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.

***

Abstract

Background

The rapid development of COVID-19 vaccines, combined with a high number of adverse event reports, have led to concerns over possible mechanisms of injury including systemic lipid nanoparticle (LNP) and mRNA distribution, Spike protein-associated tissue damage, thrombogenicity, immune system dysfunction, and carcinogenicity. The aim of this systematic review is to investigate possible causal links between COVID-19 vaccine administration and death using autopsies and post-mortem analysis.

Methods

We searched PubMed and ScienceDirect for all published autopsy and necropsy reports relating to COVID-19 vaccination up until May 18th, 2023. All autopsy and necropsy studies that included COVID-19 vaccination as an antecedent exposure were included. Because the state of knowledge has advanced since the time of the original publications, three physicians independently reviewed each case and adjudicated whether or not COVID-19 vaccination was the direct cause or contributed significantly to death.

Results

We initially identified 678 studies and, after screening for our inclusion criteria, included 44 papers that contained 325 autopsy cases and one necropsy case. The mean age of death was 70.4 years. The most implicated organ system among cases was the cardiovascular (49%), followed by hematological (17%), respiratory (11%), and multiple organ systems (7%). Three or more organ systems were affected in 21 cases. The mean time from vaccination to death was 14.3 days. Most deaths occurred within a week from last vaccine administration. A total of 240 deaths (73.9%) were independently adjudicated as directly due to or significantly contributed to by COVID-19 vaccination, of which the primary causes of death include sudden cardiac death (35%), pulmonary embolism (12.5%), myocardial infarction (12%), VITT (7.9%), myocarditis (7.1%), multisystem inflammatory syndrome (4.6%), and cerebral hemorrhage (3.8%).

Conclusions

The consistency seen among cases in this review with known COVID-19 vaccine mechanisms of injury and death, coupled with autopsy confirmation by physician adjudication, suggests there is a high likelihood of a causal link between COVID-19 vaccines and death. Further urgent investigation is required for the purpose of clarifying our findings.

*

Introduction

As of May 31st, 2023, SARS-CoV-2 has infected an estimated 767,364,883 people globally, resulting in 6,938,353 deaths [1]. As a direct response to this worldwide catastrophe, governments adopted a coordinated approach to limit caseloads and mortality utilizing a combination of non-pharmaceutical interventions (NPIs) and novel gene-based vaccine platforms. The first doses of vaccine were administered less than 11 months after the identification of the SARS-CoV-2 genetic sequence (in the United States, under the

Operation Warp Speed initiative), which represented the fastest vaccine development in history with limited assurances of short and long-term safety [2]. Currently, roughly 69% of the global population have received at least one dose of a COVID-19 vaccine [1].

The most frequently utilized COVID-19 vaccine platforms include inactivated virus (Sinovac – CoronaVac), protein subunit (Novavax – NVX-CoV2373), viral vector (AstraZeneca – ChAdOx1 nCoV-19, Johnson & Johnson – Ad26.COV2.S), and messenger RNA (Pfizer-BioNTech – BNT162b2, Moderna – mRNA-1273)[3]. All utilize mechanisms that can cause serious adverse events; most involve the uncontrolled synthesis of the Spike glycoprotein as the basis of the immunological response.

Circulating Spike protein is the likely deleterious mechanism through which COVID-19 vaccines produce adverse effects [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [11], [12].

Spike protein and/or subunits/peptide fragments can trigger ACE2 receptor degradation and destabilization of the renin–angiotensin system (RAS), resulting in severe thrombosis [4]. Spike protein activates platelets, causes endothelial damage, and directly promotes thrombosis [5].

Moreover, Immune system cells that uptake lipid nanoparticles (LNPs) from COVID-19 vaccines can then systemically distribute Spike protein and microRNAs via exosomes, which may cause severe inflammatory consequences [5]. Further, long term cancer control may be jeopardized in those injected with mRNA COVID-19 vaccines because of interferon regulatory factor (IRF) and tumor suppressor gene dysregulation [5]. Moreover, a possible causal link between COVID-19 vaccines and various diseases has been found, including neurological disorders, myocarditis, blood platelet deficiencies, liver disease, weakened immune adaptability, and cancer development [5]. These findings are supported by the finding that recurrent COVID-19 vaccination with genetic vaccines may trigger unusually high levels of IgG4 antibodies which can lead to immune system dysregulation, and contribute to the emergence of autoimmune disorders, myocarditis, and cancer growth [6].

Neurotoxic effects of Spike protein may cause or contribute to the post-COVID syndrome, including headache, tinnitus, autonomic dysfunction, and small fiber neuropathy [7]. Specific to the administration of viral vector COVID-19 vaccines (AstraZeneca; Johnson and Johnson) a new clinical syndrome called vaccine-induced immune thrombotic thrombocytopenia (VITT) was identified in 2021 and characterized by the development of thromboses at atypical body sites combined with severe thrombocytopenia after vaccination [9].

The pathogenesis of this life-threatening side effect is currently unknown, though it has been proposed that VITT is caused by post-vaccination antibodies against platelet factor 4 (PF4) triggering extensive platelet activation [9]. mRNA-based vaccines rarely cause VITT, but they are associated with myocarditis, or inflammation of myocardium [10].

The mechanisms for the development of myocarditis after COVID-19 vaccination are not clear, but it has been hypothesized that it may be caused by molecular mimicry of Spike protein and self-antigens, immune response to mRNA, and dysregulated cytokine expression [10]. In adolescents and young adults diagnosed with post-mRNA vaccine myocarditis, free Spike protein was detected in the blood while vaccinated controls had no circulating Spike protein [11]. It has been demonstrated that SARS-CoV-2 Spike mRNA vaccine sequences can circulate in the blood for at least 28 days after vaccination [12]. These data indicate that adverse events may occur for an unknown period after vaccination, with Spike protein playing an important potential etiological role.

A Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) document obtained from the Australian Government, titled Nonclinical Evaluation of BNT162b2 [mRNA] COVID-19 vaccine (COMIRNATY), shows systemic distribution of the LNPs containing mRNA after vaccine administration in rats, concluding that LNPs reached their highest concentration at the injection site, followed by the liver, spleen, adrenal glands, ovaries (females), and bone marrow (femur) over 48 hours [13].

Further, LNPs were detected in the brain, heart, eyes, lungs, kidneys, bladder, small intestine, stomach, testes (males), prostate (males), uterus (females), thyroid, spinal cord, and blood [13]. This biodistribution data suggests that Spike protein may be expressed in cells from many vital organ systems, raising significant concerns regarding the safety profile of COVID-19 vaccines. Given the identified vaccination syndromes and their possible mechanisms, the frequency of adverse event reports is expected to be high, especially given the vast number of vaccine doses administered globally.

Through May 5th, 2023, the Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting System (VAERS) contained 1,556,050 adverse event reports associated with COVID-19 vaccines, including 35,324 deaths, 26,928 myocarditis and pericarditis, 19,546 heart attacks, and 8,701 thrombocytopenia reports [14]. If the alarmingly high number of reported deaths are indeed causally linked to COVID-19 vaccination, the implications could be immense, including: the complete withdrawal of all COVID-19 vaccines from the global market, suspension of all remaining COVID-19 vaccine mandates and passports, loss of public trust in government and medical institutions, investigations and inquiries into the censorship, silencing and persecution of doctors and scientists who raised these concerns, and compensation for those who were harmed as a result of the administration of COVID-19 vaccines. Using VAERS data alone to establish a causal link between COVID-19 vaccination and death, however, is not possible due to many limitations and confounding factors.

In 2021, Walach et al. indicated that every death after COVID-19 vaccination should undergo an autopsy to investigate the mechanisms of harm [15]. Autopsies are one of the most powerful diagnostic tools in medicine to establish cause of death and clarify the pathophysiology of disease [16]. COVID-19 vaccines, with plausible mechanisms of injury to the human body and a substantial number of adverse event reports, represent an exposure that may be causally linked to death in some cases. The purpose of this systematic review is to investigate possible causal links between COVID-19 vaccine administration and death using autopsies and post-mortem analysis.

Click here to read the full report.

*

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 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 around two decades after the (First) Cold War Russia tried building close ties with the European Union, the United States and other countries of the political West. Obviously, ties to its old friends never died, but were essentially reduced in terms of practicality. Moscow didn’t want any sort of enmity with NATO, seeking to build a mutually beneficial relationship that would defuse tensions and create an atmosphere of peace and cooperation. However, the world’s most aggressive racketeering cartel had other plans. The NATO-orchestrated Georgian War of 2008 was the first direct clash between a Western proxy and the Russian military on the territory of the former Soviet Union. It opened a Pandora’s Box that escalated into another all-out war, this time in former Ukraine, one of the most prominent republics of the USSR that got hijacked by NATO back in 2014.

Since then, the Kremlin fully focused on building an alternative system that would give the world a chance to choose a far more sovereigntist path. However, even after 2014, Russia tried to ensure peace by promoting the Minsk Accords, but this too turned out to be yet another attempt to trick Moscow, as per the admissions of various EU “leaders” at the time, who openly stated that the goal was to give the Neo-Nazi junta enough time to prepare for a full-scale war with Russia. The rest is history (still in the making). Realizing that it cannot trust a single word coming from the mouth of any Western “leader”, the Kremlin launched a full-scale strategic counteroffensive on February 24, 2022. The special military operation (SMO) became a sort of litmus test of who exactly are Moscow’s friends and allies. And they certainly did not disappoint the Kremlin, on the contrary.

Apart from the multipolar world which officially remained neutral, but continued (or even strengthened) economic ties with Russia, the Eurasian giant rekindled ties with its old friends from the (First) Cold War. This is particularly true for North Korea, effectively a “pocket superpower” and the world’s only relatively small country that can obliterate large chunks of the US if the latter is ever foolish enough to try and attack it. However, Pyongyang is far from the only ally Russia could count on. President Vladimir Putin’s recent Asian tour showed that Moscow could count on others as well, as evidenced by his visit to Vietnam, where a number of important agreements were signed, effectively reestablishing the alliance between the two countries. Hanoi’s rapidly growing economy makes it one of the most prominent nations in Southeast Asia and the premier regional power.

Close ties with Iran also keep growing in virtually all aspects, be it economy, military, science and even space cooperation. The massive growth of the BRICS+ format further strengthens this process, while also promoting regional stability in the Middle East, which stands in stark contrast to the policies of the US-led political West. The continued bloodshed in the region is a direct consequence of decades of NATO aggression on any remotely sovereign country in the Middle East. Precisely because of this many are waking up and forming closer ties with Russia, be it Sudan, Egypt or numerous other countries across the region. This is also true for many other nations in Africa, where the “Wagner” PMC (private military company) is working closely with at least half a dozen countries, with the main focus on fighting NATO-backed terrorist groups.

The Kremlin is also rebuilding alliances in Latin America, which is now starting to push back against US (neo)colonialism. Recent visits of a world-class Russian nuclear-powered submarine (specifically the Yasen-M class K-561 “Kazan” SSGN) and hypersonic missiles-armed surface combatants to Cuba demonstrate that Moscow is still very much capable of projecting power in the vicinity of US shores, a stark reminder to war criminals in Washington DC that they will have nowhere to hide if things ever escalate. Obviously, apart from Cuba, Russia also maintains close ties with Venezuela, another Latin American country that the US has tried invading on multiple occasions (all unsuccessful, luckily). The Kremlin’s supply of advanced fighter jets and long-range SAM (surface-to-air missile) systems gave all these countries an important asymmetric advantage.

However, what really sent shockwaves across the political West is the new agreement that Russia signed with North Korea. The full text of the agreement includes 23 articles that deal with close economic, diplomatic, scientific and military cooperation between the two countries. However, what really caught the attention of the US and its vassals and satellite states were Articles 3 and 4. Namely, these two clauses effectively and legally turn Moscow and Pyongyang into full-blown military allies, an agreement the Kremlin has with nobody else outside of the CSTO. According to Article 3, in case of “an immediate threat or an act of armed aggression [against either country]”, Russia and North Korea will “coordinate their positions and agree on possible practical measures to assist each other to help eliminate the emerging threat”. But Article 4 is even more direct:

“If one of the Parties is subjected to an armed attack by any state or several states and thus finds itself in a state of war, the other Party will immediately provide military and other assistance with all means at its disposal [!] in accordance with Article 51 of the UN Charter and in accordance with legislation of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea and the Russian Federation.”

This unprecedented development means that, thanks to its patently idiotic (to put it mildly) foreign policy, the US has now managed to create the outlines of a new military alliance of nuclear-armed states. While this includes only two countries at the moment, it could easily be expanded to others in the region, with China being an obvious candidate, as it’s also faced with incessant US aggression. However, this alliance could soon go well beyond East Asia and include numerous other countries around the globe. Apart from military cooperation, the said agreement between Moscow and Pyongyang also includes coordinated diplomatic efforts and geopolitical initiatives. Namely, according to Article 5, the two countries agree not to enter into agreements with third parties directed against the interests of either, which means Russia will block UN initiatives aimed against North Korea.

In practical terms, the agreement will also allow Moscow to tap into Pyongyang’s massive stockpile of conventional weapons (particularly cheap artillery munitions, rockets and missiles), while North Korea will get access to Russia’s latest military technologies, including electronic warfare (EW), SAM systems, space-based weapons, as well as its world-class fighter jets. All this will significantly expand both countries’ capabilities. It’s critically important for the Kremlin to be able to finish the SMO and get ready for a possible confrontation with NATO, while Kim Jong Un aims to ensure the latest capabilities for his troops. Although North Korea has made tremendous strides in acquiring advanced weapons systems, including hypersonic missiles (an area in which it eclipsed even the US itself), it still needs certain technologies it doesn’t have access to.

