed civilian life to greater threats of destruction. A 1977 addendum further emphasized the right of civilians to be protected against military operations. This included the protection of civilians against starvation as a method of warfare. Article II of the Geneva Convention addressed the issue of genocide, defined as killing or causing serious bodily harm to individuals based on their nationality, ethnic, racial or religious group and with the intent to destroy that group.

Since the Geneva Convention, a number of other significant international treaties addressing war and human rights have been drafted, but the United States has rejected almost all of them.

Among the treaties that the United States has refused to sign are the International Convention on Civil and Political Rights (1966); the Convention on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (1966); the Convention on the Elimination of all forms of Racial Discrimination (1966), and the American Convention on Human Rights (1965).

The United States has been particularly reluctant to sign treaties addressing the “laws of war”. It has refused to sign The Declaration on the Prohibition of the Use of Thermo-Nuclear Weapons (1961); The Resolution on the Non-Use of Force in International Relations and Permanent Ban on the Use of Nuclear Weapons (1972); The Resolution on the Definition of Aggression (1974); Protocols Additional to the 1949 Geneva Convention (1977); and the Declaration on the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons(1989).1

Equally disturbing was the U.S. refusal to sign the Convention on Rights of the Child, introduced into the United Nations General assembly on November 20, 1989 and subsequently ratified by 191 countries.

The first use of atomic weapons against human beings occurred on August 6-9 1945, when the United States incinerated the Japanese cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki during World War II, killing an estimated 110,000 Japanese citizens and injuring another 130,000. By 1950 another 230,000 died from injuries and radiation. Earlier in 1945 two fire bombing raids on Tokyo killed 140,000 citizens and injured a million more.

Since World War II the US has bombed twenty-three nations (1945-2001)

Author William Blum notes:

“It is sobering to reflect that in our era of instant world wide communications, the United States has, on many occasions, been able to mount a large or small scale military operation or undertake other equally blatant forms of intervention without the American public being aware of it until years later if ever.”2

The growing primacy or aerial bombardment in the conduct of war has inevitably defined non-combatants as the preferred target of war. Indeed, the combination of American air power and occupation ground forces has resulted in massive civilian casualties around the world.

Korea: (1945-1953)

On August 15,1945, the Korean people, devastated and impoverished by years of brutality from Japanese occupation forces, openly celebrated their liberation and immediately formed the Committee for the Preparation of Korean Independence (CKPI). By August 28, 1945, all Korean provinces on the entire Peninsula had established local people’s democratic committees, and on September 6, delegates from throughout Korea, north and south, created the Korean People’s Republic (KPR). On September 7, the day after the creation of the KPR, General Douglas MacArthur (image left), commander of the victorious Allied powers in the Pacific, formally issued a proclamation addressed “To the People of Korea.” The proclamation announced that forces under his command “will today occupy the Territory of Korea south of 38 degrees north latitude.”

The first advance party of U.S. units, the 17th Regiment of the 7th Infantry Division, actually began arriving at Inchon on September 5th, two days before MacArthur’s occupation declaration. The bulk of the US occupation forces began unloading from twenty-one Navy ships (including five destroyers) on September 8 through the port at Inchon under the command of Lieutenant General John Reed Hodge. Hundreds of black-coated armed Japanese police on horseback, still under the direction of Japanese Governor-General Abe Noabuyki, kept angry Korean crowds away from the disembarking US soldiers.

On the morning of September 9, General Hodge announced that Governor-General Abe would continue to function with all his Japanese and Korean personnel. Within a few weeks there were 25,000 American troops and members of “civil service teams” in the country. Ultimately the number of US troops in southern Korea reached 72,000. Though the Koreans were officially characterized as a “semi-friendly, liberated” people, General Hodge regrettably instructed his own officers that Korea “was an enemy of the United States…subject to the provisions and the terms of the surrender.”

Tragically and ironically, the Korean people, citizens of the victim-nation, had become enemies, while the defeated Japanese, who had been the illegal aggressors, served as occupiers in alliance with the United States. Indeed, Korea was burdened with the very occupation originally intended for Japan, which became the recipient of massive U.S. aid and reconstruction in the post-war period. Japan remains, to this day, America=s forward military base affording protection and intelligence for its “interests” in the Asia-Pacific region.

Seventy-three-year-old Syngman Rhee was elected President of ASouth Korea@ on May 10,1948 in an election boycotted by virtually all Koreans except the elite KDP and Rhee’s own right -wing political groups. This event, historically sealing a politically divided Korea, provoked what became known at the Cheju massacre, in which as many as 70,000 residents of the southern island of Cheju were ruthlessly murdered during a single year by Rhee’s paramilitary forces under the oversight of U.S. officers. Rhee took office as President on August 15 and the Republic of Korea (ROK) was formally declared. In response, three-and -a-half weeks later (on September 9, 1948), the people of northern Korea grudgingly created their own separate government, the Democratic People’s’s Republic of Korea (DPRK), with Kim II Sung as its premier.

Korea was now clearly and tragically split in two. Kim Il Sung had survived as a guerrilla fighter against the Japanese occupation in both China and Korea since 1932 when he was twenty years old. He was thirty-three when he returned to Pyongyang in October 1945 to begin the hoped-for era of rebuilding a united Korea free of foreign domination, and three years later, on September 9, 1948, he became North Korea’s first premier. The Rhee/U.S. forces escalated their ruthless campaign of cleansing the south of dissidents, identifying as a suspected “communist” anyone who opposed the Rhee regime, publicly or privately. In reality, most participants or believers in the popular movement in the south were socialists unaffiliated with outside “communist” organizations.

As the repression intensified, however, alliances with popular movements in the north, including communist organizations, increased. The Cheju insurgency was crushed by August 1949, but on the mainland, guerrilla warfare continued in most provinces until 1959-51. In the eyes of the commander of US military forces in Korea, General Hodge, and new “President” Syngman Rhee, (left) virtually any Korean who had not publicly professed his allegiance to Rhee was considered a “communist” traitor. As a result, massive numbers of farmers, villagers and urban residents were systematically rounded up in rural areas, villages and cities throughout South Korea. Captives were regularly tortured to extract names of others. Thousands were imprisoned and even more thousands forced to dig mass graves before being ordered into them and shot by fellow Koreans, often under the watch of U.S. troops.

The introduction of U.S./UN military forces on June 26,1950 occurred with no American understanding (except by a few astute observers such as journalist I.F Stone) that in fact they were entering an ongoing revolutionary civil war waged by indigenous Koreans seeking genuine independence after five years of U.S. interference. The American occupation simply fueled Korean passions even more while creating further divisions among them.

In the Autumn of 1950, when U.S. forces were in retreat in North Korea, General Douglas MacArthur offered all air forces under his command to destroy “every means of communication, every installation, factory, city and village ” from the Yalu River, forming the border between North Korea and China, south to the battle line. The massive saturation bombing conducted throughout the war, including napalm, incendiary, and fragmentation bombs, left scorched cities and villages in total ruins. As in World War II, the U.S. strategic bombing campaign brought mass destruction and shockingly heavy civilian casualties. Such tactics were in clear violation of the Nuremburg Charter, which had, ironically, been created after World War II, largely due to pressure from the U.S. The Nuremburg Tribunal defined “the wanton destruction of cities, towns or villages” to be a war crime and declared that Ainhumane acts against any civilian population” were a crime against humanity.

From that fateful day on September 8, 1945 to the present, a period of 56 years, U.S. military forces (currently numbering 37,000 positioned at 100 installations) have maintained a continuous occupation in the south supporting de facto U.S. rule over the political, economic and military life of a needlessly divided Korea. This often brutal occupation and the persistent U.S. support for the repressive policies of dictatorial puppets continues to be the single greatest obstacle to peace in Korea, preventing the inevitable reunification of the Korean Peninsula.

Until 1994, all of the hundreds of thousands of South Korean defense forces operated under direct U.S. command. Even today, although integrated into the Combined Forces Command (CFC), these forces automatically revert to direct US control when the US military commander in Korea determines that there is a state of war.

Indonesia: (1958-1965)

After 350 years of colonialism, President Sukarno, with the cooperation of the communist party (PKI), sought to make Indonesia an independent socialist democracy. Sukarno’s working relationship with the PKI would not be tolerated by Washington. Under the direction of the CIA, rebels in the Indonesian army were armed, trained and equipped in preparation for a military coup. The Indonesian army=s campaign against the PKI in 1965-66 brought the dictator Suharto to power. Under his rule, teachers, students, civil servants and peasants were systematically executed. In Central and East Java alone, 60,000 were killed. In Bali, some 50,000 people were executed, and thousands more died in remote Indonesian villages. In some areas citizens were confined in Navy vessels which were then sunk to the bottom of the sea.

The most extensive killing were committed against suspected PKI supporters identified by U.S. intelligence. Historian Gabriel Kollo states that the slaughter in Indonesia “ranks as a crime of the same type as the Nazi perpetrated.”3

Recent revealed documents at George Washington University’s National Security Achive confirmed how effectively the Indonesian army used the U.S.-prepared hit list against the Indonesian communist party in 1965-66. Among the documents cited is a 1966 airgram to Washington sent by U.S. ambassador Marshall Green stating that a list from the Embassy identifying top communist leaders was being used by the Indonesian security authorities in their extermination campaign.

For example, the US Embassy reported on November 13,1965 that information sent to Suharto resulted in the killing of between 50 to 100 PKI members every night in East and Central Java. The Embassy admitted in an April 15, 1966 airgram to Washington: “We frankly do not know whether the real figure for the PKI killed is closer to 100,000 or 1,000,000.”4

The Indonesian military became the instrument of another counter revolutionary offensive in 1975 when it invaded East Timor. On September 7,1975, just 24 hours after the highest officials of the United States government, President Gerald Ford and Secretary of State Henry Kissinger, had been in Djakarta on a state visit, 30,000 Indonesian troops landed in East Timor. Napalm, phosphorus bombs and chemical defoliants were delivered from US supplied planes and helicopters, resulting in the killing of tens of thousands of people, and the conflict continues to simmer.5

Vietnam: (1954-1965)

President Harry Truman began granting material aid to the French colonial forces in Indochina as early s 1946, and the aid was dramatically increased after the successful Chinese revolution in 1949 and the start of the “hot” Korean War in June 1950. By the time of the French army was defeated in 1954, the U.S. was paying nearly 80 percent of the French military expenditures and providing extensive air and logistical support.

The unilateral U.S. military intervention in Vietnam began in 1954, immediately following the humiliating French defeat in early May 1954. The July 21, 1954 Geneva Agreement concluded the French war against the Vietnamese and promised them a unifying election, mandated for July 1956. The U.S. government knew that fair elections would, in effect, ensure a genuine democratic victory for revered Communist leader Ho Chi Minh. This was unacceptable. In June 1954, prior to the signing of the historic Geneva agreement, the U.S. began CIA-directed internal sabotage operations against the Vietnamese while setting up the puppet Ngo Dinh Diem (brought to Vietnam from the U.S.) as “our” political leader. No electrons were ever held. This set the stage for yet another war for Vietnamese independence — this time against U.S. forces and their South Vietnamese puppets.

The significance of U.S. intentions to interfere with independence movements in Asia cannot be underestimated. U.S. National Security Council documents from 1956 declared that our national security would be endangered by communist domination of mainland Southeast Asia. Secret military plans stated that nuclear weapons will be used in general war and even in military operations short of general war. By March 1961, the Pentagon brass had recommended sending 60,000 soldiers to western Laos supported by air power that would include, if necessary, nuclear weapons, to assure that the Royal Laotian government would prevail against the popular insurgency being waged against it. For the next ten years the U.S. unleashed forces that caused (and continue to cause ) an incomprehensible amount of devastation in Vietnam and the rest of Southeast Asia.

Eight million tons of bombs (four times the amount used by the U.S. in all of World War II) were dropped indiscriminately, leaving destruction which, if laid crater to crater, would cover an area the size of the state of Maine. Eighty percent of the bombs fell on rural areas rather than military targets, leaving ten million craters. Nearly 400,000 tons of napalm was dropped on Vietnamese villages. There was no pretense of distinguishing between combatants and civilians.

The callous designation of as much as three-fourths of South Vietnam as a “free fire zone” justified the murder of virtually anyone in thousands of villages in those vast areas. At the time, Defense Secretary Robert S. McNamara cited a 1967 memo in which he estimated the number of Vietnamese civilians killed or seriously injured by U.S. forces at 1000 per week. The CIA=s Phoenix program alone killed as many as 70,000 civilians who were suspected of being part of the political leadership of the Viet Cong in the south.

There was a historically unprecedented level of chemical warfare in Vietnam, including the indiscriminate spraying of nearly 20 million gallons of defoliants on one-seventh the area of South Vietnam. The vestigial effects of chemical warfare poisoning continue to plague the health of adult Vietnamese (and ex-GIs) while causing escalated birth defects. Samples of soil, water, food and body fat of Vietnamese citizens continue to reveal dangerously elevated levels of dioxin to the present day.

Today, Vietnamese officials estimate the continued dangerous presence of 3.5 million landmines left from the war as well as 300,000 tons of unexploded ordnance. Tragically, these hidden remnants of war continue to explode when farmers plow their fields or children play in their neighborhoods, killing thousands each year. The Vietnamese report 40,000 people killed since 1975 by landmines and buried bombs. That means that each day, 4 or 5 Vietnamese civilians are killed day by U.S. ordnance.

The U.S. and its allies killed as many as 5 million Southeast Asian citizens during the active war years. The numbers of dead in Laos and Cambodia remain uncounted, but as of 1971, a congressional Research Service report prepared for the U.S. Senate Foreign Relations Committee indicated that over one million Laotians had been killed, wounded, or turned into refugees, with the figure for Cambodia estimated two million. More than a half million “secret” US bombing missions over Laos, begun in late 1964, devastated populations of ancient cultures there. Estimates indicate that around 230,000 tons of bombs were dropped over northern Laos in 1968 and 1969 alone. Increasing numbers of U.S. military personnel were added to the ground forces in Laos during 1961, preparing for major military operations to come.

The “secret” bombing of Cambodia began in March 1969, and an outright land invasion of Cambodia was conducted from late April 1970 through the end of June, causing thousand of casualties. These raging U.S. covert wars did not cease until August 14, 1973, by which time countless additional casualties were inflicted. When the bombing in Cambodia finally ceased, the U.S. Air Force had officially recorded the use of nearly 260,000 tons of bombs there. The total tonnage of bombs dropped in Laos over eight and a half years exceeded two million.

The consensus today is that more than 3 million Vietnamese were killed, with 300,000 additional missing in action and presumed dead. In the process the U.S. lost nearly 59,000 of her own men and women, with about 2,000 additional missing, while combatants from four U.S. allies lost over 6,000 more. The South Vietnamese military accounted for nearly 225,000 dead. All of this carnage was justified in order to destroy the basic rights and capacity of the Vietnamese to construct their own independent, sovereign society. None of the victims deserved to die in such a war. Vietnamese, Laotians, Cambodians, and U.S. military “grunts” were all victims.

All of these corpses were created to perpetuate an incredible lie and to serve a “cause” that had been concocted by white male plutocrats in Washington, many of whom possessed Ph.Ds from prestigious universities. Like most of their predecessors throughout U.S. history, these politicians and their appointees, along with their profit-hungry arms makers/dealers, desired to assure the destruction of people’s democratic movements in East Asia that threatened the virtually unlimited American hegemony over markets, resources, and the profits to be derived therefrom. But never did a small country suffer so much from an imperial nation as the Vietnamese did from the United States.

Iraq: (1991-2001)

The royal family in Kuwait was used by the United States government to justify a massive assault on Iraq in order to establish permanent dominion over the Gulf. The Gulf War was begun not to protect Kuwait but to establish US power over the region and its oil.6 In 1990, General Schwarzkopf had testified before the Senate that it was essential for the U.S. to increase its military presence in the Gulf in order to protect Saudi Arabia. However, satellite photos showed no Iraqi troops near the Saudi Border.

After Iraq announced that it was going to annex Kuwait, the United States began its air attacks on Iraq. For 42 days the US sent in 2000 sorties a day. By February 13,1991, 1,500 Iraqi citizens had been killed. President George Bush ordered the destruction of facilities essential to civilian life and economic production.

The Red Crescent Society of Jordan announced at the end of the war that 113,00 civilians were dead and sixty percent were women and children. Some of the worst devastation was wrought by the US military’s use of Depleted Uranium (DU) on battlefields and in towns and cities across Iraq. It left a legacy of radioactive debris which has resulted in serious environmental contamination and health problems, particularly among Iraqi children. Child mortality rates have risen by 380 percent. Between August 1990 and August 1997 some 1.2 million children in Iraq died due to environmental devastation and the harsh economic sanctions imposed in 1991. Not satisfied with such havoc, the U.S. and Britain have recently sought to tighten the blockade against Iraq by imposing so-called :”smart sanctions.” This would continue the aggression against northern and southern Iraq and lead to the deaths of more women, children and elderly.

Yugoslavia: (1991-1999)

The United States and Germany prepared plans for the dismemberment of Yugoslavia in the late 1980’s and have since reconfigured Yugoslavia into mini-states, with only Serbia and Montenegro remaining in the Yugoslav federation, a situation which has opened the way to the re-colonization of the Balkans.

In 1991, the European Community, with US involvement, organized a conference on Yugoslavia that called for the separation, sovereignty and independence of the republics of Yugoslavia. President George Bush’s administration passed the 1991 Foreign Operations Act, which provided aid to the individual republics, but cut off all aid to Belgrade, the capitol of Yugoslavia. This stimulated the eventual secession of Slovenia, Croatia, Macedonia and Bosnia-Herzegovina. With secession came civil wars. Ethnic Serbs living in Croatia had been loyal to that Yugoslav republic, but great power meddling now forced them to defend their region in Croatia known as Krajina. The U.S. covertly provided arms, training, advisors, satellite intelligence and air power to the Croats in “Operation Storm” directed against the helpless Serbs in Krajina. When the bombing began, the Krajina Serbs fled to Belgrade and Bosnia. Approximately 250,000 Serbs were thus ethnically cleansed from the Krajina and all evidence of Serb habitation was systematically destroyed. Civilians were executed, livestock slaughtered and houses were burnt to the ground.7

To avoid a similar human catastrophe in Bosnia/Herzegovina, Bosnian Serbs consolidated Serb-owned lands, an area constituting about two thirds of Bosnia/Herzegovina. Germany and the U.S. quickly aided the military alliance of Bosnian Muslims and Croats against the Serbs, and , supported by American bombing and regular army forces from Croatia, the Muslim/Croat alliance soon swept the Serbs from the majority of Bosnia/Herzegovina. As in the Krajina, the conflict forced ethnic Serbs off of their lands, creating one hundred thousand Serb refugees.

Under the U.S.-brokered Dayton Agreement, Bosnia/Herzegovina was divided into two parts, a Muslim-Croat Federation and Republica Srpska. The central government today is controlled by US/NATO forces, the IMF, and international NGOs. With no history of independence, Bosnia/Herzegovina=s economic assets have been taken over by foreign investors who now own their energy facilities, water, telecommunication, media and transportation.

The effects of the Bosnian civil war on the city of Srebrenica were reported extensively in the western media. Reports claimed that 7,414 Bosnian Muslims were executed by the Serbian army. After years of searching, digging and extensive investigations, only seventy bodies were found, but the original charges of genocide are still circulated in the media.

Kosovo, an autonomous region of Serbia, is the site of the most recent, and perhaps most disastrous, U.S. military intervention. Kosovo=s problems began after World War II when immigrants from Albania flooded into the region, sparking political confrontation between Albanians and Serbs. escalated into military conflict. The “Kosovo Liberation Army, an Albanian terrorist/separatist group, escalated tensions by directing their violence against not only Serbian civilians, but Albanian who refused to join their cause. As the war intensified, a United Nations team of observers in the Kosovo village of Racak found 44 Albanian bodies. The Serbs identified them as KLA fighters killed during one of the now frequent gun battles with police. William Walker, a US diplomat, who had earlier acted as an apologist for the death squads in El Salvador, led a group of journalists to view the bodies, and their subsequent claims of Serb war crimes made world-wide headlines.8

President Clinton used this event to bring delegates form the contending forces in Bosnia to Rambouillet, and the proposed Ramboullet Accords served as a prelude to U.S. intervention in Kosovo. The accords, if accepted, would have allowed NATO forces complete access to all of Yugoslavia, a virtual foreign occupation, with all associated costs to be borne by the Yugoslav government. As the Ramboullet negotiations began to stall, U.S. Secretary of State Madeline Albright ordered the bombing of Yugoslavia to begin.

On March 16, 1999, twenty three thousand missiles and bombs were dropped on a country of eleven million people. Thirty five thousand cluster bombs, graphite bombs and 31,000 rounds of depleted uranium weapons were used, the latter scattering radioactive waste throughout the Yugoslav countryside.

The 78 day bombing of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia targeted schools, hospitals, farms, bridges, roads communication centers, and waterways. Because a large number of chemical plants and oil refineries bombed by US/NATO planes were located on the banks of the Danube river, the bombing of these industrial sites polluted the Danube, a source of drinking water for ten million people in the region. The environmental damage done to the soil, water and air of Yugoslavia soon spread to Hungary, Bulgaria, Romania, Macedonia, Greece and Italy. Countries like Russia, Ukraine and Georgia, which border on the Black Sea, into which the Danube empties, also continue to face health hazards.

Afghanistan:(1979-2001)

“The Bush-Afghan war calls up memories of the Vietnam War in both actions and rhetoric, the massive use of superior arms heavily impacting civilians, deliberate food deprivation, wholesale terror allegedly combating ‘terrorism’, but always sincere regrets for collateral damages.”9

The U.S. war in Afghanistan began in 1979, ostensibly as a campaign to oust the ruling Taliban and apprehend the alleged terrorist Osama Bin Laden, who was assumed to be hiding in Afghanistan. Ironically, the Taliban had received billions of dollars worth of weapons from the CIA to help it overthrow a progressive socialist government in Afghanistan, and Bin Laden regarded himself as an important CIA asset. Indeed, the CIA had been deeply involved in Afghanistan even before the Soviet Union intervened there in 1979 to defend the revolutionary government.

Since the September 11, 2001 terrorist attack on the World Trade Center in New York City, the U.S. has waged a merciless war against the Afghan people, using chemical, biological and depleted uranium (DU) weapons. The use of DU continues to spread radiation throughout large parts of Afghanistan and will affect tens of thousands of people in generations to come, causing lung cancer, leukemia and birth defects. DU was also used against Iraq and Yugoslavia, where the frequency of cancer has tripled.

The bombing of the Afghan population has forced thousands of civilians to flee to Pakistan and Iran, and seven to eight million civilians are facing starvation. UNICEF spokesman Eric Larlcke has stated, “As many as 100,000 more children will die in Afghanistan this winter unless food reaches them in sufficient quantities in the next six weeks.”10

The racist underpinnings of the American world-view allows the American press and its political leaders to be silent on the mass killing of Third World children. Donald Rumsfeld, the U.S. Secretary of Defense, has stated that the U.S. is not looking to negotiate peace with the Taliban and Al-Quida in Afghanistan. There is a clear indifference to the daily carnage in Afghanistan, where sixty percent of the casualties are women and children. Human rights organizations have expressed concern over reports of large-scale executions of would-be Taliban defectors in the city of Kunduz, and the United Nations has echoed human rights groups in demanding an investigation into the slaughter of prisoners at the Qala-i-Jhangi fort near Mazar-i-Sharif. With more than 500 people dead and the fort littered with bodies, allegations of war crimes against the U.S. and UK for ignoring the Geneva Convention on the treatment of prisoners of war have led the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, Mary Robinson, to call for an urgent inquiry.

