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.

***

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

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

By Ahmed Adel, July 01, 2024

The number of Ukrainian recruits who do not want to fight is proliferating despite the military facing a major manpower shortage, The Guardian reported. Although Ukraine has secured money and weapons from the West to aid in the war effort, at least for the next few months, manpower shortage is one issue that cannot be resolved.

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

By Peter Koenig, July 02, 2024

Last night’s (June 27, 2024) debate between President Joe Biden and Presidential contender, Donald Trump, was according to most media-outlets a ridiculous disaster. President Biden appeared to be totally lost and maybe only partially aware on where he was and what he was doing. It left the Dems in panic mode.

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

By Mohamed Elmaazi and Kevin Gosztola, July 02, 2024

U.S. prosecutors accepted a guilty plea to one conspiracy charge under the Espionage Act, with no additional prison sentence. The plea deal did not contain a gag order, and officials agreed to Assange’s request to avoid travel to the continental United States.

Breakthrough Study Uncovers ‘Off Switch’ for COVID mRNA Shots

By Dr. Joseph Mercola, July 01, 2024

A preprint study revealed a potential way to clear out mRNA from COVID-19 shots. The research, led by cardiologist, internist and epidemiologist Dr. Peter McCullough, offers hope for those who are suffering from health damage caused by COVID-19 injections.

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

By Dr. David Stea, July 02, 2024

The bad news is that in the USA, much of what transpired, or failed to transpire, in the realm of social progress was dictated by fears of Communism during the two decades after the end of WWII.  Many social programs, such as those directed at ending racial segregation in the American south, were labeled Communist or communist-inspired by reactionaries.  

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

By Dr. William Makis, July 02, 2024

What I am about to talk about now, as a doctor, was very shocking data to me. This is a comparison of the risks involved in administering the seasonal flu vaccine and the COVID vaccine to people over the age of 65. It is.

The Resurrection of French Nationalism?

By Dr. Paul Craig Roberts, July 01, 2024

France was the last European nation to lose its sovereignty, and France might be the first to recover its sovereignty. In the 1960s France was still a nation of ethnic French as contrasted with the tower of babel and a geographical entity that it is today.

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.

***

“By allowing the US government to compel Julian Assange to plead guilty to a crime he did not commit, America has condemned itself to be a land where telling the truth is a crime.” —Scott Ritter

Scott is right of course. In more ways than one. This could set a precedent for any journalist who tells the truth. It is also a way of intimidating journalists from doing their honest job, of investigating and publishing the truth. Julian Assange’s case may also set a precedent that the First Amendment of the US Constitution is not sacrosanct.

Let us be honest, the First Amendment has been beaten up badly many times over the past few decades, even more so under reigning neoliberal policies – around the western world.

Setting the western world apart, sounds like seeking divisions. It is the west that sets itself apart with the rules-based orders – that kills international and local laws and even national Constitutions – and is attempting to set precedence of elite-made rules, over the laws of the lands and of the hearts – ethics, moral standards.

Even the New York Times (NYT) stated:

“Julian Assange, the WikiLeaks leader, was indicted on 17 counts of violating the Espionage Act for his role in obtaining and publishing secret military and diplomatic documents in 2010, the Justice Department announced on Thursday — a novel case that raises profound First Amendment issues.”

“Assange Indicted Under Espionage Act, Raising First Amendment Issues”NYT. 23 May 2019.

Much more can be and has been said about losing freedom of speech, of expression, of press. These sad and ugly precedents have been set, by a falling hegemon. As this empire is falling by its own weight, its “precedents” will be falling as well.

On the other hand, Julian Assange

“Agreed to plead guilty to ONE felony related to the disclosure of national security information in exchange for his release from Belmarsh Prison in the United Kingdom” (Common Dreams, June 24, 2024, and this

This is one charge of 17 (the others have been dropped), “disclosure of national security information”, which he received from Chelsea Manning and which has been published later on – even by the mainstream media, who were not accused, indicted and in prison.

That is what our world is all about. We, the People, have let it drift into certainly one of the most dystopian states, humanity has ever known. Even George Orwell would turn in is grave, would he know that his “1984” predictive novel would be so boldly surpassed, in just 40 years beyond the target of his prophecy.

Today what is important – MOST IMPORTANT – Julian Assange is FREE. He is free and back with his family. He is able to enjoy the first time in his and their lives, his kids outside of prison confinement.

After all these years, it sounds like a miracle.

Julian Assange’s wife, Stella, gave happy and emotional interview with BBC (9 min) on 25 June, when Julian was on his way to the US Court in Saipan, Northern Mariana Island, in the North Pacific, a US-administered territory. See video below.

And then, as reported by 9 News Australia – Julian’s Heartfelt Welcome Home #JulianAssange#WikiLeaks#australia:

Julian Assange has finally been reunited with his loved ones. The WikiLeaks founder arrived in Australia on Wednesday, 26 June, returning to his homeland after a 14-year-long legal battle. Upon landing, Assange was seen embracing his wife, Stella Assange, while lifting her off the ground and hugging his father, John Shipton. His return marks the end of a long saga, during which Assange spent over five years in a British high-security prison and seven years in asylum at the Ecuadorian embassy in London, fighting extradition to the US.

Julian has achieved his freedom with the help of many – his lawyers, Jennifer Robinson and Barry Pollak; the current Australian Prime Minister and Foreign Affairs Minister, who negotiated diplomatically and secretly for over two years with the Biden Administration; the many supporters praying for him; those visiting him in prison; those taking to the streets, and demonstrating for his release; and all those who quietly put their brains in spiritual mode, meditating for justice – Julian has his deserved and due freedom again. That is important.

See what US Representative Marjorie Taylor Greene (Rep.) has to say in defense of Julian Assange (45 sec.):

Roger Waters, a big fan and defender of Julian’s, gave a brief interview on 26 June about the release of Julian. He does not hide his happiness, but also expresses his distraught about the loss of freedom of speech and expression symbolized by Julian’s 14 years of confinement, deprivation of freedom for doing his true job as a journalist – TELLING THE TRUTH – see this:

Here are comments of Julian’s Defense Team during a Press Conference outside the US Court in Saipan, Northern Mariana Island:

It is said that Julian’s Defense Team is considering filing a lawsuit with the European Court or the UN for torture against him, the lawyer of the WikiLeaks founder told RIA Novosti, see this:

What will that bring? No retribution, for sure. But perhaps a reimbursement of the tremendous debt Julian and his family and team have incurred – over US$520,000 for his travel and the hired jet.

Julian’s freedom also shows that a sense of justice still prevails, the justice of morals and ethics has overcome. And that is important.

No matter whether the circumstances were helped by a last-minute Washington’s face-saving act, or 2024 being a US-election year and the Dems needing all the help they can get. Freedom has won.

And isn’t this a sign that this freedom still enhances the noble thought behind the First Amendment? That freedom of expression may have a revival?

*

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.

Peter Koenig is a geopolitical analyst and a former Senior Economist at the World Bank and the World Health Organization (WHO), where he worked for over 30 years around the world. He is the author of Implosion – An Economic Thriller about War, Environmental Destruction and Corporate Greed; and co-author of Cynthia McKinney’s book “When China Sneezes: From the Coronavirus Lockdown to the Global Politico-Economic Crisis” (Clarity Press – November 1, 2020).

Peter is a Research Associate of the Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG). He is also a non-resident Senior Fellow of the Chongyang Institute of Renmin University, Beijing.

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.

***

For five years, the United States Justice Department defied calls from around the world to drop Espionage Act charges against WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange. Prosecutors even faced pressure from the Australian government, which demanded that a close ally end the case and return one of their citizens to his home country. Yet prosecutors remained committed to putting Assange on trial.

That all changed in May after the British High Court of Justice granted Assange an extradition appeal hearing on the question of the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. The Justice Department “re-engaged” Assange’s legal team and participated in “very intense” negotiations for a plea deal.

U.S. prosecutors accepted a guilty plea to one conspiracy charge under the Espionage Act, with no additional prison sentence. The plea deal did not contain a gag order, and officials agreed to Assange’s request to avoid travel to the continental United States. He was released on bail from Belmarsh prison and flew on a charter flight to a courthouse in a U.S. territory in the Pacific Ocean known as the Northern Mariana Islands.

More importantly, the Justice Department pledged not to pursue any future charges for any uncharged conduct that Assange allegedly committed prior to his guilty plea.

This abrupt shift brought a conclusion to a 14-year-long legal saga on June 26. The award-winning journalist had spent a little more than five years detained at Belmarsh prison, which is often referred to as “Britain’s Guantanamo.” Chief Judge Ramona Manglona accepted the plea deal and sentenced Assange to time served.

“I do hope that there will in fact be some peace restored,” Manglona remarked. “I’ll just note, too, that this past week the island has been celebrating 80 years of peace since the Battle of Saipan. This was a very bloody place between the Japanese and the Americans, and the people have been celebrating the fact that we’ve been celebrating peace here with the former enemy.”

“And now, there is some peace that you need to restore with yourself when you walk out, and you pursue your life as a free man.”

Before ending the proceeding, Manglona added,

“Mr. Assange, apparently, it’s an early happy birthday to you,” and, “It’s probably the first one that you’ll have outside of a prison or any type of limitation.” (His birthday is July 3.)

A press conference was held by Stella Assange and Assange’s legal team in Canberra after Assange landed in Australia. While Assange was not at the press conference, his attorneys revealed key details about the nature of the plea agreement and the legal and political factors that helped end this multi-year long prosecution and extradition case.

The US Came Back to the Table After the Appeal Hearing Was Granted

Justice Department prosecutors were not truly motivated to come to a plea agreement with Assange until weeks ago, after the High Court in London granted Assange the right to appeal his extradition.

“[T]he negotiations were a protracted process that went on for several months, sort of in fits and starts,” explained Assange’s U.S. lawyer Barry Pollack. “We were not close to any sort of a resolution until a few weeks ago, when the Department of Justice re-engaged and there have been very intense negotiations over the last few weeks.”

This point was also emphasized by Stella Assange, who said it was “important to recognize that Julian’s release and the breakthrough in negotiations came at a time when there had been a breakthrough in the legal case, in the U.K.” The High Court had “allowed permission to appeal. There was a court date set for the 9-10 of July….in which Julian would be able to raise the First Amendment argument at the High Court.”

“It is in this context that things finally started to move,” Stella declared.

Assange was granted the right to appeal his extradition to the U.S. on the basis that it was at least arguable that he would be prejudiced at trial by reason of his nationality and citizenship. The U.K. Extradition Act 2003 prohibits extradition to a country where a person may be prejudiced at trial by reason of their nationality.

Assistant U.S. Attorney Gordon Kromberg, a lead prosecutor in the case, told the courts that the U.S. government might argue during trial proceedings that Assange was not protected by the First Amendment.

“[Kromberg] made a formal sworn declaration on behalf of the respondent and in support of the extradition request,” the High Court stated in its judgment of March 26. “He put himself forward as able to provide authoritative assistance as to the application of the First Amendment. It can fairly be assumed that he would not have said that the prosecution ‘could argue that foreign nationals are not entitled to protections under the First Amendment’ unless that was a tenable argument that the prosecution was entitled to deploy with a real prospect of success.”

“If such an argument were to succeed it would (at least arguably) cause the applicant prejudice on the grounds of his non-US citizenship (and hence, on the grounds of his nationality),” the court added.

The U.S. government deployed their hubristic argument about Assange and the First Amendment as part of their defense of the extradition request—and it backfired.

Marjorie Cohn, the dean of the People’s Academy of International law and former president of the National Lawyers Guild, asserted,

“It is no coincidence that the plea came a little more than a month after the High Court of England and Wales ruled that Assange could appeal the extradition order against him. The Justice Department apparently feared it would lose the appeal.”

Stella Assange said that she believed the negotiations “revealed how uncomfortable the United States government is, in fact, [with] having these arguments aired.”

“The fact that this case is an attack on journalism, it’s an attack on the public’s right to know, and it should never have been brought,” she concluded. “Julian should never have spent a single day in prison. But today we celebrate because today Julian is free.”

US Agreed Not to Pursue Further Charges

One of the most incredible revelations regarding Assange’s plea deal is that the U.S. government “agreed that they would not bring any other charges against Julian for any conduct, any publications, any newsgathering, anything at all that occurred prior to the time of the plea,” according to Barry Pollack.

This is of particular note because, as Pollack explained, even if Assange succeeded in his appeal against extradition, that success “would have just resolved this case.”

The 18-count indictment against Assange focused almost exclusively on the WikiLeaks publisher’s role in obtaining, possessing, and publishing documents between 2009 and 2011, known as the Iraq War logs, Afghanistan War diaries, Guantanamo Bay detainee files, and diplomatic cables (Cablegate).

One criminal charge under the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act was disturbingly expanded by prosecutors to include a speech that Assange gave to a room of computer specialists during which he encouraged people to provide WikiLeaks with information which was in the public interest.

However, Assange was never charged for WikiLeaks’ role in publishing emails belonging to the Democratic National Committee—acts which even former FBI director Robert Mueller concluded were likely protected by the First Amendment.

Nor was Assange ever charged for WikiLeaks’ 2017 exposé detailing the CIA’s expansive cyberwarfare arsenal known as the Vault 7 materials. The leak and publication of files led Mike Pompeo, when he was CIA director, to reportedly obsess over targeting, kidnapping, or killing Assange in revenge.

With the plea agreement [PDF], which The Dissenter reviewed, the U.S. government cannot ever bring a case against Assange for other acts of journalism.

 

“The United States agrees not to bring any additional charges against the Defendant based upon conduct that occurred prior to the time of this Plea Agreement,” the plea agreement states, “unless the Defendant breaches this Plea Agreement.”

Judge Manglona said,

“I was quite surprised, but I think it’s a very generous statement.” She noted that it applied to everything for the past 14 years. “That’s very broad.”

Another key position that Assange’s legal team took during the negotiations was that “any resolution would have to end this matter,” according to Pollack. Meaning that “Julian would be free, [and that] he was not going to do any additional time in prison. He was not going to do time under supervision. He was not going to do time under a gag order.”

Political Lobbying Behind the Scenes

Australian human rights attorney Jennifer Robinson (Credit: Free Assange News)

 

Australian human rights attorney Jennifer Robinson, who represented Assange in the U.K., further described the strong political dimension to the case. Extensive lobbying efforts by members of the Australian government proved crucial to the overall result.

Robinson thanked Australian prime minister Anthony Albanese for his “principled leadership,” “statesmanship,” and “diplomacy.” She explained that raising opposition to Assange’s extradition at the “highest levels” of the U.S. government “completely changed the situation for Julian” and “enabled our negotiations with the U.S. government that allowed us to reach this outcome.”

The prime minister was under intense and growing pressure from the wider public, parts of the press, and an increasing number of Australian members of parliament.

Robinson credited Kevin Rudd, who is Australia’s Ambassador to the US and a former Australian prime minister, as well as Steven Smith, who is Australia’s High Commissioner to the U.K., and the consular staff in London. Smith accompanied Assange on his flight from London to Saipan.

She explained that Rudd’s “relentless efforts in Washington working together, closely with us—with myself and my co-counsel Barry Pollack, completely changed our relationship with the U.S. and completely changed the negotiations. Without his efforts and his adept diplomacy, we would not be in the position we are today. And Julian would not be home.”

Speaking to the Australia Broadcasting Corporation on June 27, Robinson explained that once Ambassador Rudd was sent to Washington D.C. the U.S. Department of Justice finally started to deal with the defense team in a meaningful way.

“That opened up conversations for us with the Department of Justice that…we were trying to have and were not getting responses and so things moved.”

As many people, including Stella Assange, argued over the past few years, this was a politically motivated prosecution, and therefore it stood to reason that it would be political pressure, which would ultimately resolve the case.

The lobbying efforts of high-ranking Australian politicians and government officials would not have occurred without the intense lobbying of everyday members of the public, activists, and press freedom and human rights organizations (the latter of which were brought on board as a result of intensive upward pressure).

A number of years ago there were only a few political figures in the U.K. and Australia, who were willing to be open and clear in their opposition to Assange’s extradition. For example, people such as then-Labour MP for Derby North Chris Williamson and George Galloway, who was recently re-elected to parliament, as well as Australia’s independent MP for Clark, Tasmania Andrew Wilkie and the conservative politician George Christensen, at the time a member of House of Representatives with the National Liberal Party, for Dawson, Queensland.

“It took millions of people…people working behind the scenes, people protesting on the streets—for days and weeks and months and years,” Stella Assange told the press conference, “and we achieved it.”

Julian Assange and his legal team arrive in Canberra, Australia (Credit: Free Assange News)

Assange Required to Instruct WikiLeaks to Destroy Unpublished Files

Before Assange’s guilty plea was entered in court, the agreement with the U.S. government required him to “take all action within his control to cause the return to the United States or the destruction of any such unpublished information in his possession, custody, or control, or that of WikiLeaks or any affiliate of WikiLeaks.”

 

 

Barry Pollack confirmed that Assange had instructed WikiLeaks editor-in-chief Kristinn Hrafnsson to destroy “any materials they might have that were not published.”

WikiLeaks editor-in-chief Kristinn Hrafnsson confirmed to The Dissenter that Assange had requested that he destroy “all unpublished U.S. secret documents.”

This provision in the plea agreement echoed the infamous decision in 2013 by editors at The Guardian newspaper to take a power drill and angle grinder to a hard drive which contained copies of vast troves of information leaked by National Security Agency (NSA) whistleblower Edward Snowden to then Guardian columnist Glenn Greenwald.

Editors were threatened with legal action if they did not either hand over the hard drives. They agreed to destroy them in the basement of their headquarters in London, even though it was understood that copies existed elsewhere outside of the U.K.

Technicians from Government Communications Headquarters—the U.K equivalent of the NSA—filmed the destruction of the computer hard drive while taking notes and providing instructions to the editors.

Guardian editor Paul Johnson was among those who described the destruction as a “purely symbolic” act, since everyone involved knew that there were copies of the materials—which revealed the details of Anglo-American mass-warrantless spying and surveillance of hundreds of millions of people in the U.S. and around the world.

Yet the act was more than symbolic. It was a potent reminder of the power of the U.K. government (acting with the encouragement of the U.S. national security state), and its ability to threaten and bend even well-known and well-resourced establishment news media to its will.

As investigative journalist Kit Klarenberg recounted for The Dissenter, three years after the destruction of the hard drive, The Guardian’s investigative team “was dissolved, and Guardian coverage of military, security and intelligence issues declined precipitously. In fact, presently, many key national security correspondents at the Guardian have little background in the field.”

The US Did Not—or Could Not—Identify Any Victims 

The United States government was unwilling or unable to identify any “victim” of the published leaks, and prosecutors did not request that Assange pay restitution for any alleged harm.

 

 

However, during a press briefing on June 26, State Department spokesperson Matthew Miller maintained there were “victims.”

“If you recall when WikiLeaks first disseminated and published State Department cables, they did so without redacting names,” Miller falsely asserted. “They just threw them out there for the world to see. And so the documents they published gave identifying information of individuals, who were in contact with the State Department. That included opposition leaders, human rights activists around the world whose positions were put in some danger because of their public disclosure.”

“Those of you who covered the State Department at the time will probably remember that in the days leading up to that release the State Department really had to scramble to get people out of danger, to move them out of harm’s way,” Miller said.

Miller was not at the State Department. He was working at the time as a Justice Department spokesperson in President Barack Obama’s administration, and in fact, Miller opposed the Assange prosecution before he was an official in President Joe Biden’s administration.

The entire cache of 250,000-plus diplomatic cables became available on the internet because Guardian editor David Leigh included the passphrase for an encrypted file containing the cables in a book he co-authored about working with WikiLeaks.

Assange called the State Department to warn them of the risks posed by the publication of unredacted cables.

“I appreciate that you’ve recognized that these kinds of releases absolutely can pose a threat to the very sources reflected in the material,” said Cliff Johnson, who was a legal advisor to the State Department.

Miller complained about the supposed negative impact that the release of the cables had on U.S. diplomacy. But Secretary of Defense Robert Gates said when the cables were first published,

“I’ve heard the impact of these releases on our foreign policy described as a meltdown, as a game-changer, and so on,” and, “I think those descriptions are fairly significantly overwrought.”

“The fact is, governments deal with the United States because it’s in their interest, not because they like us, not because they trust us, and not because they believe we can keep secrets.” He also said “every other government in the world knows the United States government leaks like a sieve, and it has for a long time.”

Associated Press reporter Matthew Lee was covering the State Department when WikiLeaks first published the cables. As he recalled, there was no “public concern that was raised about the potential security risks posed to sources who might have been quoted.”

Aside from the cables, the U.S. military was never able to find any evidence that the publications of military war logs from Iraq and Afghanistan resulted in any person’s death.

Pentagon Papers whistleblower Ellsberg testified at Assange’s extradition hearing in September 2020. He noted that Assange withheld 15,000 files from the release of the Afghanistan War Logs. He also requested assistance from the State Department and the Defense Department on redacting names, but they refused to help WikiLeaks redact a single document, even though it is a standard journalistic practice to consult officials to minimize harm.

“I have no doubt that Julian would have removed those names,” Ellsberg declared. Both the Pentagon and State Department could have helped WikiLeaks remove the names of individuals.Rather than take steps to protect individuals, Ellsberg suggested U.S. officials chose to “preserve the possibility of charging Mr Assange with precisely the charges” that he faced.

Assange Stated in Court That He Committed Journalism 

The U.S. government may have accepted a plea deal that showed Assange some mercy, but they still coerced, or forced, the WikiLeaks founder to plead guilty to journalism if he wanted to obtain his freedom.  

At the court hearing in Saipan, Judge Manglona asked Assange to describe what he did that constituted “the crime charged.”

“Working as a journalist, I encouraged my source to provide information that was said to be classified in order to publish that information. I believe that the First Amendment protected that activity, but I accept that as written it’s a violation of the Espionage Act statute.”

“So you had [a] certain belief, but you understand what the law actually says as well?” Manglona replied. 

Assange told the judge,

“I believe the First Amendment and the Espionage Act are in contradiction with each other, but I accept that it would be difficult to win such a case given all the circumstances.”  

Essentially, Assange recalled an act that reporters at numerous media outlets commit routinely, and the judge accepted that as a “crime.”

Matthew McKenzie, deputy chief for the counterintelligence and export control section in the U.S. Justice Department’s national security division, emphasized that the U.S. government rejects Assange’s contention that his conduct should be protected by the First Amendment. 

The U.S. Justice Department could have celebrated the end of this legal saga and spun it as a victory. But prosecutors put out an announcement that contained no statements from Attorney General Merrick Garland, the U.S. attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia, or any prosecutors who were involved in the case. It contained a closing argument that one might hear before the jury deliberated over a verdict, but no proclamations of victory. 

Stephen Rohde, a constitutional scholar and former chair of the ACLU Foundation of Southern California, said,

“When U.S. prosecutors had to put up or shut up to satisfy the High Court that Assange’s right to freedom of expression would be protected if he was extradited, they blinked. An Assange trial posed grave risks that the U.S. would be embarrassed by revelations that the CIA had plotted to kidnap or assassinate him.” 

The case ended in a whimper for the U.S. government. In contrast, Assange and his legal team were mindful of the damage to press freedom but jubilant that one of the most well-known political prisoners in the world was free.

And for journalists and media organizations around the world, it was a bittersweet outcome.

Like Jennifer Robinson explained at the press conference, the plea agreement has no impact on legal precedent. It is the prosecution itself which set the precedent that media professionals anywhere in the world can face prosecution by the U.S., under a law with no public interest defense, for the crime of journalism.

*

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 Dissenter

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.

***

Last night’s (June 27, 2024) debate between President Joe Biden and Presidential contender, Donald Trump, was according to most media-outlets a ridiculous disaster.

President Biden appeared to be totally lost and maybe only partially aware on where he was and what he was doing.

It left the Dems in panic mode.

At least those who have no clue, who have been kept in the dark by their own party.

Video: The First 2024 Presidential Debate

They have been told, “We are gonna win in November, and Joe Biden is our candidate”. His popularity has been faked by statistics, so the less informed would go along supporting somebody who had lost the capacity of thinking straight. And that for the Presidency of the United States – the Hegemon-in-Chief.

The ”thinkers” of the Dems Party have probably prepared a plot – a secret plan – worked out for years already to have a chance to beat Donald Trump in preventing a hypothetical case, where electronic cheating of the vote-counting doesn’t fully work for them.

It is well possible that the Dems will pull a last minute wild card, just before or during the Democratic National Convention (DNC) – 19-22 August 2024 in Chicago – and propose an alternative candidate to Joe Biden, one well-versed in international and national affairs, internationally quite popular, especially with Israel’s Chief Zionist, Netanyahu – for example, current Secretary of State, Antony Blinken.

Secretary Blinken would have a fair chance to come close to beat Donald Trump, possibly close enough so that the missing “percentages” could be easily manufactured in favor of Blinken. He is a Globalist, Jew, and Zionist – and trusted ally of Zionist Israel, the country that really runs the United States.

It is widely believed that (other than Israel), Blinken is really running the White House, and former President Obama may also be there in a prominent advisory role.

Some people have mentioned Michelle Obama as a last minute shoe-in at the DNC. Frankly, that appears less likely, as she may be popular mostly with women but overall stands a lesser chance because of her lack of on-the-ground experience.

Stepping back a few years, let us look at the real count of the 2020 elections, when Donald Trump was the real winner by a landslide, some people talk about at least two-thirds of all the votes. Some may also remember the “blackout” for several hours, when there was no vote-counting reporting in the night from Tuesday, November 3 to Wednesday, November 4, 2020.

That is when the fraud happened – in one way or another (with lost mail-in votes and highly sophisticated electronic voting-boot manipulations; but this is yet another story) – and in the morning the results were suddenly turned around. From an ever-increasing lead of Donald Trump in the evening of November 3, to his sudden defeat by Joe Biden, with an electoral vote count of 306 to 232; and a 4-point margin in favor of Biden in the popular vote in the morning of November 4. See this.

In fact, in “real terms” and by Real Law, as opposed to the Globalists “rules-based order”, Donald Trump is still President and Commander-in-Chief of the United States of America.

However, under no circumstances could the Globalist elite, aka the US Democrats, let a non-Globalist President run the Empire. By the way, these same rules apply to Europe. A large proportion of so-called socialists and “greens” have sold their soul to the devil, or you may call it, the Globalists, those being directed by the World Economic Forum’s (WEF) Klaus Schwab and the dark forces behind the WEF’s Great Reset, as well as the WEF-allied United Nations (UN) with its Agenda 2030, and its illustrious 17 Sustainable Development Goals (SDG) – which in reality hide the true agenda of destroying humanity as we know it.

No way could these “nameless” elites tolerate a non-Globalist in the White House, or God forbid at the head of the European Union. Leaders who think nationalist, like Donald Trump – MAGA (Make America Great Again) or Hungary’s PM, Viktor Orban, MEGA (Make Europe Great Again, meaning each one of the European countries), are a no-go.

So, the fight will be fierce from now to November 6, 2024 – Presidential Elections, lies and manipulations of the dark forces, no holds barred. In Europe, the neoliberal corrupt Ursula von der Leyen has just been reappointed for another five years – though the European Parliament still must rubber-stamp her appointment. That may happen early next week.

A seemingly unrelated matter but since everything is connected, the relation is there as we see, could change the entire monstrous game-plan.