Either way, US/NATO aggression against the world is finally starting to yield positive results, as numerous countries are starting to push back. Joint efforts of Russia and North Korea will serve as an example to many others that only a united world can ensure the end of the political West’s (neo)colonialist system that’s not only deeply exploitative, but is now entering its most repugnant stage of all-encompassing moral degeneracy and societal decay, destroying everything it touches.

*

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: Russian President Vladimir Putin in June, during the St Petersburg International Economic Forum. (Ramil Sitdikov, RIA Novosti Host Photo Agency, Kremlin)

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 modern green movement is far removed from the original principles of environmentalism.

Fake sustainability is the political agenda designed and pushed by the United Nations, implemented by subservient governments, and which serves the aims of the private banking and mega-corporate super-entity. Central to this agenda is the climate change deception and other false UN narratives, as described in the book Transcending the Climate Change Deception Toward Real Sustainability.

Under ‘FAKE sustainability’ we may consider points including:

  • Manmade climate change is a convenient lie it is not caused by CO2 or by methane from livestock, such as cows. Temperatures were higher in the 1930s than today, but the UN ignores that data. A UN IPPC committee chairman actually resigned in protest at UN IPPC lies and false information. Most of the scientists that say climate change is a problem are on perpetual government grants. The UN IPCC cherry picks data, uses flawed modelling and scenarios not remotely related to the real world
  • Geo-engineering under the guise of combatting climate change, and the technology they use to pollute the skies

Central bankers are entirely funding the advancement of the worldwide climate change ‘project’. Central bankers hijacked the real environmental movement in 1992 creating the fake climate change agenda. Amongst other financial ulteriors, the Rockefeller banking dynasty promoted the climate alarmism agenda. The Chicago Climate Exchange is a trillion-dollar money-generating hoax.

  • Renewable energy is not a viable solution to the world’s energy problems. This is evidenced by the work of David MacKay, (1967 – 2016) former Regius Professor of Engineering at Cambridge University and former Chief Scientific Advisor to the UK’s Department of Energy and Climate Change, in his book Sustainable Energy without Hot Air, see Endnote . His analysis shows that an area twice the size of the entire country of Wales would need to be completely covered with wind turbines to meet the energy demand in the U.K., based on average energy consumption per person. The following is an extract from his book:

“First, for any renewable facility to make an appreciable contribution – a contribution at all comparable to our current consumption – it has to be country-sized. To provide one quarter of our current energy consumption by growing energy crops, for example, would require 75% of Britain to be covered with biomass plantations… Someone who wants to live on renewable energy, but expects the infrastructure associated with that renewable not to be large or intrusive, is deluding himself… we are forced to conclude that current consumption will never be met by British renewables… The windmills that would be required to provide the UK with 20 kWh/d per person amount to 50 times the entire wind hardware of Denmark; 7 times all the wind farms of Germany; and double the entire fleet of all wind turbines in the world… The solar power capacity required to deliver this 50 kWh per day per person in the UK is more than 100 times all the photovoltaics in the whole world…”

  • The nonsense of electric cars – see this article Driving an Electric Car Is Fake Environmentalism – Elon Musk Debunked
  • The nonsense of plastic bottles and plastic packaging that leach health-harming microplastics into food for human consumption 
  • The failure of the industrial agriculture ‘green revolution’ which degrades soil quality and fertility via use of vast quantities of chemical-based herbicides and pesticides.
  • Desertification – the UN incorrectly states that animal livestock is a cause, but it is actually a solution
  • Real environmentalism was hijacked by the deceptive UN sustainable development goals – see the article Decoding the UN Sustainable Development Goals: Indoctrinating Your Children Into the New “Fake Sustainable” World Order
  • 30 years of UN-defined sustainable development has not solved the real environmental and human wellbeing problems. UN Agenda 21/2030 and the deceptive World Economic Forum reset agenda are agendas of control, and are the opposite of real sustainability. UN Agenda 2030 smart cities are smart for the so-called ‘new world order’ controllers, but are not smart for you. UN sustainable development is a problem wrapped up as a solution
  • The trick of world heritage sites and ‘rewilding’ involves moving independent farmers and local peoples off the land and into smart cities where they cannot grow much food.
  • Mega-corporate globalisation is a destructive paradigm. It is a design for mega-corporate rule of the world’s resources, and the world food supply. Insane development policies cannot produce a sane society. The tragedy of the commons and the privatization of everything should be noted – see also this article The World Bank and the IMF are organisations that have devastated the developing world by chaining so-called developing countries (and even so-called first world countries) to unpayable debt.
  • The word ‘sustainable’ was hijacked by financial/political forces decades ago. The deceptive Brundtland definition of Sustainable Development influences political sustainable development strategies. The false dawn / failure / flaws of decoupling, resource substitution and eco-efficiency strategies should be noted. 
  • International policies for ‘sustainable development’ incorrectly endorse polluting forms of GDP growth; and incorrectly endorses usury and the current debt-money-based financial orthodoxy. UN policies will never rock the orthodoxy, in fact the central direction of UN policies is aligned with, and designed by, the orthodoxy. 
  • Green economy/green growth strategy is destructive globalisation painted green. The UN incorrectly promotes ‘polluting forms of GDP growth’, thus causing environmental impact. Beyond a certain point, GDP growth does not increase human wellbeing, it impoverishes it. Contemporary economics is a flawed ideology it is not a scientific discipline. There are systemic problems in the current economic system of globalisation – see also the book Demonic Economics
  • Who does the really UN serve? The shocking truth about communism, capitalism and WW2 – see also the book Censored History
  • All governments pushing the fake sustainability agenda are registered corporations in perpetual debt to privately-owned mega-banks and are designed to tax and control you – see also the book Demonic Economics 

Under ‘REAL sustainability’ we may consider points including:

  • What about the real sustainability challenge? The Earth we all depend on – what about real pollution to land, air and water?
  • It is incorrect to blaming population growth for sustainability problems rather than addressing the root causes in the financial and corporate system.
  • The way forward to a ‘real’ sustainable and a resilient thriving worldwide human society involves reality distinguished from illusion. In the current system the economic world is ruled by the ulteriors of debt-money creation and their tentacles of mega-corporate control. It involves bypassing the WEF/UN technocratic world reset of unelected one world totalitarian government. It involves bypassing fake science in which ‘science’ has been co-opted and adjusted to act as a stick with which to beat you into compliance – see also the book Godless Fake Science 
  • The scientific precautionary principle to protect human life and nature has been largely ignored in this system of corporate globalisation. This principle should be utilised to prevent unknowable potentially unwanted long-term effects of technologies that have not been tested over an extended time span, such as new GMOs, new manmade chemical compounds, and nanotechnologies. 
  • Modern era attempts to scientifically define ‘real’ sustainability involve balancing material flows with nature’s capacity via sustainable design. These attempts include: Cradle to Cradle design, sustainable design, and efficiency. However, these strategies by themselves will never offset the damage of the polluting system of corporate globalisation. The root drivers of globalisation: the debt-money system that leaves all governments in vast unpayable debt; usury that demands GDP at all costs from governments; and increasing corporate control of the world resources need to be addressed. 
  • A sustainable retreat from a flawed system of globalisation involves creating resilient local systems and discarding false narratives, such as the manmade climate alarmism. Currently, we live in a system dependent on oil, gas and coal (note that the gimmick of electric cars are dependent on electricity created mostly from oil and coal). There is a risk of societal collapse if the energy returned on energy invested for these fuels becomes too low, and if the cost of these fuels increases beyond that which people can afford to pay. To avoid dependency there is a need for intermediate technologies as defined by authors such as E.F. Schumacher.
  • The importance of organic agriculture and food free from toxins and manmade chemical compounds. 

In the world of conventional production, a farmer can spray his crops with pesticides, these chemicals can have devastating effects on the biodiversity requisite for healthy soil fertility. The reality of conventional vegetable production is the routine use of herbicides, such as glyphosate, pesticides and fungicides. In generations past all the food produce was “organic”, now chemicals are routinely used in food production. A massive industry makes vast profits from selling chemicals that are used in the corporate-controlled food system, some of these chemicals are actually toxic to humans and the biodiversity that soil health depends upon.  Chemicals do not belong in our food system or in the soil. When organic farmers seek the organic label certification, the produce may be checked for over 800 chemicals that could possibly be on the produce! The mind boggles at this reality. 

“How different the supermarket landscape would look, if instead of looking for “certified organic” all produce that had been sprayed had to have a label outlining the chemical treatments it received on its journey from seed to supermarket. How different then would our food system be? Imagine your carrot bag labelled with the following which were the top 10 applied chemicals on carrots grown in Ireland in 2015, the last year where there is data available. Lambda-cyhalothrin, Linuron , Metribuzin, Azoxystrobin , Difenoconazole, Pendimethalin, Prothioconazole, Boscalid, Pyraclostrobin, Tebuconazole” – Irish organic farmer, Green Earth Organics

  • See also the bio-char solution to soil management and desertification. Stop GMO food production – no one knows the long-term effects on humans and natures produce. God gave us all the natural foods we need to live healthily – do not mess with God’s design. Be aware of the ingredients in vaccines – why inject farm animals, such as chickens, with toxin-containing vaccines, the science of which is highly debatable to say the least. Also be aware of the toxins in fluoridated water.
  • The importance of cows in self-sufficient communities is in sharp contrast to the bogus UN/political agenda to reduce cow numbers, and, in effect, hinder local people worldwide from producing their own raw healthy milk by keeping cows in local communities. Re-discovering the power and dynamics of horses is also an option for resilient rural communities. Rediscovering the splendour of ancient forest villages and forest farming for fruits, herbs, and building materials etc., can also be explored.
  • With numerous ludicrous government-imposed farming regulations, many of which are based on the bogus science of manmade climate change, there is a need for traditional farming to be decoupled from a government-controlled system.
  • Natural house construction using natural materials and without the use of chemical-based products, paints, and furnitures (including wall-pumped insulations) that offgas into your home can be explored.
  • There are countless ways in which free people can easily work for the mutual benefit of themselves and society without governments getting in the way by imposing their fake sustainability policies. The only real authority is God, not the flawed corrupted manmade corporate and political power systems that push the UN ‘fake sustainability’ agenda to further their own aims.

*

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

Mark Keenan is a former scientist at the UK Government Dept. of Energy and Climate Change, and at the United Nations Environment Division.

He is a regular contributor to Global Research. He is author of the following books available on amazon.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.

***

[Updated on 24 June 2024.]

It has been a few heady months in the epic battle to end the slaughter in Gaza. College students launched protests in support of the Palestinians at Harvard, Colombia, Berkeley, UCLA and elsewhere in defiance of the college administrations. The Green Party candidate Jill Stein was arrested at a protest and the alternative media tells us that the anti-war movement is spreading like wildfire. And now, in response to South Africa’s formal charges of genocide, the International Court of Justice has issued an arrest warrant for Israel’s Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. Now the Democrats face a “never Biden” insurgency, will be forced to rethink its support for the Israeli assault on Gaza, and even embrace a “ceasefire.”

One cannot help but be caught up in the excitement of what appears to be a revival of the Vietnam War protests of the 1960s, and even start humming nostalgically Crosby Stills and Nash’s “Four Dead in Ohio.”

And yet, something is not right with this picture. As soon as arrest warrant for Netanyahu is issued, he is invited to address both houses of the US Congress in July in what could well be a declaration of war on Iran.

Note that the protests are fueled by the microscopic reporting in the New York Times and Washington Post, and other establishment media, of the operations of the Israeli Defense Forces in Gaza: killings of individual families, attacks on hospitals and marketplaces, and cruelties at border crossings are described in detail. 

But let us remember that those same journals were silent about murder of hundreds of thousands in Iraq (most of which took place without a single photograph anywhere), accepted at face value the ridiculously low numbers for American soldiers killed in these foreign wars, and asked no questions about the mysterious absence of American prisoners of war. Nor are those newspapers, or most of the alternative media protesters quote, discussing the brutal special operations of the United States in Haiti, throughout South America, and in Africa, let alone reporting on the horrific treatment of Americans held in prisons (where they are beaten, attacked by dogs, tortured, drugged, and murdered) which reaches a cruelty equal to that shown for Palestinians. The role of Israeli military and intelligence contractors like Elbit Systems or Magal Security Systems in all of those horror shows is completely ignored even by the most anti-war media sources. 

The narrative advanced by the students opposing the Gaza massacre relates how Israeli soldiers are cruel to Palestinians because their minds are possessed by a racist, apartheid ideology. True though this tale may be in the narrow sense, the resulting debate excludes any discussion of international class conflict (how the extreme concentration of wealth has led the billionaires to fund experiments in using extreme brutality against working people for which the slow division of Palestine with walls, and the use of the military to control all infrastructure, is a trial run), the control of capital (Israel’s role as a clearinghouse for a new generation of private equity merged with IT giants like Google, Oracle, and Apple who are using digitalization and “AI” as a means to seize control of literally everything) or technology (how the surveillance, social control, disinformation campaigns, and tracking and intelligence convergence programs run by satellites, robots, and drones are being developed in Israel for use against all of us—not just Palestinians).    

The more carefully you look at the actions taken by the IDF in Gaza, the less sense they make as strategy or policy for the citizens of Israel. The resulting anger at Israel around the world, and in the United States, makes Israel’s citizens far less safe and drastically reduces their options. In fact, the Netanyahu administration is bending over backwards to cultivate relations with antisemitic groups. 

As we know from the close friendship of Kurt Tuchler of the Zionist Federation of Germany with Leopold von Mildenstein of Jewish Desk at the security service of the SS, in Zionist politics, antisemitism is good for business.  