“Once we recognize the pattern of activity designed to simultaneously consolidate control over Middle Eastern and South Asian oil and contain and colonize the former Soviet Union, Afghanistan is exactly where they need to go to pursue that agenda.”11

In his book The Grand Chessboard, Zbigniew Brezezinski writes that the Eurasian Balkans are a potential economic prize which hold an enormous concentration of natural gas and oil and important minerals as well as gold.

Brezezinski declares that the Central Asian region and the Caspian Sea basin are “known to contain reserves of natural gas and oil that dwarf those of Kuwait, the Gulf of Mexico, or the North Sea.”12 Afghanistan will serve as a base of operations to begin the control over the South Asian Republic in order to build a pipeline through Turkmenistan, Afghanistan and Pakistan to deliver petroleum to the Asian market. This pipeline will serve as a bonanza of wealth for the US oil companies.

Conclusion:

An examination of the American conduct of its wars since World War II shows the US to be in violation of the Nuremberg Principles, the 1949 Geneva Convention relating to protection of civilian prisoners of war, the wounded and sick, and the amended Nuremberg Principles as formulated by the International Law Commission in 1950 proscribing war crimes and crimes against humanity. The massive murder and destruction of civilian infrastructure through the use of biological, chemical and depleted uranium weapons violates not only international laws but the moral and humanitarian standards expected in modern civilization.

Notes

1. Ward Churchill, A Little Matter of Genocide: Holocaust and Denial in the Americas, 1942 to the Present. San Francisco: City Lights Books, 1977, p. 371.

2. William Blum, Killing Hope: US Military and CIA Intervention Since World War II, Monroe, Maine: Common Courage Press, 1995, p. 17.

3. Gabriel Kollo, AWar Crimes and the Nature of the Vietnam War, Bertrand Russell Foundation, http:www.homeusers.prestel.co.uk/littleton/br7006gk.htm

4. George Washington University’s National Security Archive, July 27, 2001, www.Narchives.org

5. Deirdre Griswold, Indonesia: the Second Greatest Crime of the Century, 2d edition. New York: World View Publishers, 1979, p. vii.

6. Ramsey Clark, The Fire This Time: U.S. War Crimes in the Gulf. New York: Thunder’s Mouth Press, 1992, p. 3.

7. Scott Taylor, INAT: Images of Serbia and the Kosovo Conflict. OttAwa, Canada: Espirit de Corps Books, 2000, p. 15.

8. Michael Parenti, To Kill a Nation: The Attack on Yugoslavia. New York: Verso, 2000, p. 106.

9. Edward Herman, A Genocide as Collateral Damage, but with Sincere Regrets, Centre for Research on Globalisation (CRG) at http://globalresearch.ca , 2001

10. 100,000 Afghan Children Could Die This Winter, The Times of India, October 16, 2001.

11. Stan Goff, A September 11th Analysis, October 27, 2001, www.maisonneuvepress.com .

12. Zbigniew Brzezinski, The Grand Chessboard: American Primacy and Its Geostrategic Imperative, New York: Harper

 

The late Lenora Foerstel is author of War, Lies & Videotape: How media monopoly stifles truth , 

Brian Willson is a Vietnam war veteran, peace activist and author. Brian Willson has carefully documented the balance sheet of US government war crimes in Vietnam and Korea 

Brian Willson is a Research Associate of the Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG)

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on The History of US War Crimes: From Korea to Afghanistan
  • Tags:

July 4, 2024: What The Flag Means To Me. Brian Willson

July 4th, 2024 by Brian S. Willson

First published on July 4, 2022

***

I was probably seven years old before it really sunk in that everybody in my town was not celebrating my birthday on July 4. It was an exciting day with parades, picnics, fireworks and, in my case, special birthday parties and gifts. I lived much of my young life with the extra boost of having been born on the day that our earliest political framers signed the Declaration of Independence, an historical act of defiance against monarchial colonial rule from distant England.

I remember proudly carrying the U.S. American flag in one of the July 4th parades in my small, agricultural town in upstate New York. And for years I felt goosebumps looking at Old Glory waving in the breeze during the playing of the national anthem or as it passed by in a parade. How lucky I was to have been born in the greatest country in the history of the world, and blessed by God to boot. Such a blessing, such a deal!

It wasn’t until many years later, while reading an issue of the armed forces newspaper Stars and Stripes in Vietnam, that I began thinking and feeling differently about the flag and what it represents. There was a story about an arrest for flag burning somewhere in the United States.

I had recently experienced the horror of seeing numerous bodies of young women and children that were burned alive in a small Delta village devastated by napalm. I imagined that since the pilots had “successfully” hit their targets, they were feeling good and probably had received glowing reports that would bode well in their military record for promotions. I wondered why it was okay to burn innocent human beings 10,000 miles from my home town, but not okay to burn a piece of cloth that was symbolic of the country that had horribly napalmed those villagers. Something was terribly wrong with the Cold War rhetoric of fighting communism that made me question what our nation stood for. There was a grand lie, an American myth, that was being fraudulently preserved under the cloak of our flag.

It took me years to process this clear cognitive dissonance between the rhetoric of my cultural teachings and the reality of my own personal experiences. I had to accept that, either there was serious distortion in how I was interpreting my personal realities, or the cultural rhetoric was terribly distorted. Hmm. A dilemma! If I accepted the former, I could relax and feel good about being an “American.” If I accepted the latter, I would experience a serious identity crisis, perhaps a nervous breakdown. But no matter how hard I tried, I could not ignore what my own conscience was continually telling me

I began a serious reflection that included careful study of U.S. and world history. When I was a teenager living near Seneca Indian reservations in western New York State I occasionally heard Seneca acquaintances utter “jokes” about how the “White man speaks with forked tongue.” We thought it funny at the time. But then I discovered how my country really was founded. There were hundreds of nations comprised of millions of human beings–yes, human beings–living throughout the land before our European ancestors arrived here in the 1600s. The U.S. government signed over 400 treaties with various Indigenous nations and violated every one of them. And over time these original peoples were systematically eliminated in what amounted to the first genuine American holocaust.

When I reread the Declaration of Independence I noted words I hadn’t been aware of before: “He [the King of Great Britain] has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavoured to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian savages, whose known rule of warfare, is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions.” Honest history reveals that the very land upon which our founding fathers began this new experiment in freedom had been taken by violence and deceit, ironically using the same diabolical methods the framers accused of those already living here.

It became obvious after extensive reading that my European ancestors did not believe that Indigenous Americans were human beings worthy of respect, but despicable, non-human creatures, worthy only of extermination. The pre-Columbus population of Indigenous in the Western Hemisphere is estimated to have been at least 100 million (8-12 million north of the Rio Grande). By 1900 this population had been reduced to about 5 percent of its former size. An Indigenous friend of mine, a Seneca man who had served the U.S. military in World War II, Korea, and Vietnam, and then after retiring, discovered his ancestral roots as a native American, once remarked to me: “I call the American flag ‘Old Gory,’ the red representing the blood, and the white, the bones, of my murdered ancestors.”

>When adding to our first holocaust the damage done to African cultures through forcefully seizing human beings to be slaves in order to build our early agricultural and industrial base, and the carnage from nearly 300 U.S. overt military and thousands of covert interventions in the Twentieth Century to acquire access to markets and resources on our selfish terms, we see there are actually three holocausts that have enabled the “glorious American civilization” to be what it is today. It is now estimated that Africa lost 50 million of its population to the slave trade, at least two-thirds of whom were killed resisting capture or died during the horrors of transit; an estimated 20 to 30 million people in the Third World have been killed as a result of U.S. interventions. Note that when other peoples all over the globe have attempted to emulate the spirit of our Declaration of Independence (a proclamation of self-determination), such as Vietnam explicitly did in 1945, our government not only has turned a deaf ear, but has done everything in its power short of dropping Atomic bombs to destroy their efforts to obtain independence. This is the foundation upon which we have built “America.” Quite the karma!

The founding of our Republic was conducted in secrecy by an upper class who insisted on a strong national government that could assure a successful but forceful clearing of western lands, enabling the safe settlement and economic development of previously inhabited Indigenous territory. Our Founding Fathers did not represent the common people. Some historians believe that if the Constitution itself had been subjected to a genuine vote of all the people it would have been resoundly defeated. Subsequently, what evolved is a political system run by plutocrats who perpetuate an economic system that protects the interests of those who finance their campaigns (a form of bribery). The U.S. government is a democracy in name only. Never have we had a government that seriously addresses the plight of the people, whether it be workers, minorities, women, the poor, etc. Whatever has been achieved in terms of rights and benefits for these constituencies, i.e., the people, has been struggled for against substantial repression, and the constant threat the gains will be subsequently lost. Intense pressures are applied by the selfish oligarchy which seeks ever increased profits, rarely, if ever, considering the expense to the health of the majority of people, their local cultures, and the ecology.

What the West calls capitalism is nothing like what Adam Smith had in mind with his views of decentralized networks of small entrepreneurs working in harmony with the needs and forces of others in their own communities. What we have is a savage system of centrally institutionalized greed that is unable to generalize an equitable way of life for the majority of people here in the U.S., or in the rest of the world. It requires incredible exploitation of human and other natural resources all over the globe with the forcible protection of military and paramilitary forces financed or sanctioned by governments. It thrives on its own sinister version of welfare where the public financially guarantees–through tax loopholes, subsidies, contracts, and outright bailouts–the profitable success of the major corporations and financial institutions, especially, but not exclusively, in the military-industrial complex. Additionally, our monopoly capitalism defines efficiency by totally ignoring the true costs of its production and distribution.

It conveniently forgets the huge ecological and human exhaustion costs (both being our true wealth). If these costs were included, the system would be finished in a second. The reality, upon honest examination, is that the economic system we call capitalism, now neoliberal, global capitalism, is cruelly based on a very fraudulent set of assumptions that justify massive exploitation. The reality, upon honest examination, is that our political system was founded, and has been maintained to this very day by substantive plutocracy, not democracy. So when I see the flag and think of the Declaration of Independence, instead of the United States of America, I see the United Corporations of America; I see the blood and bones of people all over the globe who have been dehumanized, then exterminated by its imperialism; and I see a symbol that represents a monstrous lie maintained by excessive, deadly force. It makes me feel sick, and ashamed. And I know that my opinions being expressed here will not be popular, even among some of my closest friends. But I cannot ignore the reality as I now understand it.

I believe we are living one of the most incredible lies in history, covered over by one of the most successful campaigns of public rhetoric, ignoring empirical reality. It is truly amazing! I hope that one day we will end our willful ignorance and be able to see our transgressions, and beg, on our knees, for forgiveness, and then wail as we begin to feel the incredible pain and anguish we have caused the world as well as our own bodies, minds, souls, and culture.

S. Brian Willson, Vietnam war veteran, renowned peace activist, human rights lawyer and award winning author, Granada, Nicaragua, Research Associate of the Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG)

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on July 4, 2024: What The Flag Means To Me. Brian Willson
  • Tags:

Declare Your Independence from Tyranny, America

July 4th, 2024 by John W. Whitehead

All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the “Translate Website” drop down menu on the top banner of our home page (Desktop version).

To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.

Visit and follow us on InstagramTwitter and Facebook. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

***

This incisive article was published on June 29, 2022

***

Imagine living in a country where armed soldiers crash through doors to arrest and imprison citizens merely for criticizing government officials.

Imagine that in this very same country, you’re watched all the time, and if you look even a little bit suspicious, the police stop and frisk you or pull you over to search you on the off chance you’re doing something illegal.

Keep in mind that if you have a firearm of any kind (or anything that resembled a firearm) while in this country, it may get you arrested and, in some circumstances, shot by police.

If you’re thinking this sounds like America today, you wouldn’t be far wrong.

However, the scenario described above took place more than 200 years ago, when American colonists suffered under Great Britain’s version of an early police state. It was only when the colonists finally got fed up with being silenced, censored, searched, frisked, threatened, and arrested that they finally revolted against the tyrant’s fetters.

No document better states their grievances than the Declaration of Independence, drafted by Thomas Jefferson.

A document seething with outrage over a government which had betrayed its citizens, the Declaration of Independence was signed on July 4, 1776, by 56 men who laid everything on the line, pledged it all—“our Lives, our Fortunes, and our sacred Honor”—because they believed in a radical idea: that all people are created to be free.

Labeled traitors, these men were charged with treason, a crime punishable by death. For some, their acts of rebellion would cost them their homes and their fortunes. For others, it would be the ultimate price—their lives.

Yet even knowing the heavy price they might have to pay, these men dared to speak up when silence could not be tolerated. Even after they had won their independence from Great Britain, these new Americans worked to ensure that the rights they had risked their lives to secure would remain secure for future generations.

The result: our Bill of Rights, the first ten amendments to the Constitution.

Imagine the shock and outrage these 56 men would feel were they to discover that 246 years later, the government they had risked their lives to create has been transformed into a militaristic police state in which exercising one’s freedoms—at a minimum, merely questioning a government agent—is often viewed as a flagrant act of defiance.

In fact, had the Declaration of Independence been written today, it would have rendered its signers extremists or terrorists, resulting in them being placed on a government watch list, targeted for surveillance of their activities and correspondence, and potentially arrested, held indefinitely, stripped of their rights and labeled enemy combatants.

Read the Declaration of Independence again, and ask yourself if the list of complaints tallied by Jefferson don’t bear a startling resemblance to the abuses “we the people” are suffering at the hands of the American police state.

Here’s what the Declaration of Independence might look and sound like if it were written in the modern vernacular:

There comes a time when a populace must stand united and say “enough is enough” to the government’s abuses, even if it means getting rid of the political parties in power.

Believing that “we the people” have a natural and divine right to direct our own lives, here are truths about the power of the people and how we arrived at the decision to sever our ties to the government:

All people are created equal.

All people possess certain innate rights that no government or agency or individual can take away from them. Among these are the right to Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

The government’s job is to protect the people’s innate rights to Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. The government’s power comes from the will of the people.

Whenever any government abuses its power, it is the right of the people to alter or abolish that government and replace it with a new government that will respect and protect the rights of the people.

It is not wise to get rid of a government for minor transgressions. In fact, as history has shown, people resist change and are inclined to suffer all manner of abuses to which they have become accustomed.

However, when the people have been subjected to repeated abuses and power grabs, carried out with the purpose of establishing a tyrannical government, people have a right and duty to do away with that tyrannical government and to replace it with a new government that will protect and preserve their innate rights for their future wellbeing.

This is exactly the state of affairs we are under suffering under right now, which is why it is necessary that we change this imperial system of government.

The history of the present Imperial Government is a history of repeated abuses and power grabs, carried out with the intention of establishing absolute tyranny over the country.

To prove this, consider the following:

The government has, through its own negligence and arrogance, refused to adopt urgent and necessary laws for the good of the people.

The government has threatened to hold up critical laws unless the people agree to relinquish their right to be fully represented in the Legislature.

In order to expand its power and bring about compliance with its dictates, the government has made it nearly impossible for the people to make their views and needs heard by their representatives.

The government has repeatedly suppressed protests arising in response to its actions.

The government has obstructed justice by refusing to appoint judges who respect the Constitution and has instead made the courts march in lockstep with the government’s dictates.

The government has allowed its agents to harass the people, steal from them, jail them and even execute them.

The government has directed militarized government agents—a.k.a., a standing army—to police domestic affairs in peacetime.

The government has turned the country into a militarized police state.

The government has conspired to undermine the rule of law and the constitution in order to expand its own powers.

The government has allowed its militarized police to invade our homes and inflict violence on homeowners.

The government has failed to hold its agents accountable for wrongdoing and murder under the guise of “qualified immunity.”

The government has jeopardized our international trade agreements.

The government has overtaxed us without our permission.

The government has denied us due process and the right to a fair trial.

The government has engaged in extraordinary rendition.

The government has continued to expand its military empire in collusion with its corporate partners-in-crime and occupy foreign nations.

The government has eroded fundamental legal protections and destabilized the structure of government.

The government has not only declared its federal powers superior to those of the states but has also asserted its sovereign power over the rights of “we the people.”

The government has ceased to protect the people and instead waged domestic war against the people.

The government has plundered our seas, ravaged our coasts, and destroyed the lives of the people.

The government has employed private contractors and mercenaries to carry out acts of death, desolation and tyranny, totally unworthy of a civilized nation.

The government through its political propaganda has pitted its citizens against each other.

The government has stirred up civil unrest and laid the groundwork for martial law.

Repeatedly, we have asked the government to cease its abuses. Each time, the government has responded with more abuse.

An Imperial Ruler who acts like a tyrant is not fit to govern a free people.

We have repeatedly sounded the alarm to our fellow citizens about the government’s abuses. We have warned them about the government’s power grabs. We have appealed to their sense of justice. We have reminded them of our common bonds.

They have rejected our plea for justice and brotherhood. They are equally at fault for the injustices being carried out by the government.

Thus, for the reasons mentioned above, we the people of the united States of America declare ourselves free from the chains of an abusive government. Relying on God’s protection, we pledge to stand by this Declaration of Independence with our lives, our fortunes and our honor.

In the 246 years since early Americans first declared and eventually won their independence from Great Britain, “we the people” have managed to work ourselves right back under the tyrant’s thumb.

Only this time, the tyrant is one of our own making: the American Police State.

The abuses meted out by an imperial government and endured by the American people have not ended. They have merely evolved.

“We the people” are still being robbed blind by a government of thieves.

We are still being taken advantage of by a government of scoundrels, idiots and monsters.

We are still being locked up by a government of greedy jailers.

We are still being spied on by a government of Peeping Toms.

We are still being ravaged by a government of ruffians, rapists and killers.

We are still being forced to surrender our freedoms—and those of our children—to a government of extortionists, money launderers and corporate pirates.

And we are still being held at gunpoint by a government of soldiers: a standing army in the form of a militarized police.

Given the fact that we are a relatively young nation, it hasn’t taken very long for an authoritarian regime to creep into power.

Unfortunately, the bipartisan coup that laid siege to our nation did not happen overnight.

It snuck in under our radar, hiding behind the guise of national security, the war on drugs, the war on terror, the war on immigration, political correctness, hate crimes and a host of other official-sounding programs aimed at expanding the government’s power at the expense of individual freedoms.

The building blocks for the bleak future we’re just now getting a foretaste of—police shootings of unarmed citizens, profit-driven prisons, weapons of compliance, a wall-to-wall surveillance state, pre-crime programs, a suspect society, school-to-prison pipelines, militarized police, overcriminalization, SWAT team raids, endless wars, etc.—were put in place by government officials we trusted to look out for our best interests.

As I make clear in my book Battlefield America: The War on the American People and in its fictional counterpart The Erik Blair Diaries, the problems we are facing will not be fixed overnight: that is the grim reality with which we must contend.

Yet that does not mean we should give up or give in or tune out. What we need to do is declare our independence from the tyranny of the American police state.

*

Note to readers: Please click the share buttons above or below. Follow us on Instagram, Twitter and Facebook. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

This article was originally published on The Rutherford Institute.

Constitutional attorney and author John W. Whitehead is founder and president of The Rutherford Institute. His most recent books are the best-selling Battlefield America: The War on the American People, the award-winning A Government of Wolves: The Emerging American Police State, and a debut dystopian fiction novel, The Erik Blair Diaries. Whitehead can be contacted at [email protected].

Nisha Whitehead is the Executive Director of The Rutherford Institute. Information about The Rutherford Institute is available at www.rutherford.org.

They are regular contributors to Global Research.

Featured image is from Immunization.news

The Presidential Debate That Wasn’t

July 3rd, 2024 by Dr. Jack Rasmus

All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the Translate Website button below the author’s name (only available in desktop version).

To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.

Click the share button above to email/forward this article to your friends and colleagues. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

Give Truth a Chance. Secure Your Access to Unchained News, Donate to Global Research.

***

In the days immediately following the first US presidential debate between Joe Biden and Donald Trump, countless analyses have appeared. Nearly all have focused on the candidates’ delivery, less on what they said, and almost nothing about what should have been but was not said.

Trump was obviously coached by his team to tone down the personal insults, which he mostly did, and scored some policy points while making dozens of false or unverified statements in the process.

Meanwhile, as the general media analysis has also gone, Biden’s delivery was a disaster. As one well known TV commentator called it: “a slow motion car accident”.

The CNN host network’s post-debate analysis panel was particularly critical.

At least initially. In the post-debate commentary they offered initial assessments like:

he (Biden) “seemed disoriented” and delivered “an atypically bad performance” (David Axelrod).

“His candidacy has fallen” (Scott Jennings). He was “not coherent” and “real damage was done” (Abby Phillips).

“He failed…No two ways about it” (Kate Bidingfield).

Seasoned election commentator for CNN, John King, called Biden’s performance “dismal” and said there was now deep panic in the Democrat party. While perhaps the most liberal on the panel, Van Jones, described Biden’s delivery as “painful”, noting the debate was the ‘Con Man vs. the Old Man’ and the affair appeared as a debate between “somebody who shouldn’t be president and another who can’t do the job”.

Many of Biden’s harshest critics on the panel were long time Democrat party operatives, like Axelrod, Jones, and Bidingfield. The harshest criticism was leveled afterward by former Presidential debate moderator, Chris Wallace, author of the aforementioned quote “A car accident in slow motion”. He concluded “he sunk his campaign tonight”.

It’s clear that several of the panelists were by means of their ear phones connected during the debate with high ranking Democrat party donors and supporters. Van Jones and Axelrod, long time Democrat party operatives and advisers, both referred to calls they were getting during the debate. As Axelrod admitted “Democrat Party leaders area reacting” and in a state of panic over Biden’s performance. Jones said he even received calls well in the middle of the panel discussion, during a commercial break by CNN, in which he was ‘chewed out’ by a Biden insider for his previous panel comments.

Not surprising, as the panel discussion went on some of the panelists tried to walk back their earlier public criticism which was contributing to the ‘panic’, according to some party sources. It’s likely that some of the CNN panelists won’t be around for subsequent debates if they occur. Or at least they won’t be allowed to wear ear phones.

Anyone watching the debate and the post debate commentary might easily conclude that Trump was not all that impressive, reducing his statements and rebuttals every chance he had to the border immigration issue; or making statements like ‘he’s killing the country” and “what he has done is criminal”; or throwing out wild unsubstantiated charges declaring Biden’s policies on abortion led to doctors to killing eight or nine month old.

Biden debated in the dirt no less, often focusing on Trump’s infidelity affairs and, in one of his few entertaining ‘one liners’ declaring “you (Trump) have the morality of an alleycat” or “you’re a whinner”. How many times each rebutted the other by simply calling him a ‘liar’ probably set a record for presidential debates.

As presidential debates go, this time around the CNN moderators asked no trick questions—as occurred in prior presidential debates— and their questions challenged the candidates to address some serious points. But when it came to explaining their policies and proposals neither candidate performed very well. They either ignored the moderators’ questions altogether, or drifted off point, slide into another of their favorite topics, or descended into the silliest and most childish attacks on their opponent.

Poll after poll today shows American voters are most concerned about two issues: Economy and War. But anyone watching the debate got no idea what either candidate intended to do for the economy stuck in chronic inflation, interest rates, weakening job market, declining real wages, and a growing fiscal crisis marked by the past eight years of $13.3 trillion additional budget deficits and $14.9 trillion in added national debt. Since 2000 deficits and debt have been doubling every eight years and the worst eight have been the most recent, 2016-2024, under Trump and Biden.

When it came to answering the moderators’ questions on the economy, Trump ducked their questions altogether several times, used the question to slip into elaborating further on one of his favorite themes like the border, or just answered with an off the wall personal accusation of Biden.