Depending on Russia’s reaction to the recent NATO coordinated and guided missile attack by a US-made ATACMS multiple cluster bomb on a Sebastopol beach, killing 5, and possibly injuring as many as 150 people – the world’s macro-balance may change, on relative short-notice.

Russia’s Foreign Minister, Sergey Lavrov, has warned Washington, as well as the US Ambassador to Moscow, that the responsibility of this “deliberate missile strike against the civilian population of Sebastopol, lies primarily with Washington, which supplies this weapon to Ukraine, as well as with the Kiev Regime, from whose territory this strike was launched. Such actions will not go unanswered.”

Mr. Putin’s patience has been running thin already for a while. It is possible that this provoking attack has crossed the red line for good.

What Russia’s reaction may be, is at this point anybody’s guess. But nuclear is not excluded.

It could be a tactical nuclear attack on several key European / NATO adversary “provocateurs”, London, Paris, Frankfurt, and even Washington and New York – all simultaneously. “Tactical”- to avoid civilian casualties to the extent possible, yet, to knock out vital infrastructure and financial centers, where much of the western funding for the Ukraine war is coming from.

This is, of course sheer speculation. However, if such retribution – or similar – should be Russia’s reaction, the world’s power balance as we know it, may forever change.

Let us hope a nuclear attack will not happen. But if it does, it would certainly be the West’s responsibility.

*

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.

Peter Koenig is a geopolitical analyst and a former Senior Economist at the World Bank and the World Health Organization (WHO), where he worked for over 30 years around the world. He is the author of Implosion – An Economic Thriller about War, Environmental Destruction and Corporate Greed; and co-author of Cynthia McKinney’s book “When China Sneezes: From the Coronavirus Lockdown to the Global Politico-Economic Crisis” (Clarity Press – November 1, 2020).

Peter is a Research Associate of the Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG). He is also a non-resident Senior Fellow of the Chongyang Institute of Renmin University, Beijing.

Featured image is from countercurrents.org

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.

***

病気の人にはワクチンを接種すべきだと煽っていたので、私も配偶者もこのワクチンを接種すれば間違いなく助かる、と愚かにも信じてワクチン接種を受けました。その2日後、私が休日に実家に帰っていた時に孤独に亡くなり、解剖も行われました。

Video 1: Major Japanese Press Conference

Click here to watch the video

They were stirring up that the vaccine should be taken for people with diseases, so my spouse and I stupidly believed that that just getting this vaccine would definitely save us and we got vaccinated. Two days later, while I was on a day off going back to my parents’ house, he passed away alone An autopsy was also conducted.

I wasn’t satisfied because many of our customers were doctors, they said to perform the autopsy anyway because if you leave the cells, they can be examined again with the latest technology later on. So the advice was to go ahead with the autopsy anyway. Okay. Based on the suggestion to preserve the cells, we had the pathologist perform the autopsy. The autopsy was conducted. And I was not satisfied either. The reason is that the pathologist said the vaccine was 100% not related. At that time, even the minister said that it’s absolutely impossible to die from the vaccine. “Has anyone acknowledged this?” was the question posed. The pathologist told me that all you can do now is to conduct late-night consultations and honor your husband’s memory. That’s all you were told you could do. Even if you were to take the cells everywhere, or even talk to a university hospital, just to work on a single cell would cost 300,000 yen, and to work on all the cells would cost tens of millions of yen. Either way, you were laughed at with the notion that even if you sued the government, you’d lose. At that time, I thought it was absolutely terrible. What I’m thinking about now, beyond the process of death, is the immense damage caused by the coronavirus vaccine and how the country continues to ignore it and pushes for vaccination. They proceed.

Meanwhile, they relentlessly pressure private companies to the fullest. The vaccine damage are not shared with the public. Not at all. Neither information nor the media are disseminated. They make the damages from the new coronavirus vaccine seem smaller or ignore them altogether, as if to suggest it’s being circulated in such a way. That’s what I’ve thought over these three years. People are dying, and the reality of what is happening is being hidden. They are gone. There are people currently existing who suffer from side effects and damages, yet, even this is hardly broadcasted by the media. Almost not at all.

What infuriates me the most is the way the new coronavirus vaccine damage is being substituted for coronavirus damage and disseminated by the media.

I also feel stifled by this and really think, what kind of country is this, you know? Even before and now, after getting vaccinated, I think the information being spread by the country to Japan is impure. “Please get vaccinated.” “After that, it’s your responsibility.” I absolutely think this situation is wrong.

Because you signed the vaccination ticket, it’s all on you. I got vaccinated because of the media’s guidance. I believed in the country. In the end, the country says it’s your responsibility because you signed the vaccination ticket. It’s your responsibility.

What does that even mean?

You can’t make the decision not to get it to get it. You can’t judge that one step wrong could lead to death. Really?

What kind of shot is that?

In the end, I believe my husband wanted to live. I think my husband truly regretted it. The country really should take responsibility. That’s all.

Source: Aussie17

*

Video 2: A Mother Recounts Her Son’s Death Amid Landmark Class Action Lawsuit Filed by COVID Vaccine Victims Against Government

Plaintiff number 7:

“My son had his third dose of the vaccine on May 1, 2022, and then in the early hours of May 4, at 4:30 AM, he suddenly shouted out and immediately after went into cardiac arrest, He was rushed to the hospital by ambulance and put on ECMO, but he passed away a week later, on May 11. He was only 19 years old”

“My son, who worked at a pharmaceutical company, had strong side effects from the first and second doses and said he wouldn’t take a third, but he had to take it for the sake of the company; the president also strongly urged him, resulting in him getting vaccinated.”

“Please, this is the truth. It’s neither a lie nor a made-up story. Don’t look away from reality. Why is vaccination not halted? How long will this situation be ignored? I hope there are as few people as possible enduring the suffering we go through every day. “

Video 3 – Japan’s Most Senior Oncologist, Prof. Fukushima Condemns mRNA Vaccines as ‘Evil Practices of Science’

Click here to watch the video

Japan’s Most Senior Oncologist, Prof. Fukushima Condemns mRNA Vaccines as ‘Evil Practices of Science’

Highlights

“I am the most senior medical oncologist in Japan. I was the first to open a cancer outpatient clinic at Kyoto University, and before that, in Kyoto University, in 2020, I was the head of a section at the Aichi Cancer Center, all positions were at the Aichi Cancer Center Hospital. I established the first course in pharmacoepidemiology at Kyoto University in Japan. …

People are saying about what’s being called “turbo cancer,” a type previously unseen by doctors, characterized by its incredibly fast speed. By the time it’s discovered, it is already in stage four, advanced cancer, and such cases are starting to sporadically appear in consultations. Thus, doctors began sharing information about these extraordinary cases that are different from before. So, this has gradually become the situation since last year or the year before that. Indeed, doctors have been sensing from the field that something unusual related to cancer may be happening. They were feeling it on the ground.

Moreover, the results of our analysis show, surprisingly, that specific types of cancer, in relation to the vaccination, seem to be experiencing excess mortality. Firstly, cancers such as breast cancer, ovarian cancer, thyroid cancer, and then statistically, esophageal and lung cancer. These are, and another one is prostate cancer in men. Such cancers are specifically observing excess mortality. This phenomenon cannot be simply explained by disruptions such as early screenings being unavailable due to the pandemic, or lost opportunities for treatment. …

It’s as if we’ve opened Pandora’s box and are now encountering all sorts of diseases. We’re facing them. Autoimmune diseases, neurodegenerative diseases, cancer, and infections. All of these, including rare and difficult diseases, even those rare conditions are happening. Even diseases unheard of are being encountered by ordinary doctors.

This isn’t science; it’s more akin to faith, hysteria, or even cult behavior, in my opinion. Opposing vaccines doesn’t make one a heretic like Galileo; it’s become like being treated as a complete outcast. That’s the situation. This is madness.

We really must take these damages seriously and address them earnestly. Any efforts to dismiss these damages as if they didn’t happen are, frankly, the work of evil. This is a quintessential example of the evil practice of science.

Therefore this vaccine was from the beginning based on misconception, misconduct, and evil practices of science, totally defective, founded on misconceptions, leading to a totally false production, a false product, I believe. …

We must confront this directly again and shine the light of science on it, so the WHO should lead a comprehensive outcome research on this gene vaccine used on humanity on a large scale for the first time, and all countries should cooperate with it.

We should never again use such vaccines. This is a shame for humanity. It’s a disgrace!

Video 4 – Dr. Atsuo Yanagisawa, Former President of the International Society for Orthomolecular Medicine, SHOCKED at mRNA Adverse Reactions Data

Click here to watch the video

Dr. Atsuo Yanagisawa, Former President of the International Society for Orthomolecular Medicine, SHOCKED at mRNA Adverse Reactions Data

Highlights:

What I am about to talk about now, as a doctor, was very shocking data to me. This is a comparison of the risks involved in administering the seasonal flu vaccine and the COVID vaccine to people over the age of 65. It is.

For the influenza vaccine, the number of administrations over 10 years is 180 million times, and for the COVID vaccine, it’s 190 million times, with the latter being administered over a period of 3 years. In both cases, a person received the vaccine 2, 3, 4, 5 times. It’s a multi-dose vaccine. Now, regarding the adverse reactions officially recognized as causing death by certain countries, for the influenza vaccine, there were only 4 deaths out of nearly 180 million doses administered. Just four people. On the other hand, for the COVID vaccine, there were 378 deaths, which means there were more than 90 times the number of people officially dying from adverse reactions, due to the vaccine.

Now, regarding the risks of this new coronavirus vaccine, we first call on the government to temporarily halt the vaccinations. Pause them, and then, on that basis, reassess the vaccine’s safety trials and safety to consider whether it’s worth examining safety further.

 

***

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.

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.    


My thanks to the Publisher and to the translator Tatsuo Iwana.

.

 
 
地球規模で仕組まれた〈危機〉の真相

コロナは、入念に準備された世界の初期化=グレート・リセットのための計画である――

●恐怖をあおる政策と、市民社会の破壊
●感染の根拠となったPCR検査の不確実性
●仕組まれた経済不況と億万長者による富の収奪
●パンデミック以前に開発が始まっていたmRNAワクチン
●コロナワクチン市場を寡占する巨大製薬企業の闇
●世界が抱える債務と「新自由主義的ショック療法」

反グローバリゼーションの世界的論客が明かす〈コロナ騒動〉の正体

●目次●
序文・日本語版への序文
第1章 市民社会の破壊と恐怖をあおる政策
第2章 コロナ危機の時系列による経緯
第3章 Covid-19とは何か――どうやって検査・測定されるのか?
第4章 仕組まれた経済不況
第5章 大富豪をさらに富裕化する富の収奪と再配分
第6章 心の健康を破壊する
第7章 大手製薬会社のコロナ「ワクチン」
第8章 豚インフルエンザの世界的流行は本番前の舞台稽古だった?
第9章 「社会を乱すもの」と攻撃される抗議運動
第10章 世界規模のワクチン接種作戦は集団殺戮だ
第11章 世界規模のクーデターと「世界全体の初期化」
第12章 これからの道――「コロナを利用した専制政治」に反対する世界的な運動の構築

 

 


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


My thanks to the Publisher and to the translator Tatsuo Iwana.

.

 
 
地球規模で仕組まれた〈危機〉の真相

コロナは、入念に準備された世界の初期化=グレート・リセットのための計画である――

●恐怖をあおる政策と、市民社会の破壊
●感染の根拠となったPCR検査の不確実性
●仕組まれた経済不況と億万長者による富の収奪
●パンデミック以前に開発が始まっていたmRNAワクチン
●コロナワクチン市場を寡占する巨大製薬企業の闇
●世界が抱える債務と「新自由主義的ショック療法」

反グローバリゼーションの世界的論客が明かす〈コロナ騒動〉の正体

●目次●
序文・日本語版への序文
第1章 市民社会の破壊と恐怖をあおる政策
第2章 コロナ危機の時系列による経緯
第3章 Covid-19とは何か――どうやって検査・測定されるのか?
第4章 仕組まれた経済不況
第5章 大富豪をさらに富裕化する富の収奪と再配分
第6章 心の健康を破壊する
第7章 大手製薬会社のコロナ「ワクチン」
第8章 豚インフルエンザの世界的流行は本番前の舞台稽古だった?
第9章 「社会を乱すもの」と攻撃される抗議運動
第10章 世界規模のワクチン接種作戦は集団殺戮だ
第11章 世界規模のクーデターと「世界全体の初期化」
第12章 これからの道――「コロナを利用した専制政治」に反対する世界的な運動の構築

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.

***

What follows is the text of a talk I was scheduled to give at the conference: “The Legacy of World War II and the Holocaust,” held on June 22, 2010, in Kiev, Ukraine, during the Presidency of Viktor Yanukovich, a meeting in which I was unable to participate, due to other commitments on that date. 

Introduction 

From 2010 until the present, there is no evidence that neofascist and neonazi influences in the USA and elsewhere have decreased:

new figures, television channels, and speaking platforms have joined these once-fringe areas of the political arena, and their impact appears to have increased and spread, more so in the USA and Europe, than in Mexico, in which I have lived for more than two decades. Right-wing political groups have appeared in other parts of Latin America, but it is difficult to determine their influence as of this writing (mid-2024). Text of this speech, originally dated 2010, follows. 

My name is David Stea.

I am an American expatriate living in Mexico for a considerable number of years.  Like those Europeans who left Europe during the 1930s, many Americans left the USA during the aptly-named witch-hunts of the post-World War II era to seek refuge in Mexico during the reign of Joseph McCarthy and the Congressional UnAmerican Activities Committee in the USA.  My family was not one of those.  In some ways I was part of a later diaspora, having returned to the USA in 1997, I was unable to stomach the neofascist regime of George Bush, and returned to Mexico in 2006. 

This is a rather personal narrative. So perhaps some history is in order. 

Having been born in New York, I did not have to live through the Holocaust.  

But I grew up during the nightmare of World War II; by the time I was six years old, all of my crowd had been through weekly air-raid drills – my father, just barely too old for military service, was a warden and I well recall his helmet and special issue flashlight, which partly dispelled the darkness of the blackouts.  We kids, having no doubt that the Nazis might soon invade, carefully studied plane-spotter cards depicting silhouettes of German aircraft, and learned the names of the German general staff and what SS ranks corresponded to Wehrmacht ranks. 

We knew that U-boats were blowing up British ships outside New York harbor, but the concern with aircraft later seemed silly; after all, how could German planes have crossed the Atlantic?  It turned out much later that we were closer to the truth than we then realized. 

I studied engineering, and by the late 1950s became a reliability engineer and ergonomist working for the prime contractor to the US Atomic Energy Commission.  Of course this was all very hush-hush; most of us were convinced that, in the long run, war with the Soviet Union was inevitable.  Weapons reliability was therefore one of my areas of emphasis, and we were in close contact with one of the world’s experts in reliability engineering, a brilliant and charming figure named Robert Lusser.  While we never met face-to-face, we exchanged correspondence, and he was quite helpful to me. 

After having too many mushroom-shaped dreams, I left that line of work and eventually accepted the invitation to enroll in the PhD program in experimental psychology at Stanford University, in Palo Alto California.  After receiving the PhD at Stanford University,  I helped to found the field of environmental psychology, and  became a university teacher.  Flash forward to 1970, when I attended an outdoor graduation exercise at Clark University, where I was Professor of geography and psychology.  As Robert Goddard, the father of American rocketry, had been at Clark University, at this graduation exercise an honorary doctorate was bestowed upon Dr Werner Von Braun. 

I knew by then that Dr Von Braun, regarded as a role model for American youth interested in science, had also been a dedicated Nazi and an officer of the SS.  Ashamed that an American university at which I was employed was awarding a doctorate to the father of the V-2 ballistic missile, responsible for so many civilian deaths in Great Britain, I attended no more graduation ceremonies at any of the universities at which I worked for the next 25 years.  

This was, of course, a hollow gesture.  More important was that I began to study the strange history of Nazi scientists and their associates who had entered the US, many literally smuggled in by the US government, during the early years of the Cold War.  I did not have to search very far; hidden away in the back rooms of libraries were published books detailing, with illustrations, how the Nazi connections of people deemed potentially valuable to future US military effort were simply expunged from their records, literally deleted.  Tom Lehrer, a stage personality who was both a comic writer and singer, wrote a song lampooning the Van Braun personality cult, but the supposed father of German rocketry was merely the tip of a metaphorical iceberg largely ignored by US audiences. 

Until the demise of the Soviet Union, anything which, we were told, would increase American security, seemed justified.

In 1988 the motion picture “The House on Carroll Street” exposed a governmental plot to smuggle former Nazis unto the USA. 

 It was not a box office success.   At about that time, I found that the cordial colleague of my weapons reliability years, Dr Lusser, had been a fierce competitor of Von Braun, that Lusser, who worked with Willy Messerschmidt, had been the designer of both the V-1 “buzz bomb” and the ME-262, the first operational jet aircraft, and at least a peripheral figure in “Projekt Amerika”, a plan to launch planes from the Azores to bomb targeted East Coast US cities.  So we kids in Brooklyn had not been so paranoid after all. 

How, then, did the Cold War, the fear it engendered on two continents, the consequent support for neofascist governments, and, indirectly for neofascist movements in various countries, come to be? 

At least part of the answer lies in one of the ironies of modern times. David Irving, British military historian, a notorious anti-Semite, Holocaust denier, and supporter of neo-Nazi causes, unwittingly did us a favour: he was also the translator of several books written by high-ranking SS and Wehrmacht officers.  

Among these was General Reinhard Gehlen, the head of Fremde Heere Ost, or FHO, Branch 12 of the Germany Army’s General Staff, controlling intelligence activities on the Wehrmacht’s eastern front before and during WWII.  His book, whose English title is “The Service” details not just Gehlen’s rise to chief of the FHO, but his surrender –actually a “sale” — of the Gehlen Organization first to the USA and later to West Germany, where the Gehlen group became the Federal Intelligence Service (BND), with Gehlen as not just reserve lieutenant general of the Bundeswehhr, but President of the BND. 

Why is this important?  It is important precisely because it was Gehlen who, to increase his apparent value, convinced the American government that he possessed an enormous amount of intelligence on Soviet plans and plots, of what he regarded as the imminent and incredible danger posed by the Soviet Union.

John Foster Dulles, who became Secretary of State under President Eisenhower, and his brother, Allen Welsh Dulles, an expert on Germany and head of the CIA, believed absolutely in the veracity of Gehlen’s every word, and, as a corollary, the importance of incorporating the skills of the German military into the USA – which meant importing the people who had developed them as well, a plan that Allen Dulles was to call “Operation Paperclip”. 

 The agenda of the UnAmerican Activities Committee shifted from combating subversives to combating communists: the Nazi/fascist threat was deemed no longer to exist.  

Whether this made it easier for former high-ranking SS to escape to South America and the Middle East — via the supposed ODESSA organization or Martin Bormann’s brilliant plan for the emergence of a Fourth Reich through establishing Nazi cells outside Europe – remains unsubstantiated.    

Thus, under the umbrella of combating the Soviet threat were the Nazi histories of such imports as Werner Von Braun expunged.  

Von Braun became an American citizen and the most important figure in the US National Aeronautics and Space Administration, where Lusser worked as well, under the direction of his former adversary.  

Toward and Into the 21st Century  

The good news is that the Fourth Reich never arose. Paradoxically, one of the Latin American countries that absorbed the most fascists and Nazis took in more Jewish refugees than any other country in the world: almost half a million.  For reasons unknown Argentina’s President Juan Peron was attracted to the Axis powers and sympathetic to the plight of the Jews. 

The bad news is that in the USA, much of what transpired, or failed to transpire, in the realm of social progress was dictated by fears of Communism during the two decades after the end of WWII.  Many social programs, such as those directed at ending racial segregation in the American south, were labeled Communist or communist-inspired by reactionaries.  

Even the term “reactionary” once used to label neofascist movements was replaced by “conservative”, previously meaning “keeping things as they are”.   As the once-powerful Ku Klux Klan waned, with its hatred of racial minorities, Catholics, Jews, and almost everyone, waned in strength, the American Nazi Party became a political organization dedicated to “white power”. 

The danger to America in the first decade of the 21st  century has not been movements that are blatantly Nazi but, what have been called “hate media”: television talk show hosts such as Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck emerged in the first decade with a racist and classist appeal that has been attractive to millions of viewers.  The neo-fascist Ann Coulter has proposed that the solution to problems in Middle Eastern countries is for the US to invade these countries, kill all their leaders and forcibly to convert the population to Christianity: shades of the Crusades.  Christians, she claims, are perfected Jews, which implies that Jews are simply less perfect Christians – or simply less.  A book by Ann Coulter is virtually guaranteed to hit the New York Times best seller list within weeks after its appearance. 

The conservative juggernaut rolls on.  As immigrant paranoia increases in Europe, so it does in the USA.  The latest mandate in the American state of Arizona forces police to stop and demand identification of status by anyone even vaguely suspected of being in the US illegally.  The states of Texas and Ohio, and at least one city in California are considering similar laws.  Changes in the Arizona educational system will mandate firing teachers of English who speak with a (presumably “foreign”) accent. 

There is an old English saying that “sticks and stones may break my bones, but names will never harm me.”  It’s from a different era.  The use of sticks and stones may be less fashionable in today’s world, but names do harm.  They always have and always will.

Thank you.

*

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.

David Stea received a B.S. in Mechanical/Aeronautical Engineering from Carnegie Institute of Technology in 1957 and a Ph.D. in Psychology from Stanford University in1964. As Carnegie Interdisciplinary Fellow at Brown University, he developed the new field of Environmental Psychology and the related study of spatial and geographic cognition. He was Associate Professor of Psychology and Geography at Clark University, Professor of Architecture and Urban Planning at UCLA through 1988, and then Distinguished Professor of Architecture at the University of Wisconsin.

Dr. Stea has held four distinguished professorships in the U.S.A., Indonesia, and Mexico. He is a member of the editorial boards of a number of journals, the co-author or co-editor of several books, including Image and Environment, Landscape in Language, and Maps in Minds, and some 150 articles.  

Kenia: Estallido social contra el ajuste fiscal para pagarle al FMI

July 2nd, 2024 by Unidad Internacional de Trabajadoras y Trabajadores – Cuarta Internacional

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 article was first published on June 30, 2013

Canada Day, July 1st, 2024

Author’s Note and Update

As “Leader of the Free World”, the United States has waged numerous wars against sovereign countries since the end of World War II resulting in millions of deaths. The atrocities and crimes committed are on record. 

The corporate media has upheld ALL these military interventions (without exception) starting with the Korean war in 1950 as “peace-making operations” intent upon “spreading democracy” Worldwide. 

At this juncture in our history, namely the war in Ukraine, it is important that a REAL peace process be initiated with a view to preventing escalation. What is happening in Ukraine has serious geopolitical implications and could potentially lead to a World War III scenario. 

In the context of the Ukraine war, Canada is unconditionally supporting the United States without reflecting on an unspoken chapter in the history of our country. 

Canada Day 2024: We must reflect on our history. Most Canadians are unaware of the fact that the United States of America had formulated in 1924 (One hundred years ago) a carefully designed plan to invade Canada and bomb Montreal, Quebec City, Halifax and Vancouver.

What has been deliberately omitted from our history books in schools, colleges and universities is that our American neighbour had envisaged a detailed plan to invade Canada. The use of “poison gas” was part of that project. 

War Plan Red was officially approved by the US War Department in May 1930.

The 1928 draft stated that “it should be made quite clear to Canada that in a war she would suffer grievously”.

And guess who was in charge of planning the bombing raids against Canadian cities:  

General Douglas MacArthur who during World War II was put in charge of waging the Pacific War and coordinating the extensive bombing of Japanese cities (1941-1945). 

The war plan was explicitly geared towards the conquest of Canada.

“The U.S. Army’s mission, [written in capital letters], was “ULTIMATELY, TO GAIN COMPLETE CONTROL OF CRIMSON [Canada].”

Canada’s Global and Mail has twisted realities upside down. The Red War Plan to Attack CRIMSON was casually presented as a peacemaking endeavor. It was a plan to rightfully defend the US:

First approved in 1930, Joint Army and Navy Basic War Plan – Red was drawn up to defend the United States in the event of war with Britain.

It was one of a series of such contingency plans produced in the late 1920s. Canada, identified as Crimson, would be invaded to prevent the Britons from using it as a staging ground to attack the United States. (Globe and Mail, December 31, 2005, emphasis added)

The war plan directed against Canada initially formulated in 1924 was entitled “Joint Army and Navy Basic War Plan — Red”. It was approved by the US War Department under the presidency of Herbert Hoover in 1930. It was updated in 1934 and 1935 during the presidency of Franklin D. Roosevelt. It was withdrawn in 1939 (but not abolished) following the outbreak of the Second World War.

Screenshot, Daily Mail

Video Interview with Michel Chossudovsky

Acccording to Floyd Rudmin: 

“Though ostensibly for war against Britain Plan RED is almost devoid of plans to fight the British. The Plan is focused on the conquest of Canada, which was color- coded CRIMSON. The U.S. Army’s mission, written in capital letters, was “ULTIMATELY, TO GAIN COMPLETE CONTROL OF CRIMSON.” The 1924 draft declared that U.S. “intentions are to hold in perpetuity all CRIMSON and RED territory gained… The Dominion government [of Canada] will be abolished.”

The strategic bombing of Halifax, Montreal and Quebec City were envisaged under Plan RED. Moreover, the US Army had been instructed (in capital letters),

“TO MAKE ALL NECESSARY PREPARATIONS FOR THE USE OF CHEMICAL WARFARE FROM THE OUTBREAK OF WAR. THE USE OF CHEMICAL WARFARE, INCLUDING THE USE OF TOXIC AGENTS, FROM THE INCEPTION OF HOSTILITIES, IS AUTHORIZED…” (quoted by Floyd Rudmin, op cit).

In a bitter irony, General Douglas MacArthur who led US forces in The Pacific during World War II, not to mention the conduct of the carpet bombing raids against North Korea (1950-1953) was actively involved in the planning of war directed against Canada.

“In March 1935, General Douglas MacArthur proposed an amendment making Vancouver a priority [bombing] target comparable to Halifax and Montreal” (Ibid)

Screen Shot, Daily Mail 

Today, Canada’s sovereignty as a Nation State is threatened by the Justin Trudeau government which is firmly aligned with Joe Biden’s military agenda, acting as a de facto US proxy.

The article below (first published in June 2013) reviews in detail, the US plans to annex and wage war on Canada.

The historical documents of Annexation (1866), Invasion of Canada “War Plan Red” (1930)  and “War Plan Red” (1935) (95 pages) are contained in Annex.

These documents are part of our history. It is important that “War Plan Red” (1930 and 1935) be firmly acknowledged and debated in schools, colleges and universities across the land.

Michel Chossudovsky, Global Research, Canada Day, July 1, 2023, Canada Day, July 1, 2024 

See Michel Chossudovsky, Biographical Note

Michel Chossudovsky’s Articles on Global Research

***

The following article by Michel Chossudovsky pertaining both to the US Bill to Annex Canada (1866) and “War Plan Red” (1930, 1935) was first published in 2013

America’s Plan to Invade and Annex Canada

Michel Chossudovsky

Global Research, June 30th, 2013

Canada Day July 1st is an opportunity for Canadians to reflect on issues of national sovereignty.

Territorial control over Canada has been part of Washington’s geopolitical and military agenda since the 1860s,  following the end of the American civil war.