The attacks in Gaza are carried out in slow motion and broadcast to the entire world through the mainstream news in spite of the strangle hold of Israel lobbyists, intelligence operatives, and investment bankers on American corporate media. The truth is that the powers that be want Americans to know just how brutal the Israeli soldiers are. We are forced to reach to the conclusion that the establishment wants to make Gaza the center of attention on purpose. As J. P. Morgan noted, “Everything in politics has two reasons: a good reason and a real reason.” That reality is ignored by the critics of genocide.

The Three Taboos for the Protestors and the “Truth Tellers”

For all the good intentions of the students, and of the “independent’ journalists covering the Gaza slaughter as part of this anti-genocide movement, the whole effort is painted in the phosphorescent paint of historical nostalgia—which is smeared all over the supposed “alternative” candidates Jill Stein, and Cornel West as well (Robert Kennedy is in the blood of the Gaza up to his elbows). 

The analogy to the anti-Vietnam War protests we are force-fed is intentionally misleading. We are facing the spread of totalitarian governance around the world just has happened under the name of “fascism” in the 1930s. That global transformation of the political economy is fundamentally different than the limited anti-imperialist movement found in the protests against the Vietnam War in the 1960s and 1970s. Perhaps the powerful want us to be historically confused. 

Three events that made the current Gaza massacre possible are left out of the discussion among the protesters. As uncomfortable as the truth may be, failure to address the real origins of this campaign in Gaza means that activists cannot comprehend the manner in which the institutional decay of Israel’s government has resulted its complete absorption into a global war against humanity that headed by the billionaires, a war that is not limited to nation states or to ethnic groups. To focus on racial animosity in Palestine is to miss the whole point.

First there is only silence on campus concerning the central role of Israeli intelligence (along with American, British and Saudi intelligence) in the execution of, and the cover up of, the 9.11 incident, a massive false flag attack designed to drag the United States into numerous foreign wars and to establish a system of secret governance in Washington that is still in place and that makes this level of US government support for Israel’s military killings possible. 

If the protesters cannot mention a single word about this central event in American history, one that resulted in a horrific fusing together of unaccountable intelligence factions in Washington and Tel Aviv which are leading the current drive for global totalitarianism, then perhaps the protests are not quite as brave, or as truthful, as they claim to be.

Another taboo topic for the protesters is the role of global pharmaceutical and IT firms, all deeply connected to Israel’s military-intelligence-technology complex, in planning and carrying out the COVID-19 operation along with partners in Mossad, in the US intelligence community, at DARPA, in private equity and investment banks, and other secret partners in Australia, Germany, Australia, China, and South Korea. Israeli companies and government institutions played key roles in brokering these contracts, and pushing through classified contracts between nation states and companies like Pfizer that made the COVID reign of terror possible.  

That is right, the most dangerous actions undertaken by Mossad and the IDF in the history of Israel, which have left millions dead and tens of millions crippled by vaccines, are not even mentioned by the protesters. Some of the Harvard protesters even posed wearing COVID-era facemasks for the photos in front of Widner Library that appeared in the New York Times. 

Finally, the deafening silence about the true nature of the October seventh “Hamas attack” among the protesters sadly revealed that the protesters are merely regurgitating establishment propaganda about the key event. (1)

Protesters accept the bankrupt argument that the problem is Israel’s “disproportionate response” to the October 7th killings of Israelis by Hamas. But evidence is piled up to the sky that the entire attack was a false flag orchestrated by factions of Israeli intelligence, with their partners in the military, industry, civil society, and yes, even some parts of Hamas, so as to justify the Gaza campaign. (2)

Moreover, the false flag attack on Israeli citizens was carried out in an intentionally sloppy and heavy-handed manner so as to permanently corrupt the political discourse in Israel and the United States by forcing citizens to embrace assumptions that they know full well were false. When Secretary of State Anthony Blinken stated on June that after the bogus peace talks with a puppet regime Hamas that responsibility for further fighting was “on them” he opened up the door to an Alice in Wonderland post-truth diplomacy. If those seeking peace must accept the bogus tale of hostage exchanges made up by the backroom boys before they can be a part of any political debate, then the whole purpose of these discussions with “Hamas” is to degrade, to reduce to junk, all discourse.

The brutal killing of Palestinians is not simply the result of racist soldiers following orders from cruel generals, but rather the natural consequence of an Israeli government that follows orders from the agents of private equity that have taken control of the governments of Israel, the United States, and Great Britain (and other nations) and who wish to destroy civil society and to force citizens to accept a brutal new form of politics—starting with Israel and Palestine. Framing the problem as simply a result of a racist Israel creates an intellectual dead end that is designed to trap the well-meaning, but cowardly, in a hall of mirrors that paralyzes and ends political action. 

Is not the myopic focus on Gaza is the geopolitical equivalent of a “get your hand out my pocket” moment that is perfectly timed to distract us during the seizure of control of the United States, and other nations of the world, by a handful of private equity firms using IT giants to assume all regular functions of government while preparing another international security crisis that will allow them to spring the trap?

Israel is quite helpful for the super-rich, always willing to play the bad cop and offer up private intelligence firms and mercenary teams that are happy to do just about anyone’s dirty work. Israel also a great prize because it offers up negative headlines that draw attention away from greater evils. That is right, one of Israel’s propaganda roles is making the criminal and unaccountable US military appear good by comparison.  

The Treason of the Intellectuals

You might think that in a crisis of this scale that American intellectuals would be rising to the occasion, denouncing these deep crimes. You would be wrong. 

Most everyone who is presented as anti-establishment and anti-war has signed a secret contract with the devil. 

They embrace a reductionist narrative of the Gaza attacks focused on how Israel as a nation state is being unfair to Palestinians. 

The real agenda is swept under the carpet by these accomplished scholars. 

The real agenda is the stealthy militarization of the economy, the controlled demolition of the courts, the destruction of money, the takeover of agriculture and water by multinational corporations, the establishment of an armed monopoly of distribution and logistics, the secret control of hospitals and universities through classified directives from the NSA, and other preparations for the complete control of all economic and political activity. 

That is precisely what Cornell West and Chris Hedges are not talking about. 

Erudite public intellectuals like John Mearsheimer at University of Chicago, Jeffery Sachs at Columbia University, General Douglas McGregor, or Scott Ridder, push a Gaza-centric narrative that is not technically wrong. The account they give of what Israel is doing on the ground in Gaza, and its geopolitical implications is accurate, but woefully incomplete. These experts are silent as the tomb about Israel’s role in facilitating the takeover of all the major governments of the world by Oracle, Google, Amazon, and Microsoft, or how Israeli private intelligence works with those companies to take down whole nations, to allow for the converts control food and medicine, education and journalism, water and energy, by a handful of trusts that cannot be named. This is a global project for which Israel serves as the battering ram.

Tellingly, there is not a word in the debate on Israel at Ivy League campuses that is based on the fine analysis of Jeff Halper, a scholar active in Israel and the United States who demonstrates in his article “We are all being Palestinized” (3) how Israel serves as a clearing house for new weapons, and social control systems, that are being marketed around the world to just about any government or corporation that will pay. 

Students protesters do not quote Antony Loewenstein’s book The Palestine Laboratory: How Israel Exports the Technology of Occupation Around the World (4) which limns the commercialization of the Israeli pacification techniques, from surveillance to lawfare, by corporations and nations of all shapes and sizes, as part of a global takeover which ultimately has little to do with Palestinians.

Nor do those standing in solidarity with the Palestinians showing much interest in Said Saddiki’s book World of Walls: The Structure, Roles and Effectiveness of Separation Barriers (5) that dissects the profitable business of creating strategic separations in communities based on the techniques developed in the occupied territories using walls, biometric IDs and surveillance, and how those same firms are also successfully bidding for Homeland Security contracts to build high-tech barriers US-Mexican border, as well as bidding for the security and surveillance contracts at your local shopping mall or power plant.

Wall surrounding Gaza

Wall on US-Mexican border built by Israeli firm

The Israeli military intelligence complex has perfected the techniques developed by the US in the Phoenix Program in Vietnam for brutal social control (which was based on techniques taken from British East India Corporation). They are perfecting the techniques in Gaza, but their work on the 9/11 incident and the COVID-19 operation were also critical to the project. To leave those two operations out of the equation is to paint a one-dimensional Israel that makes no sense.

Remember the excitement about a great victory over the globalists whipped up in the days before the WHO meetings to approve amendments to the infamous pandemic treaty at the beginning of this month. The alternative media was filled then with reports that the WHO’s bid to seize control of our bodies of all of humanity had been thwarted by protests. Peter Koenig’s article in Global Research declared on June 3, “WHO’s Pandemic Treaty Is Dead – For Now.”  (6) But it was all a big fake out, one launched at precisely the moment that national leaders had been cowed into silence by the near successful assassination of Robert Fico of Slovakia and by threats behind the scenes against other public figures.

Now that same alternative media, is telling us that Israel is on the ropes and the anti-globalists are winning in Europe. But those new leaders of the so-called “conservatives” have not promised to take any meaningful steps against the reign of terror by multinational corporations—they have only made vague anti-vaccine declarations and will double down on enforcement of secrecy, give the government extraordinary martial powers, privatize police functions, and gear up for world war.

Israel as the engine driving the bio-nano-IT juggernaut against humanity is not on the ropes; the business for using bio-surveillance and the next-generation of vaccines employing advanced nano-technology to mow down the citizens of the earth is booming.

The critiques of these public intellectuals are focused on Netanyahu and Biden, but they never admit that these two sad old men are but the patsies in the plans of the big boys. They purposely kept both in power past their expiration dates, rendering them as lame politicians, hated by their own citizens, who can be removed from power at any time.

The Netanyahu and Biden administrations are designed to allow immunity from all accountability for the consulting firms actually directing the puppet show.

We must face the bitter truth that the partial truth tellers, limited hangout self-promoters, like Tucker Carson, Scott Ritter, and Larry Johnson generously provide us with a false narrative that is sweetened by a thin topping of anti-establishment rhetoric. They are intentionally covering up the most serious threat of all: the unlimited class warfare of the billionaires against all of humanity.

A Final Solution with a Human Face?

The super-rich have pulled out all the stops, and called in all their puppets, whether progressive or conservative, black or white, Christian or Muslim. We are being prepped to accept that a group of fascistic politicians in Europe and the United States groomed by the bankers were somehow our choice.

The struggles between nation states and ethnic groups are real; the massacres in Gaza are no show. Moreover, the crackdowns on student protests at Harvard and Columbia are an attack on due process meant as blatant intimidation for all citizens. At the same time, all these events are but one part of a larger struggle that has been purposely highlighted at the expense of even more dangerous transformations. 

There are two kinds of wars taking place today in precisely the same way that there were two kinds wars waged during the 1940s. 

Today we are treated to an unending narrative about Israel’s crimes in Gaza that leaves no space for a deeper consideration of how Israel functions in the global economy, or how it plays the central role in assisting IT corporations, private intelligence firms, and mercenaries to plan and enforce the great lockdown of humanity from Shanghai to Istanbul, from London to Melbourne, from Seoul to Chicago.

Similarly, newspaper headlines screamed out about Germany’s military incursions on the Eastern front against Russia, and on the Southern and Western fronts against Great Britain and the United States, during the Second World War, grabbing the public’s attention. But at that very moment, the governments of America and Britain were mum about the final solution, the quiet war against unarmed citizens undertaken by Germany’s operatives in central and eastern Europe.

In spite of public demonstrations at home, and the presentation to the British and American governments of carefully documented materials by refugees that proved without a doubt that the campaign was real, Roosevelt and Churchill remained silent (7) about the plans to secretly kill off tens of millions of people in Eastern and Central Europe, starting with Jews, Gypsies, and other ethnic minorities, and extending to Russian prisoners of war. Move over, those killings were just the start of a larger plan for depopulation that would be implemented as soon as Russia had been conquered.   

Just as Amazon and Google stand to make untold fortunes for the rich from the current final solution against humanity using vaccines, nano-weapons, and the internet of distraction and confusion which is designed to dumb down and pacify the population, so also IBM and Ford Motor Company had their fingers deep the Nazi project of invisible warfare against the people, and would have been part of the profitable plan to liquify tens of millions more in Russia, and elsewhere, if Germany had been successful.

If Google obtained Homeland Security contracts for contact tracing so as to enforce COVID-19 vaccines, so also did IBM obtain contracts with the SS to use its punch card computers to keep track of the secret German cattle cars that dashed between European capitals and death camps. (8) Just as Apple uses the slave labor made available by the COVID-19 biomedical regime to assemble Apple Watches cheaply in Thailand, so also Ford Motors used the slave labor of the death camps for its assembly lines. (9)

The hidden war in Europe from the formation of a chain of command for the Einsatzgruppen in 1939 to the Wannsee Conference of 1942 that systematized the existing plans for mass killings of unwanted people, was plenty real, even if invisible. A similar biomedical system for global genocide coordinated by factions at Mossad and DARPA, and their allies in IT and the pharmaceutical industry, is being constructed behind walls of secrecy as we speak today.

The blank-face horror of the moral and ideological collapse of the 1940s was best articulated by the slogan placed at the entrance to the deathcamp Auschwitz, “Arbeit macht frei” (work will set you free), that welcomed those getting off the trains in expectation of employment into a slaughterhouse.

In the current war on humanity, the innocuous equivalent for the youth who are being led to the slaughter by mind-numbing video games, pornography and Instagram behavior modification projects, and next-generation vaccines, is Apple’s “Think different.”  