Biden did no better: he mumbled, changed his topic and sentence mid-stream, confused words, and hesitated with long pauses as if he lost his train of thought. At one point after saying the US had a thousand trillionaires, then correcting it to billionaires, he mumbled incoherently for almost a half minute, lost his thought, and ended with a topically unrelated phrase “we finally beat Medicare”. Trump predictably jumped on it and rebutted, ‘Yes, you beat Medicare to death’.

These kind of petty, juvenile exchanges went on all during the debate. Perhaps the most pathetic, however, was late in the debate when both candidates got into a pissing match over who had the lowest golf handicap. Somehow they then both segwayed into accusing the other being the unhealthiest. Biden charged Trump of being too fat, to which Trump replied he had taken two health tests and passed both with excellent results while Biden hadn’t taken even one.

At that point, following the golf thing, most watchers must have said to themselves: ‘what the hell are they talking about’? Then probably followed that by saying to themselves, ‘holy shit are we really in trouble’!. Yes, the USA is in trouble. Big trouble. And both the candidates aren’t really talking about it. Nor have the slightest idea what to do about it.

Which brings it all back to what the American voters wanted most to hear in the debate but didn’t—i.e. what are the two lightweights called Trump and Biden going to do about escalating War and declining Economy?

Polls consistently show voters want to know what are the candidates’ proposals for dealing with inflation, jobs, runaway annual trillion dollar US budget deficits, the $35 trillion US national debt—not to mention unaffordable housing, healthcare, child care, and student debt? And on the geopolitical front: what would either do as president about the three wars the US is involved in (Ukraine, Gaza, Red Sea)—and the fourth that is obviously being planned (Taiwan)?

Very little was revealed by either candidate during the debate as to how they planned to deal with the voters’ top issues of War and the Economy. Here’s what was not said by the candidates on the real issues of import:

The Economy

The very first question the moderators asked the candidates was the state of the US economy. Moderators noted many voters felt the economy was ‘worse off’, with groceries up 20% and home prices 30% since 2020.

Jobs

Biden ducked the inflation question and launched into a statement how great the economy was now. His main point in that regard was his claim he had created 15 million jobs since taking office. That claim, however, is a misrepresentation and a selective interpretation of government statistics that he and the Democrats have been peddling throughout the campaign.

The fact is the Covid recession of 2020 resulted in 35 million being unemployed at one time or another due to government mandated economic shutdown. When Biden took office in 2021 there were 12-13 million still jobless. The US economy began to reopen in late spring 2021. It was too early. It aborted and only began again to steadily and slowly reopen later that summer 2021. It was in late summer 2021 when inflation began to accelerate.

Over the next two years the twelve million mandated jobless returned to the jobs they had left. But these were not new jobs Biden ‘created’. These were jobs workers ‘returned to’. Biden did not create those 12 million jobs. There were additionally some net new jobs created in addition to those ‘returned to’ over the course of Biden’s term. About 2.7 million. However, they have been mostly part time jobs not full time. Only by manipulating the numbers is Biden able to claim he created 15 million jobs.

As for the unemployment rate of 4% and Biden’s claim it’s the lowest in decades, that too is questionable. The 4% is what the US Labor Dept. calls the U-3 unemployment rate which refers only to full time workers. The government has another statistic that rarely gets reported in the mainstream media. It’s called the U-6 unemployment rate and it covers not only full time workers but part time, those who’ve given up looking for work, dropped out of the labor force altogether, and simply haven’t filed for unemployment benefits even though they’re jobless. That also official US government U-6 unemployment rate is 7.4%, not 4%; or almost twice the always reported lower U-3 number by the mainstream media.

Trump of course had no idea about these clarifications of Biden’s misleading jobs claims. Nor apparently did his advisers. So Trump simply failed to challenge Biden on these job numbers.

Inflation

The moderator’s question about why many voters don’t feel economically ‘better of’ included a reference to a basket of groceries up 20% and home prices 30% since Biden. Biden’s answer was he brought prescription drug prices down, referring to insulin prices for seniors on Medicare.

Trump said he did it. Biden said he did. What ensued was a ‘he said, she said’ silly exchange. But the fact is prescription drug prices in general are going through the roof. And drug price inflation is not accurately picked up by the official US government inflation statistics. For example, he newest drugs aren’t included. Nor factored into inflation are pharmaceutical companies moving their existing drugs into higher ‘tiers’ in their formulary (list of drug prices).The most purchased drugs’ prices are raised more than average, while thousands of drugs not purchased hardly any more are not. The result is a lower average price for all drugs that the government uses in its inflation statistics.

It was at this point following the drug price inflation, only three minutes into the debate, that Biden went off the rails mumbling incoherently about several unrelated topics, going silent for loss of words, and concluding with the “we finally beat Medicare” comment.

If Trump had been prepared he could have elaborated on what’s really happening with the costs of medical services—a topic on which Biden remained silent for good reason since hospital and medical services are recently among the fastest rising services inflation.

Biden instead repeated his campaign line that more people now have medical insurance than ever before. But at what cost? And how much coverage given the higher cost? According to research by the Kaiser Family Foundation, monthly health insurance premiums for a $65k/yr median income family of four are now about $2,000/mo. ($23,968/yr); for an individual $8,435 a year. Moreover, for 51% of households the same monthly premiums have deductibles of $2k-$3k per year. The other 49% households have deductibles of $600-$900/yr. What good is medical insurance coverage if the cost of insurance is unaffordable?

The debate moderators indicated housing prices had risen 30% and asked what either candidate would do about it. Once again, Trump ducked the question altogether and went on to rail about the border, immigration, and rapes and deaths caused by terrorists and criminals at the border. Biden too ducked the question, trying to turn it into the topic of tax cuts—Trump’s and his.
Here’s why both candidates didn’t want to talk about housing costs or inflation in general:

According to the Wall St. Journal in a recent June 2024 survey, home prices have surged 50% not 30% as the moderators noted. But even that 30% is a gross underestimate. What people pay is a mortgage which includes interest charges and other fees not just a monthly principal on the price of the house. Nor are any other interest costs, in credit cards, auto loans or any other source. If they were, the government’s formal price indexes would be much higher since the CPI does not include in its inflation estimate any of the above mortgages, fees, etc. And according to the Wall St. Journal, ‘Home Monthly Mortgage Payments’ have risen 114% under Biden.

Rent prices follow home mortgages. But US government’s price indexes like CPI and PCE only record ‘new leases’, not renters whose landlords raised their existing rents. Then there’s the further trend of landlords adding all kinds of new monthly fees to their rents. That too is not picked up in the official inflation stats. Even so, government limited statistics still show rent increases exceeding 20% since 2021. In reality, it’s at least 30-40% and far more in some cases.

Prices for processed foods have also surged since 2019. These prices are subject to big monopolistic corporations’ price gouging. Processed foods inflation is responsible for most of the 35% rise in the most often purchased grocery goods since 2019, according to the Journal.

Government statistics show many basic household food staples have risen significantly since 2019: Bread up 52%, Eggs 114%. Pound of chicken breast 37%. Milk 24%. And food ‘away from home’ category (restaurants, bars, etc.) is also rising faster than reported. For example, the US statistics for ‘food away from home’ don’t include the recent ratcheting up of tips charges, in some restaurants mandatory. Tip rates used to be 10%, 15% and 18% at most. Now it’s an automatic 18%, 22% or 25% to the restaurant bill. Fast food away from home, that many low income households rely upon, has fared no better. Statistics show that a ‘Big Mac’ meal is up 27% since 2019.

Transportation is the third largest weighted category in the inflation statistics. It includes the prices of autos, auto insurance, repairs, cost of a gallon of gas and other items. Car prices surged in 2021-23 and then leveled off, making the latest year stats appear ‘tamed’. But auto insurance has accelerated by more than 20% the past year alone, following auto repair services up by at least that amount. Gasoline initially accelerated in 2021-2022 due to global and domestic supply issues, then leveled off. When prices ‘level off’ it appears the inflation has abated. But consumers remain paying the previous higher prices and that’s what they remember. Consumers remember they are now paying 38% more for a gallon of gas since Biden took office.

Politicians, mainstream media, and many mainstream professional economists have been spinning the message that the US economy is doing great. Inflation is under control. Unemployment low. As Biden said during the debate “The US is the greatest economy in the world”. But consumers know what they’re actually paying, workers know what they’re actually getting paid and the extra jobs they have to take on to make ends meet. Consumers and workers have longer memories than the politicians, media and economists want them to have. They know what the inflation and job score is since 2019. And don’t care that much what the others say about the last six months or even year.

In short, the tens of millions of the roughly 130 million households in the USA know when the politicians or their mainstream economists echo chamber keep telling them ‘Oh, the economy is doing great!’ is not the reality they face.

Tax Cuts

At another point in the debate the moderators raised the question of Trump’s 2018 tax cuts and if the candidates, especially Trump, would once again support the extension of the cuts coming up in 2025. Trump totally ducked the question, except to say his tax cuts—which by the way amounted to $4.5 trillion over a decade—produced a massive number of jobs. That job creation of course did not occur. The tax cuts of 2018 went mostly to wealthy investors and US businesses and corporations, who then either hoarded the savings or plowed it back into financial markets or invested abroad. Very little went into investments that resulted in business expansion that created jobs.

Under Trump’s first three years before Covid hit in 2020, the Fortune 500 corporations returned more than $3.5 trillion in stock buybacks and dividend payouts to their shareholders. Under Biden it’s been closer to $4 trillion. During the debate Biden indicated he wanted to raise taxes on individuals earning more than $400k a year in income. That was blocked by Senators Manchin and Sinema of his own party, as were efforts in general to roll back Trump’s $4.5 trillion. Biden refused to pressure either of these rogue Senators the past three years. Both are now leaving the Senate. Moderators should have asked Biden, now that Manchin and Sinema will be gone, if he now will reverse the Trump tax cuts if elected.

Deficits & Debt

On the matter of the budget deficit which has been chronically running at more than $1T a year since 2019 and is expected to hit $1.9T this year, neither candidate had much to say. Trump mentioned it in general and Biden not at all. Nor did either say anything about how the accumulation of those annual deficits have created the current national debt of $35 trillion—with annual interest payments of more than $800 billion and rising.

Both candidates’ virtual silence to discuss the topics of deficit and debt likely had something to do with the fact that both of them have been responsible for record levels of deficits and debt on their watch: annual budget deficits rose $5.5T under Trump and $7.8T under Biden. The national debt accelerated an addition $7.7T under Trump and $7.2T under Biden. It’s important to note that the record acceleration in both deficits and national debt occurred within just four years for Trump and Biden—exceeding the levels attained over eight years in the case of both George W. Bush and Barack Obama. In short, Trump’s contribution to escalating deficits and debt were just as bad as Biden’s. No wonder neither candidate wanted to ‘go there’ and discuss the issue. Pointing fingers at the other would amount only to pointing fingers at themselves.

Meanwhile, the continuing escalation of both deficits and debt constitute a major economic issue, as the driving forces for both—tax cuts for corporations and the rich, slow growth of the economy despite massive fiscal stimulus, and chronic wars and their costs—are policies both candidates fully endorse in their actions if not their campaign rhetoric. What would they do if elected about the trillion dollar plus annual US deficits and debt—a question directly asked by the moderators—was essentially ignored by both candidates.

Meanwhile, a fiscal train wreck of the US economy is emerging that will result in massive social spending cuts in 2025 and after. But no one addressed that either. The moderators didn’t even raise it.

Tariffs

Biden challenged Trump’s recently announced proposal to raise tariffs on all imports and use the revenue to eliminate the corporate income tax. He charged it would be inflationary as corporations passed on the higher costs to consumers. Trump hit back with the charge he (Biden) has been agreeing with his tariff policy by continuing his (Trump) tariffs and expanding them against China as well. But that exchange about tariffs was as far as both candidates went in discussing the increasingly unstable global economy. The subject of the state of the global economy and its consequences for the US was simply ‘several pay grades’ beyond their intellect.

Missing in the debate as well was any discussion whatsoever as to how the Biden sanctions on Russia and China have encouraged the rapid expansion of the BRICS countries. Formerly five countries, since Biden’s sanctions policies the BRICS have doubled in number to 11 with 25 more applying for membership this year. Nor was it asked how the BRICS’s forthcoming new global financial structure later this year will impact the US economy in 2025 and beyond.

That growth of the BRICS and its consequences is perhaps the single most important global economic development unfolding today. However, what the BRICS expansion means for the US economy was never even raised in the debates, let alone debated.

To sum up regarding the quality of the debate on the topic of the economy, neither candidate had the capacity, or even apparently any interest, in addressing the critical economic issues the country faces. Both candidates either ducked questions by the moderators that were related to economic matters or diverted the discussion to their pet topics when the moderators raised important economic issues. In other words, neither proposed solutions to the pressing economic issues voters want to hear.

The Wars

The same inability and/or refusal to explain how they’d deal with the deepening US involvement in the wars abroad further characterized the presidential debate.

Organizers began setting up early Monday morning on the University of Oregon campus in Eugene. They say the encampment isn’t intended to interfere with campus activities or classes. (Source: Nathan Wilk / KLCC)

The USA is currently mired in three wars—all of which appear to be intensifying:

Ukraine, Israel in Gaza and soon perhaps Lebanon, and in the Red Sea with Yemen.

Biden’s regime has been paying the bills for all, totaling at least $300 billion so far—i.e. a major cause of the US deteriorating budget deficits and national debt. The USA is also deeply involved in providing weapons in all three; and increasingly as well in manpower in the form of advisers and officers on the ground in Ukraine and Israel, and a full US navy carrier task force in the Red Sea. Direct weapons and other financial aid costs has amounted at least to $200-$250 billion; add another minimum $50 billion in Pentagon OCO (overseas contingent operations) costs.

Unfortunately the candidates were not even asked if the US can continue to afford that level of spending; or if the returns so far have justified it.

When asked on the subject before the debate Biden’s response has been consistently that the US can afford multiple wars. As he put it: ‘What do you mean. This is the United States of America. The most powerful country the world has even seen!”

His view the US can afford and fight multiple wars has been echoed by other members of his administration, like Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen. However, neither Biden or Yellen have said who will have to do with less in order to continue to pay for USA’s multiplying war involvement—which by many estimates exceeds $8 trillion in the past two decades? Where’s the money in the next four years to come from: What social programs will be cut in 2025-28 if either is elected? Whose taxes raised? Or how much more debt will have to be issued by the US Treasury on top of the US current $35 trillion national debt—the latter now projected to rise to $54 trillion by 2033 with annual interest costs well over $1 trillion/yr payable to bondholders?

The only detailed exchange on Wars between the candidates was Afghanistan.

Biden bragged “we got 100,000 out”. To which Trump retorted that US soldiers died in the retreat which was hastily and sloppily conducted, made the US look weak and somehow, per Trump, encouraged Putin to invade Ukraine. Those remarks opened the door for Biden to jump into his favorite war subject: the Ukraine conflict.

He accused Trump of giving the green light to Putin to invade—i.e. contradicting the history of events from June 2021 to February 2022 during which Biden policy was to refuse to even talk to Putin, rejected all requests to do so, and instead encouraged Zelensky in Ukraine to make increasingly provocative statements about joining NATO and intentions to militarily invade the eastern Ukraine provinces. Trump criticized Biden’s Afghanistan pull out but never understood it as a link in the Biden decision in early 2021 to provoke war in Ukraine. The USA retreat from Afghanistan was a ‘clearly of the decks’ to prepare for war with Ukraine.

Biden’s remarks on the war in Ukraine avoided the moderator’s direct question what did he plan to do about it.

Instead, Biden repeated one-liners straight out the 1970s cold war era saying

“Putin is a war criminal. He wants to restore the Soviet Empire and won’t stop there”.

Or “Just see what happens to Poland if Putin wins in Ukraine”.

In other words, the old ‘dominoes theory’. Just as that view was the center piece of US ideology during the Vietnam war, Biden’s view of the war in Ukraine is taken from the US war justification playbook during the 1970s. The moderators’ question how would he address the US wars abroad was a non starter. Biden answered indirectly ‘he wouldn’t’. Biden policy is US can afford multiple wars which he intends to continue.

Later in the debate Biden spouted even more worn out 1970s ideology about US power. So the debate audience was treated to such statements during the debate like: “we’re needed to protect the world. We’re a powerful nation.” And then the kicker: “everybody trusts us”. Listening to Biden one gets the impression we’re half a century back in the old cold war with the USSR. Even more scary, he apparently actually believes he is?

Trump’s line of argument on Ukraine as well as Israel was as simplistic: if he were president the wars wouldn’t have happened. Somehow, he suggested, he would have been so threatening to all sides of the conflicts in Israel-Gaza and Ukraine that they would have cowered in fear of his threats and not gone to war in the first place.

So there was no need to explain what to do about them now; they wouldn’t have happened.

In the case of Israel, when asked by moderators if he, Trump, supported a Palestinian state he dodged the question and instead criticized Biden for restraining Israel: “Biden’s holding Israel back. Israel wants to go. Let them go”. Trump’s animus toward Iran is well known. It is likely he wouldn’t need much encouragement to provoke a war with Iran should that latter country support its Hezbollah allies in the event of an Israel attack into Lebanon. Trump may be ‘softer’ on the Ukraine war but even more aggressive than Biden on a middle east one focusing on Iran. It wouldn’t be the first time a US president ended one war and, to placate the pro-war forces in the US, start up another.

On the Ukraine war Trump was, and has been, more amenable to forcing a compromise with the Russians. In the debate, and on many occasions before, his main charge against Biden is the cost of Ukraine so far, which to date is in excess of $200 billion according to Trump. So the main problem is the US is spending too much money on it. Get the Europeans to cough up more is the suggestion. In a sense, Trump’s position on Ukraine is an extension of his more general view that Europe/NATO should pay more.

To sum up Trump on the Israel and Ukraine wars: neither would have happened. He would have been tough and intervened and gotten all sides to settle beforehand. Israel is different than Ukraine, however. Iran has always been on Trump’s shit list; Russia has not. So based on his comments in the debate, if elected he would likely approve a broader war in middle east if it meant going after Iran. Which seems somewhat ironic since, in the debate, he accused Biden of war policies as “driving us to World War 3”.

Biden’s view on Ukraine is apparently just to continue as is. In place of answering the moderators’ question how he might resolve the conflict, it’s clear Biden’s generalities in the debate mean let the war continue. Resolution occurs only when Russia is defeated. After all, if he’s not, the Russians will eventually march on Paris! He didn’t say Paris, but did say Poland. Dominoes again! Spending money on the wars may have been the core concern of Trump, but for Biden money is not the question. The US and NATO should spend as much of it as needed.

On Israel Biden refused to get specific. He said little if anything since the US position is to let Israel proceed in Gaza, fund whatever it asks of the US, and do what it must to prevent a further attack on Israel from other quarters or at least to contain it and prevent a wider war breaking out. However, none of this was discussed in the debate by Biden.

The other two wars—Red Sea with the Houthis and with China over Taiwan—were never raised as questions and therefore easily avoided altogether by both candidates. A simple query from the moderators might have been: ‘why is a full task force of the US Navy unable to stop the Yemenis from sinking ships and preventing two thirds of the normal flow of container shipping traffic through the Red Sea’? Or how much is it costing the US to maintain a carrier task force off the Arabian peninsula?

And then there’s biggest war in planning by the USA: against China in Taiwan. Not a word asked, and not a word said about Biden administration plans now being implemented to prepare for a war with China over Taiwan. Moderators could at least have asked about recent US admirals and generals stationed in the far east who have publicly been saying war with China was inevitable and coming by 2030?

Or the moderators might have asked: ‘why are US Marines now landing and occupying Philippine islands within view of Taiwan and elsewhere in the South China sea and training again to carry out amphibious landings?

One can understand why Biden, the author of the pending conflict, wouldn’t want to debate such matters. Perhaps the moderators got that message before developing their lists of questions. Or maybe the questions list was vetted by the parties (which was the case in fact). But Trump limited his criticisms of Biden China policy during the debate to the topic of tariffs.

Apart from questions of War and Economy there were other glaring omissions in the debate. At one point the moderators specifically did ask each candidate what they would do about the fact 2023 was the hottest year on record? Biden said he passed legislation—presumably the Inflation Reduction Act in 2022—that subsidized businesses investing in alternative energy. Biden also hyped his ‘climate corps’ idea. Trump ducked the question of climate change, referring instead to the need for ‘clean water and clean air’. Both candidates briefly indulged in an unintelligible discussion of the Paris Climate Accords.

In other words, there was not much substantive discussion over what is in fact a 5th war underway: the war on Nature. Or rather one should say Nature’s war on us which Nature so far is winning. Neither candidate thus answered the moderators’ question on 2023 the hottest year on record which is another way of saying: what are you going to do to prevent the climate from warming to the 2 degrees or more tipping point to which it is on track by 2035? Just as the candidates failed to provide answers how they would resolve the four US wars underway or in planning, so too the 5th was brushed off and left unanswered.

*

Note to readers: Please click the share button above. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

This article was originally published on the author’s website, Jack Rasmus.

Dr. Rasmus is author of the books, ‘Central Bankers at the End of Their Ropes’, Clarity Press, 2017 and ‘Alexander Hamilton and the Origins of the Fed’, Lexington Books, 2020. Follow his commentary on the emerging banking crisis on his blog, https://jackrasmus.com; on twitter daily @drjackrasmus; and his weekly radio show, Alternative Visions on the Progressive Radio Network every Friday at 2pm eastern and at https://alternativevisions.podbean.com.

Featured image source

All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the Translate Website button below the author’s name (only available in desktop version).

To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.

Click the share button above to email/forward this article to your friends and colleagues. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

Give Truth a Chance. Secure Your Access to Unchained News, Donate to Global Research.

***

To “prove” that his disastrous presidential debate was just a single incident and not a condition, Biden was pressed to accept an interview already this Friday, 5 July, with his old friend, ABC News’ George Stephanopoulos.

There has been private discussion among Biden’s campaign about what it can do to counteract last Thursday’s debate, where the raspy-voiced president gave some convoluted and incomplete answers. It has given rise to some questions about whether the 81-year-old president should continue his campaign.

White House press secretary Karine Jean-Pierre also said Tuesday that Biden plans to hold a press conference during the NATO summit next week in Washington.

AP News, July 3, 2024

If Biden blunders the interview on Friday, the Democrats and donors will throw Biden out already by this weekend.

But even if Biden manages to stumble through the upcoming Friday interview, which will be very friendly, the issue of Biden’s cognitive condition will only continue and increase among the Democrats.

The genie is out of the bottle for Democrats to strongly point out Biden’s incapacity. This won’t go away.

New York Times has openly dumped Biden, and now Democrat Congress members are starting to do the same.

On Tuesday, Mr. Biden suffered his first formal call to resign from the race from a Democratic member of Congress. The key Black lawmaker whose endorsement helped lift Mr. Biden to the nomination in 2020 said he would back the vice president if Mr. Biden “were to step aside.” And former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said after Mr. Biden’s halting debate performance that it was “a legitimate question to say, ‘Is this an episode or is this a condition?’”

For days, the Biden campaign has insisted privately to donors and party activists and in memos that the race remains unchanged. But a private set of polls from a pro-Biden super PAC leaked to the news site Puck showed the president losing ground — around two percentage points — across all the most important battleground states. He was also now trailing in New Mexico, New Hampshire and Virginia, three states that were not seen a year ago as likely even to be contested seriously by Republicans.

—Lisa Lerer, Shane Goldmacher and Maggie Haberman, The New York Times, July 3, 2024

Democrats are being humiliated by having a leader who increasingly freezes, loses his thoughts, talks gibberish, and cannot find his way, even on the White House lawn. Soon, Democrats will start being despised for this as well.