In 1867, Canada became a nation, a federation, under the British North America Act,  largely in response to the threat of annexation by the United States as formulated in a bill adopted by the US Congress in 1866:

“A Bill for the admission of the States of Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, Canada East, and Canada West, and for the organization of the Territories of Selkirk, Saskatchewan, and Columbia. (Annexation Bill)” (see map below)

Fast Forward:  The plan to annex Canada to the USA is still on the books?

In April 2002, upon the creation of US Northern Command (USNORTHCOM), Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld put forth the concept of “Binational integration” of military command structures, alongside a major revamping in the areas of immigration, law enforcement and intelligence.

Rumsfeld also stated without consulting Ottawa, that the areas of territorial jurisdiction of USNORTHCOM on land and sea would extend into the Northwest territories and the Canadian Arctic.

Moreover, territorial integration under the proposed North American Union  and Security and Prosperity Partnership (SPP) (launched in 2005) would embody Canada (as well as Mexico) into the US Homeland Security apparatus. Broadly speaking, Washington would set the agenda for “integration” and would exert an overriding influence in developing the legal, political, economic, military and national security architecture of the proposed NAU.

What is at stake is de facto annexation, where Canada would cease to function as a sovereign nation, relegated to the status of a US protectorate.

The Conservative government in Ottawa has not only embraced the SPP, it is also actively supporting the US war agenda, its national security agenda and its “Global War on Terrorism”.

In the last few years “Securing the North American Security Perimeter” has been viewed by Washington as a means to “bringing Canada into Fortress America”.

Historical Background: US Bill to Annex Canada (1866)

President Andrew Johnson.jpgMost Canadians are unaware that a Bill to Annex Canada into the US was introduced and adopted by the US Congress in 1866 prior to the 1867 Alaska Purchase from Russia. The Complete text of the 1866 Bill is contained in Annex to this article.

The text of the bill is tantamount to an invasion plan. It was to come into force upon its proclamation by US president Andrew Johnson (left). It included the territories of British North America from Newfoundland and the Maritimes to British Columbia, extending North into the Hudson Bay territory and North West Territory bordering onto “Russian America”. (i.e Alaska) (See map below)

It consisted in the outright confiscation of public lands. It also implied US control over the trans Canada railway system, waterways, canals as well as control over the Saint Lawrence seaway.

The US government had also contemplated paying “compensation” to the Hudson Bay Company. This consisted essentially in a plan to confiscate the territories under H.B.C jurisdiction (see map), “in full discharge of all claims to territory or jurisdiction in North America, whether founded on the charter of the [Hudson Bay] company or any treaty, law, or usage.”

The United States will pay ten millions of dollars to the Hudson Bay Company in full discharge of all claims to territory or jurisdiction in North America, whether founded on the charter of the company or any treaty, law, or usage. (Article XI)

The territorial division of British North America is outlined in the bill.  The various constituent “Canadian states” would conform to US laws in setting up their legislature.

Map of British North America (1862)

US War Department Plan to Invade Canada (1930)

While the 1866 Annexation project was stalled upon the adoption of the British North American Act in 1867, US plans to annex and/or invade Canada militarily were contemplated in the 1930s.

In the late 1920s, Washington formulated a detailed plan to invade Canada, entitled “Joint Army and Navy Basic War Plan — Red”. The plan was approved by the US War Department under the presidency of Herbert Hoover  in 1930. It was updated in 1934 and 1935 during the presidency of Franklin D. Roosevelt. It was withdrawn in 1939 following the outbreak of the Second World War.

Secretary of War Patrick J. Hurley was largely instrumental in the formulation and approval of Plan Red by the US administration.

The plan to invade Canada consisted of a 94-page document “with the word SECRET stamped on the cover. It had been formulated over a period of more than five years (See full text in Annex).

In February 1935, the [US] War Department arranged a Congressional appropriation of $57 million dollars to build three border air bases for the purposes of pre-emptive surprise attacks on Canadian air fields. The base in the Great Lakes region was to be camouflaged as a civilian airport and was to “be capable of dominating the industrial heart of Canada, the Ontario Peninsula” (from p. 61 of the February 11-13, 1935, hearings of the Committee on Military Affairs, House of Representatives, on Air Defense Bases (H.R. 6621 and H.R. 4130). This testimony was to have been secret but was published by mistake. See the New York Times, May 1, 1935, p. 1.

In August 1935, the US held its largest peacetime military manoeuvres in history, with 36,000 troops converging at the Canadian border south of Ottawa, and another 15,000 held in reserve in Pennsylvania. The war game scenario was a US motorized invasion of Canada, with the defending forces initially repulsing the invading Blue forces, but eventually to lose “outnumbered and outgunned” when Blue reinforcements arrive. This according to the Army’s pamphlet “Souvenir of of the First Army Maneuvers: The Greatest Peace Time Event in US History” (p.2). ( Professor F.W. Rudmin, Queen’s University Kingston, Ontario, Comments on “War Plan Red”, see complete text in Annex III)

One of the updates to the 1930 invasion plan was the use of chemical weapons against Canadian civilians:

“In 1934, War Plan Red was amended to authorize the immediate first use of poison gas against Canadians and to use strategic bombing to destroy Halifax if it could not be captured.” (Ibid)

It is worth noting that in the course of World War II,  a decision was taken by the War Department to retain the invasion plan on the books. War Plan Red was declassified in 1974.

The Washington Post, which casually dismissed the historical significance of “Joint Army and Navy Basic War Plan — Red”, nonetheless acknowledged the aggressive nature of the proposed military endeavor:

PJayHurl.jpg“A bold plan, a bodacious plan, a step-by-step plan to invade, seize and annex our neighbor to the north. …First, we send a joint Army-Navy overseas force to capture the port city of Halifax, cutting the Canadians off from their British allies.

Then we seize Canadian power plants near Niagara Falls, so they freeze in the dark.

Then the U.S. Army invades on three fronts — marching from Vermont to take Montreal and Quebec, charging out of North Dakota to grab the railroad center at Winnipeg, and storming out of the Midwest to capture the strategic nickel mines of Ontario.

Meanwhile, the U.S. Navy seizes the Great Lakes and blockades Canada’s Atlantic and Pacific ports.  … “(Raiding the Icebox; Behind Its Warm Front, the United States Made Cold Calculations to Subdue Canada, by Peter Carlson, Washington Post, 30 December 2005, emphasis added).

The original documents pertaining to the invasion of Canada including “War Plan Red” and Canada’s “Defence Scheme No. 1.” are in the archives of the US Army War College in Carlisle, Pa. [link no longer active]

The complete text of War Plan Red is contained in Annex III. The complete text of the 1866 Annexation Plan is contained in Annex I.

The  plan is detailed. It involves both military as well an intelligence components.

According to historian John Major “War, Plan Red” also consisted in “a series of possible pre-emptive American campaigns to invade Canada in several areas and occupy key ports and railways before British troops could provide reinforcement to the Canadians…”

Canada’s National Defense

The Canadian federal government and military were fully aware of these “Secret” US plans to invade Canada. In the 1920s, Lieutenant James “Buster” Sutherland Brown  had been appointed Director of Military Operations and Intelligence in Ottawa to address the issue of Canada’s national security.  His tasks consisted in developing contingency war plans in the case of a US attack against the Dominion of Canada.  Under the helm of “Buster” Sutherland Brown (subsequently promoted to Brigadier), Canada’s response to US threats was formulated under “Defence Scheme No. 1”, a counterattack contingency plan, in the case of a US invasion.

“Defense Scheme No. 1” was abandoned in 1931 by Canada’s chief of the general staff, A.G.L. McNaughton (following the adoption of “War Plan Red” in 1930) , on the grounds that “the Americans would inevitably win such a war” and there was no use in acting upon a contingency plan.

Ottawa had caved in. The watershed decision by the Conservative government of Prime Minister R. B. Bennett which came to office in August 1930 to abandon a Canada national defense plan constituted a de facto recognition of  US hegemony in North America.  While the invasion of Canada  under  Joint Army and Navy Basic War Plan — Red was never carried out, the military threat of an invasion plan served to oblige Canada to ultimately surrender to US political and economic pressures.

Let us remember on Canada Day, July 1st, 2020 that the greatest threat to Canadian national sovereignty emanates from US plans of “deep integration”, which have been supported by both the Harper and Trudeau governments.

Minor revisions on July 1st 2020


ANNEX I

(emphasis added)

TRANSCRIPT OF US BILL TO ANNEX CANADA INTO THE US (1866)

A Bill for the admission of the States of Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, Canada East, and Canada West, and for the organization of the Territories of Selkirk, Saskatchewan, and Columbia. (Annexation Bill)

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the President of the United States is hereby authorized and directed, whenever notice shall be deposited in the Department of State that the governments of Great Britain and the provinces of New Brunswick, Nova Scotia, Prince Edward Island, Newfoundland, Canada, British Columbia, and Vancouver’s Island have accepted the proposition hereinafter made by the United States, to publish by proclamation that, from the date thereof, the States of Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, Canada East, and Canada West, and the Territories of Selkirk, Saskatchewan, and Columbia, with limits and rights as by the act defined, are constituted and admitted as States and Territories of the United States of America. SEC. 2 And be it further enacted, That the following articles are hereby proposed, and from the date of the proclamation of the President of the United States shall take effect, as irrevocable conditions of the admission of the States of Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, Canada East, and Canada West, and the future States of Selkirk, Saskatchewan, and Columbia, to wit:

ARTICLE I.

All public lands not sold or granted; canals, public harbors, light-houses, and piers; river and lake improvements; railway stocks, mortgages, and other debts due by railway companies to the provinces; custom-houses and post offices, shall vest in the United States; but all other public works and property shall belong to the State governments respectively, hereby constituted, together with all sums due from purchasers or lessees of lands, mines, or minerals at the time of the union.

ARTICLE II.

In consideration of the public lands, works, and property vested as aforesaid in the United States, the United States will assume and discharge the funded debt and contingent liabilities of the late provinces, at rates of interest not exceeding five per centum, to the amount of eighty-five million seven hundred thousand dollars, apportioned as follows: To Canada West, thirty-six million five hundred thousand dollars; to Canada East, twenty-nine million dollars; to Nova Scotia, eight million dollars; to New Brunswick, seven million dollars; to Newfoundland, three million two hundred thousand dollars; and to Prince Edward Island, two million dollars; and in further consideration of the transfer by said provinces to the United States of the power to levy import and export duties, the United States will make an annual grant of one million six hundred and forty-six thousand dollars in aid of local expenditures, to be apportioned as follows: To Canada West, seven hundred thousand dollars; to Canada East, five hundred and fifty thousand dollars; to Nova Scotia, one hundred and sixty-five thousand dollars; to New Brunswick, one hundred and twenty-six thousand dollars; to Newfoundland, sixty-five thousand dollars; to Prince Edward Island, forty thousand dollars.

ARTICLE III.

For all purposes of State organization and representation in the Congress of the United States, Newfoundland shall be part of Canada East, and Prince Edward Island shall be part of Nova Scotia, except that each shall always be a separate representative district, and entitled to elect at least one member of the House of Representatives, and except, also, that the municipal authorities of Newfoundland and Prince Edward Island shall receive the indemnities agreed to be paid by the United States in Article II.

ARTICLE IV.

Territorial divisions are established as follows: (1) New Brunswick, with its present limits; (2) Nova Scotia, with the addition of Prince Edward Island; (3) Canada East, with the addition of Newfoundland and all territory east of longitude eighty degrees and south of Hudson’s strait; (4) Canada West, with the addition of territory south of Hudson’s bay and between longitude eighty degrees longitude ninety degrees; (5) Selkirk Territory, bounded east by longitude ninety degrees, south by the late boundary of the United States, west by longitude one hundred and five degrees, and north by the Arctic circle; (6) Saskatchewan Territory, bounded east by longitude one hundred and five degrees, south by latitude forty-nine degrees, west by the Rocky mountains, and north by latitude seventy degrees; (7) Columbia Territory, including Vancouver’s Island, and Queen Charlotte’s island, and bounded east and north by the Rocky mountains, south by latitude forty-nine degrees, and west by the Pacific ocean and Russian America. But Congress reserves the right of changing the limits and subdividing the areas of the western territories at discretion.

ARTICLE V.

Until the next decennial revision, representation in the House of Representatives shall be as follows: Canada West, twelve members; Canada East, including Newfoundland, eleven members; New Brunswick, two members; Nova Scotia, including Prince Edward Island, four members.

ARTICLE VI.

The Congress of the United States shall enact, in favor of the proposed Territories of Selkirk, Saskatchewan, and Columbia, all the provisions of the act organizing the Territory of Montana, so far as they can be made applicable.

ARTICLE VII.

The United States, by the construction of new canals, or the enlargement of existing canals, and by the improvement of shoals, will so aid the navigation of the Saint Lawrence river and the great lakes that vessels of fifteen hundred tons burden shall pass from the Gulf of Saint Lawrence to Lakes Superior and Michigan: Provided, That the expenditure under this article shall not exceed fifty millions of dollars.

ARTICLE VIII.

The United States will appropriate and pay to “The European and North American Railway Company of Maine” the sum of two millions of dollars upon the construction of a continuous line of railroad from Bangor, in Maine, to Saint John’s, in New Brunswick: Provided, That said “The European and North American Railway Company of Maine” shall release the government of the United States from all claims held by it as assignee of the States of Maine and Massachusetts.

ARTICLE IX.

To aid the construction of a railway from Truro, in Nova Scotia, to Riviere du Loup, in Canada East, and a railway from the city of Ottawa, by way of Sault Ste. Marie, Bayfield, and Superior, in Wisconsin, Pembina, and Fort Garry, on the Red River of the North, and the valley of the North Saskatchewan river to some point on the Pacific ocean north of latitude forty-nine degrees, the United States will grant lands along the lines of said roads to the amount of twenty sections, or twelve thousand eight hundred acres, per mile, to be selected and sold in the manner prescribed in the act to aid the construction of the Northern Pacific railroad, approved July two, eighteen hundred and sixty-two, and acts amendatory thereof; and in addition to said grants of lands, the United States will further guarantee dividends of five per centum upon the stock of the company or companies which may be authorized by Congress to undertake the construction of said railways: Provided, That such guarantee of stock shall not exceed the sum of thirty thousand dollars per mile, and Congress shall regulate the securities for advances on account thereof.

ARTICLE X.

The public lands in the late provinces, as far as practicable, shall be surveyed according to the rectangular system of the General Land office of the United States; and in the Territories west of longitude ninety degrees, or the western boundary of Canada West, sections sixteen and thirty-six shall be granted for the encouragement of schools, and after the organization of the Territories into States, five per centum of the net proceeds of sales of public lands shall be paid into their treasuries as a fund for the improvement of roads and rivers.

ARTICLE XI.

The United States will pay ten millions of dollars to the Hudson Bay Company in full discharge of all claims to territory or jurisdiction in North America, whether founded on the charter of the company or any treaty, law, or usage.

ARTICLE XII.

It shall be devolved upon the legislatures of New Brunswick, Nova Scotia, Canada East, and Canada West, to conform the tenure of office and the local institutions of said States to the Constitution and laws of the United States, subject to revision by Congress.

SEC 3. And be it further enacted, That if Prince Edward Island and Newfoundland, or either of those provinces, shall decline union with the United States, and the remaining provinces, with the consent of Great Britain, shall accept the proposition of the United States, the foregoing stipulations in favor of Prince Edward Island and Newfoundland, or either of them, will be omitted; but in all other respects the United States will give full effect to the plan of union. If Prince Edward Island, Newfoundland, Nova Scotia, and New Brunswick shall decline the proposition, but Canada, British Columbia, and Vancouver island shall, with the consent of Great Britain, accept the same, the construction of a railway from Truro to Riviere du Loup, with all stipulations relating to the maritime provinces, will form no part of the proposed plan of union, but the same will be consummated in all other respects. If Canada shall decline the proposition, then the stipulations in regard to the Saint Lawrence canals and a railway from Ottawa to Sault Ste. Marie, with the Canadian clause of debt and revenue indemnity, will be relinquished. If the plan of union shall only be accepted in regard to the northwestern territory and the Pacific provinces, the United States will aid the construction, on the terms named, of a railway from the western extremity of Lake Superior, in the State of Minnesota, by way of Pembina, Fort Garry, and the valley of the Saskatchewan, to the Pacific coast, north of latitude forty-nine degrees, besides securing all the rights and privileges of an American territory to the proposed Territories of Selkirk, Saskatchewan, and Columbia.


ANNEX II 

DETAILS OF “WAR PLAN RED” (1930)

The  plan is detailed (See annex III). It involves both military as well an intelligence components:

  • Nova Scotia and New Brunswick:
    • Occupying Halifax, following a poison gas first strike, would deny the British a major naval base and cut links between Britain and Canada.
    • The plan considers several land and sea options for the attack and concludes that a landing at St. Margarets Bay, a then undeveloped bay near Halifax, would be superior to a direct assault via the longer overland route.
    • Failing to take Halifax, the U.S. could occupy New Brunswick by land to cut Nova Scotia off from the rest of Canada at the key railway junction at Moncton.
  • Quebec and the valley of the Saint Lawrence River:
    • Occupying Montreal and Quebec City would cut the remainder of Canada off from the Eastern seaboard, preventing the movement of soldiers and resources in both directions.
    • The routes from northern New York to Montreal and from Vermont to Quebec are both found satisfactory for an offensive, with Quebec being the more critical target.
  • Ontario and the Great Lakes area:
    • Occupying this region gains control of Toronto and most of Canada’s industry, while also preventing Britain and Canada from using it for air or land attacks against the U.S. industrial heartland in the Midwest.
    • The plan proposes simultaneous offensives from Buffalo across the Niagara River, from Detroit into Ontario, and from Sault Ste. Marie into Sudbury. Controlling the Great Lakes for U.S. transport is considered logistically necessary for a continued invasion.
  • Winnipeg
    • Winnipeg is a central nexus of the Canadian rail system for connecting the country.
    • The plan sees no major obstacles to an offensive from Grand Forks, North Dakota, to Winnipeg.
  • Vancouver and Victoria:
    • Although Vancouver’s distance from Europe reduces its importance, occupying it would deny Britain a naval base and cut Canada off from the Pacific Ocean.
    • Vancouver could be easily attacked overland from Bellingham, Washington, and Vancouver Island could be attacked by sea from Port Angeles, Washington.
    • The British Columbia port Prince Rupert has a rail connection to the rest of Canada, but a naval blockade is viewed as easy if Vancouver were taken. (Wikipedia)

ANNEX III

COMPLETE TRANSCRIPT OF  “WAR PLAN RED”

The original documents pertaining to the invasion of Canada including “War Plan Red” and “Defence Scheme No. 1.” are in the archives of the US Army War College in Carlisle, Pa.  (link no longer functional)

A 1935 US Plan for Invasion of Canada

The following is a full-text reproduction of the 1935 plan for a US invasion of Canada prepared at the US Army War College, G-2 intelligence division, and submitted on December 18, 1935. This is the most recent declassified invasion plan available from the US archival sources. Centered pagination is that of the original document. The spelling and punctuation of the original document are reproduced as in the original document, even when in error by present-day norms.

This document was first identified by Richard Preston in his 1977 book, “The Defence of the Undefended Border: Planning for War in North America 1867-1939” (Montreal: McGill-Queen’s University Press.) Preston’s reference citation (p. 277) identified this to be archived at the US Military History Collection, Carlisle Barracks, Pa., coded AWC 2-1936-8, G2, no. 19A. It was located by the US National Archives and supplied on microfilm.

The military planning context of this document is War Plan Red, which was approved in May 1930 by the Secretary of War and the Secretary of Navy. War Plan Red and supporting documents are available from the US National Archives on microfilm, in the Records of the Joint Board, 1903-1947, Roll 10, J.B. 325, Serial 435 through Serial 641. In War Plan Red, the US Army’s theatre of operations is defined to be: “All CRIMSON territory” (p.80), and the US Army’s mission, in bold type: ULTIMATELY, TO GAIN COMPLETE CONTROL OF CRIMSON (p. 84). CRIMSON is the colour code for Canada. In 1934, War Plan Red was amended to authorize the immediate first use of poison gas against Canadians and to use strategic bombing to destroy Halifax if it could not be captured.

In February 1935, the War Department arranged a Congressional appropriation of $57 million dollars to build three border air bases for the purposes of pre-emptive surprise attacks on Canadian air fields. The base in the Great Lakes region was to be camouflaged as a civilian airport and was to “be capable of dominating the industrial heart of Canada, the Ontario Peninsula” from p. 61 of the February 11-13, 1935, hearings of the Committee on Military Affairs, House of Representatives, on Air Defense Bases (H.R. 6621 and H.R. 4130). This testimony was to have been secret but was published by mistake. See the New York Times, May 1, 1935, p. 1.

In August 1935, the US held its largest peacetime military manoeuvres in history, with 36,000 troops converging at the Canadian border south of Ottawa, and another 15,000 held in reserve in Pennsylvania. The war game scenario was a US motorized invasion of Canada, with the defending forces initially repulsing the invading Blue forces, but eventually to lose “outnumbered and outgunned” when Blue reinforcements arrive. This according to the Army’s pamphlet “Souvenir of of the First Army Maneuvers: The Greatest Peace Time Event in US History” (p.2).

The following document is a declassified public domain document and may be freely reproduced. This should be of particular interest to people in the Halifax and Quebec City regions, then considered to be the most strategic cities in Canada.

F.W. Rudmin Queen’s University Kingston, Ontario

[page numbers oof original document are indicated]

-40-

SUPPLEMENT NO. 3

TO

REPORT OF COMMITTEE NO. 8

SUBJECT:

CRITICAL AREAS OF CANADA AND APPROACHES THERETO _______________________________________________ .

Prepared by:

SUBCOMMITTEE NO. 3

Major Charles H. Jones, Infantry, Chairman. Lt. Col. H.W. Crawford, Engineers.

I. Papers Accompanying. ___________________ 1. Bibliography. (Omitted, filed in Rec.Sec.) 2. List of Slides. ” 3. Appendices (1 and 2). ” 4. Annexes. (Incl. A,B,C,D,E,F,G,H,K, and L) ”

II. The Study Presented. ___________________ Determine under the geographical factor, the critical areas in Crimson (Canada) and the best approaches thereto for Blue. A critical area is assumed to be any area of such strategic importance to either belligerent that control thereof may have a material bearing on the out- come of the war.

III. Facts bearing on the study. __________________________ 1. General Considerations: An area in Crimson territory may be of strategic importance from the viewpoint of tactical, economic, or political considerations. In the final analysis, however, critical areas must be largely determined in the light of Red’s probable line of action and Crimson’s contribution to that effort. 2. Geographical Features of Canada. a. Location and extent. The location and extent of the Dominion of _ Canada is shown on the Map herewith (see Exhibit A). It comprises the entire northern half of the the North American continent, excepting only Alaska and the coast of Labrador, a dependency of the colony of New- foundland. The principal political subdivisions are those located along the border of the United States. These from east to west are: (1) The Maritime Provinces: Prince Edward Island. Nova Scotia. New Brunswick. (2) Quebec. (3) Ontario. (4) The Prairie Provinces: Manitoba. Saskatchewan. Alberta.

-41-

(5) British Columbia. Newfoundland, while not a part of the Dominion of Canada, would undoubtedly collaborate in any Crimson effort. b. Topography. (Slide 14852) _ The great area in eastern Canada underlain by rocks of Precambrian age is known as the Canadian Shield. Its northern boundary crosses the Arctic archipelago; the eastern boundary lies beyond Baffin Island and Labrador, and reaches the depressed area occupied by the St. Lawrence, a short spur crossing this valley east of Lake Ontario to join the Adirondack Mountains of New York. The southern boundary runs from this spur west to Georgian Bay thence along the north shore of Lake Huron and Lake Superior, thence northwest from the Lake of the Woods to the western end of Lake Athabaska. Its average elevation does not exceed 1500 feet. The greatest known elevations are in the eastern part of Baffin Island and along the coast of northern Labrador. Peaks of the Torngat Mountains of Labrador have elevations of between 4000 and 5000 feet.

The coast is one of the boldest and most rugged in the world, with many vertical cliffs rising 1000 to 2000 feet high. Occasional exceptions occur in which there are reliefs of several hundred feet, as in the hills along the north shore of Lake Huron and Lake Superior. The area is dotted with lakes, large and small, and of irregular outline. A lowland of considerable extent stretches for some distance into Ontario and Manitoba from Hudson Bay. Extending south and west form the Canadian Shield, between the Ap- palachian Mountains on the east and the Cordilleras on the west, lies the Great North American plain.

The northeastern portion of this plain called the St. Lawrence lowlands occupies southern Ontario, south of a line ex- tending from Georgian Bay to the east end of Lake Ontario; eastern Ontario lying between the Ottawa and St. Lawrence rivers, and that part of Quebec lying adjacent to the St. Lawrence between Montreal and Quebec. The plain west of the Canadian Shield, known as the Interior Plains, stretches northward to the Arctic Ocean between a line approximately join- ing Lake Winnipeg and Lake Athabasca, Great Slave Lake and Great Bear Lake on the east, and the foothills of the Rocky Mountains on the west.

That part of the St. Lawrence Lowlands lying in the eastern angle of Ontario, and in Quebec south of Montreal and extending down the St. Law- rence is comparatively flat and lies less than 500 feet above sea level. On the lower St. Lawrence it is greatly narrowed by the near approach of the Appalachian system to the Canadian Shield. The part lying adjacent to Lakes Ontario, Erie and Huron is of less even surface, has its greatest elevation of over 1700 feet south of Georgian Bay and slopes gently to the Great Lakes. The Interior Plains region is in general rolling country with broad undulations and a slope eastward and northward of a few feet per mile, descending from an elevation of 3000 to 5000 feet near the mountains on the west to less than 1000 feet at the eastern border. The rolling character of the area is relieved by several flat topped hills, by flat areas that formed the beds of extensive lakes, and by deep river valleys. The Appalachain and Arcadian regions occupy practically all that part of Canada lying east of the St. Lawrence, with the exception of the lowlands west of a line joining Quebec City and Lake Champlain. The Applachain region is a continuation into Quebec of three chains of the Applachain system of mountains. The most westerly of these ranges, the Green Mountains of Vermont, stretches northeast into the Gaspe peninsula, where it forms flat topped hills some 3000 feet high. The Acadian region, which includes

-42-

New Brunswick, Nova Scotia and Prince Edward Island is an alternation of upland with hills and ridges rising 2500 feet and higher. Adjacent to the Bay of Fundy is a series of ridges rising in places to 1200 feet. Between these two New Brunswick uplands, which converge toward the southwest is a lowland forming the whole eastern part of the province. This lowland ex- tends east to include Prince Edward Island, the western fringe of Cape Breton Island and the mainland of Nova Scotia north of the Cobequid moun- tains, which have an elevation of 800 to 1000 feet. South of the Cobequid Mountains lies a long narrow lowland stretching from Chedabucto Bay to Minas Basin, and along the Cornwallis Annapolis valley between North and South Mountains. South of this lowland is a highland sloping to the Atlantic Coast.