When George Orwell wrote that “history stopped in 1936,” he was referring to the devastatingly complete victory of “politics over truth,” as Hannah Arendt put it, in Europe. The complete breakdown of a journalistic and intellectual discourse rooted in reality that Orwell witnessed then was not different from the web of lies produced by the COVID regime that has caught intellectuals like flies in a spider’s web.

For Orwell, that death of truth and history made possible the fascist attack on Guernica on April 26, 1937. And that, in turn, made the invasion of Russia and the final solution acceptable, or at least bearable, for the general population. Deep psychological trauma opened the gates to hell.

Similarly, the genocide in Gaza is not simply an emotional attack on the Palestinians by irrational racist Jews, but is a strategic show of contempt for moral norms and international law identical to the attack on Guernica by the Fascists in 1937. Guernica allowed for the testing of new incendiary explosives, and dive bombers, that would later be put to use in the invasion of Poland and the campaign towards Moscow. The attack on Gaza serves a similar purpose. 

As fantastic as the concept of killing off entire populations for profit may sound to us, this business model is nothing new. It was carried out against the native peoples of North and South America from the sixteenth to the nineteenth centuries, including the use of biological weapons and information warfare to confuse and divide the resistance. It was carried out in the Congo by Belgium financial interests, and in Turkey and in Eastern Europe, and it has been tried elsewhere.

The plan for “Greater Israel” is not merely an extension of political and territorial control from Tel Aviv, to Jerusalem, to the entirety of Palestine, and beyond to Lebanon, Syria, and Jordan. Greater Israel extends beyond the region to include the control of electric grids in Shanghai and New Orleans, the management of safety systems for power plants throughout the Middle East, the security software (and perhaps even the launch codes) for the US Strategic Command, and the databases of the Sandia National Laboratories by agile Israeli-based IT firms that constantly change their camouflage. 

Brutal at the Gaza cleansing may be, there is nothing emotional or ideological about it. It is but a cold calculation made by the predatory financial-technological system that controls Israel’s government completely, but that also has its fingers in the endowments of Harvard and Columbia, and that is designing health care centers, charter schools, AI-based safety protocols, innovative prisons and corrective facilities, and military bases and immigrant detention facilities across the country in preparation for something unspeakable, something coming very soon, something still hidden behind classified directives and nondisclosure agreements as it slouches towards Bethlehem to be born.

*

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.

Notes

(1) Red Pill Expo “Gaza: The Astounding Parallels with 9.11” Richard Gage 9/11

(2) “Is the Gaza-Israel Fighting “A False Flag?” Philip Giraldi and Prof Michel Chossudovsky, Global Research, June 01, 2024

(3) “We are all being Palestinized” Jeff Halper, Covert Action Magazine, December 27, 2023

(4) The Palestine Laboratory: How Israel Exports the Technology of Occupation Around the World Antony Loewenstein, Verso Books, 2023

(5) World of Walls: The Structure, Roles and Effectiveness of Separation Barriers Said Saddiki, Open Edition Books, 2017

(6) “WHO’s Pandemic Treaty Is Dead – For Now.”   Peter Koenig, Global Research, June 3, 2024

(7) “Witness to the Persecution: The Allies and the Holocaust: A Review Essay” Deborah E. Lipstadt, Modern Judaism (Oxford University Press) Vol. 3, No. 3 (Oct., 1983), pp. 319-338

(8) IBM and the Holocaust: The Strategic Alliance Between Nazi Germany and America’s Most Powerful Corporation, Edwin Black, Cambridge University Press, 2011

(9) “Documents Reveal Ford Was Part of the Auschwitz Industrial Complex” Jewish Telegraphic Agency, August 23, 1999

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.

***

Russia is indirectly lending a helping hand to China as the center of the New Cold War moves from Europe to Asia.

The speculation among some about Vietnam’s future role in the US’ regional campaign to contain China was quashed as a result of President Putin’s visit to that Southeast Asian country. The Russian leader and his counterpart To Lam rejected the policy of creating “selective military-political blocs” in an allusion to AUKUS+/“The Squad”, which refers to the US’ emerging NATO-like network that includes Australia, Japan, the Philippines, and (informally) Taiwan. South Korea is expected to join them soon too.

President To Lam also pledged to peacefully resolve regional disputes without the use of force and threats, with the innuendo being that Vietnam won’t be the first to rekindle tensions with China over the East Sea/South China Sea. Likewise, he and President Putin reaffirmed that “We will not enter any unions or treaties with third countries hurting independence, sovereignty or territorial ties with each other”, thus hinting that Russia’s “no-limits” partnership with China does indeed have some very real limits.

It was therefore predictable that these decades-long strategic partners promised to “step up defense and security cooperation, and together we will fight challenges, new and old [to international stability].” The significance of these military-strategic statements is that they keep the US’ Southeast Asian influence in check since they show that there’s no longer any reason to speculate that Vietnam will ever request its assistance in balancing China since Russia will now be fully relied on to that end.

To be absolutely clear, Russia isn’t “against China” or even indirectly seeking to “contain” it via Vietnam, but it’s a matter of diplomatic fact that Moscow supports Hanoi over Beijing in their maritime dispute.

This long-time policy was most recently confirmed in a very diplomatic way when the two countries referenced the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea 1982 a total of three times in their “Joint Statement on 2030 Vision for Development of Viet Nam-Russia Relations” from December 2021.

This isn’t Russia and China’s only disagreement over a very sensitive issue, however, sine they also have completely opposite approaches towards India’s claims to Kashmir and particularly Delhi’s ones over the Beijing-controlled region of Aksai Chin. They’ve nevertheless responsibly managed them in pursuit of the greater multipolar good and won’t let these issues be exploited by the US for divide-and-rule purposes. Russia’s strategic partnerships with China, India, and Vietnam do a lot to avert that scenario.

Moscow can always be called upon by both conflicting parties in any dispute to mediate between them in the event of a crisis if they have the political will to seek its recourse. Furthermore, from China’s perspective, it’s better for Russia to be India and Vietnam’s top military-technical partner than the US, whose intention in selling high-end equipment to its partners is always to disrupt the balance of power. By contrast, Russia’s is to maintain that balance in order to promote dialogue, which is always preferable.

As regards the Sino-Vietnamese maritime dispute, there was always the chance during the nadir of Russia’s power after the Soviet Union’s dissolution that the US would replace Moscow’s role for Hanoi, but the Socialist Republic proudly retained its strategic autonomy and avoided that temptation. Its leadership knew better than to rely on their wartime enemy for security and correctly feared that coming under its influence would lead to the gradual erosion of its hard-earned sovereignty.

The problem though was that China became more assertive in its claims to the East Sea/South China Sea from the mid-2010s onwards, thus heightening Vietnam’s threat perception. Beijing’s behavior was driven by its belief that Washington was about to make a major move there as part of its “Pivot to Asia”, which had to be preempted, but this inadvertently worsened relations with Hanoi for obvious reasons. It was around that time that speculation grew about Vietnam requesting the US’ military aid against China.

Russia hadn’t yet regained its lost strength but was well on the path to doing so, with this being apparent by the time that President Putin visited Vietnam in 2017 to attend that year’s APEC Summit. Flash forward four years to former Vietnamese President Nguyen Xuan Phuc’s trip to Moscow where they agreed to the aforementioned 2030 partnership development plan and then to the present day where these two countries celebrated their newly reinvigorated strategic partnership.  

This sequence of events shows that while Vietnamese-US relations greatly improved over the last three decades, with this process culminating in their strategic partnership that was clinched during Biden’s visit last September, Vietnam never became a US vassal. It always kept the Pentagon at arm’s length, and for good reason when remembering the countless war crimes that it committed, which created the opportunity for Russia to finally restore its traditional role in Vietnam’s balancing act.

Vietnam’s political and economic ties with the US will remain strong, notwithstanding Washington’s ridiculous rebuke of Hanoi for hosting President Putin, but there’s no longer even the remotest possibility that it’ll ever rely on its new strategic partner’s armed forces for balancing China. Russia will once again be fully relied on to that end, which should make Sino-Vietnamese tensions much more manageable than if Vietnam became the new Philippines by relying entirely on the US instead.

In the context of the US’ “Pivot (back) to Asia”, which is unfolding ahead of the inevitable end of the Ukrainian Conflict and the US’ subsequently renewed focus on containing China, this outcome precludes Vietnam’s cooperation with AUKUS+/“The Squad”. That’ll importantly help relieve some pressure along China’s southern front so long as Beijing doesn’t saber-rattle against Hanoi, which it’s not expected to anyhow since its hands are already full with the Philippines and possibly soon with Northeast Asia too.

By checking US influence in Southeast Asia through the new invigoration of its strategic partnership with Vietnam, Russia is therefore indirectly lending a helping hand to China as the center of the New Cold War moves from Europe to Asia. Although not coordinated with China, this can still be regarded as yet another manifestation of the Sino-Russo Entente, albeit with very well-defined limits seeing as how President Putin reaffirmed that he won’t enter into agreements with others that could harm Vietnam.

In practice, this means that while Russia’s military relations with China will continue to grow, under no circumstances will Moscow betray Hanoi by taking Beijing’s side in their dispute. The Kremlin also won’t ever commit to a mutual defense treaty with China like the one that it just clinched with North Korea, which would obligate Russia to support China if it clashes with Vietnam. The Sino-Vietnamese balance of power will consequently be maintained and hopefully lead to a future political solution to their dispute.

*

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

This article was originally published on the author’s Substack, Andrew Korybko’s Newsletter.

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

Featured image is from the author

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.

***

Licence of Sask. Doctor Who Prescribed Ivermectin for COVID-19 to be Suspended

Dr. Tshipita Kabongo faced two sets of charges relating to unprofessional conduct, brought by the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Saskatchewan.

By Brandon Harder, Regina Leader Post

Regina doctor Tshipita Kabongo has admitted to unprofessional conduct in relation to two sets of charges brought against him by the oversight body for Saskatchewan physicians.

That’s according to Bryan Salte, associate registrar for the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Saskatchewan (CPSS).

Kabongo had one such charge brought against him in March of 2023 in relation to his failing to know and/or follow the CPSS Policy on Complementary and Alternative Therapies when he prescribed Ivermectin, an anti-parasitic drug, to treat COVID-19.

He also faced four additional professional charges, brought against him in March of 2024. Of those, three pertained to his work with specific patients, alleging he “failed to maintain the standard of practice of the profession,” while the fourth charge was in relation to billing for his services.

The 2024 charges also made reference to inappropriate prescription of Ivermectin, as well as cannabinoids, benzodiazepines, Vitamin B12, and supplements.

Charges brought by that oversight body are not criminal charges but pertain to conduct that does not comply with the rules that govern its members.

Salte advised, via email, that a hearing was held with regard to Kabongo’s matters in June, and a penalty was imposed on him.

With regard to penalty, the CPSS council decided Kabongo is to receive a written reprimand.

In addition, his licence is to be suspended for one month, starting Aug. 1, 2024.

He is to practice only under the supervision of “a duly qualified medical practitioner approved by the Registrar.”

“The requirement for supervision will continue until the Registrar concludes that Dr. Kabongo is no longer required to practise under supervision,” the council decision states.

The supervisor is to provide the CPSS with reports as to the status of Kabongo’s practice.

Kabongo is also directed to pay costs associated to the investigation and the hearing in the amount of $44,783.72. This amount is to be paid in 24 equal instalments, beginning August 1.

If he fails to pay these costs as required, his licence is to be suspended until he pays in full.

— with files from Pam Cowan

[email protected]

*

Regina Doctor Suspended for Prescribing Ivermectin for COVID 

Saskatoon / 650 CKOM

By Lisa Schick, Jun 18, 2024 

A Regina doctor has been suspended from practicing for a month this summer for prescribing Ivermectin for COVID-19.

The Saskatchewan College of Physicians and Surgeons found that over two years, between April 2020 and March 2022, Tshipita Kabongo prescribed the drug as either a treatment or to prevent COVID-19 at his practice in Regina

He was found to have engaged in unprofessional conduct.

In a decision released this month, the college said Kabongo failed to follow the its policy on alternative therapies, which says patients have a right to make decisions about their health care but doctors who choose to use complementary or alternative therapies have to do so in a way that’s informed by medical evidence and science.

“It is unethical to engage in or to aid and abet in treatment which has no acceptable scientific basis, may be dangerous, may deceive the patient by giving false hope, or which may cause the patient to delay in seeking conventional care until his or her condition becomes irreversible,” the policy states.

The college’s decision on Kabongo said one or more of the prescriptions he gave out weren’t medically necessary, he failed to recommend other evidence-informed treatment options, and he didn’t properly document the prescriptions in medical records.

As a result, Kabongo will be suspended from practising for one month in August. He’ll have to have someone supervise him when he returns to practising, and he’ll have to pay the cost of the investigation and hearing, which added up to $44,783.72.

Ivermectin is a drug meant to treat parasites as an oral medicine and rosacea as a topical medication. However, some on social media promoted it as a cure for COVID during the pandemic which began in 2020.

In the fall of 2021, Health Canada and several medical groups in Saskatchewan put out public messages warning people against the use of Ivermectin for COVID, particularly the stronger and more dangerous veterinary formulation.

“There is no evidence that Ivermectin works to prevent or treat COVID-19 and it is not authorized for this use. To date, Health Canada has not received any drug submission or applications for clinical trials for Ivermectin for the prevention or treatment of COVID-19,” explained a public notice from Health Canada issued in October, 2021.

A memo issued around the same time by the College of Physician and Surgeons, along with several other Saskatchewan medical groups, said that while there have been studies on Ivermectin, the study limitations like sample sizes and confounding factors mean that conclusions couldn’t be drawn, and so Ivermectin was disapproved of for the treatment or prevention of COVID-19.