The next times Biden falls apart, and there will be many more and bigger next times, the growing snowball of Democratic anger, beginning self-hatred, feeling of impotence, and discontent will overroll Biden.

Biden is already out.

*

Note to readers: Please click the share button above. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

Karsten Riise is a Master of Science (Econ) from Copenhagen Business School and has a university degree in Spanish Culture and Languages from Copenhagen University. He is the former Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer (CFO) of Mercedes-Benz in Denmark and Sweden.

He is a regular contributor to Global Research.

Featured image source

All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the Translate Website button below the author’s name (only available in desktop version).

To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.

Click the share button above to email/forward this article to your friends and colleagues. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

Give Truth a Chance. Secure Your Access to Unchained News, Donate to Global Research.

***

Ivermectin resources:

Recently, I have seen tremendous demand for some sort of initial guidance “WHERE TO START” with High Dose Ivermectin for CANCER.

I have two articles and a video that go into depth:

June 10, 2024 – NEW PODCAST! “15 minutes with Dr.Makis” – Episode 018: High Dose IVERMECTIN and CANCER

April 6, 2024 – IVERMECTIN and CANCER Part 2 – Treating Turbo Cancer – 7 new studies released in 2024 show Ivermectin works against CANCER – suggested PROTOCOLS for COVID-19 mRNA Vaccine Induced Turbo Cancers

Oct. 2, 2023 – IVERMECTIN and CANCER, it has at least 15 anti-cancer mechanisms of action. Can Ivermectin Treat COVID-19 mRNA Vaccine Induced Turbo Cancers? 9 Ivermectin papers reviewed.

*

Ivermectin and cancer research:

Top 5 COVID-19 mRNA Vaccine Induced Turbo Cancers are: Lymphoma, Glioblastoma, Breast, Colon, Lung Cancer.

Ivermectin can help with mRNA Induced Turbo Cancer, or regular cancers.

Here are recent studies on IVERMECTIN use in certain types of cancer:

  • BLADDER CANCER – (2024 Fan et al) – Ivermectin Inhibits Bladder Cancer Cell Growth and Induces Oxidative Stress and DNA Damage
  • LUNG CANCER – (2024 Man-Yuan Li et al) – Ivermectin induces nonprotective autophagy by downregulating PAK1 and apoptosis in lung adenocarcinoma cells
  • GLIOMA – (2024 Xing Hu et al) – Ivermectin as a potential therapeutic strategy for glioma
  • MULTIPLE MYELOMA – (2024 Yang Song et al) – Gene signatures to therapeutics: Assessing the potential of ivermectin against t(4;14) multiple myeloma
  • OVARIAN CANCER – (2023 Jawad et al) – Ivermectin augments the anti-cancer activity of pitavastatin in ovarian cancer cells
  • PROSTATE CANCER – (2022 Lu et al) – Integrated analysis reveals FOXA1 and Ku70/Ku80 as targets of ivermectin in prostate cancer
  • COLON CANCER – (2022 Alghamdi et al) – Efficacy of ivermectin against colon cancer induced by dimethylhydrazine in male wistar rats
  • PANCREATIC CANCER – (2022 Lee et al) – Ivermectin and gemcitabine combination treatment induces apoptosis of pancreatic cancer cells viamitochondrial dysfunction
  • MELANOMA – (2022 Zhang et al) – Drug repurposing of ivermectin abrogates neutrophil extracellular traps and prevents melanoma metastasis
  • CERVICAL CANCER – (2022 Qabbus et al) – Ivermectin-induced cell death of cervical cancer cells in vitro a consequence of precipitate formation in culture media
  • HEPATOCELLULAR CARCINOMA – (2022 Lu et al) – Ivermectin synergizes sorafenib in hepatocellular carcinoma via targeting multiple oncogenic pathways
  • OSTEOSARCOMA – (2022 Hu et al) – Repurposing Ivermectin to augment chemotherapy’s efficacy in osteosarcoma
  • GASTRIC CANCER – (2021 Rabben et al) – Computational drug repositioning and experimental validation of ivermectin in treatment of gastric cancer
  • LEUKEMIA – (2020 de Castro et al) – Continuous high-dose ivermectin appears to be safe in patients with acute myelogenous leukemia and could inform clinical repurposing for COVID-19 infection
  • ESOPHAGEAL SCC – (2020 Chen et al) – Ivermectin suppresses tumour growth and metastasis through degradation of PAK1 in oesophageal squamous cell carcinoma
  • CHOLANGIOCARCINOMA – (2019 Intyuod et al) – Anti-parasitic drug ivermectin exhibits potent anticancer activity against gemcitabine-resistant cholangiocarcinoma in vitro
  • BREAST CANCER STEM CELLS – (2018 Dominguez-Gomez et al) – Ivermectin as an inhibitor of cancer stem-like cells
  • CML (CHRONIC MYELOID LEUKEMIA) – (2018 Wang et al) – Antibiotic ivermectin selectivelyinduces apoptosis in chronic myeloid leukemia through inducing

    mitochondrial dysfunction and oxidative stress

  • RENAL CELL CARCINOMA – (2017 Zhu et al) – Antibiotic ivermectin preferentially targets renal cancer through inducing mitochondrial dysfunction and oxidative damage
  • GLIOBLASTOMA – (2016 Liu et al) – Anthelmintic drug ivermectin inhibits angiogenesis, growth and survival of glioblastoma through inducing mitochondrial dysfunction and oxidative stress

*

My Take…

IVERMECTIN has proven anti-cancer activity against some 20 cancer types, although these are pre-clinical studies. We will never see clinical studies because Ivermectin is off patent and cheap.

Merck, which used to have a patent on Ivermectin, has partnered with Moderna on mRNA Cancer Vaccines, estimated to cost 400,000 GBP per treatment.

Ivermectin studies on mice include: Breast cancer, Colon cancer, glioblastoma, glioma and leukemia.

I have not seen IVERMECTIN studies on Lymphoma, Testicular Cancer, Sarcomas.

IVERMECTIN acts on Cancer mainly by inhibiting signaling pathways involved in cancer proliferation (Akt, Wnt, mTOR) and by inhibiting CANCER STEM CELLS.

Ivermectin Access 

Ivermectin is so safe, that in much of the civilized world, it is available over the counter, no prescription needed. That’s how it should be.

I recently wrote about how a doctor in Saskatchewan was just given a $44,800 penalty by the College of Physicians and Surgeons for prescribing Ivermectin to a few patients during 2020-2022. These College bureaucrats are engaging in crimes.

The Ontario College of Physicians even had an Investigator go undercover and dress up as a Canadian Trucker to ensnare a young doctor prescribing Ivermectin in Ottawa in 2022 during the Trucker Convoy.

Canadians must realize that the Colleges of Physicians are private corporations, fully bought off by big pharma and run by mafia lawyers like Bryan Salte (the SK lawyer who issued the $44,800 penalty for prescribing Ivermectin) – see below:

No healthcare bureaucrat or lawyer has the right to deny anyone access to life saving medication. And if they do, they are committing a very serious crime.

I now have a trusted, affordable source, so if you need access to Ivermectin, please email me at [email protected].

*

Note to readers: Please click the share button above. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

Dr. William Makis is a Canadian physician with expertise in Radiology, Oncology and Immunology. Governor General’s Medal, University of Toronto Scholar. Author of 100+ peer-reviewed medical publications.    

Featured image is from Children’s Health Defense


The Worldwide Corona Crisis, Global Coup d’Etat Against Humanity

by Michel Chossudovsky

Michel Chossudovsky reviews in detail how this insidious project “destroys people’s lives”. He provides a comprehensive analysis of everything you need to know about the “pandemic” — from the medical dimensions to the economic and social repercussions, political underpinnings, and mental and psychological impacts.

“My objective as an author is to inform people worldwide and refute the official narrative which has been used as a justification to destabilize the economic and social fabric of entire countries, followed by the imposition of the “deadly” COVID-19 “vaccine”. This crisis affects humanity in its entirety: almost 8 billion people. We stand in solidarity with our fellow human beings and our children worldwide. Truth is a powerful instrument.”

Reviews

This is an in-depth resource of great interest if it is the wider perspective you are motivated to understand a little better, the author is very knowledgeable about geopolitics and this comes out in the way Covid is contextualized. —Dr. Mike Yeadon

In this war against humanity in which we find ourselves, in this singular, irregular and massive assault against liberty and the goodness of people, Chossudovsky’s book is a rock upon which to sustain our fight. –Dr. Emanuel Garcia

In fifteen concise science-based chapters, Michel traces the false covid pandemic, explaining how a PCR test, producing up to 97% proven false positives, combined with a relentless 24/7 fear campaign, was able to create a worldwide panic-laden “plandemic”; that this plandemic would never have been possible without the infamous DNA-modifying Polymerase Chain Reaction test – which to this day is being pushed on a majority of innocent people who have no clue. His conclusions are evidenced by renown scientists. —Peter Koenig 

Professor Chossudovsky exposes the truth that “there is no causal relationship between the virus and economic variables.” In other words, it was not COVID-19 but, rather, the deliberate implementation of the illogical, scientifically baseless lockdowns that caused the shutdown of the global economy. –David Skripac

A reading of  Chossudovsky’s book provides a comprehensive lesson in how there is a global coup d’état under way called “The Great Reset” that if not resisted and defeated by freedom loving people everywhere will result in a dystopian future not yet imagined. Pass on this free gift from Professor Chossudovsky before it’s too late.  You will not find so much valuable information and analysis in one place. –Edward Curtin

ISBN: 978-0-9879389-3-0,  Year: 2022,  PDF Ebook,  Pages: 164, 15 Chapters

Price: $11.50 FREE COPY! Click here (docsend) and download.

You may also access the online version of the e-Book by clicking here.

We encourage you to support the eBook project by making a donation through Global Research’s DonorBox “Worldwide Corona Crisis” Campaign Page

All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the Translate Website button below the author’s name (only available in desktop version).

To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.

Click the share button above to email/forward this article to your friends and colleagues. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

Give Truth a Chance. Secure Your Access to Unchained News, Donate to Global Research.

***

In an interview with the Philadelphia Inquirer, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky said he could start peace talks with Russia through intermediaries, a similar model already used in the Ukrainian grain corridor negotiations, where agreements were reached through the UN and Turkey. However, any such peace talks would be a waste of time from Moscow’s perspective since the Kiev regime still delusionally maintains demands that all territory captured since 2014 be returned, in addition to compensation for war damages.

Zelensky described the possibility of negotiations in an interview with The Philadelphia Inquirer on June 30: “This model was used for the first time in the example of the grain corridor when Ukraine negotiated not with Russia, but with the UN and Turkey.”

“Now, this can be done with countries from different continents. For now, we only have this model,” he added.

According to the report, the Kiev regime claims that the intermediaries should propose ways to resolve the crisis. Then, they would consider these and, if approved, broker them with representatives of Russia. This is a drastic change from the position adopted at the end of 2022 when Zelensky banned all negotiations with his Russian counterpart Vladimir Putin and his administration by decree.

For its part, Moscow has repeatedly stated that it is open to peace negotiations.

Earlier, the Kremlin stated that there are no prerequisites for the situation in Ukraine to move towards a peaceful direction, especially since the absolute priority is to achieve the goals of the special operation, which are currently only possible by military means.

Putin noted that if Kiev wants to open a negotiation process, theatrical gestures are unnecessary and that ​​the decree banning negotiations with Russia must be cancelled. As Putin reaffirmed, Moscow has never been against resolving the conflict in Ukraine by peaceful means, but the security guarantees demanded by Russia must be provided.

There is little doubt that Russia is in full control of the military situation and is fighting on its own terms against Ukraine. Beyond a direct Western intervention, there is little that could reverse this situation, meaning that despite the endless bravado, perhaps the Kiev regime is slowly coming to its senses and is opening to the possibility of negotiations.

Accelerating this is the fact that the June 16 Swiss Peace Summit was an abject failure. Several powerful and influential countries, such as Brazil and India, refused to sign a joint statement since Moscow was not involved in the summit. At the same time, there is a higher chance of Donald Trump entering the White House in January 2025 than Joe Biden winning the upcoming US election, meaning that there is a real possibility of US aid drying up.

This could explain why Zelensky wants to have Ukraine’s proposal to end the war ready to be presented to the Kremlin by the end of 2024.

It is recalled that Andriy Yermak — Zelensky’s chief of staff — told Time magazine on June 25 that there is a goal for a conference to be held in Saudi Arabia by the end of this year to determine a final proposal that Ukraine’s allies will present to Moscow.

This was preceded by Igor Zhovkva, a member of Yermak’s team, telling the Interfax news agency on June 21 that there is urgency since Ukraine “desires peace as soon as possible” and because of the US presidential elections in November.  Zhovkva acknowledged that Kiev is closely observing the possibility of Trump’s victory and that the war in Gaza has further complicated the global geopolitical situation.

Nonetheless, even if the Kiev regime is open to negotiating with Moscow, even via third parties, it appears that it will be a waste of time since the Ukrainian demands are delusional and not attached to reality on the battlefield. For example, commenting on a recently revealed plan by Trump’s advisers to end the war in Ukraine, Mijaílo Podoliak, an advisor to Zelensky, commented that it was “strange” because it did not call on Russia to pay compensation.

At the same time, Ukraine’s so-called Peace Formula is not feasible as it calls for Russia to hand over all the territory captured since 2014, including Crimea. Moscow obviously has no intentions of returning any territory. Zelensky closed that possibility when he decided to ban negotiations at the end of 2022.

Unwillingness to negotiate on the captured territory issue is especially apparent since Russia changed the reality on the ground to the cost of thousands of martyrs – spilt blood that will not be wasted because of Zelensky’s earlier arrogance in believing he would have endless support from the West and eventually prevail over the Russian military.

*

Note to readers: Please click the share button above. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

This article was originally published on InfoBrics.

Ahmed Adel is a Cairo-based geopolitics and political economy researcher. He is a regular contributor to Global Research.

Featured image source

All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the Translate Website button below the author’s name (only available in desktop version).

To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.

Click the share button above to email/forward this article to your friends and colleagues. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

Give Truth a Chance. Secure Your Access to Unchained News, Donate to Global Research.

***

The Kiev regime continues to make dangerous decisions that could lead to a serious escalation in the conflict with the Russian Federation.

Recently, Ukrainian troops began to be deployed on the border with the Republic of Belarus, which is a serious step, considering that any attack on Belarusian sovereignty will be responded militarily by Moscow, since both countries have a mutual defense pact.

Ukraine is aware of this risk of escalation, but openly seeks to internationalize the conflict.

On June 29, the deputy commander of the Belarusian special operations forces, Colonel Vadim Lukashevich, stated that Kiev is positioning soldiers, armored vehicles and US-supplied artillery systems along the 1,000-km border between the two countries. Furthermore, minefields have been created in the region, which is clearly a sign of preparation for a possible open conflict. In addition to the Ukrainian army, the Belarusian border service also reported the presence of neo-Nazi mercenaries on the border.

Shortly after the Belarusian authorities’ statements, the Kiev regime confirmed the allegations, admitting that it is making military moves on the northern border. According to Andrey Demchenko, a spokesman for Ukraine’s Border Service, Ukraine sees the border with Belarus as “dangerous,” which is why Kiev “continue[s] to strengthen it… to prevent any actions that may come from the territory of Belarus.”

Demchenko did not explain why his country considers Belarus a threat.

Ukrainian and pro-Ukrainian public figures often point out that some of the first Russian attacks during the first phase of the special military operation were carried out with troops moving through Belarusian territory. In fact, some of the Russian military personnel involved in the operation crossed the northern Ukrainian border towards Kiev to carry out a diversionary maneuver that allowed Ukrainian troops to be distracted while positions of real Russian interest were easily taken in Donbass.

Those military moves, however, ended in the spring of 2022. Russia withdrew from Kiev’s suburbs after gaining strategic positions in the Donbass. Additionally, Moscow made it clear that the end of actions in the Kiev region was also a gesture of diplomatic goodwill to advance peace negotiations, which is why Ukraine no longer needed to fear any new incursions into the capital’s outskirts.

At the time of the start of the special military operation, Belarus had declared its neutrality in the conflict, although it allowed the transit of Russian troops through its territory. The Russian military presence in the country is absolutely legal, since both countries are widely integrated under the Union State treaty. Due to constant Ukrainian provocations, Belarus has changed its status in the conflict, now openly supporting Russia, but making it clear that it is not interested in participating in any military moves. However, if Ukraine continues to launch provocative maneuvers, Minsk may be forced to act more decisively to protect its people.

Russian authorities have made it clear on several occasions that they will not tolerate any kind of attack on their ally. The Union States establishes mutual military support in the event of a conflict, which is why an attack on Belarus will be seen like an attack on Russia itself. Nevertheless, Kiev has already carried out several provocations on the borders, including drone incursions and attempted terrorist attacks. Minsk has been patient and ignored Ukrainian actions, but if more of such activities are carried out, it is possible that the Belarusian government will ask for Russian support to strengthen border security. In addition, Moscow could launch another operation in the north, similar to the one at the beginning of the conflict, with the aim of dissuading Ukrainians to retreat from the Belarusian border.

For Kiev, internationalizing the conflict is a priority. With its army on the brink of collapse and total defeat being a mere matter of time,

Ukraine’s only hope is to make the conflict as serious and international as possible, thus trying to garner more Western support and a possible NATO intervention. Belarus has been one of the biggest targets of provocations, as has the separatist republic of Transnistria, where several terrorist maneuvers and drone incursions have already been reported. Kiev, however, will not be able to involve more actors in the war so easily. Minsk, for example, has already made it clear that it will only enter directly into the conflict if there is a direct Ukrainian military attack. Despite being provocative, the neo-Nazi regime is at the same time acting cowardly, not wanting to risk its already fragile and highly weakened military forces.

It is noteworthy that Ukraine is deploying so many troops on a peaceful border, despite suffering heavy losses on the battlefield. Perhaps Kiev’s hope with these moves is precisely to distract Russian forces, making it appear that the regime will open a new front in order to try to reduce Russian actions in the New Regions and Kharkov, which are currently the main flanks of the conflict. This attempt at distraction, however, is futile, since Moscow continues to use only a small percentage of its military capabilities, having enough strength to act on several fronts at the same time.

If Kiev escalates provocations on the Belarusian border, Russia could easily enter Ukraine from the north without reducing its actions on the other fronts. On the other hand, a new flank could further wear down Ukraine and quickly lead to its military collapse.

*

Note to readers: Please click the share button above. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

This article was originally published on InfoBrics.

Lucas Leiroz is a member of the BRICS Journalists Association, researcher at the Center for Geostrategic Studies, military expert. He is a regular contributor to Global Research. You can follow Lucas on X (formerly Twitter) and Telegram.

Featured image is from InfoBrics

Spread the Truth, Refer a Friend to Global Research

July 3rd, 2024 by The Global Research Team

Global Research is in the crosshairs of the Establishment and the Big Tech for our fearless, no-holds-barred reporting. We are a reader-supported entity, making us accountable to no one but to our readers alone.

Because censorship has unfortunately taken a toll on our readership, we strongly encourage you to help us sail on. 

  1. Forward the daily Global Research Newsletter and/or your favorite Global Research articles to your family, friends, and respective communities;
  2. Use the various instruments of online posting and social media to “spread the word.” Click the “like” and “share” buttons on our articles’ pages for starters. Help keep our articles circulating;
  3. Encourage family and friends to sign up for our newsletter (click here for sign-up form); and
  4. Follow us on our social media (X and Instagram) and subscribing to our Telegram channel.

Moreover, if you have the capacity to help us meet our operational costs, you may click on the links below to become a member or make a donation. We sincerely appreciate your generosity.

Click to view our membership plans

Click to make a one-time or a recurring donation


Thank you for supporting independent media. 

-The Global Research Team

All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the Translate Website button below the author’s name (only available in desktop version).

To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.

Click the share button above to email/forward this article to your friends and colleagues. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

Give Truth a Chance. Secure Your Access to Unchained News, Donate to Global Research.

***

Friends and family speak in hushed tones these days about the horrific arms race that has militarized our economies, and those of most nations, while pushing us ever closer to catastrophic war.

We must forcefully and confidently sketch out a new vision for our common future, starting with the United States, starting with peace, one that gives hope to humanity and that provides a path forward towards peace and cooperation, and not war and competition.

But that is not where we are now under the militarist and benighted Biden administration.

And it is not where we will be under a militarist and unhinged Trump administration.

We the people, starting with morally committed intellectuals with the background to understand geopolitics and institutions at home and abroad, must create a new American foreign policy, and security policy, that is not rooted in expansion and exploitation, in contracts for military hardware, or in the creation of conflict and strife for profit.

When NATO Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg announced about the NATO Defence Ministers’ Summit held on June 14 that it was focused on deploying nuclear weapons against Russia and China, and ending all possibility of dialog concerning the unlimited buildup of armaments aimed at selected “opponents,” he demonstrated a recklessness, a blindness, and an unaccountability that we have not seen since the crazed drive for war exactly one hundred and ten years ago in July of 1914.

The militaries of the major nations are now on remote control, dumping the precious wealth of their citizens into the molds for tanks, fighter planes, and missiles, and we are all pulled towards the brink through the activation of classified agreements for intelligence sharing and military cooperation that demand obedience to an unaccountable opaque chain of command, one that imposes a continuity of government plan beyond the reach of all but a handful of people.

Just as we did in 1914, we risk being dragged into confrontation that is manipulated by speculators behind the scenes, a military buildup for the profit of the multinational banks and the bloated billionaires who hide their bellies behind those facades.

The signs of military mobilization across Europe, and the world, are visible in spite of all these secret agreements. Most can already sense the growth of a war economy beneath our feet.

When Pranay Vaddi, senior director for arms control at the US National Security Council, stated on June 7,

“In their outright refusal to even discuss arms control, Russia and the PRC are failing to meet their international obligations. Practically speaking, they are forcing the United States and our close allies and partners to prepare for a world where nuclear competition occurs without numerical constraints.”

He was making it up. It is simply not true that Russia and China refuse to discuss arms control. Rather the United States, along with war mongering factions around the world, including in Russia and China, have embraced the assumption that an unlimited nuclear buildup, and arms buildup, will bring them personal wealth and institutional power.

There are literally no people left in Washington who are dedicated to true arms control and nonproliferation. Disarmament, the most critical part of the equation, is now a taboo topic for Americans.

Unlike the Cold War era, there are no longer any people in government who have witnessed the horrors of total war. When National Security Advisor Jake Sullivan, or the CEO of the Center for a New American Security Michèle Flournoy make their backroom deals to enrich their clients, whether private equity or military contractors, their dull faces reveal that after years of embracing complete lies, they are capable of just about anything—and no one around them has any idea how to stop this sort of drive for world war at the highest level by carefully organized operatives working for cynical financial interests.

Everyone knows, if they do not say so, that the complete failure of the Ukraine’s military in its war against Russia, that brilliant strategy hatched up at RAND and DARPA to enfeeble Russia, could completely undo the current power structure in Washington DC that was set up after 9/11, and reinforced by the Covid-19 regime. If the post-9/11Washington order falls apart, that would endanger the billionaires themselves. And therefore, a world war, or the threat of one, is seen as the only way for the wealthy to cling to power granted the rising opposition at home.

Of course, just as in 1914, they assure themselves that ultimately war will not happen, that the other side will back down once they face catastrophe, or make secret deals. However, what we know from 1914 is that once the preparation for war passes a certain threshold, the chain of command shifts from the bankers to the generals and the generals, once impowered, follow orders like clockwork.

What we need now is not simply to explain what these psychopaths are doing, nor to merely understand the decadent and mindless system in which they thrive. Nor is it enough to say that they have gone too far, that we must go back to the more reasonable America of some romanticized age.