The northern part of Cape Breton Island is a tableland 1200 feet high with its central part rising to an elevation of over 1700 feet. The Cordelleran region, a mountainous area bordering the Pacific extends from the United States through Canada into Alaska and embraces nearly all of British Columbia and Yukon and the western edge of Alberta and the Northwest Territories. The eastern part of the Cordillera is occu- pied by the Rocky Mountains, with peaks rising to 10,000 feet and 12,000 feet. They extend northwest and fall away towards the Liard River. The western part of the Cordillera is occupied by the Coast Range and the mountains of Vancouver and Queen Charlotte Islands.

The Coast Range rises to heights of 7000 to 9000 feet. Between the Rocky Mountains and the Coast Range lies a vast plateau 3000 to 4000 feet high and cut by deep river valleys. 3. Population. According to the census of 1931, the total population on June 1, 1931 was 10,376,786, of whom 5,374,541 were males. The inhabited areas of the Dominion are essentially confined to a narrow strip alolo the United States boundary, generally south of the 56th parallel of latitude west of the Lake Winnipeg, and south of the 49th parallel of latitude east of Lake Superior. Approximately 10% of the total population are found in the Maritime provinces, 61% in Quebec and Ontario, 23% in the Prairie Provinces and 6% in British Columbia. Of the present population, 51.86% are of British descent, 28.22% French, and the remainder of widely scattered nativity. 4. Climate. The climate of southern Canada is comparable to that of the northern tier of the states of the United States. The west coast of British Columbia tempered by the Pacific Ocean is mild and humid. The prairie provinces generally experience extreme cold weather from November to March, with heavy snow fall. The climate of southern Ontario, the St. Lawrence Valley and the Maritime Provinces is much milder that that of the prairie provinces, but freezing temperatures are general between the end of November and the first of April, and the ground is usually covered with between one and three feet of snow. Any extensive military operations in Canada between November 1st and April 15th would be extremely difficult, if not impossible. 5. Communications. a. Railways. _ There are only two railway systems in Canada, both crossing Canada east and west from the Atlantic to the Pacific. These lines generally parallel the United States border, in some instances crossing through the United States.

-43-

(1) The Canadian national Railways system (See inclosure B) belonging to and operated by the government, has eastern terminals at Halifax, N.S., Portland, Maine (Grand Trunk), and through the Central Vermont, at Boston, New London and New York. Western terminals are Vancouver and Prince Rupert B.C. An extension from Cochrane, Ontario, to Moosonee, Ontario on James Bay, was completed by the Province of Ontario in July 1932, to connect with water routes to Churchill, Hudson Bay and with the northern route to Europe. (2) The Canadian Pacific system (see inclosure C) has its eastern terminus at Saint John, N.B. and it western terminus at Vancouver, B.C. As indicated by the systems maps, there are numerous branch lines serving the industrial and farming areas of the Dominion, and connecting lines ty- ing in with various railroads of the United States. From a military viewpoint, these railroads provide excellent trans- portation facilities for Blue, if invasion of Crimson is decided upon, and being located in close proximity to the border are, from the Crimson view- point, very liable to interruption. This is particularly true at Winnipeg some 60 miles north of Blues border, through which both transcontinental systems now pass. This fact probably encouraged Canada to construct the railroad from The Pass, Manitoba and develop the port at Churchill. Complete details concerning all railroads of Canada are contained in Appendix No. 1. b. Highways. _ In recent years Canada has greatly increased and improved her road con- struction and while there are enormous stretches of country, particularly in the northern portion of the Dominion, with few or no roads, the southern portion is well served with improved roads. A number of transcontinental motor roads are under construction or projected, the most important being the “Kings International Highway” from Montreal to Vancouver, via Ottawa, North Bay, Sudbury, Sault Ste. Marie, Winnipeg, MacLeod, Crow’s Nest Pass, Fernia and Cranbrook. Another highway is being constructed from Calgary to Vancouver. The principal roads in Ontario, Quebec and the Maritime Provinces are shown on Inclosure D, herewith. Roads in the Prairie Provinces and British Columbia are shown on inclosure E. The majority of improved roads are classified as gravel; macadam and concrete construction amounting to only 7870 miles out of a total of some 95,000 miles improved. Gravel roads will require extensive maintenance under heavy motor traffic, especially during the spring. c. Water Transportation. _ (1) Inland Waterways. The Great Lakes, with the St. Lawrence River, is the most im- portant fresh water transportation system in the world. At the present time it affords a draft of 21.0 feet over all the Great Lakes and through the Welland Canal into the St. Lawrence. From the Atlantic Ocean to Mon- treal, the present head of ocean navigation on the St. Lawrence, a draft of 30.0 feet is available, adequate for the great majority of ocean shipping. For some distance above Montreal the present channel has an available depth of only 14.0 feet. The inland waterway is of prime importance to the economic life of both the United States and Canada for the transportation of bulk com- modities, especially for the movement of wheat from the western plains to shipping centers on the eastern seaboard; of iron ore from the mines in Minnesota to foundaries along Lake Ontario; and for coal from the mines of Pennsylvania and West Virginia to Ontario, Quebec and the northwest.

-44-

The locks at Sault Ste. Marie, the boundary channels between Port Huron and Detroit and to a lesser degree the Welland Canal are the critical points on this waterway and effective control of such areas is vital to Blue. Navigation on the Great Lakes is generally closed by ice from about the end of November to the first of April. The St. Lawrence River is ordinarily ice bound for a similar period, but somewhat later about early in December to the latter part of April. While there are a number of Canadian lake ports of importance, Montreal is the only one which would not be automatically closed by Blue control of the Lakes. Montreal is also an important ocean port and will be considered along with other deep sea ports. (2) Ocean Shipping. The Dominion of Canada owns and operates a cargo and passenger carrying fleet consisting of some 57 cargo vessels and 11 passenger ships. The principal ocean ports and the magnitude of Canadian ocean traffic is indicated by the following tabulation:

A. Number and tonnage of sea-going vessels entered and cleared at the principal ports of Canada. (For year ending March 31, 1934.)

SEA-GOING VESSELS PORT arrived departed TOTAL TONS (REGISTERED) ____ _______ ________ _______________________ Halifax, N.S. * 1259 1484 7,540,990 Yarmouth, N.S. 535 519 1,102,191 St. John, N.B. * 684 688 2,924,822 Montreal, Quebec * 1078 907 7,266,569 Quebec, Que. * 397 308 3,388,829 Prince Rupert, B.C. 1141 1155 251,881 Vancouver, B.C. * 2332 2137 11,705,775 Victoria, B.C. 1927 1938 8,874,481 New Westminster, B.C. 678 700 3,123,606

IMPORTANT SECONDARY PORTS.

Churchill, Man. * 15 15 132,000 Three Rivers, Que 79 79 424,560 Windsor, N.S. 56 69 201,032

Note: The above figures do not indicate amount of commerce; Register tons ______ are gross tons. (Namely cubical contents in cubic feet divided by 100) less deductions for crews space, stores, etc.

A brief description of the above ports to indicate size, avail- able depths and important terminal facilities is included in Appendix No. 2. While the above tabulation lists the principal ports, it should be _________ realized that there are a large number of less desirable ports having available depths at low water of from 20 to 30 feet and provided with satis- factory terminal facilities, which can be used in an emergency for landing troops or supplies. Examples of this class of harbors are: Pictou, N.S. Sydney, N.S. Canso, N.S. Gaspe’, Quebec Sorel, Quebec

-45-

The port of Montreal, favorably located at the head of ocean naviga- tion on the St. Lawrence and the foot of inland navigation of the Great Lakes, is a natural shipping and railroad center. The port of Quebec is less favorable situated economically being more than 100 miles northeast of Montreal. Strategically, however, Quebec controls the commerce of Canada moving to or from the Atlantic seaboard. Its possession by Blue would interrupt eastern rail and water communication between England and the Mari- time Provinces and the rest of Canada. The port of Halifax is one of the best harbors on the Atlantic Coast and the principal winter port of Eastern Canada. The harbor has been ex- tensively developed by the Dominion government as a modern ocean terminal and naval base. It is fortified, though much of the armament is obsoles- cent. In case of war with Red, Halifax would become of prime importance to Red as a naval base and as a debarkation point for overseas expeditions in case Blue controlled the St. Lawrence. However, the routes available for a Red advance from Halifax into northeastern United States or towards Quebec and Montreal are quite difficult. The port of Saint John, New Brunswick is similar in many respects to the port of Halifax. It is open throughout the year and equipped with the most modern terminal facilities, including one of the largest drydocks in the world. It is an important shipping center for grain and dairy products. Due to the proximity of the port to the United States border and the fact that the principal rail connections (C.P. Ry.) passes through the state of Maine, the port would be of little use to Crimson or Red, at least in the early stages of war, provided Blue made any effort to control this area. The port of Vancouver, B.C. came into prominence with the opening of the Panama Canal, providing an alternate route to that of the transcontinental railroads for grain, dairy, lumber and the other products of western Canada to Europe. The port of Victoria, on Vancouver Island, is similarly situated, but due to the absence of rail connection with the mainland is more concerned with passenger and mail traffic than with bulk commodities. Esquimalt, two miles west of Victoria, and the only Canadian naval base on the west coast, is equipped with a large modern drydock, and affords good anchorage for the largest vessels. Consequently this area is of prime importance to Crimson. With the closing of the Panama Canal to Red traffic and the presence of Blue naval forces based on Honolulu, its commercial value is largely des- troyed. Assuming that Blue controls the St. Lawrence and cuts Crimson’s eastern communication with Red, the areas importance is enhanced, although it remains a decidedly unsatisfactory outlet. If Red should win control of the Pacific steamship lanes, the area becomes of first importance to Red. All factors considered, it must be controlled by Blue. The port of Prince Rupert is a first class harbor with modern terminal facilities and excellent and extensive anchorages. It becomes of extreme importance to Crimson, if and when they are denied the use of the southwest British Columbia ports, although, as in the case of Vancouver, it affords a most unsatisfactory and hazardous route to Europe. Physical occupation of Prince Rupert harbor by Blue is not vital, but closing the port to ocean traffic should be effected. The port of Churchill, Manitoba now offers a good harbor and limited but modern terminal facilities, affording a back door to the Prairie Provin- ces and, by way of Moosonee, Ontario, and the Temiskaming and Northern Ontario Railroad, with central and western Ontario. Hudson Bay and James Bay are open to navigation only about 4 months of the year, but this condition is partially offset by the fact that the distance from the Prairie Provinces

-46-

to Europe, via Churchill is from 500 to 1000 miles shorter than the rail- water route via Montreal. In case Red is denied the use of the Atlantic or Pacific ports, or both, Churchill will afford an outlet for grain and meat products from Ontario, Manitoba and Sasketchewan and an inlet for mili- tary supplies and troops from Europe unless the northern trade route through Hudson Strait is controlled by the Blue fleet, and this is improbable. d. Air Transportation (Civil). _ During 1933 there were 90 commercial aircraft operators in Canada. Their activities included forest file patrols, timber cruising, air photo- graphy, transportation of passengers, express and mail, etc. To encourage a more widespread interest and knowledge of aviation the Department of National Defense, since 1928, has issued two light air- planes and made certain grants to each of 23 flying clubs and a large air terminal has been built at St. Hubert, seven miles south of Montreal and a terminal airdrome at Rimouski, Quebec for the reception of trans-atlantic mails. At the close of 1934 there were 101 air fields of all types, 368 civil aircraft and 684 licensed pilots in Canada. Some details of airports in New Brunswick and Nova Scotia are given in a letter from the Office of the Chief of Air Corps, herewith. (See inclosure F) e. Telephone and Telegraph. _ (1) Cables. Six transoceanic cables have termini in Canada, five on the Atlantic and one on the Pacific. The Atlantic cables are landed at Halifax, though several of them are routed through Newfoundland. The Pacific cable lands at Vancouver from whence a cable also leads to the United States. (2) Radio. A transoceanic commercial radio beam service is carried on by a station at Drummondville, Quebec, with Australia, Great Britain and the United States. In 1932 a direct radio telephone circuit with Great Britain was opened through the medium of this beam station. (3) General. Canada is well supplied with local telephone, telegraph and radio service. Interruption of Canada’s trans-oceanic telegraph and radio service will seriously handicap Red-Crimson cooperation. 6. Other Economic Factors. a. Agriculture. _ Agriculture, including stock raising and horticulture, is the chief single industry of the Canadian people. Canada is not only self-sustaining, as far as food is concerned, but has a large excess for export. Food pro- duction is varied and so distributed throughout the dominion that each section is practically self-sustaining and cutting her off from the outside would would mere serve to deny her people certain luxuries, such as coffee, tea, sugar, spices and tropical fruit. The Maritime Provinces are noted for their fruit and vegetable crop, particularly for the oat and potato crops of Prince Edward Island and New Brunswick and apples in Nova Scotia. Quebec and Ontario are mixed farming communities with the Niagara peninsula specializing in fruit. Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Alberta are the principal wheat producing centers, with other grains and stock raising of increasing importance. The rich valleys of British Columbia produce apples, other fruit and vegetables.

-47-

b. Forests. _ The principal forests are in the provinces of British Columbia, Ontario, Quebec, New Brunswick and Nova Scotia. The manufacture of lumber, lath, shingles and other products such as paper pulp, is the second most important Canadian industry. c. Mineral Resources. _ Canada is one of the greatest mineral producing countries of the world. Nova Scotia, British Columbia, Quebec, Ontario, Alberta and the Yukon Ter- ritory contain the chief mining districts. The following summary notes pertinent facts concerning minerals of primary military importance. Aluminum. Aluminum was the 16th ranking Canadian export in 1934. Large quantities of bauxite, the principal source of supply were imported from the United States. Coal. There are enormous deposits of coal in Canada, largely in Nova Soctia and New Brunswick, in the east and in Alberta, Saskatchewan and British Columbia in the west. Due mainly to the distance of the fields from the manufacturing and industrial centers, about 50% of the coal consumed is imported from the United States, via the Great Lakes. Statistics for the calendar year 1933 show: Produced: Nova Scotia 6,340,790 tons New Brunswick 314,681 ” Manitoba 3,036 ” Saskatchewan 903,776 ” Alberta 4,748,074 ” British Columbia 1,484,653 ” Yukon Territory 638 ” Imported: From United States 8,865,935 tons From United Kingdom 1,942,875 ” Total – – – – – – ……………………….22,265,235 tons. (see slide 14855) In case of war with the United States, Canadas coal imports from this country would be cut off and her railroads and industrial activities seriously handicapped. If Blue controlled the Quebec area and Winnipeg, Canada’s railroads and industries dependent upon “steam power” would be crippled. Copper. The world production of copper in 1933 was (in short tons): Canada 149,992 Mexico 43,900 Rhodesia 144,954 Peru 28,000 Belgian Congo 73,409 Spain and ) Chile 179,200 Portugal ) 34,720 Japan 75,459 United States 196,190 Canada’s production was distributed approximately as follows: Province Tons ________ ____ Quebec 35,000 Eastern Townships Ontario 72,700 Sudbury area Manitoba 19,000 Flin Flon Saskatchewan 1,600 British Columbia 21,600 Western Manitoba

-48-

Iron and Steel. Canada ranks seventh among the nations as a producer of iron and steel but only a small percentage of her production is derived from domestic ores, in view of the abundant supply of higher grade ores in Newfoundland and Minnesota. The Wabana section of Newfoundland contains the largest known single deposit of iron ore in the world. There are large iron ore deposits in Quebec, northern Ontario and British Columbia but for various reasons they are handicapped for blast furnace treatment. Iron and steel are produced in Nova Scotia (Sydney) and in Ontario. Iron ore is obtained from the Mesabi Range in Minnesota, via the Great Lakes and from Newfound- land. (See slide 14856) The bulk of iron and steel products, however, are imported, principally from the United States and the United Kingdom.

Lead. Lead is obtained in Canada largely from deposits in British Columbia, the largest porting being exported to England. Nickel. The world production of nickel in 1933 was about 50,736 tons, of which about 82% originated in the Sudbury district, north of Georgian Bay in Ontario. The remainder came chiefly from New Caledonia (Fr.). A new deposit of nickel was recently discovered in northern Saskatchewan but has not yet been worked. Nickel is necessary to industry and indispensable in war. Control of the Sudbury mines, in case of war, is therefor of vital importance. Petroleum. The production of crude oil or petroleum in Canada during 1934 amounted to 1,417,368 barrels, principally from the Turner Valley field in Alberta. A small amount is also obtained from wells near Monkton, New Brunswick and in southwest Ontario, between Lake Huron and Lake Erie. Considerable quantities are also imported from the United States. Zinc. Canada ranks fourth among the worlds producers of zinc. Her out- put in 1934 totaled 298,579,531 pounds.

The principal producing mines are located in the Kootenay district of British Columbia and near Flin-Flon in northwest Manitoba. Approximately 2/3 of the zinc exported goes to Great Britain. d. Manufacturing. _ (1) General. Canada is the second largest manufacturing country in the British Empire, with Ontario and Quebec the most important industrial centers. The relative standing of the various provinces during 1933, based on the value of products manufactured, was approximately as follows: Ontario $1,000,000,000. Quebec 650,000,000. British Columbia * 146,500,000. Manitoba 91,000,000. Alberta 55,000,000. Nova Scotia 53,000,000. New Brunswick 45,000,000. Saskatchewan 36,000,000. Prince Edward Island 3,000,000. *Includes Yukon Territory

-49-

The principal industries ranked according to gross value of products (1932) are: Pulp and Paper $123,415,492. Central Electrical Stations 117,532,081. Non-ferrous metal smelting 100,561,297. Slaughtering and meat packing 92,366,137. Flour and food mills 83,322,099. Butter and Cheese 80,395,887. Petroleum Products 70,268,265. Bread and other bakery product 51,244,162. Cotton yarn and cloth 51,197,628. Printing and publishing 50,811,968. Clothing factory, women’s 44,535,823. Automobiles. 42,885,643. Rubber goods. 41,511,556. Hosiery and knitted goods 40,997,210. Sawmills. 39,438,057. (2) Munitions. (a) Aircraft.

There are at present six firms manufacturing aircraft as follows: Canadian-Vickers……………Montreal, Que. De Haviland………………..Toronto, Ont. Curtis Reid………………..Cartierville, Que. Fairchild………………….Longueuil, Que. Boeing…………………….Vancouver, B.C. Ottawa Car Mfg. Co………….Ottawa, Que. Aero engine factories have been established by: Armstrong-Siddeley Motors Co. at Ottawa, Que. Aero Engines of Canada at Montreal, Que. Canadian Pratt-Whitney Aircraft Co. at Longueuil, Que. (b) Miscellaneous. During the World War Canada demonstrated her ability to divert her peace time industries to the production of munitions, when she manufactured and exported large quantities of shells, fuses, cartridge cases, explosives, gun forgings, machine guns and small arms ammunition.

This production could not be obtained in case of war with Blue but some munitions could be produced if her factories were free to operate and raw materials were available. The government arsenal at Lindsey, Ont., is equipped to produce small arms ammunition and the arsenal at Quebec manu- factures some small arms and artillery ammunition. e. Commerce. _ Analysis of Canada’s industry and resources indicate that she has a sufficiency or surplus of certain raw materials but a deficiency of others. The more important of these materials are as follows: (1) Sufficiency or surplus; Arsenic, asbestos, cadmium, cobalt, copper, feldspar, fish oil, fluospar, foodstuffs, furs, gold, graphite, gypsum, lead, leather, magnesium, mica, nickel, silver, talc, wood and zinc. (2) Deficiency; Aluminium, antimony, bauxite, barytes, camphor, chromite, coal, cotton, flax, hemp, iron, jute, kaolin, manganese, mercury, nitrates, phosphate, petroleum, opium, quinine, rubber, silk, sugar, sulphur, tea, tin, tobacco and wool.

-50-

7. Combat Estimate. a. All matters pertaining to the defense of Canada are under a Department _ of National Defense (Act of Jan. 9, 1923) with a minister of National De- fense at the head. A Defense Council has been constituted to advise the Minister. b. The Navy has an authorized complement of 104 officers and 812 men, a _ large majority serving under 7 year enlistments. In addition certain spec- ialists are loaned from the British Royal Navy. The Reserve consists of from 70 to 113 officers and from 430 to 1026 men recruited from sea-faring personnel. The ships of the Royal Canadian Navy are:

Built Class Displacement Name Location Status Armament 1931 Destroyer 1337 tons Saguenay Halifax, N.S. In comm. 4-4.7″ 1931 ” 1337 ” Skenna Esquimalt,B.C. ” ” 4-4.7″ 1919 ” 905 ” Champlain Halifax, N.S. ” ” 3-4″ 1919 ” 905 ” Vancouver Esquimalt,B.C. ” ” 3-4″ 1918 Mine Sweeper 360 ” Armentieres Esquimalt,B.C. ” ” 1918 ” ” 360 ” Festubert Halifax, N.S. ” reserve 1918 ” ” 360 ” Ypres Halifax, N.S. ” ”

c. Army. _ (1) Personnel: Estimated Strength (by G-2): Organized Forces. ________________ Active Reserve Total ______ _______ _____ Permanent Active Militia 403 403 Officers 403 403 Men 3300 3,300 Non Permanent Active Militia Officers 6,911 6,911 Men 44,962 44,962

Reserves, Non-active Officers 10,000 10,000 Men 30,000 30,000 __________________ Total Organized 3,703 91,873 95,576 * Note: The Canada Year Book, 1935, pp 1114, gives permanent and non-permanent active militia 1934: Permanent Officers and men——— 3,760 Non-permanent officers and men—– 135,184 _________ Total 138,941

The latest information concerning the distribution of the active militia is shown on the accompanying map. (Incl. G) (2) It is probable that the Non-permanent Active Militia can be brought to a strength of 60,000 at M plus 15 and to full strength of 126,000 in M plus 30 days. (Note: This estimate is approximately twice that of G-2, First Army.) New troops will begin to appear in 180 days at the rate of 50,000 monthly. d. Air Service. _ The Royal Canadian Air Force operates under a directorate in the office of the Chief of Staff of the Army. Strength (Dec. 1, 1934) Active: Officers 117 Men 664 Reserve: Officers 38 Men 236 _____ Total 1,055

-51-

The equipment consists of some 84 combat planes with probably 20 on order. (G-2 estimate) The Armaments Year Book, League of Nations, gives a total of 166 planes of all kinds and the Statesman Year Book, 1935 gives 189 planes of all kinds. It is probable that about one squadron of pursuit and one squadron of observation could be organized for immediate service. e. Comment. _ The location of Canada’s industry and population along a narrow extent front facing the northern United States border and her relatively weak military and naval forces, widely dispersed, will necessitate a defensive role until Red forces are landed.

The promptness and effectiveness of British aid must depend upon suitable debarkation points on Canada’s east coast. The West Coast does not favor overseas operations unless Red controls the Pacific, and even then is too remote from critical Blue areas. f. Red Reinforcements. _ Various estimates have been made of the size, composition, and time of placing Red reinforcements in Canada. In any such estimate, the time factor is of prime importance but depends on an unknown quantity, viz, “the period of strained relations.” The following estimate is considered conservative: Probable Enemy Forces in Canada _______________________________Empire Days after Crimson (Less Crimson) Total M Day men Div. Men Div. Men Divisions 15 25,000 5 — — 25,000 5 30 50,000 5 — — 50,000 5 60 50,000 5 126,000* 8 176,000 13 90 50,000 5 203,000 13 253,000 13 120 50,000 5 238,000 16 288,000 21 150 50,000 5 255,000 16 305,000 21 180 90,000 6 255,000 16 345,000 22 *Under certain conditions this force might be landed in Canada by 30 M.

Air Forces. __________ Red has available at once 48 squadrons of 10 to 12 planes each. The following forces can probably be landed in Canada as indicated. 10 M 13 squadrons. 30 M 30 squadrons. 60 M 41 squadrons. 90 M 56 squadrons. 120 M 74 squadrons. f. Conclusion. _ Crimson cannot successfully defend her territory against the United States (Blue). She will probably concentrate on the defense of Halifax and the Montreal-Quebec line in order to hold bases of operation for Red. Important secondary efforts will be made to defend her industrial area and critical points on her transcontinental railroad lines.

8. Areas of Strategic Importance. Analysis of the above data and discussion indicates certain areas which would become of considerable military importance in the event of war with Red; namely, a. The Halifax Monkton St. John area, sometimes called the Martime _ Province area. b. The Montreal Quebec area, sometimes called the St. Lawrence Area. _

-52-

c. The Great Lakes Area. _ (1) Niagara River Area. (2) Sarnia-Windsor Area. (3) Sault Ste. Marie Area. (4) Sudbury Area. d. Winnipeg Area. _ (1) Winnipeg City and vicinity. (2) Churchill, Manitoba Area. e. Vancouver-Victoria Area. _ (1) Ports of Vancouver and Victoria, area. (2) Prince Rupert area. f. The reasons why these various areas are strategically important may be _ briefly summarized as follows: (1) Halifax Monkton St. John Area. (Maritime Province) The port of Halifax is the key point in the area, for while the port of St. John affords excellent facilities for an overseas expedition, it is so close to the United States border that uninterrupted use by Red cannot be expected. At Monkton, the peninsula connecting Nova Scotia and the mainland narrows to 14 miles. With Halifax in possession of Crimson, this area affords the best defensive position to prevent any advance west- ward by Red. (a). Control of Halifax by Blue would: 1. Deny Red the only ice free port on the east coast and the _ only ports, other than the St. Lawrence River ports, suitable as an overseas base. 2. Deny Red a prepared naval base on the east coast, from which _ to operate against Blue naval forces or commercial shipping. 3. Disrupt transoceanic submarine cable service between Crimson _ and Red (except from Newfoundland) and between Crimson and the West Indies. 4. Deny Red the use of certain air bases from which to operate _ against northeastern United States. (b) The control of Halifax by Blue, renders the Port of St. John and the Monkton area of secondary importance. Failing to secure Halifax _______ control of the Monkton area by Blue would: ___________________________ 1. Deny Red the use of St. John Harbor. _ 2. Cut the lines of communication between the port of Halifax _ and St. John and the remainder of Canada. 3. Place Blue directly across the only line of advance (by _ Red) from Halifax, on the shortest possible defensive line. 4. Deny Red the use of certain air bases from which to operate _ against northeastern United States. 5. Give Blue the use of various small air fields at Monkton _ and St. John. (2) Montreal – Quebec Area (St. Lawrence River Area). The ports of Montreal and Quebec, while ice bound about four months of the year, still afford the best overseas base both as to facilities and location. In addition the area is of great commercial importance in that it controls all lines of communication, by land, sea and wire between in- dustrial and agricultural centers of Canada and the eastern seaboard. While Montreal has the larger and more commodius harbor and terminal facilities, Quebec, due to its physical location, is the key point of the area. Control of this area by Blue would: (a) Deny the use of all good St. Lawrence River ports to Red. (b) Cut all Canada, west of Quebec, viz. industrial, and agricult- ural centers from the eastern seaboard.