*

My Take…

This is yet another example of criminal behavior by a College, this time by the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Saskatchewan.

It is time to start filing criminal charges against College Officials.

These Colleges, through their actions, have killed thousands of Canadians already and if Canadians don’t take the Colleges back, the Colleges will continue to take many more lives in the future.

*

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.

***

Global great power competition has a concrete geopolitical and economic infrastructure. At the same time, there are ideological and cultural infrastructures that are effectively used in this competition.

The West used this very well during its 300-year global hegemony. It skillfully applied the accumulation of the Renaissance and scientific and ideological enlightenment revolutions as a soft power when it reached the imperialist level.

All states and societies in the world looked at Europe with admiration and tried to idealize the West and take it as an example.

Since the 18th century, when Europe focused on industrialization and colonialism, it has created an ancient Greek myth that claims to be the center and origin of civilization.

However, what is called Ancient Greek civilization was the accumulation of culture and humanity based mainly on ancient Egypt, Phoenicia, Ionian, Hittite and Phrygian Anatolia, Ancient China and Central Asia on the Silk Road, and from Sumer to Babylon in Mesopotamia.

Western civilization, with all its imperialist intentions in its background, was ‘sold’ as the highest point reached by humanity and civilization in particular. It was marketed to the world in the packaging of capitalism with human rights and democracy, as if it were a great invention patented by the West. We saw the peak of this in the theses of the famous neo-conservative ideologue Samuel Huntington at the end of the Cold War. After the end of the Cold War, American values ​​entered a period of domination by Huntington’s “Clash of Civilizations” theory.

In 1993, Professor Samuel Huntington from Harvard University put forward this thesis in an article published in Foreign Affairs magazine, the organ of the American State Department.

On the one hand, Huntington accepted the diversity of world cultures by dividing civilizations into eight types (Bon Pour Orient), but he put Western values ​​above all of them and assigned them a savior and tutelage role. Huntington’s so-called Western values ​​of “democracy and freedom”, which included discrimination between races and religions, were essentially propaganda created to consolidate the West’s domination over the world. For a long time, it was supported by powerful Western-funded media and collaborative academia. This ideology, which is identity-oriented rather than class-oriented (in terms of nationality, gender and religion), is the product of neoliberalism, which aims for the absolute dominance of the capital sector in the post-Cold War world. The famous French intellectual historian Emmanuel Todd calls this neoliberal nihilism.

However, after the bloody wars under the guise of the war against terrorism and the economic destruction caused by western-based neoliberalism, it has become clear that the dominant international relations discourse is essentially controlled by the West through “proxy and power”. Of course, rising Asia would also have an answer to the clash of civilizations. Russia, an advocate of multipolarity and one of the founders of BRICS+, questions the West’s uniform superiority theory on this issue. China, with its five thousand years old culture, is in a similar position.

The People’s Republic of China launched the Global Development and Global Security Initiatives in 2021 and 2022.

In 2023, the Global Civilization Initiative was declared. Yang Chen and Ma Jinting from Shanghai University describe these three initiatives with the following expressions in ancient Chinese culture: “Making conscience destined for heaven and earth ; to secure life and prosperity for the people and ensure peace for all future generations.”

The global civilization initiative involves “making conscience destined for heaven and earth.”

According to Chinese writers; The Global Civilization Initiative broke the Western monopoly on international relations theory, and in the process, moral realism and Chinese international relations theories pioneered by the Shanghai School became more influential. A concrete example of this is the Iran-Saudi Arabia peace talks, which took place under the mediation of China.

China’s 12-article Russia-Ukraine peace proposal is also included in these principles. China’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs in November 2023 published the “Position Document of the People’s Republic of China on Resolving the Palestine-Israel Conflict”. China sees the multi-country and geographical Belt and Road Initiative as the most important pillar of the Global Civilization Initiative with its philosophy of human-to-human contact.

In short, it can be said that, against the Collective West’s post-Cold War supremacist understanding of globalization, developing countries put forward a peaceful, pluralistic and equality-based world order as a new dialogue of civilizations. Different civilizations can co-exist without conflict and can change, develop with their own free will.

*

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 ATASAM.

Hasan Erel is a Turkish journalist-writer. He worked as a diplomacy and foreign news reporter and editor in TRT and other media for 30 years. He is a frequent commentator of Sputnik News radio and CRI Turk in Turkiye.  

Featured image is from ATASAM

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.

***

 

 

Zelensky’s only use right now is to legitimize radical policies and he’ll then be cast aside once he’s done what’s needed of him, though it’s unclear when that’ll be since everything depends on whether NATO conventionally intervenes in Ukraine.

President Putin shared his view during a press conference in Hanoi that the US will replace Zelensky during the first half of next year after they use him to make unpopular decisions such as further lowering the draft age. His prediction coincided with Russia’s foreign intelligence service publishing its latest such report about this scenario, which claimed that Zaluzhny is being seriously considered by the US as his replacement and is also deemed to be more suitable for negotiating peace with Moscow than others.

It was explained last month how “Russia Hopes To Influence Ukraine’s Possibly Impending US-Backed Regime Change Process” after that same service released a related report about this at the time. This strategy continues unfolding as evidenced by President Putin declaring two weeks ago that the Rada Speaker is now the legitimate leader of Ukraine if the Constitution is still being followed. Accordingly, he said that Russia could negotiate with him or someone else if Kiev is interested in peace, but not Zelensky.

As regards the conflict’s military-strategic dynamics, they continue trending in Russia’s favor and won’t be changed by minor adjustments to US policy such as letting Ukraine use its arms to hit any targets across the border that are allegedly planning to cross the frontier. The only variable that can make a meaningful difference at this point in time is if NATO stages a conventional intervention, but that would spike the risk of World War III by miscalculation.

Returning back to President Putin’s prediction about Zelensky being replaced in the first half of next year, he’s either assuming that no such conventional intervention will occur or that the subsequent escalation would remain manageable instead of spiraling into the apocalypse. Regarding the first possibility, there’s a chance that this won’t happen since it’s dependent on Russia achieving a military breakthrough across the front lines, which NATO could then exploit to justify directly involving itself in this conflict.

That might either not happen and thus rule out this scenario, or it’ll unfold and then set that sequence of events into motion, therefore leading to the second possibility of them managing this escalation. In that case, Russia might either eschew striking NATO units so long as they don’t cross the Dnieper and pose a credible threat to its new regions, or they’ll engage in controllable tit-for-tat strikes before freezing the conflict. No matter what happens, however, Zelensky’s political future is set in stone.  

The first possibility is actually much worse for him since he’ll be pressured like never before to lower the draft age as soon as possible in order to replace all the meat that’ll have to be ground to prevent a Russian breakthrough across the front lines. It’s impossible to predict the timing with which he’d then be replaced since it depends on when that policy is implemented and whether (and how long) the secret police can control the public’s furious reaction to sending their young adult males to the slaughter.

If NATO conventionally intervenes in Ukraine but the escalation doesn’t spiral into World War III by miscalculation, which of course can’t be taken for granted, then the bloc might keep Zelensky in place only until they reach a deal with Russia for comprehensively managing Europe’s “new normal”. Once that’s achieved, whenever it may be, he’ll then be pushed aside in order to herald the coming of the so-called “new Ukraine” under these new circumstances and turn the page on this dark period.

Just like in the first possibility, he’d only remain in power long enough to make unpopular decisions, albeit under totally different circumstances in that case. Nevertheless, the writing is on the wall, and it’s that his political career is drawing to a close either way. Zelensky’s only use right now is to legitimize radical policies in either scenario. He’ll then be cast aside once he’s done what’s needed of him, though it’s unclear when that’ll be since everything depends on whether NATO conventionally intervenes.

*

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

This article was originally published on the author’s Substack, Andrew Korybko’s Newsletter.

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

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.

***

As NATO and its Neo-Nazi proxies coordinate their long-range strikes with terrorist attacks deeper within Russia (a threat they’ve already made on several occasions and are now fulfilling, as evidenced by the latest events in Dagestan), the belligerent alliance’s eastern member states are preparing to effectively enter the conflict, albeit not officially. Namely, just like NATO ISR (intelligence, surveillance, reconnaissance) assets are used for long-range attacks on the Russian military in an “unofficial” capacity, the political West is hoping to get the chance to use F-16 fighter jets from airbases in Eastern Europe, where they would be “safe” from Russian counterattacks. In theory, of course, because nobody can really guarantee that Moscow will tolerate such actions. And yet, nobody in Europe is asking the most obvious question – what happens when the Kremlin does react?

Many NATO countries have F-16s in their inventories, but of all operators of the US-made jet,

Poland and Romania are the closest to Ukraine. They also have the largest territories and the most important NATO installations in Eastern Europe. Along with a strong pro-US (geo)political stance, the combination of these factors makes them the most logical candidates for the basing of the Kiev regime’s F-16s. Poland has two major airbases housing these US-made jets – the 31st and 32nd, located in Poznan and Lask, respectively. These areas are in western and central Poland, both crucial for the country. Allowing the Neo-Nazi junta to operate F-16s from there would make both cities prime targets for retaliation by the Russian military, putting civilians in those areas in harm’s way. This is particularly true for Poznan, the fifth largest city in Poland, with a population of at least half a million.

It’s not impossible that some other, less important airfields in eastern Poland could be used instead, but that still doesn’t remove the danger of a direct NATO-Russia clash, because Moscow will not tolerate the usage of airbases outside Ukraine for strikes on the Russian military. The same goes for Romania, another F-16 operator in Eastern Europe. Bucharest operates its US-made jets from the town of Fetesti in southeastern Romania, where the country’s 86th Air Base is located. This NATO airbase with F-16s is the closest to Ukraine and could be used as the staging ground for operations against Russian forces in the southern Kherson oblast (region) and Crimea. This is a particularly dangerous prospect, as these areas have been under near-constant joint long-range drone and missile strikes by the Neo-Nazi junta forces and NATO, with both Russian air defense assets and airbases being the primary targets.

It’s only logical to assume that such attacks are meant to weaken Russian defenses in Crimea, particularly the SAM (surface-to-air missile) systems, possibly opening the way for F-16s to strike targets deeper within Russia. Obviously, on their own, these jets have little chance of survival. However, if Moscow’s world-class air superiority fighter jets and long-range air defenses are neutralized by drones and missiles first, F-16s could then be used to launch strikes virtually unopposed. Once again, this is all in theory, as the political West is counting on the Kremlin to budge and eventually fold under pressure. However, this dangerous gambit could spark the fuse of something far bigger and far deadlier. Russia has repeatedly warned against such escalation, but nobody in the political West seems to be listening. In much simpler terms, there are countless ways in which all this could go sideways.

This is particularly dangerous as some of the F-16 donors are countries with nuclear capabilities. If such jets appear in the NATO-orchestrated Ukrainian conflict, what is Moscow supposed to make of it? What message is being sent in that case? As previously mentioned, recent threats of escalating terrorist attacks in Russia are being executed in very close coordination with the aforementioned long-range strikes on Crimea and elsewhere in the country. The only logical conclusion for the Kremlin (or anyone with two half-functioning brain cells) is that all this is planned and executed by the same people. The frustration and anger are building up in Russia (and rightfully so, because nobody sane would react otherwise). A moment will come when Moscow will simply be left with no choice but to strike back. And when it happens, it will be quite painful for everyone on the receiving end, whoever that may be.

The populace in Europe, particularly Eastern Europe, is extremely worried about this prospect (and understandably so). The consequences of Russian retaliation will be felt all across the increasingly volatile region, regardless of whether the affected country houses the Kiev regime’s jets. The disruption to normal economic activity alone would be a disaster for them, let alone a direct confrontation between military superpowers. It’s very difficult for most people to even grasp the sheer speed of modern warfare. A previously peaceful situation could turn into a bloodbath in mere hours, with entire areas becoming unrecognizable virtually overnight. Those who support such escalation should be treated as nothing less than unadulterated war criminals. Unfortunately, the political West’s vaunted “democracy” is a myth, meaning there are little to no control mechanisms to stop them.

Recent seemingly tectonic changes on the European Union’s political scene cannot be counted on to reset its collision course with Russia, as the creators of foreign policy in Western countries are quite resilient to any political shifts. Italian Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni is a good example of this. While she came to power as a supposed “anti-establishment” candidate, it turned out she’s anything but. Worse yet, she’s now threatening Russia, a country that sees Italy as nothing more than a speck in its global military strategy. The danger of similar right-wing governments continuing the same or similar foreign policy toward Russia is present everywhere in Europe. This means that Moscow is left with virtually nobody to talk to in the political West. If this situation persists, what is the alternative? If a country with around 6000 thermonuclear warheads is pushed to the edge, what could we possibly expect?

*

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.

It’s the End of the World As We Know It. The American-NATO Rush Toward Nuclear War with Russia. Scott Ritter

By Scott Ritter, June 24, 2024

Last month, on May 6, the Russian Ministry of Defense announced that it would, on the orders of Russian President Vladimir Putin, conduct exercises involving the use of non-strategic nuclear weapons. According to Russian officials, the exercises were a response to “provocative statements and threats from certain Western officials directed at the Russian Federation.”

The AI Bubble “Makes AI Bubble”, AI = Deficient Technology

By Karsten Riise, June 24, 2024

The CEO Sam Altman from OpenAI travels the World to ask for $7 trillion for investment into AI and related technologies, including new chip factories, humongous datacenters, land, and even nuclear power to run AI’s insatiable appetite for energy. Yes, $7 trillion. This is more than the entire US federal budget in 2023, which at “only” $6 trillion is already too big to finance sustainably for the USA, the biggest economy in the World (measured in GDP).