No! We must firmly declare that there will be an entirely new vision for what the United States will do, and that we will act on it now. We cannot wait for another botched election because the institutions of government today are but hollowed out shells, their guts devoured by the maggots of Black Stone, Blackrock, State Street, Vanguard and a hundred other parasitic creatures who have turned government into a feast for their clients, and a weapon to be used against the people, and against humanity, in an insane drive for power and glory.

We must start with a proposal to end the madness, and the first step must be a proposal for a set of enforceable arms control treaties that not only take us back to where we were in the 1990s, but that take us into the future as well.

Three sets of international treaties for arms control, disarmament, the control of emerging technologies, and international security will be announced here in the near future.

Set One:

The full implementation of existing treaties and proposals for treaties for arms control and disarmament

1) International treaties limiting conventional weapons

2) International treaties limiting, and then eliminating, nuclear weapons

3) Treaty on lethal autonomous weapons systems

4) Ban on weapons in space

5) Ban on landmines and cluster bombs

Set Two:

Proposals for new treaties that address emerging weapons and their proliferation

1) Treaty limiting the use of radioactive substances

2) Treaty banning nano-weapons

3) Treaty regulating drones, robots, and satellites, and banning the most dangerous versions

4) Treaty banning the use of energy weapons

5) Treaty banning bioweapons

6) International treaty banning weather modification programs

7) Strict international regulation of GMO technology and ban on GMO weapons

Set Three:

Treaties and agreements that bring the quest for international peace and security up to date

1) Treaty banning super-computer assisted mass psychological operations

2) Treaty banning the military use of Antarctica, the Artic, the oceans, and other wildlands

3) Ban on secret treaties for diplomatic and security cooperation

4) Bring the definition of the actors making political and security decisions up to date through a revision of the language of international law and treaties

5) International treaty that establishes clear institutional walls domestically and internationally between a) finance, b) scientific research, c) the development and manufacture of weapons, and d) healthcare and medical treatment.

*

Note to readers: Please click the share button above. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

This article was originally published on Fear No Evil.

Emanuel Pastreich served as the president of the Asia Institute, a think tank with offices in Washington DC, Seoul, Tokyo and Hanoi. Pastreich also serves as director general of the Institute for Future Urban Environments.

Pastreich declared his candidacy for president of the United States as an independent in February, 2020.

He is a regular contributor to Global Research.

All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the Translate Website button below the author’s name (only available in desktop version).

To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.

Click the share button above to email/forward this article to your friends and colleagues. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

Give Truth a Chance. Secure Your Access to Unchained News, Donate to Global Research.

***

It’s no secret that the US Military Industrial Complex (MIC) is the largest and most profitable in the world. After all, it’s the drive behind the vast majority of wars since WW2, bringing immense profit to the United States (obviously, at the expense of the entire world).

Thus, one would expect that the US MIC is one of the few institutions in Washington DC that’s based on at least some meritocracy. Instead, it turns out it’s just as ineffective, cumbersome and overly bureaucratic as any other corrupt federal institution. It seems that decades of resting on its laurels and relying on the perpetuity of Pax Americana have made the US MIC far less efficient and capable of providing America with the tools it needs to continue dominating the world.

Apart from the fact that profit is the main drive behind the US MIC, making American weapons far less cost-effective than is the case with countries where the military industry is not profit-based (such as Russia, where it’s largely or almost entirely state-owned), it has also been struggling with the development of new strategic technologies. This is particularly true for hypersonic missiles, a relatively new class of weapons that have effectively revolutionized modern warfare. Apart from being decades behind Russia and at least a decade behind China, both of which are its main near-peer adversaries, the US has also been eclipsed by regional powers such as North Korea, which already fields a number of such advanced missile types.

Some in the political establishment in Washington DC have ludicrously tried explaining Russia’s technological edge in hypersonic weapons by claiming it supposedly “stole” American technologies, although that still doesn’t explain why the US has exactly zero operational hypersonic missiles, despite having nearly a dozen programs running simultaneously. The sheer magnitude of America’s failures in developing this class of weapons is best seen in the fact that some of its projects that went furthest have been canceled after repeated failures. However, not being able to develop fundamentally new classes of missiles seems to be the least of the Pentagon’s concerns. Namely, the US is now struggling even with basic strategic weapons.

Just last week, the head of the Ground Based Strategic Deterrent (GBSD) program, USAF Colonel Charles Clegg, was fired after years of failures, delays and cost overruns. The GBSD program is expected to finalize the LGM-35 “Sentinel”, a new American ICBM that’s supposed to replace the horribly outdated LGM-30 “Minuteman 3” missiles. It’s by no means a groundbreaking technology and is essentially a more up-to-date version of the older ICBM. It’s highly unlikely to have any maneuverability as is the case with advanced Russian equivalents such as the RS-24 “Yars” (or its derivatives like the RS-26 “Rubezh”). Still, the development of even basic missiles with a regular ballistic trajectory seems to be a major issue for the US MIC.

On June 24, the USAF cited a “loss of confidence in [Clegg’s] ability”, stating that he failed to “follow organizational procedures”. The GBSD program has faced severe issues (particularly cost overruns), with the House Appropriations Committee concluding that it was “stunned to learn of the massive increases in costs”. The USAF insists that Colonel Clegg’s dismissal is “not directly related to issues recently raised in the congressional review of the program”. However, costs have increased by nearly 40% and now stand at over $130 billion. Deeming the cost overruns unjustified, US Congress is refusing to provide the requested funding, instead offering no more than 91% of the requested sum, which could lead to further delays.

Namely, in FY 2024, the GBSD program will be getting $3.4 billion, rather than the $3.74 billion that Northrop Grumman says it needs. In its 2024 budget report, the Senate Armed Services Committee stated that “the program would be lengthy and complicated, involving real estate purchases, construction, deconstruction, removal and installation of equipment and nuclear certification”. The LGM-35 “Sentinel”, first scheduled to enter service no later than 2029, is expected to remain in development for the next ten years, meaning that it won’t be ready before 2035. Worse yet, this is the best-case scenario, which means further delays are highly likely and could push the deployment to late 2030s or possibly beyond, further jeopardizing US security.

By then, the LGM-30 “Minuteman 3” will be well over 70 years in service, meaning that Washington DC could be left without its land-based strategic arsenal. Recent failures of the existing one suggest that it’s highly unlikely for the old ICBMs to be in working order by the time their replacement is ready. However, even if, by some miracle, the issue of delays is resolved, the aforementioned cost overruns will persist. Namely, the projected price tag for a single LGM-35 “Sentinel” is $162 million (in 2020 USD), which is an increase of over 37% compared to the initial projected cost of $118 million. To put that into perspective, the much more advanced Russian RS-24 “Yars” costs approximately $20 million apiece and has been in service since 2011.

In addition, over 200 missiles have been deployed so far, forming the bulk of Moscow’s land-based strategic arsenal. This is without even considering the fact that Washington DC has nothing to match Russian monstrosities such as the now legendary R-36M2 “Voevoda” (to say nothing of the latest RS-28 “Sarmat”). And yet, issues with ICBMs aren’t the only thing plaguing the US MIC. Namely, problems with tactical aircraft have now surfaced, with some sources suggesting that the next-generation NGAD fighter jet program could be canceled. These rumors have been denied by the USAF, but Secretary Frank Kendall admitted that the program is also plagued by similar failures, delays and cost overruns as the more strategically important GBSD.

Kendall says that it’s in need of a redesign to keep the costs down, as well as prevent them from spiraling out of control. It seems the NGAD program will need to cut back on certain key capabilities or be faced with unjustifiable and unsustainable delays. Kendall also said that a “revamped Next Generation Air Dominance fighter platform could end up with a less complex, smaller engine than originally intended to try to hold down its price”. Although this is not uncommon with new programs (particularly for fighter jets), it’s certainly a bad omen for the increasingly strained US MIC which is now struggling to keep even the Kiev regime in the fight. Worse yet, due to these issues, NATO is now considering the possibility of direct involvement in Ukraine.

*

Note to readers: Please click the share button above. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

This article was originally published on InfoBrics.

Drago Bosnic is an independent geopolitical and military analyst. He is a regular contributor to Global Research.

Featured image is from InfoBrics

Journalist Bisan Owda Trapped in Gaza: “It’s a Game of Death and Hunger” There Is No Place to Go. “Genocide by Design”

By Mark Taliano, July 02, 2024

The terrorists, she explains, are wearing soldier uniforms. They behead children, they blow up homes with people in them. She correctly blames ”silent spectators” to this Western/Zionist perpetrated genocide, and says “they will have their turn.”

The Supreme Court Makes the President a Dictator for Life

By John W. Whitehead and Nisha Whitehead, July 03, 2024

In a devastating 6-3 ruling in Trump v. United States that is equal parts politically short-sighted, self-servingly partisan, and utterly devoid of any pretense that the president is anything other than a dictator, the Supreme Court has validated what Richard Nixon once claimed: “When the president does it, that means that it is not illegal.”

Iran’s Presidential Election Goes to the Second Round

By Prof. Akbar E. Torbat, July 03, 2024

The first round of Iran’s presidential elections was held on June 28 (Tir 8). Despite the government’s high propaganda to encourage participation, the turnout was very low, as only 24, 535, 185 or 40% of 61, 452, 321 eligible voters voted to elect the ninth president of Iran, a historic low.  

Demonstrations Continue in Kenya as Youth Call for the Resignation of President Ruto

By Abayomi Azikiwe, July 03, 2024

Since June 18, youth-led demonstrations have been met with repression resulting in the deaths of at least 39 people according to the Kenyan National Human Rights Commission, a government-funded agency.

Large Maneuvers of War in Europe Under US Command. Manlio Dinucci

By Manlio Dinucci, July 03, 2024

President Biden authorized Ukraine to “conduct limited attacks inside Russia with American-made weapons,” U.S. officials said. Some U.S. allies had already gone further. Britain weeks ago allowed Ukraine to use its long-range Storm Shadow missile systems for attacks anywhere in Russia, and France and Germany recently took the same position. 

Bird Flu — Another Attempt to Control the Food System and Make a Profit. A New Wave of Fearmongering Begins – Should You be Concerned?

By Dr. Ashley Armstrong, July 02, 2024

Let the fearmongering begin (again)! Propaganda efforts are making people believe humans can die from the bird flu and that we must “do our part” in preventing the next global pandemic. Wear masks, social distance, sanitize everything, get tested, get vaccinated … It’s kind of like “COVID-19,” but now in dairy cows!

Dangerous Crossroads: Germany Expanding Intelligence Services Amid Its “Preparation for War” with Russia

By Lucas Leiroz de Almeida, July 02, 2024

Germany continues its irrational “preparation for war” against Russia. Recent media reports indicate that the country’s military counterintelligence service is about to receive additional support to prepare itself against foreign threats in the event of a conflict with Russia.

The Supreme Court Makes the President a Dictator for Life

July 3rd, 2024 by John W. Whitehead

All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the Translate Website button below the author’s name (only available in desktop version).

To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.

Click the share button above to email/forward this article to your friends and colleagues. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

Give Truth a Chance. Secure Your Access to Unchained News, Donate to Global Research.

***

“The relationship between the President and the people he serves has shifted irrevocably. In every use of official power, the President is now a king above the law.”—Justice Sonia Sotomayor dissenting in Trump v. United States

The U.S. Supreme Court has made it official: the president of the United States can now literally get away with murder.

In a devastating 6-3 ruling in Trump v. United States that is equal parts politically short-sighted, self-servingly partisan, and utterly devoid of any pretense that the president is anything other than a dictator, the Supreme Court has validated what Richard Nixon once claimed: “When the president does it, that means that it is not illegal.”

As Justice Sotomayor concluded in her powerful dissent:

“The President of the United States is the most powerful person in the country, and possibly the world. When he uses his official powers in any way, under the majority’s reasoning, he now will be insulated from criminal prosecution. Orders the Navy’s Seal Team 6 to assassinate a political rival? Immune. Organizes a military coup to hold onto power? Immune. Takes a bribe in exchange for a pardon? Immune. Immune, immune, immune. Let the President violate the law, let him exploit the trappings of his office for personal gain, let him use his official power for evil ends. Because if he knew that he may one day face liability for breaking the law, he might not be as bold and fearless as we would like him to be. That is the majority’s message today. Even if these nightmare scenarios never play out, and I pray they never do, the damage has been done.”

The damage has indeed been done. Indubitably. Irrevocably. Unarguably.

Every American should be outraged, offended and afraid of what this ruling means for the future of our nation.

There can be no more pretending that we live in a constitutional republic. It’s all out in the open now. This is a dictatorship: Hitler has finally stepped out of the shadows.

The rule of law may have been on life support for a long time, but this ruling pulls the plug.

The facts of the case itself, which asks whether former president Donald Trump is immune from prosecution on charges that he attempted to overturn the 2020 presidential election, are less important than the ramifications of this ruling, which go so far as to dramatically expand the power of the presidency, rendering whoever occupies the Oval Office lawless and unaccountable.

This is exactly how tyranny rises and freedom falls.

In a textbook example of doublespeak, Chief Justice John Roberts, writing for the Supreme Court’s six-person conservative majority, essentially declared that presidents are not above the law and then turned right around and ensured that presidents can do whatever they want in their official capacity without being held accountable or criminally liable.

As Roberts noted,

“We conclude that under our constitutional structure of separated powers, the nature of presidential power requires that a former president have some immunity from criminal prosecution for official acts during his tenure in office. At least with respect to the President’s exercise of his core constitutional powers, this immunity must be absolute.”

Here’s the thing, however: this isn’t anything new. Not really.

Although the Constitution invests the President with very specific, limited powers, in recent years, American presidents have claimed the power to completely and almost unilaterally alter the landscape of this country for good or for ill. The powers amassed by each successive president through the negligence of Congress and the courts—powers which add up to a toolbox of terror for an imperial ruler—empower whoever occupies the Oval Office to act as a dictator, above the law and beyond any real accountability.

As law professor William P. Marshall explains, “every extraordinary use of power by one President expands the availability of executive branch power for use by future Presidents.”

Moreover, it doesn’t even matter whether other presidents have chosen not to take advantage of any particular power, because “it is a President’s action in using power, rather than forsaking its use, that has the precedential significance.”

In other words, each successive president continues to add to his office’s list of extraordinary orders and directives, expanding the reach and power of the presidency and granting him- or herself near dictatorial powers.

All of the imperial powers amassed by past presidents—to kill American citizens without due process, to detain suspects indefinitely, to strip Americans of their citizenship rights, to carry out mass surveillance on Americans without probable cause, to suspend laws during wartime, to disregard laws with which he might disagree, to conduct secret wars and convene secret courts, to sanction torture, to sidestep the legislatures and courts with executive orders and signing statements, to direct the military to operate beyond the reach of the law, to operate a shadow government, and to act as a dictator and a tyrant, above the law and beyond any real accountability—were passed from Clinton to Bush to Obama to Trump to Biden and will be passed along to the next president.

These presidential powers—acquired through the use of executive orders, decrees, memorandums, proclamations, national security directives and legislative signing statements and which can be activated by any sitting president—enable past, president and future presidents to operate above the law and beyond the reach of the Constitution.

These are the powers that continue to be passed along to each successive heir to the Oval Office, the Constitution be damned.

So you see, the Supreme Court didn’t make the president a dictator. It merely confirmed what we’ve been warning about all along: the president is already an imperial, unaccountable and unconstitutional dictator with permanent powers.

Absolute power absolutely corrupted the presidency.

As for Trump, his concept of power, immunity and the presidency has always been troubling, self-serving and corrupt.

For instance, in 2016, Trump bragged, “I could stand in the middle of Fifth Avenue and shoot somebody and wouldn’t lose any voters, okay?”

In 2019, Trump declared, “I have to the right to do whatever I want as president.

And in 2023, Trump promised if he were reelected to only be a dictator on “day one.”

Any presidential candidate who promises to be a dictator on day one will be a dictator-in-chief for life. The government does not voluntarily relinquish those powers once it acquires, uses and inevitably abuses them.

As political science professor Gene Sharp warned, “Dictators are not in the business of allowing elections that could remove them from their thrones.”

Which brings me back to the Supreme Court’s ruling on July 1, 2024, which was handed down mere days before the nation celebrates the anniversary of its declaration of independence from the heavy-handed tyranny of King George.

A document seething with outrage over a government which had betrayed its citizens, the Declaration of Independence was signed on July 4, 1776, by 56 men who laid everything on the line, pledged it all—“our Lives, our Fortunes, and our sacred Honor”—because they sought to free the American people from the reign of a dictatorial British emperor and believed in a radical idea: that all people are created to be free.

Labeled traitors, these men were charged with treason, a crime punishable by death. For some, their acts of rebellion would cost them their homes and their fortunes. For others, it would be the ultimate price—their lives.

Yet even knowing the heavy price they might have to pay, these men dared to speak up when silence could not be tolerated. Even after they had won their independence from Great Britain, these new Americans worked to ensure that the rights they had risked their lives to secure would remain secure for future generations.

The result: our Bill of Rights, the first ten amendments to the Constitution.

Imagine the shock and outrage these 56 men would feel were they to discover that 248 years later, the government they had risked their lives to create has been transformed into a militaristic police state in which exercising one’s freedoms—at a minimum, merely questioning a government agent—is often viewed as a flagrant act of defiance.

In fact, had the Declaration of Independence been written today, it would have rendered its signers extremists or terrorists, resulting in them being placed on a government watch list, targeted for surveillance of their activities and correspondence, and potentially arrested, held indefinitely, stripped of their rights and labeled enemy combatants.

Read the Declaration of Independence again, and ask yourself if the list of complaints tallied by Jefferson don’t bear a startling resemblance to the abuses “we the people” are suffering at the hands of the American police state.

In the 248 years since early Americans first declared and eventually won their independence from Great Britain, “we the people” have managed to work ourselves right back under the tyrant’s thumb.

Only this time, the tyrant is one of our own making. The abuses meted out by an imperial government and endured by the American people have not ended. They have merely evolved.

Given the fact that America is a relatively young nation, it hasn’t taken very long for an authoritarian regime to creep into power.

Unfortunately, the bipartisan coup that laid siege to our nation did not happen overnight.

It snuck in under our radar, hiding behind the guise of national security, the war on drugs, the war on terror, the war on immigration, political correctness, hate crimes and a host of other official-sounding programs aimed at expanding the government’s power at the expense of individual freedoms.

The building blocks for the bleak future we’re just now getting a foretaste of—police shootings of unarmed citizens, profit-driven prisons, weapons of compliance, a wall-to-wall surveillance state, pre-crime programs, a suspect society, school-to-prison pipelines, militarized police, overcriminalization, SWAT team raids, endless wars, etc.—were put in place by government officials we trusted to look out for our best interests.

Yet as I make clear in my book Battlefield America: The War on the American People and in its fictional counterpart The Erik Blair Diaries, that does not mean we should give up or give in or tune out.

Folks, if ever there were a time to declare our independence from tyranny, it’s now.

*

Note to readers: Please click the share button above. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

This article was originally published on The Rutherford Institute.

Constitutional attorney and author John W. Whitehead is founder and president of The Rutherford Institute. His most recent books are the best-selling Battlefield America: The War on the American People, the award-winning A Government of Wolves: The Emerging American Police State, and a debut dystopian fiction novel, The Erik Blair Diaries. Whitehead can be contacted at [email protected].

Nisha Whitehead is the Executive Director of The Rutherford Institute. Information about The Rutherford Institute is available at www.rutherford.org.

They are regular contributors to Global Research.

Featured image: Trump displaying the headline “Trump acquitted” (From the Public Domain)

Iran’s Presidential Election Goes to the Second Round

July 3rd, 2024 by Prof. Akbar E. Torbat

All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the Translate Website button below the author’s name (only available in desktop version).

To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.

Click the share button above to email/forward this article to your friends and colleagues. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

Give Truth a Chance. Secure Your Access to Unchained News, Donate to Global Research.

***

The first round of Iran’s presidential elections was held on June 28 (Tir 8). Despite the government’s high propaganda to encourage participation, the turnout was very low, as only 24, 535, 185 or 40% of 61, 452, 321 eligible voters voted to elect the ninth president of Iran, a historic low.  

In this early presidential election, six candidates, Masoud Al-Pezeshkian, Mostafa Pourmohammadi, Saeed Jalili, Mohammad Baqer Ghalibaf, Alireza Zakani, and Amirhossein Ghazizadeh-Hashemi were selected by the Guardian Council to run. Before the start of the voting, the last two withdrew from the election. The official results of the elections of 58,640 locations in 482 cities were counted. Final votes were:

  • Massoud Pezeshkian 10,415,191 (42.5 %);
  • Saeed Jalili 9,473,298 (38.6%);
  • Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf 3,383,340 (13.8%); and
  • Mostafa Pour-Mohammadi 206,397 (0.84 %)

The low turnout is evidence of anti-clerical rule.

Iranians are fed up with theocratic rules. Pour-Mohammadi, the only mullah, received less than 1% of the votes. According to the final results of the presidential election, none of the four candidates managed to obtain the majority quorum of 51%. Thus, the election must go to the second round, which will be held on Friday, July 5 (Tir 15). Out of the 24,535,185 votes counted, Masoud Pezeshkian and Saeed Jalili will go to the second stage.

This is the second time in the history of presidential elections in Iran that the president is determined in the second stage.

In 2005, Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani was leading in the first stage, but he lost the election in the second stage to Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. This time can be the same as Pezeshkian may lose to Jalili. Jalili’s upper limit vote will be the same as in the first round, plus a part of Ghalibaf’s votes. However, the upper limit of Pezeshkian’s votes will not be much higher than the first round unless those who boycotted the election come to the polls.   

Ghalibaf, who targeted the college-educated segment of the population, failed to get enough votes. This segment of the population mostly boycotted the elections. Also, emancipated women opposed him for being the head of the Parliament and approving the mandatory hejab law. This segment is unlikely to vote for Pezeshkian either, as they see him as a charlatan who wants to preserve the same Islamic rules. In earlier years of post-revolution, Pezeshkian made the hijab mandatory in hospitals and universities, while it had not yet become compulsory. Furthermore, Jalili is a religious person. He has the senior clerics in his backing. Also, some high-ranking professors at Iranian universities, such as Sharif University of Technology, have endorsed his presidency. His mission is to maintain the status quo. He probably will get most of Ghalibaf’s votes as Ghalibaf has said he will support him. Also, most of the fundamentalists probably will vote for Jalili.

Pezeshkian is a candidate from the reformists’ faction. “Reformists” do not want to change the system.

They want to reshape the same theocratic system that most Iranian nationalists hate and at the same time, yield to the American demands.

Pezeshkian, 70, was born in Mahabad to an Azerbaijani father and a Kurdish mother. He is a conservative ethnic Azari who has insisted his children speak Turkish at home. His victory may help Iran’s enemies, who wish to partition Iran across its ethnic boundaries that have not really existed.

There were two debates between the two candidates on July 1 and 2. Economic growth, foreign policy, international trade, and energy were major issues in the debates. Pezeshkian did not present a consistent plan for how he wanted to run the country. He only criticized what had been done by the previous administration. The reformist candidate recited some verses from the Qur’an and Nahj al-Balagha to pretend he could use the same words as the clerics. Jalili discussed his plans for speeding up economic growth.

Pezeshkian pretends to maintain the theocratic rules while pursuing neoliberal economic reforms and returning Iran to the nuclear deal in the hope of lifting the economic sanctions.

However, this is wishful thinking; the nuclear issue is a pretext by the U.S. to weaken and contain Iran in the oil-rich region.