-53-

(c) Deny Red and Crimson and make available to Blue, the principal air bases in eastern Canada. (d) Deny Crimson coal and iron from Nova Scotia and Newfoundland as well as all imports via the Atlantic. (3) The Great Lakes Area. This area comprises several critical points: (a) Niagara River crossings and Welland Canal. (b) The waters connecting Lake Huron and Lake Erie. (c) The great industrial area of Canada – that part of Ontario lying between Lake Huron and Lakes Erie and Ontario. (d) The waters connecting Lake Superior and Lake Huron, including the Soo Locks. (e) The Sudbury nickel-copper mines. Control of the Great Lakes waterway is vital to Blue, for the transporta- tion of iron ore, coal and grain and such control will necessitate occupation of a bridgehead covering the narrow boundary waters at and near the Soo Locks and in the Detroit Area. The bridges over the Niagara River and the Welland Canal, connecting Lake Erie and Lake Ontario are of importance to Blue for occupation of the Important industrial area of the Niagara-Ontario peninsula. The Welland Canal would become of importance as a line of communi- cation if Blue seized the peninsula. While control of that area is of importance in crippling Crimson industry, it is probably of greater importance in denying the enemy Crimson and Red, a most convenient base for operations against highly industrialized areas in the United States. (4)

Winnipeg Area. Winnipeg is the nerve center of the transcontinental railroad system. Control by Blue will effectively separate eastern and western Canada and block transportation on men, grain, coal, meat and oil to the east. The completion of the Canadian National Railroad to Churchill Manitoba on Hudson Bay and the development of the port at Churchill provide an alternate route to Europe via Moosonee, Ont., and the Tem. and Ont. Ry. to northeast Ontario. While the water route through Hudson Bay is only open about four months of the year, and the ports are supplied by single track railroads, a considerable amount of traffic could be developed in an emergency. (5)

Vancouver – Victoria Area. As pointed out above, the ports in this area are of secondary im- portance only under the conditions, which may reasonable be assumed. How- ever, the area has certain military importance, due to the naval base at Esquimalt, and is a possible outlet for the Canadian plan provinces and western Canada. Its control by Blue would deny the enemy any base or outlet on the West Coast; simplify the problem of protecting our shipping in the Puget Sound area; and interrupt cable communication with the far east. While Prince Rupert, B.C. has an excellent harbor and terminal facilities with good rail connections leading east, naval blockade of this port would be readily possible, once the Vancouver – Victoria area was in Blue control.

9. Routes of Approach to the Areas of Strategic Importance. a. Halifax – Monkton – St. John Area (Maritime Provinces) (Incls. D & H). _ Three possible routes of approach are considered, viz: (1) Via water from Boston or New York to Halifax or vicinity. (2) Via water from Boston or New York to ports in Western Nova Scotia and thence overland to Halifax.

-54-

(3) From Eastern Maine, via St. John and/or Fredericton to Monkton – Amherst – Truro to Halifax. b. Discussion of Routes of Approach to the Halifax – Monkton – St. John _ (Maritime Province) Area. (1) The distance by water from Boston to Halifax is 370 miles and from New York 600 miles, or in time about 30 or 50 hours respectively. The Port of Halifax is fortified and would undoubtedly be mined. A frontal attack would require a large force and would involve undesirable delays. Other developed ports of Nova Scotia on the Atlantic are too distant from _________ Halifax and involve a long advance after a landing is effected and this advance would be over difficult terrain. A number of undeveloped bays along the east shore offer favorable conditions for landing operations and of these, St. Margarets Bay, the near- est, being some 16 miles by road west of Halifax, appears satisfactory. Deep water, with a minimum depth of 7 fathoms extends nearly to the head of the Bay, not far from Hubley and French Village, which are on an improved road and on the railroad from Yarmouth to Halifax. The bay is protected from all winds and seas, except those from the south and is of sufficient size to harbor any fleet required for the expedition.

Tidal range is the same as at Halifax, 6 to 6 1/2 feet. There are numerous small but adequate boat and barge landings on the west, north and east shore of the bay, from whence improved roads lead to the main highway. The highway Hubbard – French Village – Hubley – Halifax is 18 feet wide, of macadam, with east grades and with concrete bridges capable of carrying heavy artillery and tanks. The railroad is single track, standard gauge and parallels the road. It has rather heavy grades and is of light construction. Rocky wooded hills rise rather steeply to a height of 200 to 400 feet all around St. Margarets Bay, but the roads are within the 50 foot contour and the terrain between the roads and the water is greatly rolling. The main highway French Village – Halifax, runs through low rocky hills and movement off the roads by wheeled vehicles would be practically im- possible. (2) The ports on the western shore of Nova Scotia off the Bay of Fundy are subjected to extremely high tides – 20 to 25 feet, and generally afford only limited terminal facilities and have depths generally inadequate for docking transports. Tidal currents are strong. From Windsor, on the Avon River, to Halifax, there is one improved road and a branch of the Canadian Northern Railroad. The distance is about 50 miles, with high ground and good defensive positions in the center of the island. As a route of approach to Halifax it is considered inferior to the route from St. Margarets Bay. (3)

The All Land Route via Eastern Maine. This route involves an advance from the Maine border of approximately 320 miles over difficult terrain. The St. Johns River, rising near the border of northern Maine, flows south just east of the Maine – New Brunswick border to Woodstock, thence generally southeast through Fredericton to St. John. It is navigable from the mouth to the falls some distance above Woodstock, N.B. The average tidal range at St. John is 20 1/2 feet, decreasing up stream. The river is crossed by a highway and a railroad bridge at Fredericton, each nearly 1/2 mile long. Two other bridges, a cantilever railroad bridge and a suspension bridge span the river about one mile above the city of St. John. There are numerous ferries operating alone the river. It is apparent that the St. John River is a serious obstacle to any advance overland from Maine. While the St. John could be bridged, such operations would result in considerable delay.

-55-

The railroad and road nets available are shown on Inclosures B, C and D. They are reasonably adequate for a force of the size probably required for this operation. (4) Conclusion. If Halifax is to be captured without the use of large forces and expenditure of considerable time and effort, it must be accomplished promptly before Red reinforcements can be landed or Crimson organize for its defense. Any advance overland from Maine would eliminate all elements of surprise and make the capture extremely difficult – a major operation. An overseas expedition is one of the most uncertain of military operations, and with the Red fleet on guard in the North Atlantic, with Red’s immediate military objective the retention of a base in eastern Canada for future operations against Blue, a joint operation against Halifax must be promptly and perfectly executed to assure any hope of success. This route is considered the best but existing conditions at the time, may make this route impracticable, and the all land route necessary. c. The St. Lawrence Area. (Quebec – Montreal) _

The only practicable routes of advance for Blue, into this area, are from northern New York, New Hampshire and Vermont and from northwest Maine. (See map) (Incl. K) (1) Rivers. (a) The St. Lawrence River flanks the left side of all routes of approach to Quebec. From Montreal to Three Rivers it flows through an alluvial plain, with the south bank 25 to 75 feet above the river. Below Three Rivers the banks increase steadily in height to Quebec, where they are 140 to 175 feet high. The normal rise and fall of the river above the tidewater is 10 feet but this maybe doubled by ice jams. Tidal range reaches a maximum of 18 feet at Quebec, and practically disappears at Richelieu Rapids 40 miles above Quebec. The river above Quebec is obstructed by ice from November to April but ice breakers can get through. The river from Quebec to Montreal, generally about 1/2 to 2 miles wide (except at Lake St. Peter) is navigable on a 30′ draft to Montreal. The distance from Quebec to Mon- treal is 160 miles. In the area south of the St. Lawrence, between Quebec and Mon- treal, are several rivers of importance which will naturally influence any plans for an advance on Quebec, viz: Richelieu River St. Francis River Nicolet River Becancour River Chaudiere River Etchemin River Other streams will create obstacles of lesser importance. (b) The Richelieu River flows north from Lake Champlain to enter the St. Lawrence about 35 miles north of Montreal. It is navigable on a 6 1/2 foot draft throughout its length. (c) The St. Francis River rises in St. Francis Lake some 50 miles northwest of Jackman, Maine. It flows southwest to Lennoxville, Quebec, where it turns sharply northwest to flow into the St. Lawrence (Lake St. Peter). Headwaters are controlled. The regulated flow is some 3000 feet per second or more, with an average fall of 6.6 feet per mile. It is not fordable below Sherbrooke.

-56-

(d) The Nicolet River rises in Nicolet Lake, 8 miles west of Lake Alymer, and flows generally northwest to empty into the St. Lawrence at the east end of Lake St. Peter. The average low water flow is about 2000 feet per second. Banks in the upper reaches – hilly wooded terrain – are steep and from 200 to 500 feet higher. The average fall is about 21 feet per mile but there are a number of dams. From Arthabaska to Lake St. Peter the stream flows through a flat open country, with banks 25 feet high or less, except for a gorge starting about 4 miles north of St. Clothilda and ending 3 miles from Lake St. Peter.

The river is not a serious obstacle but there are many swampy areas between it and the Becancour River. (e) The Becancour River rises about 5 miles northwest of Lake St. Francis and flows north, then southwest, then northwest to enter the St. Lawrence a few miles below Three Rivers, Que. The lower reaches of the river, below the vicinity of Lyster, Que, flows through generally flat country of gentle slope. The stream averages 300 to 400 feet wide and is fordable at few places. From Maddington Falls to within 3 miles of the St. Lawrence the river flows through a narrow gorge 100 to 250 feet below the surrounding flat country.

The river is not a serious obstacle to an advance on Quebec, by reason of the general direction of flow in its lower reaches and the characteristics of the country. (f) The Chaudierre River rises in Lake Megantic, about 45 miles west of Jackman, Maine and flows generally north into the St. Lawrence, op- posite Quebec. From Lake Megantic to Hersey Mills, it flows swiftly between steep banks in a narrow valley. The adjacent terrain is rugged and heavily timbered. From St. George to Valley Junction the valley widens materially and the country is less rugged. Below Valley Junction the river flows through gentle undulating country between relatively low banks.

The Chaudiere is a strong swift stream with an average discharge of over 4000 feet per second. The width varies from 200 feet at St. George to 400 feet or more in the lower reaches. From St. Maxine to the St. Lawrence it is 600 to 1500 feet wide. This river must be considered a serious obstacle. (g) The Etchemin River rises in Lake Atchemin and flows northwest into the Chaudiere. It is 200 to 300 feet wide in the lower reaches, with banks generally high and steep. It forms a considerable obstacle. (2) Terrain. The southerly portion of the area bordering on the United States, east of the Richelieu River, is hilly verging on mountainous (up to 3000′). The Notre Dame Mountains extend the Green Mountains of Vermont in the form of a series of ridges, gradually decreasing in elevation from Lake Champlain northeast to the meridian of Quebec, thence northeast parallel to the St. Lawrence. From the St. Lawrence the terrain rises smoothly and gradually toward the southeast to the foothills of the Notre Dame Mountains. On the line Montreal Sherbrooke a serious of eight hills (wooded) rise sharply to heights varying from 800 to 1500 feet or more above the surrounding country. In general the hills of the Quebec theatre are wooded, those below the 500 foot contour and east of the Becancour River sparsely, while west of the river there are densely forested areas at intervals. (3) Roads. The main roads to Montreal lead north from Plattsburgh, New York and Burlington, Vermont. Quebec may be reached via routes No. 1 and 5, through Sherbrooke, Que; via route No. 3 along the south bank of the St. Lawrence; or via Montreal and the north bank of the St. Lawrence. The latter is the longest route and undoubtedly the most difficult. Another route is available from Jackman, Maine, via route No. 23 through Valley Junction. The road net available is shown on inclosure No. “D” and “K.”

-57-

(4) Railroads. The railroads available are shown on inclosures “B” and “C.” They are entirely adequate for any probable movement against this area. (5) Discussion of routes. (a) Northern New York – Vermont to Montreal Roads: No. 9 from Plattsburgh to St. Lambert and South Mon- treal. Distance 69.2 miles, all paved. No. 7 from Burlington, Vt., via St. John, Que. to St. Lambert or South Montreal. Distance 94.2 miles, all paved. There is a bridge across the Richelieu River at St. Johns. There are two highway bridges across the St. Lawrence at Montreal. Railroads: Delaware and Hudson – Albany to Montreal. New York Central – Malone to Montreal. Rutland and C.P. – Burlington to Montreal. Central Vermont and C.N. Montpelier to Montreal. Comments: The terrain is favorable and no physical barrier to the advance as far as the St. Lawrence, except the crossing of the Rich- elieu River, for a force moving from Vermont. An advance on Quebec from Montreal is possible, but offers the longest route, with many rivers per- pendicular to the line of advance (down the St. Lawrence) which offer excellent defensive positions. (b) Northern Vermont and New Hampshire to Quebec. Physical features: The Richelieu River on the west and the Chaudiere and Etchemin Rivers on the east tend to delimit the zone of advance. Roads: No. 5 – Newport, Vt. to Sherbrook then No. 7 to Valley Junction to the highway bridge on the St. Lawrence and to Quebec, or via No. 23 from Scott Junction to Levis, Que and the ferry to Quebec. Distance 212.5 miles from Newport, Vt. All improved road, mostly gravel. Some of the road through the hilly country is paved. No. 5 from Sherbrooke via Victoriaville is an alternate route. No. 23, Jackman, Maine – Valley Junction – Levis. This dis- tance is 109 miles. The road is improved and about 50% paved. It is the shortest route. It crosses the Chauderie and Etchemin Rivers. There are numerous alternate routes and connecting roads. Railroads: Canadian Pacific – Newport to Quebec. Canadian Pacific – Jackman via Megantic to Quebec. Canadian National – Portland, Me., via Sherbrooke to Quebec. Comments: While the terrain in this sector is hilly verging on the mountainous, with several defiles and river crossings, it offers the short- est and best route of advance on Quebec.

d. The Great Lakes Area. _ This area must be considered under the following subdivisions, as the routes of approach vary, and approach must be made from all of these direc- tions. The Buffalo – Niagara River Area. The Port Huron – Detroit Area. The Sault St. Marie or Soo Locks – Sudbury Area. (1) The Buffalo – Niagara River Area. Bridges cross the Niagara River at Buffalo (Peace Bridge); at Niagara Falls (suspension Bridge) and the (lower Arch Bridge) and at Lewiston, New York. ” ” ”

-58-

Roads: The road net approaching the Niagara River from the United States and leading across the river into southern Ontario and through Hamilton to Toronto and Montreal, is one of the best along the inter- national boundary and is entirely adequate for any probably movement. Railroads: The Canadian Pacific and the Canadian National rail- roads have a network of railways connecting Buffalo with Toronto and points east. Branch lines lead to all important parts of the Niagara peninsula. Comment: The crossings over the Niagara River should be promptly secured to assure a line of advance into the Niagara Peninsula of Ontario.

(2) The Detroit – Port Huron Area. This area has much the same characteristics as the Buffalo Niagara River Area but beyond securing the crossings over the boundary waters, sufficient area to cover the Great Lakes water routes against Crimson interference is essential. Crossings: Ambassador Bridge – Detroit – Windsor. Two tunnels (one railroad) Detroit – Windsor. Numerous ferries. Railroads and roads: There is an excellent railroad and road net available for any advance eastward from Detroit and Port Huron. Comment: The Ontario Peninsula is of great industrial importance to Canada and a military area of great strategic value, as a base for air or land operations against the industrialized areas between Chicago and Buffalo. Any Blue operations should advance via Buffalo – Niagara Falls and Port Huron – Detroit simultaneously.

(3) Sault Ste. Marie – Sudbury Area. The best route of approach to the Sudbury area, about 200 miles east of the Soo, is obviously via Sault St. Marie, along the north shore of North Channel. An operation along this route, automatically covers the Soo. The Canadian Pacific railroad and one good gravel road leads east from the Soo. These provide ample facilities for supply of the probable force required. The southern flank of this line is protected by North Sound and the north flank by rough heavily wooded terrain entirely devoid of roads or other communications suitable for the movement of armed forces.

(4) Winnipeg Area. The main route from the United States to Winnipeg is north from Grand Forks and Crookston through Emerson. A main road follows the west bank of the Red River, from Emerson into Winnipeg. A good hard sur- face road from Grand Forks and one from Crookston furnishes a suitable road net south of the border. There are several secondary roads on both sides of the border to supplement the hard surface roads. The Canadian Pacific has two main lines extending north from the border, one leading from Fargo through Gretna along the west bank of the Red River, and one from Thief River Falls, through Emerson along the east bank of the Red River. The Canadian Northern has a line from Grand Forks through Emerson Junction to Winnipeg on the west bank of the Red River and another line connecting with Duluth and extending through Warroad to Winnipeg. The best and only practicable route of approach is obviously north from Grand Forks and Crookston. The terrain is flat and open and offers no natural obstacles to an advance.

-59-

Churchill, on Hudson Bay, has rail connection by the Canadian National system at Hudson Bay Junction about 325 miles northwest of Winni- peg. The best and only route of approach to cut this line is along the railroad from Winnipeg.

(5) The Vancouver Area (Vancouver – Victoria) (See Incl. E & L) (Omitted) The best practicable route to Vancouver is via Route 99 through Bellingham, a distance of 55 miles and over a paved highway, through wooded and farming country. A secondary and longer route lies about 15 miles fur- ther to the east running through Sumas to strike the highways running east from Vancouver at the meridian of Mission City. The Grand Trunk Railroad extending from Vancouver to Seattle fur- nishes a satisfactory rail service. Victoria and Esquimalt, on the island of Vancouver can be reached by water only. Ferry service is maintained between Vancouver and Nanaimo on the east shore of the island, some 50 miles north of Victoria and between Vancouver, Burlingham and Port Angeles and Victoria. The best route of ap- proach is by water from Port Angeles, Washington.

IV. Conclusions: ___________ a That the critical areas of Canada are: _ (1) The Halifax-Monkton-St.John Area (The Maritime Provinces). (2) The St.Lawrence Area (Quebec and Montreal). (3) The Great Lakes Area. (4) The Winnipeg Area. (5) The Vancouver Area (Vancouver and Victoria).

b. That the best routes of approach to these areas are: _ To (1) By joint operations by sea from Boston. (2) From Northern New Hampshire-Vermont area. (3) (a) From Sault St. Marie and the Soo Locks Area. (b) From Port Huron – Detroit Area. and (c) From the Buffalo-Niagara Falls Area. (4) From Grand Forks-Crookston through Emerson. (5) Along Puget Sound through Everett and Bellingham, supported by an attack by water in Puget Sound.

V. Recommendations. _______________ None.

VI. Concurrences. ____________ The committee concurs in the foregoing conclusions.

CHARLES H. JONES Major, Infantry, Subcommittee Chairman.

  • Posted in English, Mobile, NO READ MORE LINK
  • Comments Off on Canada Day 2024: America’s Insidious Plan to Invade Canada and Bomb Montreal, Vancouver, Halifax and Quebec City (1930-39)
  • Tags:

A Note on the Psychology of Groups in Our Covidian Times

July 1st, 2024 by Dr. Emanuel Garcia

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.

***

I often find it useful, when attempting to make sense out of various scenarios, to look at extremes or ideals the better to apprehend a more complex and muddied situation and arrive, perhaps, at a clearer conception of causality.

For example, I was recently told by a friend that a school kid bashed another school kid – it seemed to me as if it were typical and not highly unusual school-yard shenanigans. But when the Principal was called in to mete out justice the basher was given a reprieve because he was ‘hangry’. In other words the poor school-yard bully hadn’t had his Wheaties and as a consequence he indulged in an act of petty violence against an apparently undeserving (but well-fed) victim. Therefore it wasn’t deliberate malevolence or caprice at play, but malnourishment – the hunger’s the thing that led to anger and thus to a bloody nose or blackened eye. The basher-bully was exonerated of all responsibility, probably rewarded with a candy bar to compensate for his state of malnourishment, and all was right in the world of the grammar school once again.

But I asked my friend a simple question: does every hungry person assault someone? Is hunger at the root of all evil?

I recall many times when I have been hungry, thirsty, anxious, aggravated, irritated, worried and distraught, and perhaps I may have glowered at a pedestrian daring to step into the hashmarks of a crosswalk as I was cruising along, or perhaps I may have uttered an icy ‘thank you’ to an innocent barista serving coffee, but I can’t remember gratuitously tackling somebody whose looks, for one reason or other, I didn’t like just because I wasn’t at my utmost physical best.

Even in states of extreme inebriation there are some who will go wild, and others who go mum, so unless a person has been pushed to the non compos mentis brink, personal agency – and personal responsibility – are always at play.

As I have grappled with the question of groups and group psychology since the covid debacle was introduced and lent it greater urgency, given the strange and harmful turns groups took, I have found it useful to look at groups with which I have had a direct personal experience, and which themselves represent ideals.

To begin with groups abound, everywhere. They can’t be avoided and we can’t avoid being included in them somehow. Chat groups, condominium associations, sporting teams, platoons or battalions of soldiers, boards of trustees, groups spontaneously formed, groups gathered together for a brief time, groups more enduring – they are inescapable and take on a multiplicity of forms and possess a multiplicity of degrees of power or influence.

As we, on our side of the covid fence, well know, groups emerged that sought to exclude and punish those who didn’t go along with the plan to accept a highly dubious injectable. And also, as we well know, it wasn’t hunger that made them angry at us. What was it? What galvanized such energetic hostility and lack of respect? Did the jabs soften or alter their brains or consciences? (N.B.: The Nazis of the 20th century hadn’t received a covid jab). Was it a collective psychosis?

Many have come forward with explanations for the explosion of highly irrational and highly malicious trends and behaviours. Here I wish to tack aslant and look at the example of a group whose activity and goals are not only benevolent but enriching and enlightening: a Chorus.

Many years ago, in the late Seventies and early Eighties, I was a member of a choral group that had the wonderfully good fortune to sing some of the most magnificent music imaginable: Beethoven, Brahms, Bach, Haydn, Mahler – with one of the greatest symphonies of the time, The Philadelphia Orchestra, conducted by the likes of Ormandy, Abbado, Giulini, Bernstein and others.

Participating in the final movement of Beethoven’s Ninth at the Academy of Music in Philadelphia and Carnegie Hall in New York remains one of the highlights of my life.

For me it was a dream come true to join and contribute to a group united in the common goal of artistic truth and beauty. But what were the elements underpinning such a group?

For one, the whole was unquestionably greater than the sum of its parts. There were very many highly accomplished and beautiful individual singers in the chorus, but the gathering of voices in a greater number and with focus created something ineffable. Indeed, many voices – like mine – were rather humdrum; but together we created a sound that, properly honed and harnessed, could send shivers down the spines of our auditors. There was no ‘standing out’ in a chorus, except by fidelity to the composer’s score; there was no ‘ego’ as we are wont to say in psychological circles.

Second, what unified the chorus? Like any collection of people, motives and inclinations were varied. Some liked to be onstage, some liked to let the air out of their lungs, some liked the comfort of a large association or the thrill of a live performance. All, however, had to be united in subjugation to the realization of the wishes of the composer via the composer’s interpreter, the conductor. It was the role of the choral director to prepare us for the conductor and even if the director very occasionally bristled with a conductor’s approach, it wasn’t for her to object.

An ideal, a vision united us, which was the music itself and whatever lay behind and around and consequently could be expressed by the music. There were occasions when we sang ‘lesser’ compositions but these too required complete and selfless dedication. And who, in the end, can say what is better or worse in matters of art?

Third, we exercised power – good power, as I like to call it. This reminds me of another occasion when I was lucky enough to have attended a concert of Luciano Pavarotti, seated onstage behind the great singer. When Pavarotti turned towards those of us behind him, a palpable frisson of excitement swept through: I can’t describe it otherwise than as a transmissible and very perceptible physical and emotional energy. In a large chorus something similar and even more powerful occurs. The vibrations of the human voice, the vibrations of human voices collectively assembled in musical expression, the vibrations and sonorities of the orchestra accompanying the collective vocal aspiration – these all bring one, as a singer, to a state of exultation. And when I have listened to a great chorus as a member of the audience I have similarly been transported, but not with the incomparable bristling degree as when I have been an active participant.

Therefore the essential elements in the psychology of what I call an ideal good group are: the collective power of people who have agreed to sacrifice their individuality in service to a commonly held ideal, for the sake of achieving an ideal that could not otherwise – e.g., singly – be realized. The ideal group brings out the very best of us, collectively speaking, but one must understand that even here individual strivings must be pursued elsewhere. There is no getting round the fact of a submission to something collectively agreed upon that is greater than one’s own single self.

At the polar extreme of a good group is a group united and dedicated to mass murder. Even such a group shows the same common elements of subservience to a vision embodied by an ideal to which members submit, and in service to which members, in their collectively gained power, may do virtually anything – unlike choral members whose activities are narrowly defined by a score.

The key, therefore, is the uniting vision and its promise of power and pleasure to the group’s participants, the realization of fantasies behind which lurks the illusion of omnipotence, immortality and ecstasy.

To understand how many millions of generally good-enough people could have succumbed during the Vax apartheid period here in New Zealand to shunning their no-jab neighbours, excluding them from society, being on the cusp of sending them away to quarantine camps or leaving them, in the paraphrased words of one notable Leftist thinker, to forage for their own food, one must understand the uniting vision.

After at least a year of relentless ceaseless repetitive messages from every major media outlet about the deadliness of the ‘pandemic’ – with a ticker-tape of case and death counts running with every video – followed by the image of an injectable panacea which, we were told, would protect, preserve and save all of humanity – it is no wonder that those of us outside that group would be treated as dangerous vermin threatening the salvation of their newer healthier world. The covidians had their own song-sheet and they were lustily singing that all men would be brothers if and only if they got the magic needle.

The promise of omnipotence, immortality and ecstasy, crafted by the most sophisticated propagandists in history in collusion with the most encompassing and centralized communications networks in history, seduced the majority, quite efficiently.

For me it has never been a question of ‘mass formation’ or ‘mass psychosis’ but mass manipulation cleverly touching the chords of our deepest desires, which also include the desire to harm and kill and destroy, a profound facet of omnipotence.

Great art harnesses our destructive urges by transforming them into an expression of beauty. The dark arts of propaganda unite us by providing a vision so alluring, enticing and necessary that otherwise good and decent people turn rogue.

In our battle against these murderous propagandists we must offer a truer vision of collective good. We cannot attempt to motivate by fear – our enemies are the experts in this.

I had lunch the other day with a local community organizer. She has been at it for decades, forming economic and service cooperatives as a dedicated ‘liberal leftist’. She is now accused of being ‘far right’ when in reality her ideas and ideals have been as unchanging as Climate all along. We’re beyond right and left, anyway, and her way forward is a way of peaceful cooperative local alliances, showing others what good will and good energy and good power can accomplish.

I think she’s on the right track. With every battle against the covidians and our corrupt politicians – and battle we must – we must promote our own benevolent ideals. I don’t see any other way.

And this is all the more important as the second phase of the New Zealand Covid Inquiry, set for November, comes into play. . . . .

*

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. Garcia is a Philadelphia-born psychoanalyst and psychiatrist who emigrated to New Zealand in 2006. He has authored articles ranging from explorations of psychoanalytic technique, the psychology of creativity in music (Mahler, Rachmaninoff, Scriabin, Delius), and politics. He is also a poet, novelist and theatrical director. He retired from psychiatric practice in 2021 after working in the public sector in New Zealand. Visit his substack at https://newzealanddoc.substack.com/.

He is a regular contributor to Global Research. 

Featured image is from Alt-Market.us

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.

***

French President Emmanuel Macron thought he could defeat the far-right parties in his country by bringing forward early parliamentary elections, but it did not turn out the way he expected, and now, the political force led by Marine Le Pen, could end up in a ruling coalition, according to the renowned French sociologist Didier Fassin.

Almost from the beginning of his first presidential term, Macron —who claimed to be neither right nor left in the campaign—began to shift his policies to the right, attacking the left, but he ended up boosting the popularity of Marine LePen’s National Rally (Rassemblement National) party.