Playing God: An Investigation Into “Medical Democide” in the UK

By Dr. Joseph Mercola, June 24, 2024

The documentary features testimonials from families affected by these dangerous practices, as well as analyses from medical professionals and legal experts, aiming to shed light on “medical democide,” — death or harm caused by government policies or health care practices. The film suggests that systemic issues deeply ingrained in the NHS hinder the delivery of humane care, from birth to the end of life.

Why Does the Government Borrow When It Can Print?

By Ellen Brown, June 24, 2024

It is cheaper to print money outright than to borrow money at interest that is never repaid. The Greenbackers who marched on Washington in 1897 were right. We should be printing the money – not for speculative ventures (“unearned income”) but for productive endeavors.

Ukrainians Dying in Their Hundreds of Thousands So US Weapon Manufacturers Can Profit

By Ahmed Adel, June 24, 2024

Washington has spent $1.8 trillion over the 20-year failed military campaign in Afghanistan to defeat the Taliban, whilst aid to Ukraine in just a little more than two years has already reached $175 billion dollars, according to a Council on Foreign Relations report published on May 9.

Washington Faces Defeat in Red Sea Donnybrook

By Mike Whitney, June 24, 2024

The Houthis have agreed to end their attacks on commercial traffic in the Red Sea if Israel allows the delivery of humanitarian aid to the Palestinians. This is not just a reasonable proposal, it’s a policy that is supported by the vast majority of people around the world.

G7 Italy: A Summit of War. Manlio Dinucci

By Manlio Dinucci, June 24, 2024

They denounce Russia for “the brutal and unjustifiable war of aggression against Ukraine, and for the blatant violation by it of international law and the fundamental principles that underlie the international 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.

***

South Africa held its seventh national and provincial elections in late May where approximately 58 percent of the eligible voters cast ballots.

The democratic breakthrough of 1994 led to the first non-racial elections since the establishment of the racist settler-colonial system of apartheid.

Nelson Mandela, the then president of the African National Congress (ANC), won the elections 30 years ago creating the first Government of National Unity (GNU) which lasted from 1994-1997.

In the 1994 elections, the ANC secured nearly two-thirds of the votes after waging decades of mass and armed struggles aimed at the destruction of the unjust and exploitative social order.In the most recent elections, the ANC acquired 40 percent of the votes with the Democratic Alliance (DA) coming in second, attaining 21 percent. Following the DA was the MK Party which was only formed in the lead up to the May elections. Coming in fourth was the Economic Freedom Fighters (EFF). The MK attained nearly 15 percent and the EFF 9 percent.

Both the EFF and MK are breakaway groupings from the ruling ANC. Combined these three parties could have easily secured 64 percent of the votes. With the failure of the ANC to achieve in excess of 50 percent, the largest party was compelled to select other parties to form a unity administration.

After intensive internal discussions within the National Executive Committee (NEC), the ANC in consultation with its allies in the South African Communist Party (SACP), Congress of South African Trade Unions (COSATU) and the South African National Civic Organizations (SANCO), decided to form the GNU. Several other parties were approached to join the GNU. Eventually agreements were reached with the DA and the Inkhata Freedom Party (IFP) to serve as the major anchors for the GNU.

Later two other small parties, the Patriotic Alliance (PA) based in the Western Cape, and the GOOD Party, headed by the Minister of Tourism, Patricia de Lille, joined the GNU. At present this alliance of five political parties represents 68 percent of the National Assembly in Cape Town. De Lille has undergone several political transformations since 1994. She first entered parliament as a representative of the Pan-Africanist Congress (PAC). In subsequent years she formed the Independent Democrats (ID) which eventually merged with the DA. She was forced to resign from the DA under allegations of concealing corruption and later accepted a cabinet position in the ANC government in May 2019.

At present negotiations are underway to determine allocations of cabinet positions. The ANC’s Ramaphosa was elected as president by the National Assembly along with Deputy President Paul Mashatile, also of the ANC. The ANC will retain its leadership role as Speaker of the National Assembly under Thoko Didiza. The Deputy Speaker is a DA member Annelie Lotriet.

Of the nine provinces in the Republic of South Africa, the ANC will control the premierships within seven. The DA maintained its control of the Western Cape while the IFP, after forming alliances with the ANC and the DA, took control of the KwaZulu Natal provincial premiership.

In a statement issued by the ANC on June 17, it states the objectives of the party within the GNU, noting:

“The GNU’s priorities and minimum program are fully aligned with the ANC’s longstanding commitments and policies. We are dedicated to achieving rapid, inclusive, and sustainable economic growth, job creation, land reform, industrialization, and infrastructure development. Our objective is to create a just society that addresses poverty, spatial inequalities, food security, and the high cost of living, while protecting workers’ rights and delivering quality basic services. The GNU will ensure representation in government and legislatures by all participating parties, making decisions by consensus, with mechanisms for conflict resolution where necessary. The President will exercise the prerogative to appoint the Cabinet, in consultation with leaders of GNU parties, adhering to existing protocols on government decision-making and budgeting. All political parties represented in legislatures remain welcome to join the GNU even after its formation as its very ethos is a spirit of inclusivity.”

Not the First GNU

Mandela and many other ANC members spent decades in apartheid prisons prior to their release during the late 1980s and early 1990s. Other liberation and anti-colonial movements also faced severe consequences for their activities which extended back to the mid-17th century when the Dutch settlers entered the Cape area in 1652. Later during the 18th and 19th centuries, the British and the French colonialists fought for the control of this important territory in attempts to dominate the strategic trade routes along the Indian Ocean coastlines.

At the turn of the 19th and 20th centuries, the British and Boer settlers fought a war over which colonial entity would control the country. Although the British won the Anglo-Boer War of 1898-1902, the Union of South Africa which was established in 1910 represented the consolidation of white domination.

By 1948, the Boer-dominated Nationalist Party (NP) became the leading force under the colonial system. The creation of the apartheid system after 1948 was designed to divide and maintain control over the majority African, Colored (mixed race) and Indian population groups.

Nonetheless, the mass struggle to end institutional racial domination accelerated during the 1950s with the Defiance Against Unjust Laws campaign. A coalition between the vanguard organizations among the African, Colored and Indian populations, known as the National Action Council, drafted the Freedom Charter in June 1955 at the Congress of the People in Kliptown.

The apartheid regime sought to imprison and drive into exile the leadership of these organizations by leveling charges of treason. A trial went on for four years which resulted in the acquittal of these leaders in 1960.

However, the escalating repression by the apartheid government culminated in the Sharpeville massacre of March 21, 1960, when dozens were killed and injured by the police. In 1961, Um Khonto we Sizwe (Spear of the Nation) was formed as a guerrilla force which waged an armed struggle against the racist system between December 1961 and August 1990.

What is important to acknowledge is that this is not the first GNU formed since the overthrow of the apartheid regime. During the early years of the National Democratic Revolution, the ANC shared power with the Nationalist Party (NP), the ruling entity under apartheid. This arrangement was carried out to ensure the political transition to majority rule.

According to the South Africa History online website:

“From 27 April 1994 to 3 February 1997, South Africa was governed by a Government of National Unity (GNU) under the leadership of African National Congress (ANC). Clause 88 of the interim Constitution of South Africa provided for the establishment of the Government of National Unity. After the first democratic election in 1994, 19,726,579 votes were counted and 193,081 were rejected as invalid. The African National Congress (ANC) in alliance with the labor confederation COSATU and the South African Communist Party (SACP) fell slightly short of a two-thirds majority. The Government of National Unity was established and headed by Nelson Mandela as a president and FW De Klerk as his deputy president. Mandela’s cabinet included ministers from other political parties as well as members of the National Party and Inkatha Freedom Party.” 

The NP under the leadership of F.W. De Klerk announced their intentions to withdraw from the GNU in June 1996 citing its disagreements with the ANC over major policy issues. De Klerk then retired from politics leaving the NP in disarray. The NP was later dissolved while the DA was later formed and became the major opposition party to ANC rule.

 

In regard to the present GNU, COSATU and the SACP have issued statements on the outcome of the elections. COSATU said in a press release on June 19 that:

“The Congress of South African Trade Unions (COSATU) congratulates President Cyril Ramaphosa on his inauguration for a second term as head of state of South Africa. Admittedly, this was a difficult election for our Alliance Partners, the African National Congress (ANC), the South African Communist Party (SACP) and ourselves, however, we are grateful that millions of ordinary South Africans have entrusted the ANC to be leader of government nationally and across provinces.” 

Just four days earlier, the SACP emphasized in a statement:

“The South African Communist Party (SACP) welcomes the democratic return of the African National Congress (ANC) as the leader of our government, with President Cyril Ramaphosa re-elected on Friday night, 14 June 2024, and Thoko Didiza elected as the Speaker of the National Assembly. The balance of political forces under which this happened, measured by the distribution of seats and conduct of a number of political parties prior to the first sitting of and in the National Assembly following the May 2024 elections, was characterized by precarity.” 

These developments in South Africa will be watched closely both inside the country as well as internationally. Undoubtedly, the struggle for a genuinely revolutionary democratic South Africa 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.

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

G7 Italy: A Summit of War. Manlio Dinucci

June 24th, 2024 by Manlio Dinucci

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 mainstream has presented the G7 summit in Puglia, under Italian chairmanship, as some kind of grand social event, ignoring the Final Communiqué: a document of about 40 pages by which the G7 – composed of the 6 major NATO powers plus Japan, NATO’s main partner in East Asia – set out their agenda.

They denounce Russia for “the brutal and unjustifiable war of aggression against Ukraine, and for the blatant violation by it of international law and the fundamental principles that underlie the international order.” They then announce that

“the G7 will launch extraordinary loans in order to make approximately $50 billion in additional financing available for Ukraine by the end of the year, and that these loans will be repaid by revenues from the immobilization of Russian sovereign assets held in the European Union.”  

The G7 then declares that

“China’s continued support for Russia’s defense industrial base is enabling Russia to maintain its illegal war in Ukraine” and enjoins China to “cease transferring dual-use materials to Russia.” 

At the same time, the G7 accuses China of implementing “non-market policies and practices that are leading to global spillovers and harmful overcapacity in a growing range of sectors, undermining our workers, our industries, our economic resilience and our security.”

These and other passages of the Summit Communiqué clearly demonstrate what is at stake in the wars and war preparations that the United States and other major powers of the West are waging from Europe to the Middle East and East Asia, from Africa to Latin America. 

With such a strategy, the West seeks to preserve the dominance it is losing in the face of the emergence of a multipolar world. Suffice it to recall that the U.S. national debt has exceeded $34 trillion and will exceed $56 trillion in the next ten years.  

Manlio Dinucci (right)

The Bulletin of the U.S. Atomic Scientists warns, based on precise data, that

we are facing “a massive reconstruction of the entire U.S. nuclear arsenal, including new long-range land-based missiles, new submarines, new long-range stealth bombers that will carry the new stealth cruise missiles, and major upgrades to submarine-carried missiles. The total cost of all this, maintaining existing armaments, will be more than $1.2 trillion.”

*

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: Attribution: European Union

Gaza and Gazans Can’t Disappear

June 24th, 2024 by Barbara Nimri Aziz

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.

***

 

 

 

Do you sense that there is less and less news reaching us from the occupied Palestinian territories, expressly from Gaza? 

Do you feel what I fear: – that moral outrage by the world public has been spent?

That those millions of creative, passionate calls for a ceasefire have been exhausted? Or, that there’s simply nothing new to report, nothing that could possibly supersede the last massacre, the last failed negotiation, the last thwarted aid delivery?

Or is it simply our urgent summer plans with the family, school graduations, respite from blistering cities, finding a job or keeping this one, repairing the patio? College students who challenged our morality with determined demands, who remained steadfast when our endurance waned, are absent.

Police forces who brutalized and arrested protesters have shown their worth to their bosses. Colleagues fired for their audacity to support Palestinian rights are hardly mentioned. University presidents who survived political assaults and humiliation must feel relieved that nothing worse happened. Pro-Israel thugs who assaulted university encampments have slunk back to their dens. Alarmed Jewish citizens are assured of their safety, especially with a spate of new regulations speedily devised by companies and legislators to protect Israeli interests. While elsewhere lawsuits aim to smother activism by Palestinian and Muslim organizations in our democratic havens.

Some may be heartened by the resolve of nations outside the Israel-US-Europe axis. Scores of countries have stepped up to endorse the ICC’s decision to arrest Israeli leaders. South Africa and others press for compliance on ICJ’s ruling regarding Israel’s genocidal actions. In late May, BRICS+10 voted to sponsor a world conference on Palestine. A few governments newly recognize the nationhood of Palestine.

As for the besieged, bleeding, grieving and terrorized Palestinian camps and towns, far less news is seeping out from their shredded dwellings. Forget about mainstream media. If they are moved at all to report on Gaza, it will brief, and then only for another ghastly massacre —was it Nuseirat, Al-Shifa Hospital, the UN school, or a breadline waiting for precious food crumbs?

Increasing absence of information stems from Israel’s genocide agenda itself. Israeli forces have assassinated Palestinian journalists and threatened the staff of media companies, with many eventually withdrawing their correspondents from the field. Where Israel cannot censor foreign reporters, it bans them. For many months, live-feeds transmitted through Palestinians’ phones overcame barriers. Today, they are far fewer, probably because those citizen-journalists have vanished. Or Wi-Fi access from ‘Gaza’s killing fields’ is impossible.