Even during the eight years of Hassan Rouhani’s presidency, when Zarif was foreign minister and the nuclear negotiator, the U.S. offered to temporarily suspend the sanctions, not lifting them and never was a law passed by the U.S. Congress to permit lifting the sanctions. Pezeshkian has chosen Javad Zarif as his foreign policy advisor. Some see Zarif as a demagogue flunky of America who never delivered on his promises.

If the nonvoters come to the stage, they may increase Masoud Pezeshkian’s chance of presidency. Otherwise, with the help of Ghalibaf’s votes, Jalili will win the presidency. In either case, theocracy will continue to exist, and opposition to the regime by the secular political group will continue.

*

Note to readers: Please click the share button above. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

Akbar E. Torbat is the author of “Politics of Oil and Nuclear Technology in Iran,” Palgrave Macmillan, (2020), Farsi translation of the book is available here.

He is a regular contributor to Global Research.

Featured image: An Iranian family casting votes for parliamentary elections in the city of Esfahan (Isfahan)

Why Garment Workers in Bangladesh Are on Strike

July 3rd, 2024 by Dr. Soma Marla

All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the Translate Website button below the author’s name (only available in desktop version).

To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.

Click the share button above to email/forward this article to your friends and colleagues. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

Give Truth a Chance. Secure Your Access to Unchained News, Donate to Global Research.

***

Protests erupted again on July 2 across Kenya against the worsening economic crisis and the impunity exemplified by President William Ruto.

Since June 18, youth-led demonstrations have been met with repression resulting in the deaths of at least 39 people according to the Kenyan National Human Rights Commission, a government-funded agency.

A representative of the Kenyan Medical Association told the British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC) in an interview that another two people had died on July 2. The KMA noted that they are very active in providing care to those injured in the clashes between the police and demonstrators.

This same KMA spokesperson said that physicians are treating gunshot wounds, injuries from teargas canisters and the inhalation of chemical agents being deployed to disperse the crowds in the cities of Nairobi, Mombasa, Kisumu, among many others. On July 2 it appeared as if less live ammunition was fired on protesters since the death tolls were far lower than on June 25 when the parliament building was attacked by demonstrators.

Police have utilized batons, water cannons, teargas and live ammunition in attempts to force people from the streets of Nairobi. An area in the central business district was targeted by demonstrators where enterprises were vandalized and set on fire.

The initial round of demonstrations was prompted by the attempt to pass the Finance Bill for 2024 which included substantial tax hikes impacting the overall cost of living. Increases in taxes for consumer goods and services would have a detrimental impact on workers, youth and farmers.

President William Ruto said during late June that he would not sign the Finance Bill sealing its fate. He then called for dialogue between the “Occupy Parliament” organizers and the government on a way forward in addressing the economic crisis.

Youth in Kenya have not responded positively to the overtures from Ruto. Supporters of the Occupy Parliament movement are pointing to the number of people killed by police during mass demonstrations in Nairobi, Mombasa, Kisumu and other regions of the East African state.

Criticism has centered not only around the now defunct Finance Bill, other charges of corruption by leading government officials within the ruling Kwanza Party of Ruto have also surfaced. There have been cracks as well within the president’s party where some are blaming leaders for being indifferent to the plight of the Kenyan masses.

In the second largest Kenyan city of Mombasa on the Indian Ocean coast, thousands of young people and workers took to the streets as well on July 2. During the early morning hours, many businesses remained closed in anticipation of possible violence.

Kenya young people demonstrate demanding the resignation of President Ruto (Source: Abayomi Azikiwe)

Demonstrators held their own self-made signs condemning the current state of the economy while accusing the Ruto administration of being corrupt and inefficient. One protester carried a sign saying, “not one project promised by the government has been completed over the last two years”, the time period since Ruto was elected in 2022.

Meanwhile in Kisumu, crowds of youth marched in the streets demanding accountability from the Ruto administration.  They paid tribute to the people who have lost their lives and called for the resignation of the president.

What has fueled the anger of Kenyans is the seeming lack of remorse on the part of the president related to the deaths of civilians. Ruto has not condemned the police for their heavy-handed tactics. In a statement on June 30, the president said that complaints against the police would be handled through the normal channels already in existence within the government.

There are numerous reports of abductions of activists by the police. The Kenyan Supreme Court Chief Justice Martha Koome has issued an order forbidding any extra-judicial detentions by law-enforcement agents. (See this)

In an article published on July 2 in the Kenyan Post, a Cable News Network (CNN) correspondent conveyed his eyewitness account of the brutality utilized by the police. The journalist wrote that:

“When peaceful protesters stormed Parliament last Tuesday (June 25), Nairobi police boss Adamson Bungei was personally leading the operation. It is believed that Bungei issued the shoot-to-kill order that left three protesters, among them a 27-year-old student from the University of Nairobi, dead. CNN journalist Larry Madowo aired a video of Bungei watching as police used live bullets to disperse the protesters. ‘Nairobi police boss Adamson Bungei personally led the operation,’ Madowo said. Freelance journalist, Chris Sambu, also said that he witnessed Bungei passing by without uttering a word as bodies of peaceful protesters lay outside Parliament. For clarity, the 25th, June 2024 police killings on protesters was an operation led by the Nairobi region police commander Adamson Bungei.  ‘As the chief commanding officer on the ground, he had the ability to order no firing live bullets at protesters. History will Judge him harshly,’ he wrote. ‘I took this video moments after protesters accessed parliament buildings and a shooting ensued. When guns went silent and tear gas smoke filled the Parliament road, a number of protesters lay dead. Bungei just passed there without uttering any word.’” 

In response to the police killings there are those calling for the dissolution of parliament and the scheduling of new elections. These elements within and outside the government believe that the legitimacy of the Ruto administration has been fully eroded.

Economic Crisis Prompts Additional Borrowing by the Government

Rather than address the internal crisis within Kenya, some government officials have accused criminal elements of “infiltrating” the youth-led protests. Referring to people as “goons” and “thugs”, these detractors who are in support of the Ruto administration are calling for harsher measures to end the demonstrations. (See this)

There were reports on June 26 that the Kenyan Defense Forces (KDF) were activated to prevent further unrest. Many businesses have been attacked in Nairobi and other cities since June 20. However, these actions are more reflective of the desperate socio-economic conditions prevailing among youth and workers.

With the collapse of the Finance Bill 2024 due to nationwide demonstrations, the president has indicated that Kenya will be forced to borrow up to $US7.8 billion to meet existing public obligations. In addition to a 67% increase over already planned borrowing, there could very well be massive cuts in public employment and services.

The Kenyan Financial Standard wrote on the present situation emphasizing:

“President William Ruto’s embattled administration faces a herculean task in the months ahead in funding public services, implementing development projects and programs and paying public debts. This follows the decision to reject the Finance Bill 2024 amid unprecedented public pressure. President Ruto last week moved to avert a financial crisis for his administration as the legal budget deadline loomed. The most workable option is borrowing more money to fund this year’s Sh3.9 trillion ($US30.3 billion) budget. On Sunday night, President Ruto alluded to this, saying Kenya would need to borrow Sh1 trillion ($US 7.8 billion) nearly double what was initially planned following the move to withdraw the Finance Bill 2024.” 

Like in many other African states, the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and the World Bank have played a negative role during the post-colonial period beginning in the 1960s until the present. When governments face financial difficulty due to their continued dependency within the world capitalist system, they are forced to renegotiate terms of repayment for their monetary obligations.

IMF conditionalities often result in the imposition of austerity measures within developing countries. Governments are required to lay-off public servants including educators and healthcare workers in order to pay debt service to financial institutions based in the imperialist countries.

Kenya will be faced with very difficult decisions moving forward. Any acquiescence to the IMF requires the passing on of the debt obligations to the workers, farmers and youth who are already facing high unemployment and underemployment.

In the same above-mentioned article published by the Financial Standard it notes:

“The IMF has been pushing Kenya to ensure her fiscal strategy is centered on firmly reducing debt vulnerabilities and achieving a newly approved debt anchor by 2029 while protecting high-priority service delivery programs. Kenya first agreed with the IMF in July 2021, which is subject to review every six months before further funding is released.”

Perhaps the suggestions emerging from the youth movement and certain members of parliament for fresh elections could open a national discussion and debate over the future of Kenya. Obviously, a continuation of the status-quo will only result in ongoing mass demonstrations and further alienation by young people and workers from the government.

*

Note to readers: Please click the share button above. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

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

Featured image: Kenya youth march in Mombasa, July 2, 2024 (Source: Abayomi Azikiwe)

All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the Translate Website button below the author’s name (only available in desktop version).

To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.

Click the share button above to email/forward this article to your friends and colleagues. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

Give Truth a Chance. Secure Your Access to Unchained News, Donate to Global Research.

***

President Biden authorized Ukraine to “conduct limited attacks inside Russia with American-made weapons,” U.S. officials said. Some U.S. allies had already gone further. Britain weeks ago allowed Ukraine to use its long-range Storm Shadow missile systems for attacks anywhere in Russia, and France and Germany recently took the same position. 

The decision announced by President Biden is due in particular to pressure from Secretary of State Antony Blinken to lift restrictions on Ukraine’s use of U.S. weapons. NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg was tasked with pre-announcing Washington’s decision to the European Allies. Speaking at the Council of the European Union, he said,

“According to international law, Ukraine has the right to self-defense. And the right to self-defense also includes hitting legitimate military targets inside Russia.”

At the same time Poland announced the purchase of long-range missiles from the United States and declared it was “ready to host NATO nuclear weapons.” Sweden did the same: having just joined NATO, it declared that it was “willing to host U.S. nuclear weapons in case of war.”  

France has tested a new air-launched nuclear missile and allocated 13 percent of its military budget to upgrading its nuclear weaponry. 

Against what targets in Russia the long-range missiles supplied by the U.S. and other NATO countries to Ukraine are directed is shown by the news released by Kiev that “a Ukrainian drone targeted a second Russian long-range military radar.”  This is an early warning radar designed to detect even hypersonic ballistic missiles and aircraft up to 10,000 km away. 

It is impossible for the Ukrainian military to carry out such an attack alone deep into Russian territory. The Ukrainian army is in increasing difficulty, so much so that Kiev has passed a law allowing it to recruit from prisons ordinary prisoners, even criminals, willing to go to the front in exchange for freedom.  

For more such an attack requires a satecllitary military network that Ukraine does not have.  Conducting such attacks against Russia are actually U.S. and NATO forces under U.S. command. Countries like Italy, which “host” U.S. nuclear weapons, violating the Non-Proliferation Treaty, are thus turned into the front line of a nuclear confrontation with Russia that is more dangerous than that of the Cold War. 

*

Note to readers: Please click the share button above. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

This article was originally published in Italian on Grandangolo, Byoblu TV.

Manlio Dinucci, award winning author, geopolitical analyst and geographer, Pisa, Italy. He is a Research Associate of the Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG).

Featured image source

The US Supreme Court Outs the Imperial Presidency

July 3rd, 2024 by Dr. Binoy Kampmark

All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the Translate Website button below the author’s name (only available in desktop version).

To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.

Click the share button above to email/forward this article to your friends and colleagues. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

Give Truth a Chance. Secure Your Access to Unchained News, Donate to Global Research.

***

The US Supreme Court has much to answer for.  In the genius of republican government, it operates as overseer and balancer to the executive and legislature.  Of late, the judges have seemingly confused that role.

In contrast to its other Anglophone counterparts, the highest tribunal in the US professes an open brand of politics, with its occupants blatantly expressing views that openly conform to one side of the political aisle or the other.  Not that the idea of a conservative or liberal judge necessarily translates into opposite rulings.  Agreement and common ground can be reached, however difficult the exercise might be.  Justice should, at the very least, be seen to be done.

The current crop, however, shows little in the way of identifying, let alone reaching common ground.  Firm lines, even yawning chasms, have grown.  The latest decision on presidential immunity from criminal prosecution is one such case.  On July 1, the majority of the court held by six to three that a US president, including former occupants of the office, “may not be prosecuted for exercising his core constitutional powers, and he is entitled, to a minimum, to a presumptive immunity from prosecution for all his official acts.”

Throughout the sequence of decisions, which began before the trial judge, Tanya Chutkan, Donald Trump has argued that he should be immune from prosecution, notably regarding federal charges of subverting the results of the 2020 election.  Those actions, he claims, formed part of his official duties.  Furthermore, as he suffered no conviction or either impeachment, he could not be tried in a criminal court.

The decision offers a grocery basket of elastic terms that will delight future litigants.  The total immunity, the decision states, covers “core constitutional powers”.  The president, former or sitting, further had “presumptive immunity from criminal prosecution” regarding all discharged official acts as a function of the separation of powers.  Falling for giddying circularity, the majority opinion goes on to remark that the immunity “extends to the outer perimeter of the President’s official responsibilities, covering actions so long as they are not manifestly or palpably beyond his authority.”  It does not, however, extend to “unofficial acts” or “unofficial conduct”.

The majority was also of the view that no court should inquire into the President’s motives when distinguishing official from official conduct.  “Such an enquiry would risk exposing even the most obvious instances of official conduct to judicial examination on the mere allegation of improper purpose, thereby intruding on the Article II interests that immunity seeks to protect.”  This shielding does have a remarkable effect, granting the president uncomfortably wide powers regarding decisions that can involve breaching the very laws the office is intended to protect.

The decision magnifies the scope of presidential power.  One might say it invests that power with imperial, distinctly anti-republican attributes.  For decades, it had been assumed that presidents would be spared civil suits to, in the words of the majority, “undertake his constitutionally designated functions effectively, free from undue pressures or distortions.”  To take the immunity to cover breaches of laws the executive is bound to be faithful in executing is a quite different creature.  To suggest that would be to echo, as indeed US District Court Judge Chutkan opined in December 2023, of a “divine right of kings to evade criminal responsibility.”

The three liberal justices violently disagreed with the majority in a judgment authored by Justice Sonia Sotomayor.  “Today’s decision to grant former Presidents criminal immunity reshapes the institution of the Presidency. It makes a mockery of the principle, foundational to our Constitution and system of Government, that no man is above the law.”  The dissent excoriates, not merely the reasoning of the court but the man whose actions it will benefit.  “Because our Constitution does not shield a former President from answering for criminal and treasonous acts, I dissent.”

According to the lashing words of Sotomayor, the majority had invented “an atextual, ahistorical, and unjustifiable immunity that puts the President above the law.”  From the outset, it was unnecessary to make any finding on absolute immunity on the exercise of “core constitutional powers” given the facts outlined in the indictment.  This was further “eclipsed” by the decision “to create expansive immunity for all ‘official act[s]’.”  Whatever the terminology used – presumptive or absolute – “under the majority’s rule, a President’s use of any official power for any purpose, even the most corrupt, is immune from prosecution.”

With withering ire, Sotomayor also thought it “nonsensical” that “evidence concerning acts for which the President is immune can play no role in any criminal prosecution against him”.  It would make it impossible for the government to use the President’s official acts to prove knowledge or show intent in prosecuting private offences.

Despite the broad sweep of the judgment regarding immunity, there are pressing questions on whether Trump’s own conduct regarding claims of election subversion would fall within the ambit of the ruling.  The multiple lawsuits filed challenging the 2020 election result were peppered with admissions on his part that he was doing so in the personal capacity of a candidate rather than that of an office holder performing official functions.  Since then, he has had a change of heart, taking the rather primitive view articulated by that other advocate of an imperial executive, President Richard Nixon, who claimed that, “When the president does it, that means that it is not illegal.”

The Supreme Court has remanded the questions on whether absolute immunity applies to such acts as pressuring state election officials and conduct around the events of January 6 to the lower courts.  But the consequences of the decision have been immediate in the context of the hush money case, for which Trump was found guilty of 34 felony counts of falsifying business records.  His lawyers have already asked that the July 11 sentencing be delayed while also applying to set aside the conviction.  Thus, do shadowy motives, personal conduct and the official blur.

Much ink, resources and litigation, is bound to be expended over the next few years over what falls within official, as opposed to unofficial acts, that attach to the office of the US president.  Along the way, a few laws may well be broken.  With a delicious sense of irony, the Supreme Court ruling will also shield President Joe Biden from vengeful prosecutions planned by Trump and his courtiers.  The law can, every so often, be fantastically double-edged.

*

Note to readers: Please click the share button above. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

Dr. Binoy Kampmark was a Commonwealth Scholar at Selwyn College, Cambridge. He currently lectures at RMIT University. He is a Research Associate of the Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG). Email: [email protected]

All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the Translate Website button below the author’s name (only available in desktop version).

To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.

Click the share button above to email/forward this article to your friends and colleagues. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

Give Truth a Chance. Secure Your Access to Unchained News, Donate to Global Research.

***

Everyone’s acting shocked and outraged at the Supreme Court ruling that Donald Trump and other former presidents are largely immune from criminal prosecution, as though presidents getting prosecuted for their crimes is something that’s been happening this entire time.

It’s like oh wow you’re saying powerful people won’t have to abide by the same rules as normal people in America anymore?

Guess they’ll have to release all those former US presidents who’ve been imprisoned for their war crimes and crimes against humanity now. Thanks a lot, Supreme Court.

*

Those obvious dementia symptoms are not dementia symptoms.

That obvious genocide is not genocide.

Those obvious war crimes are not war crimes.

Those obvious NATO provocations are not provocations.

This obvious dystopia is not a dystopia.

This obvious propaganda is not propaganda.

*

It’s hilarious how the liberal commentariat is freaking out not because their president is a dementia patient but because they’re not sure if a dementia patient can win an election.

*

I’m still getting liberals doing the “ARE YOU A DOCTOR??” thing when I make the observation that Biden plainly has dementia. No I’m not a doctor, I’m just not blind. That thing we’re all seeing when we look at Joe Biden, that’s what normal people mean when they use the word dementia.

*

Person who lives in the hub of the US empire while it murders, starves and abuses people all around the world: “If Donald Trump wins, America might become a tyrannical force for evil!”

*

Zionists in the 19th and 20th century: Yeeehaw! We’re gonna colonize Palestine just like the colonialists in Australia and the Americas! 

Zionists today: It’s antisemitic to call Israel a colonialist project; it’s actually ANTI-colonialist because Jews are indigenous to Israel.

*

Palestinian mother: [watches her entire family killed by US-supplied bombs and starved by a US-backed blockade

Western liberals: Ma’am what you fail to understand is that what you are seeing is actually a lot more complicated than it looks. Stop crying, do you want Trump to win?

*

Israel is a material manifestation of an argument the west has been having with itself for generations, between its older genocidal settler-colonialist values and its purported values of modern times. Between the values of justice and egalitarianism we’re taught to value in school, and the fact that the west is still a savage and murderous civilization that hasn’t transcended its barbarity in the way it thinks it has.

The reason Israel has remained in this half-in, half-out state of ethnic cleansing with regard to the Palestinians is largely because the western backers upon whom Israel’s existence depends won’t fully get behind a 19th century-style extermination program to purge the land of an inconvenient population. Because the west remains a psychopathic and bloodthirsty civilization it still supports mountains of Israeli depravity, but because of the values it claims to uphold it also lacks the public consensus to go all-in on a final solution to the Palestinian question.

So until now Israel has remained in a kind of stasis, with Palestinians existing in this odd half-purged condition and continuing to resist as any population would under such circumstances. And now we’re at the point where the west is basically being told, “Either shit or get off the pot.” Either commit to the full-blown elimination of the Palestinians via genocide or ethnic cleansing, or change course and actually start standing by the values you claim to stand by for the first time in your miserable existence. Either commit to the savagery of your genocidal past, or commit to a real civilizational transformation.

Gaza is asking us a very important question about ourselves. Our answer will set the course for the future of our entire world.

*

Note to readers: Please click the share button above. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

Video: The First Biden-Trump Presidential Debate

July 2nd, 2024 by Global Research News

 

All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the Translate Website button below the author’s name (only available in desktop version).

To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.

Click the share button above to email/forward this article to your friends and colleagues. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

Video: First 2024 Presidential Debate

All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the Translate Website button below the author’s name (only available in desktop version).

To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.

Click the share button above to email/forward this article to your friends and colleagues. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

Give Truth a Chance. Secure Your Access to Unchained News, Donate to Global Research.

***

Gazan journalist Bisan Owda, currently trapped in Gaza like so many others, reports that “there are no places for people… no places to go to”.

It is a game of “death and hunger” she says, and it has been so for nine months.

The terrorists, she explains, are wearing soldier uniforms. They behead children, they blow up homes with people in them.

She correctly blames ”silent spectators” to this Western/Zionist perpetrated genocide, and says “they will have their turn.”

Zionists have been committing genocide against Palestinian civilians, for 265 days, she says. The Israeli army has evacuated the northern part of the Gazan strip, using starvation, famine, and military operations to achieve their goals.

Zionists bomb homes, businesses, buildings and tents, killing and maiming untold numbers of civilians.

This is “genocide by design,” explains author and human rights lawyer Dan Kovalik, on a Telegram post.

 

 

Reuters just reported exactly what kind of bombs the U.S. has been sending Israel.

Biden sent 14,000 two thousand pound bombs – more than all other types combined.

These bombs destroy whole city blocks.

The destruction of Gaza is intentional…”

 

*

Note to readers: Please click the share button above. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

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. He writes on his website where this article was originally published.

Featured image is from UNRWA


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

**Voices from Syria**

Author: Mark Taliano

ISBN Number: 978-0-9737147-9-1

Year: 2017

Product Type: PDF File

List Price: $6.50

Special Offer: $5.00 

Click to order.

All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the Translate Website button below the author’s name (only available in desktop version).

To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.

Click the share button above to email/forward this article to your friends and colleagues. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

Give Truth a Chance. Secure Your Access to Unchained News, Donate to Global Research.

***

Fearmongering around bird flu mirrors COVID-19 responses, with calls for testing, social distancing, and vaccination in the agricultural sector. New RFID tagging requirements for dairy cows represent potential government overreach, aimed at increased animal tracking and control

Development of mRNA vaccines for bird flu in both humans and animals raises concerns about potential mandatory vaccinations and their impact on the food supply

FDA warnings against raw milk consumption lack evidence of foodborne transmission of bird flu to humans and may serve to protect industrial dairy interests. The centralization of the food system has led to a 72% decrease in small farms over the last 90 years, emphasizing the need to support small-scale farmers directly

The H5N1 virus may have origins in gain-of-function research, potentially emerging from a lab rather than occurring naturally in wild birds

Mass culling of poultry in response to outbreaks has led to over 92 million chickens being slaughtered since 2022, often using inhumane methods

*

Let the fearmongering begin (again)! Propaganda efforts are making people believe humans can die from the bird flu and that we must “do our part” in preventing the next global pandemic. Wear masks, social distance, sanitize everything, get tested, get vaccinated … It’s kind of like “COVID-19,” but now in dairy cows!

microscope

Image from imgflip.com

Similar to “wear masks, stay home, practice social distancing and sanitize everything,” the United States Department of Agriculture is now encouraging farmers to regularly test animals, test the milk weekly, register livestock, step up the use of personal protective equipment, limit traffic onto their farms, and increase cleaning and disinfection practices.

“The most important step we can take today is biosecurity. I am calling on producers to use our resources to enhance their biosecurity measures and states and producers to opt in to our support programs and herd monitoring programs, which are designed to limit the spread of this disease in dairy cattle.” — Secretary of the USDA Tom Vilsack.

good biosecurity

Image from www.desmoinesregister.com. Article written by the secretary of the USDA (Tom Vilsack), spreading the message that it is up to the farmers to comply to biosecurity methods to stop the spread.

Similar to “toilet paper shortages,” now there are limitations on number of egg cartons purchased at some stores in Australia as bird flu spreads rapidly across large poultry farms. (Are meat and dairy products next?)

 

buying limit on eggs

Figure: Coles is one of the two largest supermarket chains in Australia.