“The question is how Macron, who ran for president in 2017 as ‘neither right nor left’, and assured voters that he would ‘change the software’ of the country, has failed to the point of giving it the keys to power,” comments Fassin, a professor at the Collège de France, in an article published in the British newspaper The Guardian. “By tactically shifting towards the right and lambasting the left, he may have simply legitimised the party’s ideas.”

According to the analyst,

“Macron thought he could defeat Le Pen by shifting right. Instead, he has emboldened her. The president’s hazardous strategy has failed. Now France stands on the brink of its first far-right government since 1945.”

During his first term, the French president made unpopular decisions, earning him the nickname “president of the rich.” These included abolishing wealth taxes, introducing a flat tax on capital income, lowering the tax rate for corporations, restricting access to unemployment benefits, raising the minimum retirement age, and cutting housing benefits for the poor.

But this shift by Macron to the right, the specialist explained, far from harming the far right, has strengthened it, and proof of this was its recent success in the European elections at the beginning of June, in which Marine Le Pen’s party obtained 31.4% of the votes, more than double the 14.6% of Macron’s party.

Furthermore, Macron’s failed strategy has also managed to strengthen the most radical left, as the socialists, communists, greens and France Unbound have formed a New Popular Front, which, according to a recent poll, could obtain 28% of the votes in the next legislative elections, behind the 36% of the National Rally.

Fassin concludes,

“Macron’s gamble may lead to an unexpected outcome – whether a victory for the left or an ungovernable alliance with the right. Shortly after dissolving parliament, the president joked casually about his decision: ‘I’m delighted. I threw my unpinned grenade in their legs. Now we’ll see how they’re doing.’ His cynical gesture could end up hurting him more than his opponents.”

One of the critical issues in the election is Macron’s unrelenting support for the Kiev regime, especially his efforts to send French and European troops to Ukraine. In February, the French president stated at a press conference after the Paris Conference on Ukraine that the leaders of Western countries discussed the possibility of sending ground troops to Kiev. However, it was not possible to reach a consensus.

This was then followed by Macron, in an interview with The Economist magazine in March, not ruling out sending troops to Ukraine if he received a request from Kiev and if Russia breaks the front line. Moscow, in turn, warned that all French soldiers in Ukraine, both instructors and mercenaries, would be legitimate targets for the Russian Armed Forces.

Macron’s claims earned him criticism from prominent opponents, such as Marine Le Pen, who stated that the president “is playing the warlord, but it is about the lives of our children that he speaks so carelessly.”

More recently, Jordan Bardella, leader of the National Rally party, represented by Marine Le Pen in the Lower House of the French Parliament, declared earlier this month that he is against sending the military to Ukraine.

“There are red lines that the President of the Republic has crossed, but that I will not cross tomorrow as Prime Minister of a ‘government of coexistence.’ I, unlike the President, am against sending French troops and soldiers to Ukraine,” Bardella commented in a speech broadcast on the BFMTV television channel on June 19, adding that most French people also reject Macron’s decision.

“That can have tragic consequences, and I do not want France to be directly involved in a conflict with a nuclear power, which would represent a risk to world peace and the stability of our country,” he said.

Bardella focuses on wanting to fix France’s myriads of issues, from a cost-of-living crisis for ordinary French to dealing with mass migration and radical Islam in the country. These are issues that have been hurting the French but neglected by Macron as he attempts, and fails, to forge himself as a 21st-century Napoleon and creates the conditions for the National Rally party to gain power.

*

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.

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.

***

A preprint study led by Dr. Peter McCullough suggests using siRNA and RIBOTACs to target and degrade residual mRNA from COVID-19 vaccines, potentially mitigating long-term health risks associated with persistent spike protein production

COVID-19 mRNA vaccines have shown wider distribution in the body than initially claimed, raising concerns about unintended effects and the need for an “off switch” to stop ongoing spike protein production

The study proposes using siRNA and RIBOTACs as potential methods to bind to and degrade vaccine mRNA in cells, offering a targeted approach to prevent adverse events from mRNA-based therapies

“Long vax” symptoms, similar to long COVID, have been reported following vaccination, including fatigue, brain fog, numbness, and cardiovascular issues, highlighting the need for effective treatments for those affected

Another study led by McCullough found a significant increase in cerebral thromboembolism risk associated with COVID-19 vaccines compared to other vaccines, leading to calls for a moratorium on their use

*

A preprint study revealed a potential way to clear out mRNA from COVID-19 shots. The research, led by cardiologist, internist and epidemiologist Dr. Peter McCullough, offers hope for those who are suffering from health damage caused by COVID-19 injections.

“As the world is waking up to nearly two thirds with potential future disease and disability from the long-lasting mRNA coding for the dangerous Wuhan spike protein, the search is on for ways to stop this molecular monster from doing more damage,” McCullough writes.1

The technique involves the use of small interfering RNA (siRNA) and ribonuclease targeting chimeras (RIBOTACs) to “target, inactivate, and degrade residual and persistent vaccine mRNA” and in so doing, help prevent uncontrolled spike protein production while reducing toxicity.2

Technique May Help Mitigate Damage Triggered by mRNA COVID Shots

Pfizer-BioNTech and Moderna studies show that mRNA from COVID-19 shots, which is carried by tiny particles called nanolipids, does not stay only in the shoulder muscle or nearby lymph nodes as initially claimed. Instead, the mRNA can be found in various tissues in the body, raising safety concerns.

There is a worry that this mRNA might integrate into the body’s DNA or cause unintended spike protein production, which could be harmful. To address these concerns, scientists are looking at ways to eliminate this leftover mRNA to stop the production of the spike protein, which the COVID-19 shot mRNA helps produce.

“Without any way to turn off the messenger RNA, we think every single messenger RNA shot, because it’s been made synthetic and resistant to human breakdown, is going to make people progressively sick,” McCullough says. “We have to find a way to get this out of the body … We’re gonna need an off switch for this.”3 

McCullough’s study highlights “emerging concerns regarding the wide systemic biodistribution of these mRNA vaccines leading to prolonged inflammatory responses and other safety concerns.”4According to the scientists, “The stability of mRNA vaccines, their pervasive distribution, and the longevity of the encapsulated mRNA along with unlimited production of the damaging and potentially lethal Spike (S) protein call for strategies to mitigate potential adverse effects.”5

The study reviews a strategy involving siRNA and RIBOTACs. “It may seem unfathomable for doctors to inject more RNA to deactivate Pfizer and Moderna synthetic mRNA that has accumulated in the body after multiple injections,” McCullough says. “However, siRNA used today in my practice (patisiran, inclisiran) appears to be safe and well-tolerated only notable for injection site reactions.”6

siRNA and RIBOTACs May Act as Off Switch for COVID mRNA Shots

siRNA is a type of RNA molecule that can specifically bind to and degrade messenger RNA (mRNA) in cells. This process prevents the mRNA from being used to produce proteins. siRNA works by entering the cell and becoming part of a complex called the RNA-induced silencing complex (RISC).

Within RISC, the siRNA pairs with its matching mRNA sequence and guides the complex to cut and destroy the target mRNA, stopping protein production. siRNA is used in research and therapeutic applications to silence specific genes, helping to study gene function and treat diseases caused by overactive or harmful genes.

RIBOTACs, meanwhile, are synthetic molecules designed to bind to specific RNA molecules and recruit natural cellular enzymes, called ribonucleases, to degrade the target RNA. RIBOTACs enter the cell and attach to both the target RNA and the ribonuclease enzyme. This binding brings the enzyme into close proximity with the target RNA, allowing the enzyme to cut and degrade the RNA.

RIBOTACs are used to specifically target and destroy RNA molecules that are involved in disease processes, providing a precise way to reduce the levels of harmful proteins produced by these RNAs. According to the study, “The targeted nature of siRNA and RIBOTACs allows for precise intervention, offering a path to prevent and mitigate adverse events of mRNA-based therapies.”7

The study described two methods to target and degrade residual and persistent COVID-19 shot mRNA, including siRNA Therapy (A) and RIBOTAC neutralization (B):8

“A: siRNA targeted against COVID-19 vaccine mRNA enters the vaccinated cell via LNPs [lipid nanoparticles], where it incorporates into the RISC. The siRNA in RISC binds to the complementary sequence of the target vaccine mRNA and cleaves it, thus suppressing spike protein production.

B: RIBOTACs targeted against COVID-19 vaccine mRNA enter the vaccinated cell via LNPs, where they bind to both the target vaccine mRNA and endogenous RNase. This results in RNase-mediated vaccine mRNA degradation and the suppression of spike protein production.”

“We use these small interfering RNAs already in practice,” McCullough said. “There’s one called Patisiran, the other one, Inclisiran. I use them in my practice. They only last in the body a few days. They bind up messenger RNA to inactivate it … We hope that some molecular technology companies can pick this up and consider this.”9

COVID-19 Shots Trigger Debilitating Adverse Events and ‘Long Vax’

An effective “off switch” could provide a lifeline for those suffering debilitating effects. Significant serious adverse events have occurred among many who received mRNA COVID-19 injections, which have also been said to have an “unacceptably high harm-to-reward ratio.”10

For every 1 million shots, an estimated 1,010 to 1,510 serious adverse reactions, such as death, life-threatening conditions, hospitalization or significant disability, may occur.11 When compared to the flu shot, data from the European Medicines Agency Eurovigilance Database shows that COVID-19 shots cause more:12,13

Meanwhile, “long vax,” which describes an array of symptoms caused by COVID-19 shots, is finally getting some much-deserved recognition.

As reported by Science magazine in 2022, “In rare cases, coronavirus vaccines may cause long COVID-like symptoms,”14 which can include (but is not limited to) brain fog, memory problems, headaches, blurred vision, loss of smell, nerve pain, heart rate fluctuations, dramatic blood pressure swings and muscle weakness. The feeling of “internal electric shocks” are also reported.

Also in 2022, a preprint study from the U.S. National Institutes of Health reported new neuropathic symptoms that began in 23 adults within one month of receiving a COVID-19 shot.15 All of the patients felt severe tingling or numbness in their faces or limbs, and 61% also experienced dizziness when standing up, intolerance to heat and heart palpitations.

A study by Yale scientists also shed light on long vax, which they described as chronic post-vaccination syndrome, or PVS.16 In a study of 241 people who reported PVS after an mRNA COVID-19 shot, the median time from the jab to the onset of symptoms was three days, with symptoms continuing for 595 days. The five most common symptoms included:17

  • Exercise intolerance (71%)
  • Excessive fatigue (69%)
  • Numbness (63%)
  • Brain fog (63%)
  • Neuropathy (63%)

In the week before the survey was completed, patients reported a range of additional symptoms highlighting the mental toll the condition takes. The symptoms required a median of 20 interventions for treatment and included:18

COVID mRNA Shots Linked to 111,795% Increase in Brain Clots

Adding to the urgency in uncovering a strategy to help those who have received COVID shots, another study led by McCullough revealed they’re linked to a 111,795% increase in brain clots known as cerebral thromboembolism.19

Cerebral thromboembolism, a known side effect of COVID-19 shots, is a medical condition where a blood clot (thrombus) forms in a blood vessel, travels through the bloodstream and becomes lodged in an artery supplying blood to the brain. This blockage prevents blood flow to parts of the brain, potentially leading to a stroke.

For the study, researchers used data from the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and the U.S. Food and Drug Administration’s (FDA) Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) covering January 1, 1990 to December 31, 2023. They compared cerebral thromboembolism cases reported after COVID-19 shots to those reported after flu shots and other vaccines.

The study found the risk of cerebral thromboembolism after COVID-19 vaccines is significantly higher compared to flu vaccines and all other vaccines.20 While there were 52 reports of cerebral thromboembolism associated with influenza vaccines, there were 5,137 cases linked to COVID-19 shots.21

The staggering increase led the researchers to call for “an immediate global moratorium on the use of COVID-19 vaccines,” particularly in women of reproductive age. McCullough wrote:22

“This paper did not capture the level of permanent neurologic devastation and disability suffered by these patients. I can tell you that the rates must be very high given the extensive nature of the blood clots reported. These data among others strongly support removing all COVID-19 vaccines and boosters from the market. No one should be put at risk for a serious stroke with any vaccine.”

Help for Those Injured by an mRNA COVID

It’s important to be wary of any new mRNA shots that come on the market and carefully weigh if the risks outweigh the reported benefits before getting one. However, if you’ve already had one or more COVID-19 shots, there are steps you can take to repair from the assault on your system.

The more mRNA shots you take, the greater the immune system damage. So, the first step is to avoid getting anymore mRNA jabs. Next, if you’ve developed any unusual symptoms, seek out help from an expert. The Front Line COVID-19 Critical Care Alliance (FLCCC) has a treatment protocol for post-jab injuries. It’s called I-RECOVER and can be downloaded from covid19criticalcare.com.23

Dr. Pierre Kory, who cofounded the FLCCC, has transitioned to treating the vaccine injured more or less exclusively. For more information, visit DrPierreKory.com. McCullough is also investigating additional post-jab treatments, which you can find on PeterMcCulloughMD.com. Finally, if you’re suffering from long vax, be sure to review my strategies for boosting mitochondrial health to allow your body to heal.

*

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.

Notes

1, 6 Substack, Courageous Discourse May 31, 2024

2, 4, 5, 7 OSF Preprints, Strategic Deactivation of mRNA COVID-19 Vaccines May 29, 2024, Abstract

3, 9 Slay News June 22, 2024

8 OSF Preprints, Strategic Deactivation of mRNA COVID-19 Vaccines May 29, 2024, Figure 3

10 Cureus January 24, 2024, Abstract

11, 12 Sensible Medicine January 3, 2024

13 Front Public Health. 2021; 9: 756633

14 Science January 20, 2022

15 medRxiv May 17, 2022

16, 17, 18 medRxiv November 10, 2023

19, 21 Slay News June 20, 2024

20 Preprints June 18, 2024, COVID-19 Vaccines: A Risk Factor for Cerebral Thrombotic Syndromes

22 Substack, Courageous Discourse June 19, 2024

23 Covid19criticalcare.com 

Featured image is from Dr. Rath Health Foundation


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

The Resurrection of French Nationalism?

July 1st, 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.

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

***

France was the last European nation to lose its sovereignty, and France might be the first to recover its sovereignty. In the 1960s France was still a nation of ethnic French as contrasted with the tower of babel and a geographical entity that it is today.

During the ten-year presidency of Charles De Gaulle (1959-69) France’s policy was one of national independence. DeGaulle refused to join NATO, and he opposed a supranational Europe in which nations would subordinate themselves to a European Union.

French independence could be on the point of return judging from the success of Marine Le Pen’s party yesterday in the current French elections. Her nationalist party has in the first round of the parliamentary elections taken 34% of the votes with President Macron’s centrist coalition receiving only 21% support. If the second round produces similar results, a restoration of French independence is possible.

For many years European governments have worked consistently to overwhelm their ethnic populations with third world immigrant-invaders. It has reached the point where ethnic European women raped by immigrant-invaders fear to report the crime as it can result in a charge of racism or worse against the victim. For example, in response to a gang-rape of an ethnic German female, a 20-year old ethnic German female citizen called one of the gang rapists a “disgraceful rapist pig.”The German citizen was sentenced to jail for defaming an immigrant-invader, a protected species under German law, while the rapist was given a suspended sentence and served no jail time.

For many years the European working class has experienced their living standards reduced in the name of economy. Not long ago the French were protesting the rise in the retirement age, which forces them to work longer for their pension. The French have noticed that economy measures only apply to their living standards and not to the vast sums that Macron pours into the West’s war against Russia in Ukraine. Now all of Europe hears continually that they must prepare, and cough up money for, war with Russia.

The French don’t want war with Russia. Nor do the Germans, or the Italians. Only “their” governments do, and war is what Washington’s puppets have put on the agenda.

Europeans don’t want the high energy cost and lost profit and employment opportunities imposed on them by Washington’s “Russian sanctions.” It seems to Europeans that the purpose of Washington’s sanctions is to make Europe more dependent on Washington, essentially reducing them to serfs.

Finally, after suffering decades of abuse, insult, and total disregard by their leaders, Europeans protested in the recent European Union parliamentary elections. The ruling parties were repudiated across the board. The Belgian prime minister had to resign. The French president had to call national elections. I wrote that if the repudiation carries over into the national elections, we could see the unravelling of NATO, the European Union, and a return of sovereign European nations.

World War II gave control of Europe to the US instead of to Germany. The Soviet collapse gave Washington control over the Warsaw Pact, placing NATO on Russia’s border. Washington’s policy was to de-Germanize Germany and to destroy a national awareness. Washington controlled German education and indoctrinated Germans that nationalism was racist, produced Hitler and the Holocaust. Legislation was passed essentially criminalizing a positive attitude toward German nationalism. It meant that you were a Nazi. It still does. It is unclear if a German state can ever be resurrected.

Rid of the Germans, Washington turned its efforts on France. De Gaulle’s departure weakened France. It took time, but eventually Washington controlled who the French president would be. With France, Germany, and the British in Washington’s pocket, the rest of Europe went along.

Today European nations that shared the rule of the world are puppets of a criminal regime in Washington. The notion that there is any military power in these puppet states is laughable.

The self-confidence that made the British the ruler of the world has long departed. It was destroyed at Oxford and Cambridge. No Western country has a positive opinion of itself. All are being keyed for war with Russia, China, Iran.

The Kremlin does not understand the hollowed out, empty, West where there is no support for any government. Western peoples are brainwashed into impotence and cannot even protect their constitutional rights. Why would anyone fight for these governments, and if forced, with what spirit?

Putin sits there in his legalistic way accepting insult after insult, provocation after provocation, as his way of avoiding war with the West. It is not only Western provocations that are widening the Ukraine conflict into World War III. Putin has permitted the conflict to go on and on and on, and this has enabled Washington to get more and more and more involved, thus widening the conflict.

If Putin does not immediately use sufficient force to terminate the conflict, World War Three seems certain.

There is hope that if Le Pen wins France and does not sell out to Washington, the unravelling of NATO and resurrection of European independence will begin. But this can be a slow process, while the developments in Ukraine toward wider war are accelerating. The time is rapidly ending during which Putin can use sufficient force to end the conflict before it results in World War Three.

*

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.

***

ISR (intelligence, surveillance, reconnaissance) is one of the most important aspects of warfare.

Without such assets and platforms, any military is virtually blind, making it either impossible or at least extremely ineffective to use any sort of strategic and/or long-range weapons.

And yet, ISR is by far the most overlooked and underrated part of any conflict (possibly even more so than logistics and the economy of war).

Very few people would even consider the possibility that ISR platforms can be used as weapons. Even legally speaking, there are no black-and-white grounds to think of them as such. This legal grey area is precisely what the US-led NATO hopes to continue exploiting indefinitely. And indeed, it gives the political West’s crawling invasion of Russia a crucial asymmetric advantage, perhaps the most important one it still has (or had, at this point).

Namely, while they’re still not part of the NATO-orchestrated Ukrainian conflict (officially, at least), the US and its vassals and satellite states are still controlling much (if not most) of the decisions made by the Neo-Nazi junta and its military forces. Precisely ISR is one of the key aspects that are heavily exploited by the Kiev regime troops to even have a fighting chance. In fact, US/NATO is using advanced AI systems to act as force multipliers for its ISR platforms, an asset that is currently only countered by Russia’s top-of-the-line electronic warfare (EW) systems. However, for well over two years, Moscow’s ability to respond was quite limited, as it’s a lot more complicated because of the possibility of uncontrollable escalation that the leadership at the Kremlin simply wants to avoid. Unfortunately, that’s precisely what the political West wants to accomplish.

In order to do so, NATO has been using its ISR assets to target the Russian military by providing the Neo-Nazi junta with real-time updates on Moscow’s troop movements. This was soon followed by target acquisition and guidance of US/NATO-sourced weapons, particularly those used by the HIMARS and M270 MLRS (multiple launch rocket systems).

The political West became so brazen in this that it started flying less than 100 km off the coast of Crimea, prompting the Russian Aerospace Forces (VKS) to respond directly. Thus, in March last year, a Russian Su-27SM3 masterfully downed a USAF MQ-9 “Reaper” dronewithout firing a single shot. The result was that such flights stopped for weeks after the “unfortunate incident”, saving thousands of lives that would’ve otherwise been jeopardized by the Kiev regime. However, in recent months, NATO resumed such flights.

The result has been an absolute disaster, particularly for civilians. Namely, as the political West is now openly using terrorist tactics against Russia (already announced in major media outlets and coordinated with Islamic radicals in the country), the Kremlin needs the most effective way to counter this. The last days of June saw several well-coordinated NATO terrorist attacks in Russia, including the direct targeting of hundreds of beachgoers in Crimea, when a US-sourced ATACMS missile fired by the Neo-Nazi junta killed at least four (including two children) and wounded over 150 people. In the immediate aftermath of this terrorist attack,

I argued that Moscow should start shooting down any and all NATO ISR assets and platforms as soon as possible, because precisely those were used to enable the terrorist attack on Sevastopol in the first place.

However, it seems that precisely this happened, as recent reports by military sources suggest that the VKS promptly responded by dispatching its top-of-the-line interceptors to “pay a visit” to the ISR drones used by the USAF. According to Fighter-Bomber, one of the most prominent Russian milbloggers, they “neutralized” an American RQ-4B “Global Hawk” over the Black Sea. Fighter-Bomber claims there’s even a video of the event. His account suggests that a MiG-31 made two passes by the US drone, flying at up to Mach 2.3 (over 2800 km/h). He says that “this is the first such case in the history of aviation” and that “no one has ever ‘met’ anyone at such altitudes and speeds”. Fighter-Bomber also said that the superfast, high-flying MiG-31 (NATO reporting name “Foxhound”) was chosen because it’s the only aircraft in the VKS (and the world) that could perform such a task.

He also stated that both the pilot and the navigator/WSO (weapons systems officer) of the MiG-31 received the “Order of Courage” for their actions during the encounter and that “the [MiG-31] crews are preparing for new ‘meetings’ [with US drones]”. Most media rejected these claims, as any evidence is yet to be revealed. However, NATO’s actions ever since suggest that at least some sort of “incident” took place, as there have been no NATO ISR drones flying over the Black Sea. These have been replaced by manned ISR aircraft. What’s more, these are also flying with fighter jet escorts. Worse yet, most of them are flying over areas occupied by NATO, particularly Romania. In the meantime, the Russian military formally announced it would be taking measures against US/NATO ISR assets to prevent further terrorist attacks, which is in line with Fighter-Bomber’s claims.

One of the positive aspects of this is also the fact that NATO will be forced to provide escorts for manned aircraft, meaning it’s far more expensive and logistically cumbersome to sustain ISR flights, making them rarer and, thus, drastically reducing the efficiency of the already overhyped NATO weapons. To say nothing of the expenses of having to provide constant fighter jet escorts that include up to four aircraft on constant guard duty. In addition, these jets simply don’t have the range to follow ISR aircraft throughout the mission, meaning that an entire squadron has to be on combat duty at all times, further complicating such missions for NATO. And indeed, right after the MIG-31–RQ-4B incident reported by Fighter-Bomber, NATO ISR drones suddenly canceled all of their scheduled flight missions over the Black Sea, without any official explanation.

*

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: U.S. Air Force MQ-9 camera footage of the Russian Su-27 Black Sea intercept on March 14. [Source: edition.cnn.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.

***

The number of Ukrainian recruits who do not want to fight is proliferating despite the military facing a major manpower shortage, The Guardian reported. Although Ukraine has secured money and weapons from the West to aid in the war effort, at least for the next few months, manpower shortage is one issue that cannot be resolved.

“I want to leave the country. My mind can’t take being trapped here any more,” said Dmytro, a 31-year-old potential recruit. “I never thought about leaving until the mobilisation laws were introduced. But I can’t stay in my flat forever.”

The Kharkov native told the British newspaper that he had approached individuals online who promised to facilitate his escape from Ukraine for at least €8,000, an astronomical amount considering the average salary in the country is about €550.

“I am not made for war. I can’t kill people, even if they are Russians. I won’t last long on the front … I want to build a family and see the world. I am not ready to die,” he said, adding that although he did not trust the human traffickers, he had no other choice.

According to the newspaper, even before the mobilisation intensified, more than 20,000 Ukrainians fled the country despite the Kiev regime’s attempts to stop it. The exodus began when Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky signed in April a law that reduced the mobilisation age from 27 to 25 and punished draft evaders by freezing their bank accounts, seizing their properties, and taking their driver’s licenses.

According to the law, all people eligible for military service must update their personal details at a recruitment centre and demobilisation dates are not specified either.

“Since the war’s beginning, the draft has been criticised as chaotic and tarnished by corruption. Ukraine has intensified its efforts to stop people fleeing across borders and evading the draft, highlighted by Zelensky’s dismissal of all regional military recruitment chiefs in April. This dismissal followed reports of officers accepting bribes to exempt men from conscription. But the practice appears to be hard for the authorities to root out,” The Guardian detailed.

One poll found that 94% of respondents believe corruption is one of the main problems in Ukraine, with 61.7% saying that corruption in procurement for the army is the most harmful to Ukraine’s ability to resist and defeat Russia. It is natural that there will be little enthusiasm among Ukrainians to risk their lives fighting a better armed and manned military when corruption further impedes an almost impossible task.

Another Ukrainian, Andrei, told The Guardian that he too was seeking to leave the country, having already previously failed.

“The journey is only getting more difficult,” he said, adding: “I don’t think I will be this lucky a second time if things go wrong” but that he was still considering paying the hefty €8,000 demanded by the human traffickers to get him into Moldova.

 “For now, I am on a self-imposed house arrest. I don’t leave my flat at all,” Andrei said. And who can blame him for wanting to dodge the recruiters after some of his mobilised friends had already been deployed and killed, which, according to the newspaper, “damaged his mental health.”

The outlet highlighted that there were a variety of reasons why Ukrainians were avoiding conscription, from wanting to avoid “gruesome trench fighting and a brutal death rate” to complaints of “inadequate training before being sent to the frontlines” and due to family reasons. In effect, Ukrainians are not willing to fight and conscription, as The Guardian begrudgingly admits, “risks dividing Ukrainian society, already plagued by war fatigue.”

“Many Ukrainian soldiers at the front, or those who have returned after being injured, criticise draft dodging, arguing that the practice weakens their country’s war effort as Russian forces make advances across multiple fronts,” the article concludes.

Although Ukraine will receive $61 billion in aid from the US over the coming months and is receiving new weapons and ammunition which will alleviate, but not solve, some issues, an impossible issue to resolve is the lack of manpower. It is recalled that earlier this year, a Ukrainian service member told The Washington Post that the companies in his battalion were staffed at only 35% of normal levels.

This is an issue that cannot be solved with Western money and is why the Kiev regime is attempting to mobilise as many as half a million more Ukrainians to fight the Russian military, including from the country’s prison population. With Ukrainians no longer blindly believing the regime’s propaganda that the war will be won, morale and motivation have diminished, even to the point that ordinary citizens are willing to risk departing with their life savings to have the chance to escape mobilisation.

*

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

Confronting NATO’s War Summit in Washington

July 1st, 2024 by Medea Benjamin

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.

***

After NATO’s catastrophic, illegal invasions of Yugoslavia, Libya and Afghanistan, on July 9th NATO plans to invade Washington DC. The good news is that it only plans to occupy Washington for three days. The British will not burn down the U.S. Capitol as they did in 1814, and the Germans are still meekly pretending that they don’t know who blew up their Nord Stream gas pipelines. So expect smiling photo-ops and an overblown orgy of mutual congratulation. 