While we desperately search for fragments of daily conditions of Palestinians, UN and other rights agencies offer synopses of their research:– hundreds of pages of data coldly summarizing deaths and deprivations, the breakdown of civil order, Israeli crimes of increasing magnitude and audacity, including how Israel tortures Palestinian prisoners. Among films documenting the past months’ torment is The Night Won’t End, a moving account by Al-Jazeera’s Laila Al-Arian. It captures what we already know but must re-know.

Official documentation of past crimes is surpassed by today’s revelations. Could conditions possibly worsen? Yes they could, and did.

American and European governments, despite mouthing justice and peace efforts, continue their wholehearted support of Israel.

Promises of aid are pulverized into Gaza’s blood-soaked desert.

The latest outrage: the Rafah crossing, Gaza’s thin lifeline for aid via Egypt, closed by Israel in May, as of this week is rendered non-functional due to massive Israeli military actions there. Israeli civilians have blocked other access routes and ransacked aid trucks. The US-constructed pier meant to deliver aid to Gazans by sea is broken and useless; there’s no information if it will ever be functional; it could be dismantled. As for the successive UN resolutions, passed with great effort and compromise, to censure Israel and force a ceasefire, we are told they are unenforceable. Look how the Israeli ambassador to the UN tore up the UN Charter inside the exalted chamber itself! As the majority of the world condemns it, Israel seems to double down, emboldened by the impotence of public protests globally, confident of their international backers. Israel seems more empowered than ever to heighten its campaign against Palestinians – apparently unrestrained. Except perhaps by Hamas fighters within Gaza who somehow manage to inflict serious casualties on Israeli troops and destroy tanks and personnel carriers.

*

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.

Featured image is from the author

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.

***

According to German media, Ukraine is close to receiving German “Frankenstein tanks.” The weapons are said to be hybrid arms, featuring elements from different operational systems. On the one hand, the move shows how Berlin remains committed to supporting the Kiev regime despite all the losses; on the other, it shows how the German defense industry is unable to meet Ukrainian military demands.

German military company Rheinmetall is expected to soon supply Kiev with air defense systems capable of shooting down Russian drones and missiles. These systems, however, are not being manufactured in a conventional way, following existing models of military equipment. Instead, parts from different weapons are being used to form a kind of “hybrid system” – nicknamed as a “Frankenstein tank.”

According to preliminary information, the “new” weapon is being developed with elements of the Skyranger anti-aircraft system, adding hulls from the Cold War-era Leopard 1 tanks. Furthermore, it is believed that the “Frankenstein tank” will be capable of hitting short-range targets, with the main focus being to shoot down enemy drones and missiles.

“There are still a lot of Leopard 1 battle tanks on whose chassis we could put the Skyranger turret with the 35 mm machine gun (…) Highly mobile, modular and scalable ground-based air defense systems are becoming increasingly important as NATO forces refocus on national and alliance defense,” Rheinmetall said in a press release.

A precise date has not yet been given for Kiev to receive the equipment, but operations to develop the weapons are believed to be taking place at Rheinmetall’s recently announced secret facility in western Ukraine. Given the logistical difficulties of sending weapons to Ukraine and the high amount of equipment damaged on the battlefield, the German company has decided to start operating inside Ukraine itself, focusing primarily on repairing weapons hit by Russian forces.

To date, at least 100 German Leopard 1 tanks have been delivered to Ukraine. Many, if not most, of them were quickly destroyed by Russian forces, which maintain control of airspace over most of the battlefield. Using low-cost drones, Moscow has been able to inflict irreversible damage on key Western weapons in Ukraine. With high manufacturing and maintenance costs, equipment such as Leopard and other NATO tanks have proven useless in the high-intensity conflict zone.

Of course, Western propaganda will try to report the “Frankenstein tank” news as something positive for Ukraine. According to Western newspapers, Kiev is receiving advanced and modern equipment capable of damaging Russian forces and promoting Ukrainian advances on the battlefield. But this is a baseless lie. In practice, the German measure is due to two specific factors: Germany’s inability to continue producing new equipment and the country’s distrust in supplying the Kiev regime with recent and technologically advanced weapons.

In a serious process of deindustrialization due to the energy crisis, Germany is having difficulties to maintain its military production at normal levels. The current conflict demands a constant high military production, since Ukraine loses hundreds of pieces of equipment every day. Therefore, instead of manufacturing new weapons, Germany is focusing on alternative strategies, such as repairing damaged arms and producing hybrid equipment from the parts of old weapons.

In the same vein, Kiev has been putting strong pressure on Germany and other NATO countries to provide more modern weapons with high destructive capacity and advanced technology. Berlin, however, does not seem to trust the Nazi regime, and has several objections to sending technologically advanced equipment. In addition to sending older weapons, mainly from the Cold War era, Berlin frequently sabotages military equipment sent to “help” Ukraine, reducing its technological capacity to prevent Ukrainian forces from stealing software. Since Kiev continues to insist on sending new materials, creating hybrid weapons, mixing old and new equipment, seems like an alternative for Germany to “please” Ukraine without giving it relevant military technology.

In the end, what Germany wants with these “Frankenstein tanks” is to find a cheap and safe way to continue helping Ukraine, even in the face of the severe losses it has recently suffered on the battlefield. Rather than a good gesture of support for Kiev, the move looks like an act of desperation – which will become increasingly frequent, given that the Ukrainian army is on the verge of collapse and European countries keep committed to systematically sending arms, regardless of the actual situation on the battlefield.

*

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. You can follow Lucas on X (former Twitter) and Telegram. He is a regular contributor to Global Research.

Featured image is from InfoBrics

Why Does the Government Borrow When It Can Print?

June 24th, 2024 by Ellen Brown

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 first seven months of Fiscal Year (FY) 2024, net interest (payments minus income) on the federal debt reached $514 billion, exceeding spending on both national defense ($498 billion) and Medicare ($465 billion). The interest tab also exceeded all the money spent on veterans, education, and transportation combined. Spending on interest is now the second largest line item in the federal budget after Social Security and the fastest growing part of the budget, on track to reach $870 billion by the end of 2024. 

According to the Congressional Budget Office, the federal budget deficit was $857 billion in the first seven months of fiscal year 2024. In effect, the government is borrowing at interest to pay the interest on its debt, compounding the debt. For the lender, it’s called “the miracle of compound interest” – interest on interest compounds exponentially. But for the debtor, it’s a curse, compounding like a cancer to the point of devouring assets while still growing the debt. As Daniel Amerman, a chartered financial analyst, writes in an article titled “Could A Compound Interest Wildfire Threaten U.S. Solvency?”:

[T]he greatest debt-related threat to the solvency of the United States government and the value of the dollar could be the fact that the U.S. isn’t actually making any net principal or interest payments on its debt. 

That is, the U.S. government is borrowing money to make the interest payments, even as it borrows to roll over the principal payments – even as it borrows still more to fund the general spending which is in excess of taxes collected.

This creates the risk of a potential compounding and acceleration of interest payments on that debt. …

In other words, the US government is effectively insolvent, absent some major changes. Which is exactly why we need to anticipate that there will be major changes.

The Committee for a Responsible Budget similarly concludes, “Without reforms to reduce the debt and interest, interest costs will keep rising, crowd out spending on other priorities, and burden future generations.” In fact, we are that future generation. The chickens have come home to roost. According to USDebtClock.org, the debt is now $34.8 trillionEstimates are that we would need to tax everyone at a rate of 40%, without deductions, to balance the budgets of our federal and local governments, an obvious nonstarter. Reforms are necessary, but of what sort?

Why Does the Government Borrow Its Own Currency?

This question was asked of economist Martin Armstrong, who responded:

The theory was that if you borrowed rather than printed money, you were NOT increasing the existing money supply, and therefore, in theory, it would not be inflationary. 

That would be true if the debt were paid back, but today the government does not repay the debt but just keeps rolling it over, paying off old bonds as they come due with new bonds – currently at higher interest rates. Armstrong concludes:

We borrow, which is worse than printing because we have to pay interest on constantly rolling the debt. This year, we will spend about $1 trillion on interest, the total national debt when Reagan took office in 1981 .…    

Had we printed the money instead of borrowing, it would have been less inflationary and the capital would have created more jobs instead of investing in government debt which has only funded the Neocons’ wildest dreams [which he explained as “establishing military bases everywhere”]. [Emphasis added.]

report issued by the Grace Commission during the Reagan Administration concluded that at that time, most federal income tax revenues went just to pay the interest on the government’s burgeoning debt. A cover letter addressed to President Reagan stated that a third of all income taxes were consumed by waste and inefficiency in the federal government. Another third of any taxes actually paid went to make up for the taxes not paid by tax evaders and the growing underground economy, a phenomenon that had blossomed in direct proportion to tax increases. The report concluded: 

With two-thirds of everyone’s personal income taxes wasted or not collected, 100 percent of what is collected is absorbed solely by interest on the Federal debt and by Federal Government contributions to transfer payments. In other words, all individual income tax revenues are gone before one nickel is spent on the services which taxpayers expect from their Government.  

As Thomas Edison observed in 1921:

If our nation can issue a dollar bond, it can issue a dollar bill. The element that makes the bond good, makes the bill good, also. The difference between the bond and the bill is that the bond lets money brokers collect twice the amount of the bond and an additional 20%, whereas the currency pays nobody but those who contribute directly in some useful way.

It is absurd to say that our country can issue $30 million in bonds and not $30 million in currency. Both are promises to pay, but one promise fattens the usurers and the other helps the people.

It is cheaper to print money outright than to borrow money at interest that is never repaid. The Greenbackers who marched on Washington in 1897 were right. We should be printing the money – not for speculative ventures (“unearned income”) but for productive endeavors. The Greenbackers sought a return to the system in which Lincoln’s government issued U.S. Notes or Greenbacks directly, in order to avoid a crippling debt to British bankers. They were marching for the economic producers — the farmers and factory workers, represented by the Scarecrow and Tin Man in The Wizard of Oz, which took its plot from that first-ever march on Washington.  

Won’t just printing the money result in hyperinflation? Not necessarily. Price inflation results from too much money chasing too few goods. When the money is used to create new goods and services, prices remain stable. This was demonstrated by the Chinese when they increased the money supply by a factor of 1800% (18 times) in the 23 years between 1996 and 2020. The new money went toward infrastructure and other forms of productivity, increasing GDP at the same rate; and price inflation remained consistently low during that period.

But hindsight is 20/20. What can be done now about the ballooning federal debt and interest bill? 

Possible Treasury Solutions

Hypothetically, the Treasury could buy back its debt. But under our current system, this would have to be done with more debt, at even higher interest rates. In fact the Treasury is doing that now, but in modest  proportions and for a different purpose. Its goal is to create a liquid market in long-term Treasuries, the sort of bonds that Silicon Valley Bank was forced to sell at a deep discount, generating insufficient funds to ward off the massive run on its deposits in March 2023. Nearly 200 banks were found to be in similar straits and equally vulnerable to runs. However, it would be counterproductive for the Treasury to buy back major portions of its debt with more debt at higher interest, which would just compound the debt and the interest burden. 

Alternatively, it could issue 35 trillion-dollar coins. 

The idea of minting large denomination coins to solve economic problems was evidently first suggested by a chairman of the Coinage Subcommittee of the U.S. House of Representatives in the early 1980s. He pointed out that the government could pay off its entire debt with some billion-dollar coins – effectively just “printing” or “coining” the money.  The Constitution gives Congress the power to coin money and regulate its value, and no limit is put on the value of the coins it creates. Of course, today these would need to be trillion dollar coins.

In legislation initiated in 1982, however, Congress chose to impose limits on the amounts and denominations of most coins. The one exception was the platinum coin, which a special provision allowed to be minted in any amount for commemorative purposes. 

In 2013, an attorney named Carlos Mucha, blogging under the pseudonym Beowulf, proposed issuing a platinum coin to capitalize on this loophole; and with the endless gridlock in Congress over the debt ceiling, it got picked up by serious economists as a way to checkmate the deficit hawks. Philip Diehl, former head of the U.S. Mint and co-author of the platinum coin law, confirmed that the coin would be legal tender:

In minting the $1 trillion platinum coin, the Treasury Secretary would be exercising authority which Congress has granted routinely for more than 220 years … under power expressly granted to Congress in the Constitution (Article 1, Section 8).

Minting trillion dollar coins evokes images of million-mark notes filling wheelbarrows. But as economist Michael Hudson observes:

Every hyperinflation in history has been caused by foreign debt service collapsing the exchange rate. The problem almost always has resulted from wartime foreign currency strains, not domestic spending.

Prof. Randall Wray explained that the coin would not circulate but would be deposited in the government’s account at the Fed, so it could not inflate the circulating money supply. The budget would still need Congressional approval. To keep a lid on spending, Congress would just need to abide by some basic rules of economics. It could spend on goods and services up to full employment without creating price inflation (since supply and demand would rise together). After that, it would need to tax — not to fund the budget, but to shrink the circulating money supply and avoid driving up prices with excess demand. 

If issuing 35  coins worth a trillion dollars each seems too radical, the Treasury could issue just one trillion-dollar coin annually, earmarked specifically to cover the interest. A similar hybrid approach worked for the Pennsylvania colonists when they formed their first government-owned bank in the early 18th century. Other colonies were issuing “Colonial scrip,” but it was easier to issue the scrip than to tax it back, and they typically issued too much, inflating the money supply and devaluing the currency. The Pennsylvania colonists formed a “land bank” and issued money as loans to the farmers at 5% interest. To cover the interest not created in the original loans, the government was able to issue paper scrip directly to fund its own budget. As a result, Pennsylvania became the most productive economy in the colonies. 

What About Tapping Up the Federal Reserve?