Similar to summer event cancellations in 2020 and 2021, state fairs and livestock events are requiring testing1 and some are even being canceled this summer due to the bird flu.2

shiawassee country fair cancellation

What’s next?

  • Lock downs of cows and chickens inside barns to reduce the spread?
  • Mandatory avian influenza testing?
  • Mandatory mRNA vaccination of all livestock to “solve the problem?”
  • Force farm employees to wear personal protective equipment (PPE)?

This is all a little déjà vu, isn’t it? Can you believe they are trying this again? And all of this may be obvious to you, but when you tune into any mainstream media account right now, people ARE buying it! And there is a massive amount of fearmongering and discussions on “why we should be concerned,” “what to do to prevent a spread.”

For example, Dr. Sanjay Gupta on CNN produced an “Are We Prepared for Bird Flu” fearmongering special.3 The CDC is now predicting that the next pandemic will be from the bird flu.

“Once the virus gains the ability to attach to the human receptor and then go human to human, that’s when you’re going to have the pandemic … I think it’s just a matter of time.” — Dr. Redfield, former CDC director.

News agencies from across the country are saying the exact same thing. So, is that really “news?” Or has it become propaganda again? Reporting what they want us to hear to spread fear. So in this article, let’s discuss how this bird flu “pandemic” is an attempt to obtain complete control of the food system.

“Who controls the food supply controls the people.” — Henry Kissinger

I will also touch on what YOU can do to help stop spread the fearmongering — helping others better understand why these types of events are occurring can hopefully help prevent people from falling for this. (AGAIN!)

What Is ‘Bird Flu’

According to According to the World Health Organization (WHO), “H5N1 is one of several influenza viruses that causes a highly infectious respiratory disease in birds called avian influenza (or ‘bird flu’).” The “bird flu” is not new — it is something agriculture has dealt with for a long time. The CDC actually outlines the history of Avian Influenza from 1880 — 2024 here.

Dr. Mercola wrote about this in 2006 in his book “The Great Bird Flu Hoax:” “The U.S. government is now practically screaming that a new avian super-flu will likely kill millions of Americans. The mainstream media is entirely onboard, as are drug companies and other corporations poised to benefit immensely off the paranoia. But there is NO coming bird flu pandemic.

It’s an elaborate scheme contrived by the government and big business for reasons that boil down to power and money.” Are they really trying this again?

GOF Origins?

While I do not think humans should be concerned, there is no denying that H5N1 can cause problems for birds. Many people say that H5N1 comes from wild birds — but is Nature really something we should be fearing or trying to separate ourselves from? Where did the strain come from and why is it so problematic? Are there other origins?

Gain-of-function (GOF) research seeks to alter the functional characteristics of a virus to “help” public health experts better understand how viruses can spread and better plan for future pandemics.

In 2010, there was controversial GOF research on avian flu viruses where strains of the H5N1 bird flu viruses were intentionally made to be transmissible via respiratory droplets among ferrets. These studies were funded by the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID) under Dr. Anthony Fauci. Bill Gates has also funded gain-of-function research on H5N1.4

In 2011, the scientists reported that they were successful in modifying the avian H5N1 virus so that it was transmissible between mammals, making the entire situation riskier for humans.5

After being put on pause for a period of time, federal funding for these controversial research projects quietly resumed in 2019.6 And GOF critics have repeatedly discussed the human risks if the virus escaped (or released) from a lab.

Did the current H5N1 strain come from a lab? Were migrating birds infected, which then traveled across the world and country infecting a number of poultry and livestock facilities around the world? There are individuals investigating potential lab origins of HPAI through gain of function research.7

“Genetic analysis indicates that genotype B3.13 emerged in 2024 and exhibits genetic links to genotype B1.2, which was identified to have originated in Georgia in January 2022 after the start of serial passage research with H5Nx clade 2.3.4.4 in mallard ducks at the USDA Southeast Poultry Research Laboratory (SEPRL) in Athens, Georgia in April 2021.”

bird flu existential choice

Us humans will NEVER win the war against Mother Nature, as She will ALWAYS outsmart us. Image from www.theatlantic.com

Unfortunately, there is now troubling censorship that was recently instated to better control the narrative. Robert Malone reported that in June of this year, amendments to the WHO IHR (International Health Regulations) were illegally approved and prepared behind closed doors.8

“Although the ‘Article 55’ rules and regulations for amending the IHR explicitly require that ‘the text of any proposed amendment shall be communicated to all States Parties by the Director-General at least four months before the Health Assembly at which it is proposed for consideration,’ the requirement of four months for review was disregarded in a rush to produce some tangible deliverable from the Assembly …

The IHR amendments retain troubling language regarding censorship. These provisions have been buried in Annex 1,A.2.c., which requires State Parties to ‘develop, strengthen and maintain core capacities … in relation to … surveillance … and risk communication, including addressing misinformation and disinformation.'”9

Now Cows and Humans Get Bird Flu

But the bird flu now involves more than just birds … this year marks the first “bird to cow” and “cow to human” transmission.

A multi-state outbreak of H5N1 bird flu in dairy cows was first reported on March 25, 2024. And according to the CDC, there are now 12 states with outbreaks in dairy cows with a total of 126 dairy herds affected.10

According to the Ohio Department of Agriculture, however, most sick cows recover within a few days.

The first reported human case in the US was a dairy farmer in Texas who developed pinkeye earlier this year. “Swab testing” was used to determine this dairy farmer had the same strain of bird flu, H5N1, that is supposedly circulating in dairy cows.

Altogether, there have been four human cases in the U.S., and none involved person-to-person spread — all were infected after exposure to animals presumed to have bird flu. With the goal of spreading fear, the World Health Organization reported that the first human has died from the avian influenza in Mexico on April 24th.

A few important details they do not include in headlines is that this individual had many pre-existing conditions, had no exposure to poultry or other animals, and was bedridden for three weeks prior to the onset of avian flu symptoms.

This accusation by WHO that this man died from the bird flu was denied by the Mexican Health Secretary Jorge Alcocer.11 Jorge Alcocer said the 59-year-old man died from other causes, mainly kidney and respiratory failure, NOT the bird flu.

“I can point out that the statement made by the World Health Organization is pretty bad, since it speaks of a fatal case (of bird flu), which was not the case.” — Jorge Alcocer

While the individual who died may have tested positive for H5N2, the current “fear” in the U.S. is the spread of the H5N1 strain in dairy cows. In 2008, scientists documented how testing positive for H5N2 may just be a result of seasonal flu vaccines or antiviral medications.

“A history of seasonal influenza vaccination might be associated with H5N2-neutralizing antibody positivity.12 These results suggest that the administration of Tamiflu (an antiviral) may affect the results of HI tests for H5N2 virus.”13

Again, doesn’t all of this sound so familiar? Pre-existing conditions, false positive faulty testing, fear, misinformation …

False Testing

Just like with COVID, government agencies are relying on PCR tests as they ramp up testing for bird flu. But PCR tests are extremely inaccurate and lead to significant levels of false positives.14

PCR testing works by replicating tiny fragments of DNA or RNA until they become large enough to identify. The fragments are replicated in cycles, and each cycle doubles the amount of genetic material in the sample. The number of cycles required to create an identifiable sample is the “cycle threshold” (CT). A high CT means many cycles were required to “detect” a virus.

“A persistent sticking point with the PCR test is that it picks up dead viral debris, and by excessively magnifying those particles with CTs in the 40s, noninfectious individuals are labeled as infectious and told to self-isolate.

In short, media and public health officials have conflated ‘cases’ — positive tests — with the actual illness.” — Dr. Mercola, written about PCR testing with COVID. But now we this can be applied to the current bird flu situation.

In December 2020, even the WHO warned that using a high CT would lead to false-positive results. Moreover, Kary Mullis, who won the Nobel Prize for inventing the PCR test, has said it is inappropriate to use the test as a diagnostic tool to detect a viral infection.15

Yet the government is mass producing and encouraging PCR testing with no reporting on CTs. A big part of the CDCs new $93 million plan to reduce the impact of bird flu involves testing.16 The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) did not respond to “The Defender’s” inquiry about which CTs are used to test animals for bird flu.17

False positives can help them spread fear, encourage vaccinations, and mandate the mass killing of cattle herds of chicken flocks.

Proposed Solutions

Former CDC Director Tom Frieden, outlined how he thinks the US should respond:18

1) Rapid response — Test, isolate, cull livestock

2) Trust the government and comply, with this type of messaging — “It’s up to our farmers to comply and report testing”

3) Coordination amongst state and federal agencies to monitor more farms

The USDA requires that infected farms depopulate (kill) their flocks to better contain the virus and stop the spread. “The virus, however, is fatal to birds, and state and federal officials require all poultry in infected flocks to be killed to prevent its spread.”19 These mass killings (or “depopulations”) are paid for with public dollars through a USDA Program.20

On June 25, the Feds have paid Michigan farms $81 million to recoup the loss of having to cull millions of birds.21 More than $73 million of that $81 million was provided to the state’s largest egg producer, Herbruck’s Poultry Ranch. Nearly 6.5 million chickens (more than 40% of the state’s egg layers) were depopulated in early 2024.

flocks infected by bird flu

Image from www.mlive.com

Roughly $1 billion has been paid out nationwide since the highly pathogenic avian influenza, H5N1, started spreading in January 2022. Nationwide, large corporate egg producers have received some of the biggest payments to cover the cost of culling their flocks. For example, Jennie-O was provided $105 million, Tyson Foods was provided $29 million, and Cal-Main Foods $22 million.22

More than 92 million chickens have been slaughtered since the recent outbreak began in 2022. And in June of this year, 4.2 million birds were killed at a farm in Sioux County, Iowa. (Why were there 4.2 million chickens at a single farm?)

Corporations are compensated for the mass killings despite the utilization of inhumane depopulation methods that are not approved by animal welfare organizations. More than 80% of the mass culling here in the US use VSD+ (ventilation shut down plus), which is a cheaper option and is banned in other countries. Air is closed off to the barns and heat is pumped in until the temps rise above 104 °F, essentially cooking the birds alive.

In a mass killing of 5 million birds in March 2022 at Remembrandt Foods, some employees reported that it took about a month to pull the dead poultry from the cages and dump them into carts before piling the birds into nearby fields and buried in huge pits.

egg factory farm

Image from www.vox.com

Is the massacre of millions of birds really the best way to handle this situation? (It isn’t working, as “avian flu” outbreaks continue to pop up!) What if flocks are massacred due to a single false positive test? What about the concept of “natural immunity?”

The “cull the whole flock with one positive test” approach of approach will just lead to a reduction in the nation’s food supply (or even food shortages) and will lead to even more centralization and regulation in the food supply that is getting worse each year.

Dairy Cow Tracking

The USDA used the H5N1 fearmongering to push a ruling through on April 26th of this year that RFID ear tags are now required for dairy cattle for an “efficient animal disease traceability system.”

Or … is it a way to monitor, track and control the total number of and movement of dairy cows? A way to keep records of mRNA vaccinations, pharmaceuticals and other protocols to maintain in control?

RFID (radio-frequency identification) tagging involves small devices that use radio frequencies to transfer data, mainly to track and identify objects, animals and people.

R-CALF USA is speaking out against this new ruling: “[T]he beneficiaries of this rule are not cattle producers or consumers. Instead, this rule is intended to benefit multinational beef packers and multinational ear tag manufacturers who will profit at the expense of cattle producers and consumers.

In fact, because the rule is cost-prohibitive for independent cattle producers, the agency is using millions of taxpayer dollars to give millions of their unnecessary EID ear tags away … We will fight against the implementation of this disastrous rule that infringes on the freedoms and liberties of our nation’s independent cattle farmers and ranchers. This is government overreach at its worst.” — R-CALF CEO Bill Bullard.

Vaccines

The CDC still says, “the human health risk assessment remains low,” yet there is extensive vaccine development.

Finland is now the first country to roll out the experimental bird flu vaccine and purchased vaccines for 10,000 people in mid-June,23 from manufacturer CSL Seqirus. This first round is intended for those “most at risk,” including farm workers and veterinarians. This purchase is part of the 40 million vaccine deal the EU has secured with CSL Seqirus.

This “Zoonotic Influenza vaccine Seqirus” (a two-dose vaccine, given 3 weeks apart) was authorized by European regulators based on immunogenicity studies showing that it elicited immune responses that scientists THINK would be protective against avian influenza.24 (How is “we think so” enough?)

The flu vaccine is traditionally made with eggs, and this has scientists worried. “A majority of the approved vaccines are created by incubating doses in chicken eggs, but the [bird flu’s] rate of fatality among poultry poses an issue for these vaccines.”25 So, many manufacturers are shifting towards more mRNA vaccine development.

“The bird flu outbreak in U.S. dairy cows is prompting development of new, next-generation mRNA vaccines — akin to COVID-19 shots — that are being tested in both animals and people.”26

The University of Pennsylvania is developing an mRNA vaccines for the bird flu using the same techniques that produced the COVID vaccines. According to a May 28th report from the Global Center for Health Security, “[a]n experimental mRNA vaccine against the H5N1 avian flu is highly effective in preventing severe illness and death in lab animals, researchers report.”27

Moderna and Pfizer are also competing for federal contracts to build a national stockpile of mRNA vaccines targeted toward the new bird flu.28

24 different companies are working towards the development of a bird flu vaccine for cows.29Mandatory chicken and dairy cow mRNA vaccinations would then mean we are exposed to mRNA vaccines through our food.

We definitely do not need more vaccines, as more and more studies are coming out documenting that health complications skyrocketed shortly after the Covid vaccinations were released in 2020.30,31,32 From Dr. Joseph Sansone:

“Dr. Francis Boyle, the Harvard educated law professor that drafted the 1989 Biological Weapons and Antiterrorism Act, which passed both houses of Congress unanimously, provided an affidavit stating that Covid 19 injections and mRNA nanoparticle injections violate the law he wrote.

Dr. Boyle asserted that ‘COVID 19 injections,’ ‘COVID 19 nanoparticle injections,’ and ‘mRNA nanoparticle injections’ are biological weapons and weapons of mass destruction and violate Biological Weapons 18 USC § 175; Weapons and Firearms § 790.166 Fla. Stat. (2023).”33

War on Raw Milk

There also seems to be a war on raw milk amidst all this fearmongering. The FDA is now encouraging states to discourage and stop sales of raw milk to prevent human bird flu spread.34 If you tune into various news reports from across the country, the message is similar:

“Eggs and pasteurized milk and dairy products from the store are safe to consume. But the FDA warns against the consumption of raw milk.”

The suggestion to avoid raw milk is listed twice on the list of CDC recommendations:

  • People should avoid exposures to sick or dead animals, including wild birds, poultry, other domesticated birds, and other wild or domesticated animals (including cows), if possible.
  • People should also avoid exposures to animal poop, bedding (litter), unpasteurized (“raw”) milk, or materials that have been touched by, or close to, birds or other animals with suspected or confirmed A(H5N1) virus, if possible.
  • People should not drink raw milk. Pasteurization kills A(H5N1) viruses, and pasteurized milk is safe to drink.
  • People who have job-related contact with infected or potentially infected birds or other animals should be aware of the risk of exposure to avian influenza viruses and should take proper precautions. People should wear appropriate and recommended personal protective equipment when exposed to an infected or potentially infected animal(s). CDC has recommendations for worker protection and use of personal protective equipment (PPE).

There is no evidence supporting foodborne transmission of HPAI to humans. In fact, the FDA and USDA concluded in 2010 that “HPAIV is not considered to be a foodborne pathogen.”35 HPAI in humans is linked to transmission via animal contact, not by foods.36

The only demonstrated transmission is direct contact with animals — not a single human has developed bird flu from milk.

“Recent risk communications from CDC, FDA, and USDA regarding transmission of influenza A sub-type H5N1 (highly pathogenic avian influenza virus or HPAI) to humans via raw milk include no supporting evidence of viral transmission from raw milk to humans in the peer-reviewed literature …

An extensive body of scientific evidence from the peer-reviewed literature introduced herein does not support the assumption by these US government agencies that HPAI transmits to humans via milkborne or foodborne routes and causes disease. Nor does the scientific evidence support the recommendation that consumers should avoid raw milk and raw milk products.”37

And something that the FDA really doesn’t want you to know is that there is no guarantee that pasteurization truly kills the virus.

When explaining why raw milk is not safe, many government agencies use this study with mice, saying heat treatment to the milk significantly reduces the HPAI virus titers. But the conclusion of the study is very, very important “bench-top experiments do not recapitulate commercial pasteurization processes.”

Enter this study that the FDA and mainstream media isn’t talking about which demonstrates that standard pasteurization protocols in the US for milk isn’t enough to actually inactivate the virus since this virus seems to handle heat surprisingly well.

And on top of that, raw milk has a number of antiviral properties and pasteurized milk does not contain.38

The “pasteurized milk at the store is safe, and raw milk is very unsafe and is filled with bird flu” messaging encourages consumers to continue supporting these MEGA CAFO dairy farmers, and discourages consumers from supporting smaller dairy farms raising cows in synchronicity with Mother Nature.

So no, avoiding raw milk won’t stop human spread. But it will encourage more of a centralized food system.

The FDA’s messaging to avoid consumption of raw milk and raw milk products do not appear to be based on scientific evidence, but instead seem to be stemming from the desire to protect the centralized dairy industry.

FDA and USDA will never do anything to compromise the dairy industry, as the dairy industry spends millions of dollars on lobbying each year to keep control.

Confinement Operations Aren’t Working

With the repeated “outbreaks” occurring in poultry flocks year after year, isn’t it obvious that the current industrial agriculture system IS NOT working?

Why aren’t government agencies discussing how diseases easily spread when animals are stuffed in buildings, overcrowded and locked in confinement? Can you imagine if you were stuffed into a home with thousands of people — wouldn’t it be hard not to get sick?

In CAFOs, animals are often regularly on antibiotics due to the close living conditions. Can a body with a wiped-out gut microbiome handle any amount of disease?

Mega confinement barns, extreme biosecurity, separation from nature, vaccinations and antibiotics — it doesn’t work! But it does help them maintain food control and is a profitable business model for big ag, big pharma, and big food companies.

The development of a vaccine and culling birds is much more profitable path for addressing bird flu relative to the natural immunity path.

What You Can Do

The solution is clear — stop supporting their system. Buy from farmers. Remember, the messaging and fearmongering around the bird flu is intentional, with the goal of developing even more food control. Everything through their centralized food system is “safe” — so you can trust the food at grocery stores is safe from HPAI. (So they say …)

Instead, the messaging should be “know where your food comes from, know your farmer and know how the animals are raised.” This discussion on food sourcing and knowing your food comes from is not profitable for industrial ag because they get $0 from that sale, so it isn’t brought up.

The centralization of the food system and shift in farming styles has been somewhat successful in benefiting the big corporations and maintaining food control, while hurting farmers. The size of farms has increased, while the number of farms has shrunk (opposite of what we want for low toxin, nutrient-dense food production.)

In fact, the number of small farms has decreased by over 72% in the last 90 years — in 1935 there were 6.8 million farms, and in 2023 there were 1.89 million farms.

“It is very hard as a farmer to be profitable in the conventional system, so more and more farms are going out of business. And many farms that are in business require an off the farm job to pay the bills.”

We are losing small scale farmers more and more each year, and they need your support to stay in business!

Moral of the story — whenever you can, buy directly from farmers, Cooperatives, or buyers’ clubs — these type of food systems support small-scale, toxin free farming. The prices may be more expensive, but farmers are paid a fair wage and produce higher quality food products.

Plus, with these type of transactions, the big agriculture companies get $0 of this sale, funneling less money into their system. And on top of that, remain grounded and maintain common sense as we head into the next round of bird flu fearmongering.

*

Note to readers: Please click the share button above. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

Ashley Armstrong is the cofounder of Angel Acres Egg Co., which specializes in low-PUFA (polyunsaturated fat) eggs that are shipped to all 50 states (join waitlist here), and Nourish Cooperative, which ships low-PUFA pork, beef, cheese, A2 dairy and traditional sourdough to all 50 states. Waitlists will reopen shortly.

Featured image is from rawpixel.com

All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the Translate Website button below the author’s name (only available in desktop version).

To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.

Click the share button above to email/forward this article to your friends and colleagues. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

Give Truth a Chance. Secure Your Access to Unchained News, Donate to Global Research.

***

Well well well, two of the most senior oncologists in the world this week shared their alarming findings with the experimental COVID gene therapies.

First, we have Prof. Fukushima, and now Prof Angus Dalgleish has reiterated his call to ban all mRNA vaccinations immediately in a forum with Senator Ron Johnson on April 26, 2024. [SOURCE]

Click here to watch the video

Throw Professor Gabriel Oon in there too, Singapore’s most senior oncologist and founding President of Singapore’s Society of Oncology, who has been warning about the dangers of mRNA tech for some time now.

Could it be that these eminent oncologists from different parts of the world suddenly stopped supporting experimental vaccines and together started saying no to mRNA gene therapy as if they planned it? Let’s get to the heart of it: what these three vocal critics have in common is that they’re retired. This means they don’t have to worry about losing their jobs or money for speaking up. But there are many others still working who keep quiet because they’re afraid of risking their jobs.

So, here comes Prof Angus Dalgleish. He’s not just any doctor making noise online; he’s a major player in the health field, the genius behind the discovery of the CD4 receptor, and now the head of The Institute of Cancer Vaccines and Immunotherapy. Discovering the CD4 receptor is a massive deal because it’s like finding the secret entrance that the HIV virus uses to invade the body’s cells, causing AIDS. Prof Dalgleish’s discovery has led to breakthroughs in medicine, allowing us to create treatments that lock this entrance and keep the virus out. Because of his work, we’ve been able to give people fighting HIV a fighting chance. That’s why Prof Dalgleish is such a big name in the battle against HIV/AIDS.

Regarding the mRNA gene therapy, Prof. Dalgleish didn’t just talk about the bad stuff linked to spike proteins, like blood clotting and the scary Guillain-Barre syndrome. He went even further, sharing stories about his patients. These were people who had been doing well in their fight against cancer, but after getting the booster shot, they faced big setbacks. Their cancer came back worse than before.

“I started to see in my melanoma clinic patients who’d been stable for years, who suddenly came in, relapsed. Sometimes the relapse was quite vicious. I mean, they had very bad disease. We had to treat them all over again,” he said.

This shows how tough things got for them after the booster.

On top of that, Prof Angus Dalgleish watched three of his friends get the booster shot because they wanted to travel after being trapped at home for two to three years. Tragically, all three of them saw their cancer come back. Even worse, two of them died because the cancer didn’t respond to the treatments that usually work. This heartbreaking experience is why Dalgleish has started to speak out so strongly. He calls the use of mRNA platform in infectious disease “a gross medical negligence… really, this criminal negligence now, knowing what we do.” If that’s not a mic drop moment, I don’t know what is.

But why are Dalgleish and his fellow big-shot cancer doctors the only ones speaking up loudly while others stay quiet? It’s simple. They can. Being retired means they don’t have to worry about losing their jobs for saying what they think is wrong with the vaccines. This freedom lets them talk openly about their concerns.

Dalgleish is echoing what his oncology colleagues are calling for: a complete stop to using all mRNA gene therapy. He thinks the booster shot, once praised during the pandemic, is actually causing more problems than it solves. So, what do we have here, folks? A trio of retired oncological rebels, wielding nothing but their knowledge and experience, standing up against an industry seemingly hell-bent on its own agenda. It’s a stark reminder of the price of silence and the value of speaking out, no matter how heavy the crown. Let the rallying cry of Prof Angus Dalgleish, Prof Fukushima, and Prof Gabriel Oon echo far and wide: It’s time to question, time to demand better, and, dare I say, time to listen to those no longer shackled by the golden handcuffs of job security.