The details of NATO’s agenda for the Washington summit were revealed at a NATO foreign ministers’ meeting in Prague at the end of May. NATO will drag its members into the U.S. Cold War with China by accusing it of supplying dual-use weapons technology to Russia, and it will unveil new NATO initiatives to spend our tax dollars on a mysterious “drone wall” in the Baltics and an expensive-sounding “integrated air defense system” across Europe. 

But the main feature of the summit will be a superficial show of unity to try to convince the public that NATO and Ukraine can defeat Russia and that negotiating with Russia would be tantamount to surrender.    

On the face of it, that should be a hard sell. The one thing that most Americans agree on about the war in Ukraine is that they support a negotiated peace. When asked in a November 2023 Economist/YouGov poll “Would you support or oppose Ukraine and Russia agreeing to a ceasefire now?,” 68% said “support,” and only 8% said “oppose,” while 24% said they were not sure.

However, while President Biden and NATO leaders hold endless debates over different ways to escalate the war, they have repeatedly rejected negotiations, notably in April 2022, November 2022 and January 2024, even as their failed war plans leave Ukraine in an ever worsening negotiating position. 

The endgame of this non-strategy is that Ukraine will only be allowed to negotiate with Russia once it is facing total defeat and has nothing left to negotiate with – exactly the surrender NATO says it wants to avoid. 

As other countries have pointed out at the UN General Assembly, the U.S. and NATO’s rejection of negotiation and diplomacy in favor of a long war they hope will eventually “weaken” Russia is a flagrant violation of the “Pacific Settlement of Disputes” that all UN members are legally committed to under Chapter VI of the UN Charter. As it says in Article 33(1), 

“The parties to any dispute, the continuance of which is likely to endanger the maintenance of international peace and security, shall, first of all, seek a solution by negotiation, enquiry, mediation, conciliation, arbitration, judicial settlement, resort to regional agencies or arrangements, or other peaceful means of their own choice.”

But NATO’s leaders are not coming to Washington to work out how they can comply with their international obligations and negotiate peace in Ukraine. On the contrary. At a June meeting in preparation for the Summit, NATO defense ministers approved a plan to put NATO’s military support to Ukraine “on a firmer footing for years to come.” 

The effort will be headquartered at a U.S. military base in Wiesbaden, Germany, and involve almost 700 staff. It has been described as a way to “Trump proof” NATO backing for Ukraine, in case Trump wins the election and tries to draw down U.S. support.

At the Summit, NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg wants NATO leaders to commit to providing Ukraine with $43 billion worth of equipment each year, indefinitely. Echoing George Orwell’s doublethink that “war is peace”, Stoltenberg said,

“The paradox is that the longer we plan, and the longer we commit [to war], the sooner Ukraine can have peace.”

The Summit will also discuss how to bring Ukraine closer to NATO membership, a move that guarantees the war will continue, since Ukrainian neutrality is Russia’s principal war aim.

As Ian Davis of NATO Watch reported, NATO’s rhetoric echoes the same lines he heard throughout twenty years of war in Afghanistan: “The Taliban (now Russia) can’t wait us out.” But this vague hope that the other side will eventually give up is not a strategy.

There is no evidence that Ukraine will be different from Afghanistan. The U.S. and NATO are making the same assumptions, which will lead to the same result. The underlying assumption is that NATO’s greater GDP, extravagant and corrupt military budgets and fetish for expensive weapons technology must somehow, magically, lead Ukraine to victory over Russia. 

When the U.S. and NATO finally admitted defeat in Afghanistan, it was the Afghans who had paid in blood for the West’s folly, while the US-NATO war machine simply moved on to its next “challenge,” learning nothing and making political hay out of abject denial.

Less than three years after the rout in Afghanistan, US Defense Secretary Austin recently called NATO “the most powerful and successful alliance in history.” It is a promising sign for the future of Ukraine that most Ukrainians are reluctant to throw away their lives in NATO’s dumpster-fire.

In an article titled “The New Theory of Ukrainian Victory Is the Same as the Old,” the Quincy Institute’s Mark Episkopos wrote,

“Western planning continues to be strategically backwards. Aiding Kyiv has become an end in itself, divorced from a coherent strategy for bringing the war to a close”.

Episkopos concluded that

“the key to wielding [the West’s] influence effectively is to finally abandon a zero-sum framing of victory…” 

We would add that this was a trap set by the United States and the United Kingdom, not just for Ukraine, but for their NATO allies too. By refusing to support Ukraine at the negotiating table in April 2022, and instead demanding this “zero-sum framing of victory” as the condition for NATO’s support, the U.S. and U.K. escalated what could have been a very short war into a protracted, potentially nuclear, war between NATO and Russia.

Turkish leaders and diplomats complained at how their American and British allies undermined their peacemaking, while France, Italy and Germany squirmed for a month or two but soon surrendered to the war camp.

When NATO leaders meet in Washington, what they should be doing, apart from figuring out how to comply with Article 33(1) of the UN Charter, is conducting a clear-eyed review of how this organization that claims to be a force for peace keeps escalating unwinnable wars and leaving countries in ruins. 

The fundamental question is whether NATO can ever be a force for peace or whether it can never be anything but a dangerous, subservient extension of the U.S. war machine. 

We believe that NATO is an anachronism in today’s multipolar world: an aggressive, expansionist military alliance whose inherent institutional myopia and blinkered, self-serving threat assessments condemn us all to endless war and potential nuclear annihilation. 

We suggest that the only way NATO could be a real force for peace would be to declare that, by this time next year, it will take the same steps that its counterpart, the Warsaw Pact, took in 1991, and finally dissolve what Secretary Austin would have been wiser to call “the most dangerous military alliance in history.”

However, the world’s population that is suffering under the yoke of militarism cannot afford to wait for NATO to give up and go away of its own accord. Our fellow citizens and political leaders need to hear from us all about the dangers posed by this unaccountable, nuclear-armed war machine, and we hope you will join us—in person or online—in using the occasion of this NATO summit to sound the alarm loudly.

*

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.

Medea Benjamin is the cofounder of CODEPINK for Peace, and the author of several books, including Inside Iran: The Real History and Politics of the Islamic Republic of Iran

Nicolas J. S. Davies is an independent journalist, a researcher for CODEPINK and the author of Blood on Our Hands: The American Invasion and Destruction of Iraq.

Medea Benjamin and Nicolas J. S. Davies are the authors of War in Ukraine: Making Sense of a Senseless Conflict, published by OR Books in November 2022. They are regular contributors to Global Research.

Featured image: Anti-NATO protest in Chicago, 2012. Photo credit: Julie Dermansky.

The System of Elections in the USA and Political Parties

July 1st, 2024 by Dr. Vladislav B. Sotirović

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.

***

Types of Elections

In the USA, elections are organized on a regular basis for the President, both houses of Congress (the House of Representatives and the Senate), and state and local government offices. In practice, candidates in the majority of cases run for office as members of the party (one of two main political parties – the Democrats or the Republicans) in order to get the party’s support for their candidacy. However, in principle, whoever wants to run as an independent candidate can organize a petition. In that case, if it is collected enough signatures, the person can run. According to the electoral law, any American citizen over the age of 18 may vote in an election under conditions that the person is registered and meets the requirements for residency in a state (one out of 50).

Elections for the Members of Congress

The US Congress (Parliament) is composed of two houses: the House of Representatives (in fact, the Lower House, representing the people) and the Senate (in fact, the Upper House, representing the states). The House of Representatives has 435 members. Each member is serving a two-year term. However, the exact number of each state depends on the size of its population. For instance, some states like Montana, as they have very small populations, have a few representatives (Montana has only one) while other states with bigger populations have proportionally more representatives: for example, California with the largest population has 53. The borders of the districts that members of the House of Representatives represent are changed every ten years after each census or official counting of the inhabitants. The purpose is to include an equal number of voters.  

Every state elects two Senators (altogether 100). Each of them is serving a six-year term. However, every two years, around 1/3 of the Senate comes up for re-election. The elections for the Senate are organized at the same time either as elections for the House of Representatives or for the President. 

In both cases of elections for Congress, the people in the particular district or state choose their representative and only the candidate with a plurality of votes (i.e., with the most votes) is elected for the Congress. 

Alongside the elections on the national level, each state has its own government which is set up like the federal government with elections held in the same way.

The Presidential Elections

Elections for the President and Vice-President are held every four years according to, in fact, a complicated and very particular procedure that is unique in the world.

The first electoral step is primaries or primary elections. It means that from January to June in the election year, political parties choose their candidates through a series of elections in each state. In other words, people choose the party whose primary they want to vote in and vote for their choice of candidates.  The second step is the congressional convention, i.e., in the summer, each political party (in fact only the two biggest) holds a convention in order to make its final choice of candidates. Teams of delegates from each state go to the convention to vote for the pair of candidates that won their party’s primary elections. Nevertheless, usually, the party chooses the final candidates informally in advance, based on who has been most successful in the primaries. 

It has to be noted that the presidential election all the time are organized on the Tuesday following the first Monday in November. Several weeks before the election, the voters who are registered to vote receive a card telling them the address of the polling station where they have to cast their vote. Every voter at the polling station casts a single presidential vote (for both a President and Vice-President), together with separate votes for a member of the House of Representatives and (in the case of hold elections) a senator.

The next procedure goes after the votes are counted in the presidential election. The point is that each state (50) has a number of electors (one for each congressional district and senator) who make up the Electoral College (like a committee). According to the rules, each elector casts two votes, one for the President and another for the Vice-President (formally not dependent on the results of voting by the people but in reality following the people’s wish expressed in the elections). In fact, the members of the Electoral College chose both candidates who received the greatest number of votes in the state. Finally, a candidate with the support of at least 270 of 538 electors becomes President or Vice-President.

The Two-party System

In the USA there are two focal political parties – the Democratic Party and the Republican Party. In practice, there are other smaller political parties and associations but they very rarely win major elections. In essence, therefore, in the USA exists a two-party system at least for the very practical reason that the US “winner-take-all” political system makes it difficult for more than two main political parties to exist at one time. 

The Democrats as a party started in the 1820s growing from the branch of the US’ first political party – the Federal Party. The Republican Party began as an anti-slavery party in 1854 with members from the Democratic Party and the Whigs. 

Belonging to a party involves simply choosing that party when you register to vote. There are no membership dues or requirements. In practice, it is normal for people to change membership or vote across party lines. It has to be noticed that the heads of the national parties do not hold official positions in the government.

Concerning the role of the political parties in the USA at first place has to be said that party organizations are less important compared to the states with the Parliaments. For the very reason of the way the government is composed, the same political party does not necessarily control the two houses of Congress (the House of Representatives and the Senate) or the presidency at the same time. Consequently, it is very difficult to hold one party responsible for the actions of the government. In essence, US citizens (those with voting rights) vote for individual candidates for each office rather than a party state (list of candidates). Basically, it means that the candidate’s personal quality or electoral propaganda performance is in the majority of cases more valuable than his/her party’s membership. 

For both major political parties in the US, one of the most important activities is to organize the party convention (big meeting). It is organized every four years at the time before the elections for the President. The convention officially chooses the presidential candidate of the party (together with the Vice-President) and at the same time proclaims the political-electoral platform (ideas and policies) of the party. 

Both national parties raise money for election campaigns and provide additional kinds of help to their candidates to win. Local branches of the parties (with the ordinary people active in the party) are working to support local and national candidates. 

According to the rules, in Congress (the House of Representatives and the Senate), the majority party controls the most important and powerful committees which make significant decisions on the issues and laws that are dealt with by Congress. As a matter of comparison, the members of the US Congress are more independent from their parties than British Members of Parliament. They aim to appear loyal first to the people they represent but, nevertheless, at the same time, they are trying to be as loyal as to their party’s membership in order to have a chance to become members of important committees and, therefore, fight for the support for their own proposals. Many politically active US citizens do not want politicians to be too much partisan (strongly attached to their party) but to have a more bipartisan (cooperative) attitude and, henceforth, work together for the common good of the nation.

In general, if we are comparing the US parties’ politics with many other countries, both the Democrats and the Republicans can be understood from the wider perspective as the parties of the political center. However, what is differentiating them from each other is that the Democratic Party is to the left while the Republican Party is to the right of the center. Traditionally, the Democratic Party program and politics support spending on social welfare programs while the Republican Party is against such policy. Typically, the Republicans support spending on the US Army believing there should be few laws restricting the business of producing the arms. The Republican Party is called the Grand Old Party (GOP) having an elephant as the party’s symbol while a donkey symbolizes the Democrats. 

During the last several decades, the Democrats have been getting support more and more from young voters, low-paid workers, union members, the urban population, and African-Americans (and other minorities). However, more rich people, those with stronger conservative-religious approaches and/or patriarchal standpoints followed by the white citizens who reside in central and southern portions of the USA usually support the Republican Party.

*

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. Vladislav B. Sotirović is a former university professor in Vilnius, Lithuania. He is a Research Fellow at the Center for Geostrategic Studies. He is a regular contributor to Global Research.  

Featured image source

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

By Robert J. Burrowes, July 01, 2024

Confronted by a multidimensional, highly coordinated attack on our humanity – our identity as Homo Sapiens, our freedom and even our existence – most humans retreat in fear. And, in this state, people are incapable of resisting.

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

By Peter Koenig, July 01, 2024

Sexual harassment is less surprising, if you know that the WEF’s Davos meeting every year in January, converts Davos into one huge luxury bordello. Local businesses and populations complain that the WEF meetings are harming Davos’s reputation.

Trump Advisers Present Plan to Push Ukraine Into Peace Talks with Russia

By Ahmed Adel, July 01, 2024

The advisors of former US President Donald Trump have prepared a plan to cut support for Ukraine if Kiev continues to refuse negotiations with Russia and if the billionaire wins this year’s presidential election.

Israeli Plan to Prevent a Palestinian State

By Steven Sahiounie, July 01, 2024

The plan to steal the West Bank is fully supported by Netanyahu, and forms a basis for the current right-wing Jewish extremist coalition keeping Netanyahu in power, and out of jail.

Orwell’s “Two Minutes of Hate”, False Flags, The Deaths of Children … and the Escalation of Warfare

By Mark Taliano, July 01, 2024

Fabricated atrocity stories serve the same purpose as Orwell’s “Two Minutes of Hate” in his novel, 1984. These carefully crafted theatrics engineer an artificial “consent” amongst credulous audiences for real atrocities committed by their governments and its agencies against prey countries and their citizens.

Assange’s Return to Australia: The Resentment of the Hacks

By Dr. Binoy Kampmark, July 01, 2024

Julian Assange of WikiLeaks fame is now back in the country of his birth, having endured conditions of captivity ranging from cramped digs in London’s Ecuadorian embassy to the maximum-security facilities of Belmarsh Prison. 

Putin: The Protector of Ukraine

By Dr. Paul Craig Roberts, July 01, 2024

Has anyone noticed that Putin is conducting his “limited military operation,” by which he means limited to Donbas and the former Russian territories that are again part of Russia, as a response to US/NATO/Ukrainian initiatives?

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.

***

Just 48 hours after Dr. McCullough appeared on FOX News primetime TV with commentary on transgender puberty blockers, hormones, and breast/genital surgery, the Texas Supreme Court upheld the statewide ban on age < 18 years transgender programs by vote of 8-1 in a challenge from a lower court.

Dr. McCullough told Jeanine Pirro on the Ingraham Angle:

“the package of transgender medicine (hormones and surgery) is disfiguring, sterilizing, increases the burden of psychiatric disease, and raises all-cause mortality.”

 

 

Reported in the New York Times:

“The Texas Supreme Court upheld a state law on Friday that bans gender-transition medical treatment for minors, overturning a lower-court ruling that had temporarily blocked the law and dealing a blow to parents of transgender children.

The court, whose nine elected members are all Republicans, voted 8 to 1 in favor of allowing the law, which passed last year, to remain in effect. It bars doctors from prescribing certain medications to minors, like hormones and puberty blockers, and forbids them from performing certain surgical procedures, like mastectomies, on minors.

Parents of transgender youths, along with gay and transgender advocacy groups, argued that the ban should be blocked because it violated the Texas Constitution, in part by preventing parents from making what they felt were the best medical decisions for their children.

The argument is a powerful one in Texas, where protecting parental rights from government intervention has been an important goal, particularly for conservatives. But the court found that the argument fell short.”

The Texas law, known as Senate Bill 14, is part of a wave of legislation that Republican-controlled states have passed targeting transgender rights, including limits on bathroom use and sports participation and bans on gender-transition care for minors. About two dozen states have passed bans or severe restrictions. Under the Texas law, physicians who offer the treatments may have their medical licenses revoked.”

*

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 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.

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

***

Image

Image

“My Cancer Story! I was diagnosed with stage 4 pancreatic cancer in August 2023, and without treatment, I had 3-6 months to sort out my affairs.

I began my fenbendazole protocol immediately.

I nearly quit up since my quality of life had deteriorated dramatically. But I started to feel better. Less nausea. I had gained some weight back! Increased energy. My scan in November 2023 indicated that this severe cancer had neither grown or spread. My cancer marker dropped from over 100,000 to 35,000. As of January 2024, my new marker number was 18k!!! My oncologist was just scratching his head, and a family member said he seemed bewildered! And no, I did not inform him about the fenben.”

I was terrified he’d drop me as a patient. I was quite appreciative for fenben and how it has helped me. I was feeling better and stronger. I had scans and bloodwork done in March, and my markers are now down to 6000. And the tumors were shrinking!!! Two weeks after my previous scan. I scanned again, and it returned NED.

This was my protocol:

Morning

  • Curcumin (600mg daily)
  • Zinc (50mg)
  • Milk thistle, As a food supplement, take 15 – 30 drops, 2-3 times daily in a little fruit juice or water. 7 days a week
  • Serrapeptase (120,00IU)
  • Fenbendazole (1000mg of Panacur C is advised to be taken seven days a week. It is recommended that it should be taken with a meal).

Night

  • Curcumin (600mg tablet per day are recommended
  • Berberine (600mg 2-3 times a day )
  • Quercetin (500mg 1/day)
  • Turkey Tail
  • Vitamin E (800mg for 7 days a week)
  • Fenbendazole (1000mg at night)
  • Ivermectin 12mg daily 5/7days a week
  • Limit sugar and processed food intake
  • Drank green tea often”

*

My Take…

This is an excellent protocol.

*

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

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 advisors of former US President Donald Trump have prepared a plan to cut support for Ukraine if Kiev continues to refuse negotiations with Russia and if the billionaire wins this year’s presidential election. According to one of the advisors, they were “pleased” with Trump’s response to their plan.

“We tell the Ukrainians, ‘You’ve got to come to the table, and if you don’t come to the table, support from the United States will dry up,’” he said. “And you tell Putin, ‘He’s got to come to the table and if you don’t come to the table, then we’ll give Ukrainians everything they need to kill you in the field,’” said retired Lt. Gen. Keith Kellogg, who devised the plan with Fred Fleitz.

The two advisers, who were chiefs of staff at the National Security Council during Trump’s presidency, told Reuters on June 25 that a ceasefire was envisaged based on the existing front line. They clarified that Trump “responded favourably.”

“I’m not claiming he agreed with it or agreed with every word of it, but we were pleased to get the feedback we did,” Fleitz said.

In mid-June, Russian President Vladimir Putin put forward peace proposals to resolve the conflict by recognising the status of Crimea, Kherson, Zaporozhye, Donetsk, and Lugansk as regions of Russia, consolidating Ukraine’s non-aligned and nuclear-free status, demilitarising and denazifying the country, and lifting anti-Russian sanctions. Kiev rejected the initiative.

“Ukraine has an absolutely clear understanding and it is spelled out in the peace formula proposed by President (Volodymyr) Zelensky, it is clearly stated there – peace can only be fair and peace can only be based on international law,” Ukrainian presidential adviser Mykhailo Podolyak told Reuters.

Meanwhile, White House National Security Council spokesperson Adrienne Watson said the White House would not force the Kiev regime into negotiations with Russia as “President Biden believes that any decisions about negotiations are up to Ukraine.”

As far back as October 2022, Zelensky legislated the banning of peace negotiations with Moscow. Effectively, the Biden administration is making no efforts to push Kiev to negotiate peace with Moscow since Zelensky has not removed the decree, who instead pushes his own ridiculous terms as a means for achieving peace, such as the arrest of Putin.

Trump’s Campaign Communications Director, Steven Cheung, commented on Kellogg and Fleitz’s plan in Newsweek:

“President Trump has repeatedly stated that a top priority in his second term will be to quickly negotiate an end to the Russia-Ukraine war. President Trump believes European nations should be paying more of the cost of the conflict, as the U.S. has paid significantly more, which is not fair to our taxpayers. The war between Russia and Ukraine never would have happened if Donald J. Trump were President. So sad.”

Cheung is referring to Trump’s famous statements last year, in which he said that if re-elected president, he would tell Zelensky, “No more,” and that “you got to make a deal,” before reaffirming that he would have a peace deal “done in one day, one day.”

Although there is no indication that Moscow is receptive to Trump’s peace plan, especially as a major objective is the demilitarisation of Ukraine, at least his administration, if elected in November, has intentions of establishing peace, unlike Biden, who is instigating perpetual war in Eastern Europe.

The Biden administration is obviously frustrated with Trump’s intentions for ending the war in Ukraine, considering the very real prospect that the former president could re-enter the White House in January 2025, who has consistently been leading in the polls.

Biden campaign spokesperson James Singer told Newsweek on June 25,

“Donald Trump heaps praise on Vladimir Putin every chance he gets, and he’s made clear he won’t stand against Putin.”

This very reaction shows that the Biden administration would rather continue wasting tens of billions of US taxpayer dollars to prop up the Ukrainian military so the war does not come to a swift conclusion, which will ultimately end in only one way – Russia’s decisive victory.

For this reason, it is little wonder that Moscow’s first reaction to Kellogg and Fleitz’s plan is one of positivity, even if it was caveated with a warning that peace must take into account the “real state of affairs on the ground.”

“The value of any plan lies in the nuances and in taking into account the real state of affairs on the ground,” Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov told Reuters. “We do not know what kind of plan we are talking about, or what is set out in it.”

“President Putin has repeatedly said that Russia has been and remains open to negotiations, taking into account the real state of affairs on the ground. We remain open to negotiations, and in order to evaluate the plan, we must first familiarise ourselves with it,” he added.

Whether Trump will be elected president remains to be seen, but his return to the White House would mark a slow de-escalation in the hostile ties between Moscow and Washington that Biden instigated. If elected, it is very unlikely that the war will end in “one day,” but it does at least point to intentions to end the fighting, a basis of a peace plan to work off, and an end to Zelensky’s ban of negotiations with Moscow.

*

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

Israeli Plan to Prevent a Palestinian State

July 1st, 2024 by Steven Sahiounie

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 plan to steal the West Bank is fully supported by Netanyahu, and forms a basis for the current right-wing Jewish extremist coalition keeping Netanyahu in power, and out of jail.

Image: Bezalel Smotrich (Licensed under CC BY-SA 3.0)

While the world watches the genocide in Gaza, there is another war on the Palestinian people in the Occupied West Bank. On June 9, the New York Times (NYT) reported that Israeli Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich outlined, in a speech to Jewish extremists, a plan by the Israeli government led by Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, to annex the Occupied Territories of the West Bank. His speech was recorded secretly and leaked to the NYT.

Smotrich is part of the more than 600,000 Jewish settlers illegally occupying Palestinian lands. He advocates Israel taking all the Palestinian territories, and preventing the Palestinians from ever having an independent state. The UN, the U.S. and the international community all agree that Gaza and the West Bank should be eventually an independent Palestinian state, which would be the end of a brutal Israeli military occupation and apartheid.

This is not the first secret leaked speech of Smotrich. In October 2022, Smotrich was caught calling Netanyahu “the liar of all liars”, as reported by The Jerusalem Post.

According to Smotrich, the plan to steal the West Bank is fully supported by Netanyahu, and forms a basis for the current right-wing Jewish extremist coalition keeping Netanyahu in power, and out of jail.

The plan involves supporting the Jewish settler’s expansion in the West Bank, which is illegal under international law, and has been under occupation since 1967. Officially, the Israeli government maintains that the West Bank’s status will be negotiated in the future. The Smotrich-Netanyahu plan would forever deny the almost 3 million Palestinians of the Occupied West Bank their freedom.

For Palestinians, the plan would mark the end of any hope to live in freedom and democracy, but for the Jewish Zionists, the plan would be a culmination of their goal to have one land ‘from the river to the sea’ which is occupied only by Jews.

Not every Jew is a Zionist, and not every Zionist is a Jew. For example, after October 7, U.S. President Joe Biden said he was a Zionist, while being a Christian.

Zionism is a political movement, hiding behind a religion. Similarly, Al Qaeda and ISIS are political movements, hiding behind a religion.

Using the word Zionist as a label of identification is not antisemitic, because Zionism is not limited only to Jews.

The modern movement of Zionism began in the late 1800s, and refers to Zion as an acronym for Jerusalem. Jewish settlers in the West Bank see their illegal occupation there as a demonstration of Zionism.

Those who oppose Zionism are not being anti-Semitic. They simply oppose a political position of the Israeli government, just as they may oppose a political position of the Japanese government on an issue.

The official name of Israel is “The Jewish State of Israel”. Some have offered that there is the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, and also similarly of Iran. So why do people complain about the religious nature of Israel? Israel denies the human rights and civil rights of non-Jewish people in Israel and Palestine, and has been classified as an Apartheid state by the UN and human rights groups.

Tallie Ben Daniel, the managing director of Jewish Voice for Peace (JVP), which sees Zionism as a movement whose aim “is to deny the rights of Palestinians and the humanity of Palestinians.”

“For us, we want to be clear: the form of Zionism that has survived and has power now is an expansionist, right-wing, genocidal form,” Ben Daniel said. “The people in power in Israel right now … want to annihilate the Palestinians and get all the land for Jews, and there is no thought there could be coexistence,” said Ben Daniel.

Israeli occupation authorities increased restrictions on the freedom of movement across the West Bank following October 7, and increased the apartheid system against Palestinians in both Israel and the Occupied Palestinian Territories. They used laws, segregation, deprivation, and forced displacement to oppress the Palestinians.

Israel Defense Forces (IDF) operations in the West Bank have killed 137 Palestinian children since October 7, 9,000 Palestinians have been arrested without charge or trial, and the almost daily IDF raids in the West Bank have taken 553 Palestinian lives.

“Finance minister Bezalel Smotrich became governor of the occupied West Bank in February, and security minister Itamar Ben-Gvir formed a volunteer “national guard” in April. Their Jewish supremacist notions became mainstream after Hamas’s 7 October attack,” according to Amnesty.

The International Court of Justice (ICJ) received submissions regarding the legality of Israel’s occupation of the Occupied West Bank Territories.

On Sunday, Israeli forces raided homes and businesses in Nablus, Ramallah, the Al-Far’a refugee camp near Tubas, and towns in Hebron and Tulkarm leading to clashes and armed confrontations with Palestinians who attempted to defend their homes and families.

The IDF destroyed infrastructure, private property, and vehicles before withdrawing from the camp, while in Nablus, a Palestinian was shot in the leg with a live bullet, and another was arrested.

In the town of Silwad, the IDF detained around 40 people and caused extensive damage to several homes and businesses during searches, in which residents were mistreated and assaulted during the process.

Mujahed Abadi, who had been shot twice, testified that IDF beat him severely before letting him go, and refusing to explain their crimes committed against him.

Video footage of the incident in Jenin in the northern occupied West Bank on Saturday has sparked international outrage and calls for accountability.

Abadi, 24, said he had stepped outside in Jenin while Israeli troops were conducting a raid and the IDF shot him in the arm and the leg.

He said after nearly two hours of hiding while bleeding profusely, the IDF found him and began beating him severely, including targeting his bullet wounds.

“Two soldiers lifted me up from my hands and feet and swung me back and forth to throw me at the military vehicle,” Abadi said.

“They did it the first time, I fell on the ground. On top of my injuries, they dropped me. The second time one of them picked me up and threw me at the vehicle.”

He was driven around on the hood of the military jeep like a trophy.

The IDF confirmed the incident on Saturday, but offered no excuses.

Belgium’s Deputy Prime Minister Petra De Sutter said,

“How many of these inhumanities do we need to witness before sanctioning Israel?”

United Nations Special Rapporteur on the Occupied Palestinian Territories Francesca Albanese said,

“It is flabbergasting how a state born 76 years ago has managed to turn international law literally on its head.”

Abadi’s injuries include a broken arm from the impact of the bullet, a wounded leg and burns on his back from the intense heat of the IDF jeep’s hood.

*

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 Mideast Discourse.

Steven Sahiounie is a two-time award-winning journalist. 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.

***

Fabricated atrocity stories serve the same purpose as Orwell’s “Two Minutes of Hate” in his novel, 1984. These carefully crafted theatrics engineer an artificial “consent” amongst credulous audiences for real atrocities committed by their governments and its agencies against prey countries and their citizens.

Saddam Hussein’s “Weapons of Mass Destruction” never materialized, but Washington’s sanctions certainly did.  In fact, Washington’s sanctions intentionally killed about 600,000 Iraqi children under five(1) through willful destruction of water supplies. (Tragically, Western-supported Zionists are using the same siege tactics against Palestinians now.) Remember Madeline Albright’s confession?

Similarly, al Qaeda’s White Helmets(2) fabricated “consent” for Western war crimes against Syria and Syrians with their chemical weapons false flags, falsely attributed to the Assad government.

Meanwhile, according to UNICEF, close to 13,000 children have been killed or injured in the Syrian conflict.

But there is more:

“More than 609,000 children under the age of five are stunted from chronic undernutrition; 12 million Syrians do not have enough food to meet daily dietary needs; 6.9 million people are internally displaced, and 90% of Syrians are estimated to be living in poverty.

The Report continues:

  • All data quoted in this press release pre-dates the February 2023 earthquakes.
  • In 2022, the number of children with moderate acute malnutrition increased by 55 per cent.
  • Maternal malnutrition ranges from 11 per cent in northwest Syria and parts of Damascus to 25 per cent in northeast Syria.
  • Before the earthquakes, nearly two-thirds of water treatment plants, half of pumping stations and one-third of water towers across Syria were damaged due to conflict.
  • Nearly half the population rely on alternative and often unsafe water sources to meet or complement their water needs.
  • At least 70 per cent of the discharged sewage is untreated.
  • More than 84,600 suspected cholera cases have been reported since a cholera outbreak was declared in Syria in September 2022. Malnourished children with weakened immune systems are more likely to acquire cholera.
  • More than 39,000 new suspected cholera cases are expected within the next six months in 2023, placing at least 3 million people at risk and in need of lifesaving prevention interventions.”(3)

On a more broad-based level, recall that 9/11 launched the so-called Global War On Terror (and domestic police-state legislation) which amounted to carte blanche for imperialism in the name of going after the very same jihadi terrorists that the West has supported for decades, and continues to support,  to destabilize and destroy prey countries, and to collectively punish and kill innocent civilians.

“The U.S.”, affirms Jeffrey Sachs, “has been running jihadis for over forty years.”

On August 12, 2012, the U.S. DIA(4) explicitly stated what everyone should know:

And now the West is overtly supporting Nazism in Ukraine with its public declaration that it will be arming the Azov Battalion, which the U.S Congress recognized as Nazi in 2015.(5)

It is the Nazi elements, closely welded to Ukraine’s Banderite “nationalists”, that the West and its agencies have supported since the end of the Second World War.

In an interview with Patrick Henningsen, human rights lawyer Dan Kovalik,(6) explains that the West “absorbed” Nazis after the war, giving the examples of NATO and Operation Paperclip.

When Trudeau (who at a recent conference shouted out the fascist Slava Ukraini greeting) or any other Western leader lambasts Russia about orphans or humanitarian concerns with a view to escalating NATO involvement in the war, it should be laughable.

Per Prof Chossudovsky,

Civilian population (children) and civilian objects (schools, hospitals, residential areas) were the deliberate object of UAF and Azov Battalion attacks in blatant violation of the Law of Armed Conflict (LOAC).

In accordance with the LOAC, Moscow took the decision starting in February 2014 to come to the rescue of Donbass civilians including children.” (7)

Russian UN Envoy Vassily Nebenzia further clarified that,

“since the beginning of the special military operation, Russia had welcomed over 730,000 child refugees from Ukraine — most of them with their parents and just 2,000 from orphanages of the Donetsk and Lugansk People’s Republics. A total of around five million Ukrainians and Donbass residents have sought refuge in Russia over the past 21 months.” (8)

Westerners should understand that whenever their governments, in unison with other governments, loudly proclaim that a target country is committing atrocities, they are often projecting their own criminality onto the prey country with a view to fabricating unreasonable hatred and pretexts for an escalation of warfare.

The aforementioned historical literacy may well prevent the unthinkable.

*

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.

Notes

(1) Graeme MacQueen, Thomas Nagy, Joanna Santa Barbara, and Claudia Raichle, “War, Water, and Ethics: Iraq Water Treatment Vulnerabilities.” Peace Magazine, 10 October, 2004. (https://peacemagazine.org/archive/v20n4p16.htm#:~:text=%2A%20The%20study%20concludes%20that%20Iraq%27s%20water%20treatment,June%201991%29%20before%20the%20system%20is%20fully%20degraded.%27) Accessed 29 June, 2024.

see also: Mark Taliano, Voices From Syria, Global Research, 2017. (page 15)

(2) Video: “White Helmets Admit Staging Fake Chemical Weapons Attacks in Syria — OANN.

(White Helmets Admit Staging Fake Chemical Attacks in Syria – OANN – video Dailymotion) Accessed 30 June, 2024.

(3) “UNICEF warns of looming child nutrition crisis in Syria amid 12 years of conflict and deadly earthquakes.” 15 March, 2023. (https://reliefweb.int/report/syrian-arab-republic/unicef-warns-looming-child-nutrition-crisis-syria-amid-12-years-conflict-and-deadly-earthquakes#:~:text=DAMASCUS%2FAMMAN%2015%20March%202023%20%E2%80%93%20Twelve%20years%20of,parts%20of%20the%20country%2C%20particularly%20in%20the%20northwest ) Accessed 28 June 2024.

See also:

Jeremy Kuzmarov, “Mainstream Media Colludes with U.S. Government To Conceal Source of Syria’s Heartbreaking Humanitarian Crisis.” Covert Action Magazine, 30 June, 2023. (http://covertactionmagazine.com/2023/06/30/mainstream-media-colludes-with-u-s-government-to-conceal-source-of-syrias-heartbreaking-humanitarian-crisis/?fbclid=IwAR2UbK1Trf2KnDXhAdEwpQAC01GbZAS57GqjrT_DGGb1frkri_2aP-TG5Hk) Accessed 28 June, 2024.

(4) Washington’s Blog, “Newly-Declassified U.S. Government Documents: The West Supported the Creation of ISIS.” 18 April, 2024. (https://washingtonsblog.com/newly-declassified-u-s-government-documents-the-west-supported-the-creation-of-isis/#google_vignette) Accessed 28 June, 2024.

(5) “In 2015 the US Congress recognized the Azov Battalion as Nazi.” The International Affairs, 19 May, 2022. (https://en.interaffairs.ru/article/in-2015-the-us-congress-recognized-the-azov-battalion-as-nazi/) Accessed 28 June, 2024.

(6) “INTERVIEW: Dan Kovalik – U.S. Plays Dangerous Game In Ukraine.” 21st Century Wire, 19 June, 2024. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c–pr90Qdq4) Accessed 28 June, 2024.

(7) Prof Michel Chossudovsky, “ICC Arrest Warrant for Vladimir Putin for ‘Kidnapping Ukrainian Children’, Russia Accused of “Genocide-like Deportation” at the Switzerland Peace Conference.” Global Research, 21 June, 2024. (https://www.globalresearch.ca/i-c-c-arrest-warrant-for-vladimir-putin-for-kidnapping-ukrainian-children-borders-on-ridicule/5812752) Accessed 28 June, 2024.

(8)”Epstein, Clintons & Cash: Why Zelenska Foundation is Vehicle to Divert Aid to Corrupt Ends” SPUTNIK International, 01 June, 2024. (https://sputnikglobe.com/20240106/epstein-clintons–cash-why-zelenska-foundation-is-vehicle-to-divert-aid-to-corrupt-ends-1116016558.html) Accessed 28 June, 2024.

Featured image: Former UK Prime Minister Boris Johnson holding Azov neo-Nazi banner (Wolfsangel) associated with Third Reich’s SS Panzer Division Das Reich. (Source: Mark Taliano)


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.

***

 

You would think that my announcement on Facebook of my Gazan cousin’s wedding in Jordan were an invitation to a wake in hateful memory of Israel. Zionist trolls who swarm every such Palestinian affirmation of identity reared their ugly heads to spin their narratives of erasure and sow discord.

Palestinian weddings have long represented resilience. They take on deeper significance during times of war; they celebrate traditions and reinforce bonds; they provide emotional support and foster community bonds; they celebrate life despite adversity and symbolize unity and hope for a better future.

On June 21, 2024, I posted my photo at a wedding with my Gazan cousins on Facebook. The caption read,

“Gazans (my cousins of the Bseiso family) celebrating a wedding in Jordan at a site overlooking Palestine.”

Zionist trolls used this post as an opportunity to question the family’s Palestinian identity (“Bseiso family from Aleppo, Syria who migrated two centuries ago to the land of Israel”) and to express their views that Jordan is Palestine and, by implication therefore, that there was no need for Palestinians to assert their right to self-determination and sovereignty in their ancestral homeland:

– “The Hashemit Kingdom of Jordan is in Palestine! PALESTINE is not a State or country, but a Region, just like the Balkan or Kavkaz!”

– “They are in Jordan! So this is their real place !!!!:!!”

– “Mais la Jordanie c’est la Palestine arabo musulmane ! Et sur 80% de la région de Palestine , presque tout le territoire . Qu’est ce qu’ils ont encore à regarder de plus?” [But Jordan is Arab-Muslim Palestine! And on 80% of the region of Palestine, almost the entire territory. What more do they have to watch?]

– “Er…Jordan is in Palestine!🤦”

By describing Jordan as “in Palestine,” the trolls obfuscate history to stir up trouble and create divisions. Jordan’s monarchy has faced challenges in balancing Palestinian interests while maintaining stability and it is this delicate stability that Israel and these trolls want to injure. The geopolitical border described in the rallying cry “from the river to the sea” includes only the West Bank of the Jordan River, not the East.

Although there are historical and cultural connections between the areas west and east of the Jordan River, Transjordan was not considered part of Palestine in a strict geopolitical sense during the Ottoman period or under the British Mandate after 1921, when international boundaries between Palestine and Transjordan were established. At the time, the Sykes-Picot Agreement and the Balfour Declaration produced a recipe for disastrous instability in the southern part of Greater Syria, namely, two countries (Palestine and Transjordan) for three peoples — Palestinians, Transjordanians, and a growing Jewish Zionist colonists from Europe in Palestine.

The establishment of the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan has provided continuity and a degree of stability in the region (Hashemites hold a special role as custodians of the Muslim holy sites in Jerusalem), but the monarchy has never resolved the underlying conflict between Zionists and Palestinians in the region, preferring instead to co-operate with the US and buy into its illusory and deceptive “peace process.”

Jordan has supported Palestinian rights and provided refuge and integration for many Palestinians. It has consistently advocated for a two-state solution and the rights of Palestinians on international platforms. This advocacy has helped keep the Palestinian cause in the international spotlight. However, Jordan has also acted to preserve its own authority, sometimes at the expense of Palestinian nationalist aspirations. Its actions have not always aligned perfectly with Palestinian nationalist goals. And although today, in the aftermath of Oct 7, public opinion in Jordan is swinging firmly against normalization with Israel, concerns about stability and security remain paramount for Jordanians.

After World War I, the League of Nations granted Britain the mandate for Palestine in 1920. Initially, this mandate included the territory east of the Jordan River. However, the British had different administrative plans for these regions. In 1921, the British decided to separate the territory east of the Jordan River from the Mandate for Palestine, creating the Emirate of Transjordan. Abdullah I of the Hashemite family was installed as the emir. This effectively created a distinct administrative entity, although both were under British control.

The establishment of Transjordan as a separate administrative unit in 1921 meant that it was no longer considered part of Palestine in a political or administrative sense. By 1923, this separation was formalized, but the British government often treated them as two complementary entities —for example, the Palestinian currency was also the official currency of Transjordan; Palestinian civil servants were seconded to the administration in Transjordan, and Palestine supported the Transjordanian budget both directly and indirectly. Both regions, after all, were administered by the same Mandate. The British resident in Amman operated under the directives of the high commissioner in Palestine and Palestinian officials were usually appointed to the administration of Transjordan as well.

As a result of the subsequent partitioning of Palestine and the violent creation of the settler-colonial Zionist Jewish state on 78 percent of Palestinian territory, antagonism toward Israel and support for Palestine remain deeply ingrained in the political culture and national consciousness of Arab and Muslim nations.

My friend Max Monclair expressed it perfectly: “The only reason Jordan isn’t ‘in Palestine’ is because of the British. No one living in Palestine decided on any of this. The trolls need to learn history or be honest that they are defending the self-claimed ‘right’ of the West to determine the shape of the rest of the world.”

Just as the Zionist movement and the presence of US-backed Israel in the region has significantly influenced Jordan’s history, politics, and stability, it has also had significant negative and dramatic impact on the stability of several other Middle Eastern countries, ranging from territorial disputes to broader geopolitical tensions. The unresolved tensions of the past in Palestine continue to shape the politics of the region today.

Following is a cursory rundown of these scenarios:

Egypt: Israel’s aggression on Palestinians, especially in Gaza, continues to pose immediate threats to Egypt, including potential refugee influx, internal instability, and sharp reductions in state revenues that undermine Egypt’s economic and national security.

Iraq: The Zionist movement played a role in the 1950s attacks on Iraqi Jews, leading to tensions and displacement. It intensified competition between superpowers (the United States and the Soviet Union) in the region, affecting Iraq’s stability.

Lebanon: The 1982 Lebanon War, initiated by Israel, had a profound impact on Lebanon’s stability. Israel’s invasion aimed to weaken Palestinian and Syrian influence but resulted in significant casualties and displacement. The concept of “Greater Israel” also included parts of Lebanon, further contributing to regional tensions.

Syria: The 1967 War led to Israel capturing the Golan Heights from Syria, escalating tensions and affecting regional stability. The uprooting, dispossession of Palestinians influenced Syria’s domestic and foreign policies, contributing to instability.

Yemen: Israel’s actions and their consequences in the region shaped the Houthi worldview regarding the Zionist-American aggression. while Yemen faces internal strife, the Houthi movement’s alignment with Palestine underscores the broader geopolitical contest in the Middle East.

Sudan: The Israeli-Palestinian conflict impacted Sudan’s security and relations with power dynamics in the Middle East, indirectly affecting its stability.

As I wrote here: “Much of the world is finally realizing that Zionism and Israel are not just problems, but everybody’s problems.”

Long before Oct 7 and the Al-Aqsa Flood, there was Al-Buraq Revolution of 1929, the first Palestinian uprising against attempts to Judaize Jerusalem during the British Mandate era. Al-Buraq Wall is the western wall of Al-Aqsa Mosque. Muhammad Jamjoum, Fouad Hijazi, and Atta al-Zeer were Palestinian revolutionaries executed by the British Mandate in 1930 for their role in the Al-Buraq Revolution. These three individuals became enduring symbols of Palestinian resistance and struggle. Mirror of the East (جريدة مرآة الشرق) Newspaper reported the following on June 21, 1930:

“This is my wedding day, ma, so rejoice

When the mother of the martyr Muhammad Jamjoom went to visit him in prison, he saw her crying and said to her, ‘This is my wedding day, my mother, so ululate’ and the martyr Atta al-Zeer told his sisters, ‘Do not think that I am dead, I am alive, so do not cry for me.’

Those sentenced to death Fouad, Atta and Mohamed continued to sing national anthems until the last hour.”

“In the refugee camps, there was joy: A wedding in a tent” by Raed Issa

By comparing his martyrdom to a wedding, Muhammad Jamjoum invoked the idea of Palestinian weddings as powerful expressions of resilience, love, and continuity.

Palestinians carry a profound mix of emotions when it comes to the martyrdom of their sons. Along with immense grief and pain, they feel a deep sense of national pride. They regard martyrdom as a worthy sacrifice in defense of their homeland and resistance to occupation, colonization, and injustice — a path to paradise and divine reward. To Palestinians, “Peace be upon you السلام عليكم” means liberation, equality, 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.

This article was originally published on Medium here.

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

Featured image: My Facebook post on June 21, 2024 with the caption, “Gazans (my cousins of the Bseiso family) celebrating a wedding in Jordan at a site overlooking Palestine.” (Source: Rima Najjar)

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.

***

Since the refugee crisis in 2015, it has become clear that the EU cannot shape its policies uniformly. The sanctions policy against Russia since 2014 has also not been so easy to organize.

Hungary is the best example of how a state defends itself against the patronage of the EU center and tries to protect its own interests.

During the refugee crisis, it was the entire Visegrád Group that opposed the liberal migration policy. At that time, Poland, the Czech Republic, Slovakia and Hungary were the only states in the EU to protect their own interests.

When it comes to policy towards Russia and the question of supporting Ukraine, Hungary is not entirely alone, as there are also critical forces in Slovakia. Unfortunately, things are different in the Czech Republic and especially in Poland, as a particularly aggressive mood against Russia is widespread there.

So we can really see Hungary as a great role model for defending national interests. The politics of this state have now also become a model for the Austrian opposition. It is known that many members of the FPÖ (Freedom Party of Austria) regularly attend meetings in Budapest. Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban is clearly known in Europe for his course and is considered a hero by many opposition groups.

In France, even before the elections, there is a talk of a movement to the right. It is clear that the patriotic forces will receive many percent. The reason for this is President Macron’s catastrophic policies. However, the ruling system in France always has the opportunity to let all other parties march together against the right. Let’s just think about what happened in Germany before the EU elections. There were the “marches against the right” and the mobilization of artists and public figures. The system always tries to prevent the right opposition from winning at all levels.

If parliamentary elections also take place in Austria in 2024 (the date is proposed by the government for September 29th), then it can also be expected that the FPÖ will win a lot. And here, too, it is to be expected that a very tough election campaign will be conducted. Dirty campaigns against the FPÖ are nothing new.

But in reality, all the right opposition parties have the same problem – the system always prevents them from finding a good partner to form a coalition. And in those cases where such a coalition and government does emerge, it is usually destroyed by betrayal or other dirty campaigns.

Often these parties are not very careful in selecting candidates for government and important positions. Some people are then susceptible to blackmail or are too weak to withstand pressure. This is then used as an opportunity by the political opponent. There are already many examples of this from history. There have been many of these scandals, especially in Austrian politics, which have repeatedly weakened or destroyed the already established forces. A strong network of party structures and media is able to organize a major campaign at any time to weaken the political opponent.

The next problem is that most right-wing parties are mostly liberal. In a normal political system there should also be left-wing forces that are patriotic. These would then be potential candidates for a coalition.

But with the current set-up of parties in most European countries, a situation arises where a single liberal right-wing party has to oppose all other parties, which also have no interest in a coalition. The basic prerequisites for a coalition government are therefore not met.

But what developments can we expect after the EU elections?

The result of the elections shows us clearly where the national parliaments will develop. All right-wing parties can be expected to be successful. But the politics of exclusion, which is already prepared by the system, will be the worst conditions for participation in government.

The example of Hungary will continue to encourage opposition forces in other countries to aim for participation in the government.

The greatest hope is that there will be changes in some established parties who realistically recognize the current situation in Europe and want to solve the problems.

Since there are different interest group lobbies in many parties, it is possible that some parties will have to change course in relation to the right opposition.

It is also possible that there will be revolts among voters or individual sections in some parties. Their positions and the associated salaries are also important to MPs and officials. This means they cannot support a political course that turns voters towards their political opponents.

Internal struggles for power within the party and for good positions could change the course of some parties.

And if the profile of some parties has changed so much, there is of course the possibility of a coalition with the right-wing parties.

It is also possible that parties change their profile simply to maintain their power and thus retain voters. These would also be “new” political 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.

Patrick Poppel is an expert at the Center for Geostrategic Studies (Belgrade).

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.

***

Julian Assange of WikiLeaks fame is now back in the country of his birth, having endured conditions of captivity ranging from cramped digs in London’s Ecuadorian embassy to the maximum-security facilities of Belmarsh Prison.  His return to Australia after striking a plea deal with the US Department of Justice sees him in a state with some of the most onerous secrecy provisions of any in the Western world.

As of January 2023, according to the Attorney-General’s Department, the Australian Commonwealth had 11 general secrecy offences in Part 5.6 of the Criminal Code, 542 specific secrecy offences across 178 Commonwealth laws and 296 non-disclosure duties spanning 107 Commonwealth laws criminalising unauthorised disclosure of information by current and former employees of the Commonwealth.

In November 2023, the Albanese Government agreed to 11 recommendations advanced by the final report of the review of secrecy provisions.  While aspiring to thin back the excessive overgrowth of secrecy, old habits die hard.  Suggested protections regarding press freedom and individuals providing information to Royal Commissions will hardly instil confidence.

With that background, it is unsurprising that Assange’s return, while delighting his family, supporters and free press advocates, has stirred the seething resentment of the national security establishment, Fourth Estate crawlers, and any number of journalistic sellouts.  Damn it all, such attitudes seem to say: he transformed journalism, stole away our self-censorship, exposed readers to the original classified text, and let the public decide for itself how to react to disclosures revealing the abuse of power.   Minimal editorialising; maximum textual interpretation through the eyes of the universal citizenry, a terrifying prospect for those in government.

Given that the Australian press establishment is distastefully comfortable with politicians – the national broadcaster, the Australian Broadcasting Corporation, for instance, has a central reporting bureau in Canberra’s Parliament House – Assange’s return has brought much agitation.  The Canberra press corps earn their crust in a perversely symbiotic, and often uncritical relationship, with the political establishment that furnishes them with rationed morsels of information.  The last thing they want is an active Assange scuppering such a neat understanding, a radical transparency warrior keenly upsetting conventions of hypocrisy long respected.

Let’s wade through the venom.  Press gallery scribbler Phillip Coorey of the Australian Financial Review proved provincially ignorant, his mind ill-temperedly confused about WikiLeaks.  “I have never been able to make up my mind about Assange.”  Given that his profession benefits from leaks, whistleblowing and the exposure of abuses, one wonders what he is doing in it.  Assange has, after all, been convicted under the US Espionage Act of 1917 for engaging in that very activity, a matter that should give Coorey pause for outrage.

For the veteran journalist, another parallel was more appropriate, something rather distant from any notions of public interest journalism that had effectively been criminalised by the US Republic.  “The release of Julian Assange has closer parallels to that of David Hicks 17 years ago, who like Assange, was deemed to have broken American law while not in that country, and which eventually involved a US president cutting a favour for an Australian prime minister.”

The case of Hicks remains a ghastly reminder of Australian diplomatic and legal cowardice.  Coorey is only right to assume that both cases feature tormented flights of fancy by the US imperium keen on breaking a few skulls in their quest to make the world safe for Washington. The military commissions, of which Hicks was a victim, were created during the madly named Global War on Terror pursuant to presidential military order.  Intended to try non-US citizens suspected of terrorism held at the Guantánamo Bay detention facility, they were farcical exercises of executive power, a fact pointed out by the US Supreme Court in 2006.  It took Congressional authorisation via the Military Commissions Act in 2009 to spare them.

Coorey’s colleague and international editor of The Sydney Morning Herald and The Age, Peter Hartcher, was similarly uninterested in what Assange exposed, babbling about the publisher’s return as the moment “Assangeism came into plain view”.  He had no stomach for “the cult” which seemed to have infected Canberra’s cold weather.  He also wondered whether Assange could constructively “use his global celebrity status to campaign for public interest journalism and human rights”.  To do so – and here, teacher’s pet of the political establishment, beater of the war drum for the United States – Assange would have to “fundamentally” alter “his ways to advance the cause”.

All this was a prelude for Hartcher to take the hatchet to the journalistic exploits of a man more decorated with journalism awards that many in the Canberra gallery combined.  The claim that he is “a journalist is hotly contested by actual journalists.”  Despite the US government conceding that the disclosures by WikiLeaks had not resulted in harm to US sources, “there were many other victims of Assange’s project.”  The returned publisher was only in Australia “on probation”, a signal reminder that the media establishment will be attempting to badger him into treacherous conformity.

Even this language was too mild for another Australian hack, Michael Ware, who had previously worked for Time Magazine and CNN.  With pathological inventiveness,  he thought Assange “a traitor in the sense that, during a time of war, when we had American, British and Australian troops in the field, under fire, Julian Assange published troves of unredacted documents”.  Never mind truth to power; in Ware’s world, veracity is subordinate to it, even in an illegal war. What he calls “methods” and “methodology” cannot be exposed.

Such gutter journalism has its necessary cognate in gutter politics.  All regard information was threatening unless appropriately handled, its more potent effects for change stilled.  Leader of the opposition in the Senate, Simon Birmingham, found it“completely unnecessary and totally inappropriate for Julian Assange to be greeted like some homecoming hero by the Australian Prime Minister.” Chorusing with hacks Coorey, Hartcher and Ware, Birmingham bleated about the publication by Assange of half a million documents “without having read them, curated them, checked to see if there was anything that could be damaging or risking the lives of others there.”  Keep the distortions flying, Senator.

Dennis Richardson, former domestic intelligence chief and revolving door specialist (public servant becomes private profiteer with ease in Canberra), similarly found it inexplicable that the PM contacted Assange with a note of congratulation, or even showed any public interest in his release from a system that was killing him.  “I can think of no other reason why a prime minister would ring Assange on his return to Australia except for purposes relating to politics,” moaned Richardson to theGuardian Australia.

For Richardson, Assange had been legitimately convicted, even if it was achieved via that most notorious of mechanisms, the plea deal.  The inconvenient aside that Assange had been spied upon by CIA sponsored operatives, considered a possible object of abduction, rendition or assassination never clouds his uncluttered mind.

Sharp eyes will be trained on Assange in Australia, however long he wishes to say.  He is in the bosom of the Five Eyes Alliance, permanently threatened by the prospect of recall and renewed interest by Washington. And there are dozens of journalists, indifferent to the dangers the entire effort against the publisher augurs for their own craft, wishing that to be the case.

*

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]