*

Note to readers: Please click the share button above. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.


The Worldwide Corona Crisis, Global Coup d’Etat Against Humanity

by Michel Chossudovsky

Michel Chossudovsky reviews in detail how this insidious project “destroys people’s lives”. He provides a comprehensive analysis of everything you need to know about the “pandemic” — from the medical dimensions to the economic and social repercussions, political underpinnings, and mental and psychological impacts.

“My objective as an author is to inform people worldwide and refute the official narrative which has been used as a justification to destabilize the economic and social fabric of entire countries, followed by the imposition of the “deadly” COVID-19 “vaccine”. This crisis affects humanity in its entirety: almost 8 billion people. We stand in solidarity with our fellow human beings and our children worldwide. Truth is a powerful instrument.”

Reviews

This is an in-depth resource of great interest if it is the wider perspective you are motivated to understand a little better, the author is very knowledgeable about geopolitics and this comes out in the way Covid is contextualized. —Dr. Mike Yeadon

In this war against humanity in which we find ourselves, in this singular, irregular and massive assault against liberty and the goodness of people, Chossudovsky’s book is a rock upon which to sustain our fight. –Dr. Emanuel Garcia

In fifteen concise science-based chapters, Michel traces the false covid pandemic, explaining how a PCR test, producing up to 97% proven false positives, combined with a relentless 24/7 fear campaign, was able to create a worldwide panic-laden “plandemic”; that this plandemic would never have been possible without the infamous DNA-modifying Polymerase Chain Reaction test – which to this day is being pushed on a majority of innocent people who have no clue. His conclusions are evidenced by renown scientists. —Peter Koenig 

Professor Chossudovsky exposes the truth that “there is no causal relationship between the virus and economic variables.” In other words, it was not COVID-19 but, rather, the deliberate implementation of the illogical, scientifically baseless lockdowns that caused the shutdown of the global economy. –David Skripac

A reading of  Chossudovsky’s book provides a comprehensive lesson in how there is a global coup d’état under way called “The Great Reset” that if not resisted and defeated by freedom loving people everywhere will result in a dystopian future not yet imagined. Pass on this free gift from Professor Chossudovsky before it’s too late.  You will not find so much valuable information and analysis in one place. –Edward Curtin

ISBN: 978-0-9879389-3-0,  Year: 2022,  PDF Ebook,  Pages: 164, 15 Chapters

Price: $11.50 FREE COPY! Click here (docsend) and download.

You may also access the online version of the e-Book by clicking here.

We encourage you to support the eBook project by making a donation through Global Research’s DonorBox “Worldwide Corona Crisis” Campaign Page

All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the Translate Website button below the author’s name (only available in desktop version).

To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.

Click the share button above to email/forward this article to your friends and colleagues. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

Give Truth a Chance. Secure Your Access to Unchained News, Donate to Global Research.

***

Back in 1999 few people seemed to notice what had happened to NATO. Under the leadership of President Clinton and Tony Blair, it converted itself from a very successful defensive alliance into an organisation with the self-awarded power of pro active interventions around the world on behalf of an undefined “international community”.

Its first target was Serbia which had been in the sights of the USA since the early nineties.

It was with a feeling of doom-laden deja-vu that I recently heard on the news that Croatian and Albanian football fans at the Euro competition had been chanting “Kill the Serbs!” There is an old Austrian saying “Im Balkan stirbt niemand” – Nobody dies in the Balkans (not of natural causes, that is). In 1999 people certainly were dying in Kosovo in fighting between the KLA (Kosovo Liberation Army) and Yugoslav federal forces.

Statistics from before the war suggested that an Albanian in Kosovo was about as likely to meet a violent death as an ordinary inhabitant of Washington DC at the same period whereas a Serb was several times more likely to come to an untimely end. Nonetheless this was adduced by the Americans as evidence of genocide by the Serbs. They also helped the KLA provide fake evidence of a mass execution at Racak. Bodies from fighting in the area were assembled to look like victims of a firing squad. The Western media accepted the tale eagerly without question. New Labour applied all its considerable powers of media manipulation to the project.

The massacre that never was constituted sufficient evidence for America-led NATO to present the ultimatum of Rambouillet which demanded free access for NATO troops to all of Yugoslavia for an unspecified period and a commitment to the eventual independence of Kosovo – or else they would bomb – and so they did. It is interesting to compare statements of the different leaders of fragmented Yugoslavia – some of whom were supported by the West as suitable promoters of civilised European values. Just have a guess from their words which leaders received the benison of American and Western approval, as well as arms and technical support.

(a) “Genocide is a natural phenomenon in keeping with the human-social and mythological divine nature. It is not only permitted but even recommended by the the Almighty for the spreading of the One True Faith”.

(b) “Protect brotherhood and unity….nationalism always means isolation from others, being locked in a closed circle and stopping growth. Emerge from a state of hatred, intolerance and distrust…”

(c) “There can be no peace or co-existence between the Islamic faith and non-Islamic institutions. The Islamic movement must and can take power as soon as it is morally strong enough, not only to destroy the non-Islamic power but to build a new Islamic one.”

Leader (a) was the clerico-fascist president of Croatia, Franjo Tudjman, who also said “Thank God my wife is neither a Jew nor a Serb”.

The initial quotation was from his magnum opus – his very own equivalent of Mein Kampf. He was strongly supported by the German Foreign Minister Hans Dietrich Genscher who triumphantly remarked of Croatia’s diplomatic recognition by the EU – “By this, Germany has regained diplomatically everything lost in Eastern Europe as a result of two world wars”. It opened the path to Germany’s new economic and political (and historical) Drang nach Osten.

Leader (b) was none other than the Yugoslav president Slobodan Milosevic, whom the British press dubbed “The Butcher of the Balkans”. He died in custody in suspicious circumstances [assassinated] before the international tribunal could pass verdict or sentence on him. Perhaps that was just as well for the West. He had been hitting prosecution witnesses for six for some time. The quotation was an appeal to the Political Correctness of the Tito era. In July 2016 the international court very quietly exonerated him post mortem from complicity in atrocities in Bosnia on page1303 of the very lengthy judgment against Radovan Karadzic . This was neither much mentioned nor noticed in British or Western media.

Leader (c) was Alia Izetbegovic, first president of Bosnia Hercegovina, armed by the USA and eulogised by Paddy Ashdown at his funeral as father of his people. Ashdown was the EU’s “High Representative” in Bosnia, effectively its Viceroy with total power. He approved that the Muslim war dead should be classified as “Shahid” – martyrs in the Jihad against the infidel Serbs.

So what were the objectives of the USA? In Sir Alfred Sherman’s paper “The Empire for the New Millennium?” he quoted the US Secretary of State, Madeleine Albright’s broad view – 

“We are privileged to live in a country that, through most of this century, has chosen to lead. Today we are helping to shape events in every region in every corner of the world. We exercise this leadership not out of sentiment but out of necessity. We must mobilise every foreign policy tool from the simplest act of persuasion to the blunt instrument of force………We must work to sustain our prosperity by creating an ever-expanding global economy in which American genius and productivity receive their due…”

Not much concern for human rights and a “rules based order” there and a tone of arrogance which we have often heard from America before and since.

The attack on Yugoslavia coincided with the first expansion of NATO into Eastern Europe, contrary to assurances which had been given to Russia that they would not advance “an inch”! That action speaks as loudly and stridently as Madeleine Albright’s words.

Srdja Trifkovic wrote an Afterword to Sir Alfred’s paper entitled

“Why it’s not just the Balkans”. Twenty five years ago Trifkovic was writing presciently on matters with which we have since become all too familiar – the perversion of the very nature of the state, society and of the individual. He begins –

“The behaviour of the masters of the Western world abroad is an unsurprising extension of their behaviour at home. The gnostics who rule in Washington, to take the obvious example, are hell-bent on destroying all real communities in America and on eradicating the remains of its faith, tradition and culture ….all in the name of ideological concepts invoked to justify total control. All remnants of republican government at home and national sovereignty abroad, are to be subjugated to the Supreme Good of democracy, human rights and free markets.

Ideological assumptions that but two generations ago would have been deemed eccentric if not utterly insane, or even demonic, now rule the “mainstream”.

Trifkovic notes that the US Deputy Secretary of State Strobe Talbott declared that the United States may not exist “in its current form” in the 21st century, because the very concept of nationhood – here and throughout the world – will have been rendered obsolete. It should be noted that Talbott’s was an exultant prophecy, not an impartial analyst’s assessment. Talbott wrote in Time magazine (July20 1992) that he is looking forward to a universal government run by “one global authority”.

Here is one optimist’s reason for believing unity will prevail….within the next hundred years …nationhood as we know it will be obsolete; all states will recognise a single global authority ..A phrase briefly fashionable in the mid twentieth century – “citizen of the world” will have assumed real meaning by the end of the 21st. century”…

Trifkovic then goes on to consider what is planned for humanity itself according to one Jon Huer, professor of sociology and philosophy at the University of Maryland.

“And now we come back to the Serbs. …Dr Huer noted that the bombing by Americans and human-shielding by Serbs were symbolic of two different worlds.

The high technology “of ultimate sophistication, so logical and so rational with little human involvement” is countered by the total disregard of logic and rationality”. Huer contends that this fact contrasts “two archetype societies, one future-oriented and the other past-oriented”. Americans believe in the powers of technology “and all that implies – reason, logic, practicality, solution-finding”. Serbs believe in the power of their destiny “powerful and so human”.

Americans are now entering a wholly different era of society and culture, one that the world has never seen before. It is what we might call the “Post Human Era” where all aspects of social life are streamlined and rationalized, and all shades of human relations and nuances simplified into manageable routines and procedures. In a Post-Human society, each individual is isolated from other individuals so that his or her self-calculation can be logically derived without distraction from other human beings.”

Dr Huer goes on:

“My historical hunch is that Americans are the future prototype humans, and Serbs an atavistic holdover from a bygone era. The Post-Human America will dominate the coming century…. elaborating popular culture, dominating economics and finances and continuing military hegemony the world over….. It would behoove the Serbs to recognize this inevitable development ..and join up with what will be, not what was or should be.”

So that was the future for us and the rest of the world, not just the Serbs, as seen twenty five years ago by an academic, one of what we would now call the global elite . It was obviously a view shared by many of our own political class who had forgotten the example of Vietnam. Very much more quickly, the Biden administration and its global hangers-on have forgotten their exemplary humiliation in Afghanistan. So, whilst Klaus Schwab of the World Economic Forum (to which our own British sovereign defers) is nurturing new generations of would-be “Young Global Leaders” to take us down this path, the world has changed .

The overwhelming ultimate sanction for the project, its final enforcer, that “blunt instrument of force”, so beloved of Madeleine Albright and the American dominant class, can still destroy the world but is no longer inevitably effective. Experiences in Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya and proxy wars in Syria and Ukraine demonstrate the fact.

Apart from economic dislocation and impoverishment, the main effect on Europe has been the arrival of hordes of immigrants – just such as the Americans are admitting at their own border. That is a process which the globalists in all the main parties have positively encouraged to weaken national cohesion – and democracy. It is not mere coincidence.

*

Note to readers: Please click the share button above. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the Translate Website button below the author’s name (only available in desktop version).

To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.

Click the share button above to email/forward this article to your friends and colleagues. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

Give Truth a Chance. Secure Your Access to Unchained News, Donate to Global Research.

***

The US Supreme Court has ruled that a president has immunity for official acts, but not for personal acts.

Which is which will be a contentious issue. For example, if a president were to have the CIA, FBI, or Secret Service murder a political rival that would be a personal act. But when President Obama had the US military murder a US citizen suspected of being a terrorist, it was an official act.

But was it?

The justification for the murder was suspicion alone, a bare-faced accusation unconfirmed by a trial and therefore in violation of due process.

Has it ever been established that it is an official act for a president to have a US citizen murdered without due process?

Perhaps it has happened secretly by the CIA but my impression is that President Obama’s murder of the Muslim religious leader who was an American citizen was the first public murder without due process and conviction delivering a death penalty.

Nothing was made of the murder because Americans had been indoctrinated with fear of Muslim terrorists and regarded the murder as an act of war.

When Vice President Biden bragged on TV that he forced by withholding billions of dollars in US aid from the Ukraine government unless it fired the prosecutor investigating the Ukrainian company that paid his son $50,000 a month as a director, was it an official act or a personal act? Why has there been no investigation of this self-serving use of presidential authority?

The Supreme Court majority emphasized that a president must have immunity for official acts or he can be stopped by lawsuits and politically motivated charges from performing his designated functions. In other words, the Court’s decision is based on elementary common sense.

If a president believes an election is fraudulent, it is his responsibility, and thereby an official act, for him to have the election verified. However, the Democrats and whore media defined the issue as “Trump overthrowing the election.” Even experts with the evidence in their hands were indicted for aiding and abetting Trump’s attempted overthrow of the election.

In other words, the criminal indictment brought against Trump assumed without justification that there was no evidence of election fraud.

As Trump had appointed a Justice Department and an entire government consisting of his enemies, his own government treated his official action as his private action.

A rally in support of Trump was mischaracterized by Democrats, whore media, and Republicans such as Senate minority leader Mitch McConnell as an “insurrection.”

What we should be disturbed about is the ability of the Democrats and the whore media to disrupt the 4-year term of a US president with a series of false charges that were never confirmed and then to use unconfirmed charges to indict a former president in an effort to prevent him from again running for president.

Prior to the Supreme Court’s ruling, the indictments against Trump were falling apart.

The biased “special counsel” prosecuting Trump was caught lying to the federal judge, who has put the case on hold. Fani Willis entrusted by the White House with Trump’s prosecution in Atlanta has been found to have given her lover $700,000 of taxpayers’ money with which he took Fani on vacations. Her case against Trump is also on hold.

In other words, the legal machinery the corrupt Democrats have employed against Trump is too corrupt to be able to do its assigned political assassination.

Now the Supreme Court knocks the props out from under the main charge orchestrated from the fake “insurrection” charge.The Supreme Court’s ruling makes it clear that the special council’s charges against Trump have no legal basis and should be dropped.

The response of Democrats is revealing. Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor claims that “the President is now a king above the law.” Democrat US Representative Bennie Thompson, chairman of the January 6 Insurrection Committee, declared the US Supreme Court to be “lawless and corrupt.”

Why aren’t these charges from Sotomayor and Thompson applied to where they belong? Where were Sotomayor and Thompson when President Obama claimed the power of a king to assassinate a US citizen without due process of law? Where were they when President George W. Bush claimed the power of a feudal lord to detain suspects indefinitely without due process of law?

The collapse of American law from its basis in facts and reason into emotion has been underway for years.

No one seems to care.

Appointments to the federal courts no longer emphasize knowledge of law and commitment to law as a shield of the people. Instead, people are appointed according to whether a minority or woman is needed, whether inclusion requires a homosexual or a transgendered person. Law is no longer about justice. It is about “equity.” It is about disposing of challenges to official narratives. Law is now used to revolutionize the United States, to convert it into a tower of babel with no capability to constrain the ruling elites’ use of the country to further their own interests.

This is the issue that needs addressing. How can it be done?

*

Note to readers: Please click the share button above. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

Paul Craig Roberts is a renowned author and academic, chairman of The Institute for Political Economy where this article was originally published. Dr. Roberts was previously associate editor and columnist for The Wall Street Journal. He was Assistant Secretary of the Treasury for Economic Policy during the Reagan Administration. He is a regular contributor to Global Research.

All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the Translate Website button below the author’s name (only available in desktop version).

To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.

Click the share button above to email/forward this article to your friends and colleagues. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

Give Truth a Chance. Secure Your Access to Unchained News, Donate to Global Research.

***

Germany continues its irrational “preparation for war” against Russia. Recent media reports indicate that the country’s military counterintelligence service is about to receive additional support to prepare itself against foreign threats in the event of a conflict with Russia. Berlin seems to be ready to take all possible steps towards an open war with Moscow, even though there is obviously no possibility of Germany being victorious in such a conflict.

Germany’s Military Counterintelligence Service (MAD) is apparently preparing for a conflict scenario. 

According to the German newspaper Die Welt, the MAD is seeking to expand its operational capacity, not only in domestic territories but also abroad. The aim is to make the German armed forces capable of dealing with the challenges that a war scenario poses. The MAD plans to become capable of monitoring not only the activities of German soldiers – which is typical of counterintelligence services – but also spying on foreign and enemy troops.

“The amendment grants the Military Counterintelligence Service the necessary powers to protect the Bundeswehr against espionage and sabotage by foreign powers, as well as against extremist attempts at infiltration from within its own ranks, even during foreign missions,” a spokesperson for the German Ministry of Defense said during an official statement.

The agency plans to use both advanced technology and infiltrated personnel to obtain strategic information from foreign armed forces.

Die Welt reported that expanding MAD’s powers is currently a priority for the German Defense Ministry, which is betting on intelligence as an efficient tool to give Berlin a strategic advantage in the event of war. The Ministry’s plan is in line with Olaf Scholz’s policy of open enmity with the Russian Federation, being Moscow seen by Germany as a threat not only to national security but also to the stability of Europe as a whole.

A bill is about to be voted on to formalize the expansion of MAD’s powers. Given the high level of anti-Russian paranoia in Germany, it is highly likely that the bill will be approved. However, it must be remembered that the German government is extremely unpopular, having occurred a strong rise in the right wing during the recent elections. In practice, it is possible to say that anti-Russian measures have strong institutional support, but they do not please ordinary people, who want the country to follow a path of peace and stability.

Recently, the German authorities have established an action plan to maintain a kind of “war-ready brigade”, deploying around 5,000 German soldiers on NATO’s eastern flank. The Baltic countries, mainly Lithuania, are the main focus of action in this plan, given their geographical proximity to the Russian territory of Kaliningrad and the border with the Republic of Belarus. Germany believes in the baseless narrative that Russia plans to invade Poland and Lithuania in order to annex territories connecting Belarus to Kaliningrad, which is why Berlin is proposing to “closely monitor” the situation in the region.

It is expected that the new powers of the MAD will allow the German secret service to support NATO partners in this task of monitoring Russian actions. Currently, the MAD has extremely limited operational capabilities, as the agency is only legally allowed to operate within German military facilities. Berlin wants to change this scenario and allow actions abroad, as it sees the current situation with Russia as serious and dangerous, demanding reforms in German military law.

Obviously, every country has the right to change the structure of its intelligence system to improve national security. The problem is when these changes are motivated by unreal “threats” invented by US-backed foreign media. There is no Russian interest in promoting territorial expansion towards the Baltics. The recent territorial reintegration of some former Ukrainian oblasts does not mean that Russia has any expansionist plans. Moscow only accepted the desire of these regions to join the Federation because there was no other way to guarantee the security of the ethnic Russians living there, but there is no interest on Russia’s part in acquiring new territories in Western Europe.

Germany is simply preparing to face a fake threat.

Moreover, it is doing so in an amateurish and naive manner. It does not seem rational for a country to publicly announce its plan to expand its intelligence service and use spies abroad. Now, Germany’s “enemies” – which, in this specific case, are the Russians – have all the necessary information to also react through counterintelligence operations.

In practice, Berlin has neutralized its own intelligence potential, which shows how unprepared the country is to join any military initiative. The best for Germany is to focus on its own internal problems instead of seeking to wage unwinnable wars.

*

Note to readers: Please click the share button above. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

This article was originally published on InfoBrics.

Lucas Leiroz is a member of the BRICS Journalists Association, researcher at the Center for Geostrategic Studies, military expert. He is a regular contributor to Global Research. You can follow Lucas on X (former Twitter) and Telegram.

Featured image is from InfoBrics

All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the Translate Website button below the author’s name (only available in desktop version).

To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.

Click the share button above to email/forward this article to your friends and colleagues. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

Give Truth a Chance. Secure Your Access to Unchained News, Donate to Global Research.

***

There was a “huge commotion” in the office of Volodymyr Zelensky due to the debate between US President Joe Biden and his Republican rival Donald Trump, said Verkhovna Rada (Parliament) deputy Oleksandr Dubinsky on his Telegram channel.

“The biggest commotion after the Trump-Biden debate is now not in the United States, but in Ukraine, in President Zelensky’s office,” said the parliamentarian.

In Dubinsky’s view, Kiev must now consider “what to do next.”

“Assessing the possibility of Trump’s victory, Zelensky (and if he doesn’t understand, then Yermak (Andrei Yermak, head of the presidential staff) must understand that he needs to end the conflict before the US elections,” he posted. “Because after that, he [Zelensky] could become a problem implementing the new president’s plans.”

 

At the same time, says the deputy, Zelensky could also become a problem for Biden if he is re-elected since he wants to restore Ukraine’s borders from 1991, when the country achieved independence from the Soviet Union.

“You can endlessly rely on the ‘borders of ‘91’, but it is obvious to everyone that without the support of the United States (and even the acting administration no longer supports), and given the heterogeneity of the European Union, this will be quickly ended,” he concluded.

American media agree that Biden performed poorly in the first debate with his predecessor on June 27 in Atlanta. The current American president stuttered and did not always clearly formulate his thoughts. After the event, a television camera captured the moment when Biden’s wife, Jill, helped him down the stairs. Now, politicians and journalists are talking about Democrats abandoning Biden as their candidate for office and replacing him with another candidate.

It is also recalled that in early June, Zelensky said Trump would become a “loser president” if he wins the election and agrees to end the conflict at Ukraine’s expense, something the billionaire has consistently promised to do if he is to win.

Since the start of the Russian special military operation in February 2022, Ukraine has received significant financial contributions to its budget. However, financial assistance from other countries to Ukraine will reach its lowest level in 2024. The US and its allies immediately began supplying Kiev with weapons, including heavy weapons, which exacerbated the conflict and increased the risk of a direct military confrontation between Russia and NATO countries.

The slowdown in financial aid to Ukraine shows that Western countries are becoming tired of being mired in the war, and although the Biden administration remains committed to prolonging the conflict, even if there is a silent acceptance that Russia has won, consistent US support is impossible, even if Trump is to lose the elections and is unable to immediately push forward his plan for peace.

Nonetheless, a Trump victory will see accelerated efforts towards peace, unlike a Biden victory, which will only seek peace when all possible resources have been exhausted.

Trump has consistently been leading in the polls, and this is only set to continue after Trump’s dominance in the debate. Given Biden’s poor performance, many analysts and even members of his own party are calling for him to be replaced as the Democratic Party candidate since the CNN debate took place before the closing date for nominations.  Nonetheless, two names are being considered in his place: Vice President Kamala Harris and California Governor Gavin Newsom. The problem is that there is little time to build a new candidacy before November 5.

US foreign policy dominated the first part of the presidential debate, and the clash between both candidates focused on the type of confrontation with Russia. Biden took pride in having created a broad front of nations against the Russian Federation as punishment for its special operation, while Trump criticised the Democrat for having allowed the conflict, for financing Kiev, and for dragging the United States into the situation.

According to Trump, the war would not have happened under his watch. In fact, Trump had positive exchanges with Russian President Vladimir Putin when he was in the White House. There was a capacity for dialogue behind the curtain that is currently suspended because the Democratic Party is more interventionist and driven by its normative preaching.

Trump has a less interventionist stance, consistent with the Republican segment that the candidate represents. And due to this less interventionist stance, it is almost certain that the blind support that the Kiev regime received from the Biden administration will come to a halt if Trump is to be elected. Biden’s poor performance would have only elevated Trump’s popularity, which in turn, as Dubinsky pointed out, would have caused a “huge commotion” in Kiev as their only chance of survival rests with the Democrats.

*

Note to readers: Please click the share button above. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

This article was originally published on InfoBrics.

Ahmed Adel is a Cairo-based geopolitics and political economy researcher. He is a regular contributor to Global Research.

Featured image is from InfoBrics