The Fed is in a position to issue money interest-free, not as the bank-created deposits circulating as our M2 money supply, but as the reserves needed by banks to meet interbank transfers and withdrawals. When the Fed buys federal securities, it is mandated to return the interest to the Treasury after deducting its costs. 

In 2011, Republican presidential candidate Ron Paul proposed dealing with the debt ceiling by simply voiding out the $1.7 trillion in federal securities then held by the Fed. As Stephen Gandel explained Paul’s solution in Time Magazine, the Treasury pays interest on the securities to the Fed, which returns 90% of these payments to the Treasury. Despite this shell game of payments, the $1.7 trillion in U.S. bonds owned by the Fed is still counted toward the debt ceiling. 

Paul’s plan: “Get the Fed and the Treasury to rip up that debt. It’s fake debt anyway. And the Fed is legally allowed to return the debt to the Treasury to be destroyed.”

Congressman Alan Grayson, a Democrat, also endorsed this proposal.

But since June 2022, the Fed has not been buying securities but has been selling those it already has, reducing its balance sheet in an effort to fight price inflation by shrinking the money supply through “quantitative tightening.” The central bank is considered “independent” of Congress, but arguably Congress could revise the Federal Reserve Act to require the Fed to buy federal securities.

A Financial Transaction Tax

Barring those alternatives, another possibility is a very small financial transaction tax. In a 2023 book titled A Tale of Two Economies: A New Financial Operating System for the American Economy, Wall Street veteran Scott Smith argues that we are taxing the wrong things – income and physical sales. In fact, we have two economies – the material economy in which goods and services are bought and sold, and the monetary economy involving the trading of financial assets (stocks, bonds, currencies, etc.) – basically “money making money” without producing new goods or services. 

Drawing on data from the Bank for International Settlements and the Federal Reserve, Smith shows that the monetary economy is hundreds of times larger than the physical economy. The budget gap could be closed by imposing a tax of a mere 0.1% on financial transactions, while eliminating not just income taxes but every other tax we pay today. For a financial transactions tax (FTT) of 0.25%, we could fund benefits we cannot afford today that would stimulate growth in the real economy, including not just infrastructure and development but free college, a universal basic income, and free healthcare for all. Smith contends we could even pay off the national debt in 10 years or less with a 0.25% FTT.  

Are these proposals too radical? Perhaps, but existential crises call for radical solutions.

*

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 first posted as an original to ScheerPost.com.

Ellen Brown is an attorney, co-chair of the Public Banking Institute, and author of thirteen books including Web of DebtThe Public Bank Solution, and Banking on the People: Democratizing Money in the Digital Age. She also co-hosts a radio program on PRN.FM called “It’s Our Money.” Her 400+ blog articles are posted at EllenBrown.com.

She 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.

***

Washington has spent $1.8 trillion over the 20-year failed military campaign in Afghanistan to defeat the Taliban, whilst aid to Ukraine in just a little more than two years has already reached $175 billion dollars, according to a Council on Foreign Relations report published on May 9. The American military-industrial complex is rejoicing at the rate of weapons being given to Ukraine as contracts for military orders to replace outdated weapons with new ones are being secured for many years to come. However, the profiteering of American weapon manufacturers is coming at an immense human cost in Ukraine.

The huge expenses in Afghanistan were attributed to the fact that tens of thousands of American troops were stationed in the landlocked country and fought there directly. However, in the current conflict, Ukrainian soldiers continue to die in a futile war with Russian forces and are merely being used as cannon fodder in Washington’s indirect war with Russia so American troops do not have to die like they did in Afghanistan.

Although the situation is desperate on the battlefront for Ukraine, the US military industrial complex will continue profiting after the Biden administration on June 20 allowed for air defences to be swiftly delivered to Ukraine by delaying certain weapons shipments to other countries, which White House spokesman John F. Kirby admitted was a “difficult but necessary decision” given Russian rapid advances.

Kirby explained that Ukraine had a critical need for Patriot interceptor missiles as Russia has accelerated attacks, adding that the “decision demonstrates our commitment to supporting our partners when they’re in existential danger.”

He clarified that Israel and Taiwan would not be affected by the redirected weapons shipments.

In effect, American weapons manufacturers have secured further contracts whilst countries that have made orders are forced to wait, demonstrating that the US cannot be trusted in such deals and that the situation for Ukraine is desperate. Yet, even as Ukraine economically struggles and suffers from a manpower shortage due to the hundreds of thousands that have been killed and the millions that have fled the country, US companies seek making further profit off the Ukraine war by building manufacturing plants in the country.

It is recalled that the US recently signed a bilateral security agreement with Ukraine and pledged to bolster the country’s defence industrial base, “including through cooperative defense research and development.”

Only earlier this month, Ukraine’s state-owned Ukroboronprom signed a memorandum with US-based Amentum Services to set up a joint enterprise to restore and maintain American-made armoured vehicles. Meanwhile, the Breaking Defense magazine reported on June 18 that American weapons manufacturer Northrop Grumman announced intentions to produce ammunition in Ukraine.

“We’ve been working, as you know, in Ukraine to produce medium (calibre munitions). That’s our first project that’s paid for with Ukrainian dollars,” said David Bartell, the company’s director of international business, during the Eurosatory arms show in Paris (June 17 to 21). “We are looking to expand that into tank ammo, 155 mm (artillery shells), others as we find innovative processes.”

Moscow estimated in February that the Ukrainian military had lost over 444,000 troops since the beginning of the special military operation, meaning that the number has easily surpassed half a million in the time since then. In effect, the Kiev regime is being drip fed weapons by Washington so that American weapon manufacturers can continue to profit off the war. The weapons received is never enough to be able to pushback Russian forces, even if manpower was not an issue, but is just enough so that the war can be prolonged and profited from.

The devastating loss of life Ukraine has experienced is the reason why the war is now futile, no matter which weapons arrive, and even efforts to mobilise hundreds of thousands of men have failed. The Conversation highlighted on June 13 that the plan to mobilise “hundreds of thousands of young Ukrainian men” has been met with “public skepticism, draft dodging and opposition to unpopular, heavy-handed attempts to root out those not heeding the call to sign up,” which has “left Ukraine struggling to fill the positions officials say are needed to beat back the invading army.”

Despite the Kiev regime committing demographic suicide by continuing the war, there is evidently greater interest in enriching the American military industrial complex. Although the positives can be propagated as job opportunities for desperate Ukrainians, Bloomberg on June 1 pointed out “Ukraine’s manpower shortage is beginning to bite” and is “sapping the productivity of the war-battered nation’s factory floors, construction sites, mines and restaurants.” Ukraine just simply does not have enough people to win the war or to run its economy and industry, but this issue has not stopped American weapon companies from signing contracts and making great profit.

*

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.

***

The official Swiss-sponsored “Ukraine Peace Conference” took place on the lush Swiss Burgenstock Resort on the Lake of Lucerne, to which deliberately Russia, one of the two most important “players” was not invited. That is unforgivable.

Indeed, the result was a total failure. Two days after the Burgenstock Meet, the media were silenced – not a word anymore about the Burgenstock event.

Switzerland was warned about not inviting Russia by several influential countries, and their leaders, including Brazil’s President Lula da Silva and Saudi’s de facto ruler, Mohammed bin Salman – and others – that they would not attend the Swiss event, since nothing constructive could come of it, without Russia being at the table.

See this for more details. 

On 12 June, three days before the start of the official Summit, we, a group of friends and peace activists, friends of Real Peace, organized an informal but REAL Peace Conference in Flühli, Switzerland. We called it “Mutual Peace Engagement – Conference” (MPEC).

Image: Alec Gagneux, conference organizer (Screenshot from the video below)

In the MPEC participated international experts with ample experience on the ground in Ukraine, as well as in Russia. They included a Russian-Swiss Journalist, representing Russian interests; a former US CIA agent, with decades of international experience and representing US interests, as well as retired high-level Swiss and German army officers, who had years of on-the-ground knowledge, in the region, especially in Ukraine and Russia.

Interestingly, the MPEC participants attempted to invite also a representative from Ukraine, but were unlucky. All potential candidates declined, answering almost unanimously: Too dangerous for potentially expressing an opinion which may not be in line with the Zelenskyy policy. They mentioned possible reprisals against themselves and / or their families.

The participants at the MPEC also were aware of history, what led to the Maidan Coup in 2014, who orchestrated it – and that, indeed, the war started already in 2014, what Mr. Stoltenberg, NATO Secretary General said on several occasions, thereby admitting that it was not Russia’s interference – NOT invasion – in the Donbass Region of Ukraine, that prompted the current war.

This historic point was clearly made by the US representative who spoke to the Conference by Zoom from the United States.

This sort of momentous perspective was not even discussed at the official Swiss-sponsored conference, let alone taken into account, in the summits conclusions.

*

The MPEC does not pretend having the perfect solution. Such may never exist, but the MPEC worked towards a proposal that may come close enough that with compromises a Peace Accord could be achieved.

For example, in April 2022, Turkey sponsored a Peace Conference at which all parties were present, including Ukraine, represented by President Zelenskyy, a potential Peace Agreement was reached, where all parties were ready to sign, including President Putin and President Zelenskyy. In a last-minute intervention, Boris Johnson, then PM of the UK, called Zelenskyy not to sign the accord.

It was then clear; the West was not interested in Peace, and President Zelenskyy was not autonomous, was not leading a sovereign country.

The same today – the West is not interested in Peace. The West wants to continue what they believe and wish, weakening Russia, for eventually taking over the largest (surface) and richest (resources) country of the world. Ukraine is the perfect platform for this proxy-war of the US against Russia.

Maybe more important, or equally important, is this:

“WAR is a racket. It always has been. It is possibly the oldest, easily the most profitable, surely the most vicious. It is the only one international in scope. It is the only one in which the profits are reckoned in dollars and the losses in lives.” —quote from a 1935 speech by Smedley D. Butlera retired United States Marine Corps Major General and two-time Medal of Honor recipient.

This is as true today as it was then. Killing is the most profitable business, just ahead of drug trading and human trafficking.

During the recent SPIEF (St. Petersburg International Economic Forum) Conference in St. Petersburg, a journalist asked President Putin, what it would take to come to a Peace Agreement in Ukraine. Mr. Putin replied something to the effect that the agreement reached in April 2022 in Istanbul, boycotted by Boris Johnson, would be a good basis; of course, many things have happened since then, and a potential agreement would have to be updated accordingly.

Part of the update might probably include the four Russian / Russian-speaking territories currently under Russia’s protective control. Let us not forget, since the Maidan Coup on 22 February 2014, Kiev’s Azov battalions, also called the “Right Sector”, have killed about 14,000 to 17,000 Russians (17,000 is the latest Russian figure) in these areas, mostly women and children.

See this 12 minute-video composite summary of the most crucial points made at the MPEC meeting in Flühli.

The MPEC looked at the 2022 Istanbul draft agreement and conditions, which were found quite reasonable by all participants, including representatives of Russia and the US. The MPEC then came up with the following key points be necessary to achieve Peace:

1. An immediate Ceasefire – along the current frontier lines – towards a lasting Peace Agreement. The latter could be brokered by a neutral country – China has offered her diplomatic services. Other alternatives, might include, Hungary, Serbia, the Check Republic, others….or a committee of a combination of several countries.

2. Establishment of a buffer zone along the Russian – Ukraine border.

3. Autonomy of the new Russian-controlled territories, possibly incorporation into the Russian Federation for Donbas Region, as well as newly gained predominantly Russian / Russian-speaking territories; possibly another referendum of the people of these territories.

4. No further discussion about Crimea and the port city of Sevastopol. They voted in March 2014 overwhelmingly (over 90%) to become part of the Russian Federation which the Duma (Russian Parliament) ratified.

5. No NATO or other foreign troops in Ukraine.

6. Demilitarization of Ukraine – no more Western weapon deliveries.

7. No nuclear war heads in Ukraine, ever.

8. Denazification of Ukraine – Azov and related “Bandera-type” groups, the “Right Sector”, are to be forbidden. Just as a reminder, Ukraine Nazi troops fought with Hitler during WWII against Russia and are responsible for hundreds of thousands of Russian deaths.

9. No “land-grabbing” by Western corporations, so that Ukraine, once free and autonomous from any occupation, will be a sovereign Ukraine for sovereign Ukrainian people.

10. Neutrality for Ukraine – a sovereign state, free to deal and have relations with East and West.

11. Bringing war crimes / criminals to justice.

12. Establishment of a multi-national supervisory commission – suggested 5 years, renewable, if necessary.

13. Creation of a Truth and Reconciliation Commission – for the people to be sociologically and psychologically able to deal with the damages of the conflict.

The MPEC suggests on purpose NOT to engage the political UN in matters of Peace Agreement and / or its supervision, as the UN is, at present, not neutral, but in the hands of Big Finance and in an alliance with the WEF – which is in turn controlled by Big Finance and elite billionaire oligarchs.

*

In addition, the MPEC formulated suggestions for long-term Peace enhancement.

Preamble: All political big shots, financial oligarchs and other power-brokers calling for war – should first, before anybody else – go to the front and fight as soldiers – taking and experiencing the risk of being maimed or killed. That rule might stop ALL WARS for good.

i) An immediate and supervised Ceasefire is precondition for a lasting “Mutual Peace Agreement”.

ii) Internationally observed ban of weapon deliveries to warrying parties – worldwide; enhancement of Rule 70, of the International Humanitarian Law (IHL), which is part of international law; the body of rules governing relations between Nation States.

iii) War propaganda must be banned – EVERWHERE – schools, media, governments…under application of existing international laws (1992).

iv) UN-organized (type UNWRA) food and medical assistance to war-suffering populations, as well as UNHCR-facilitated repatriation of refugees.

v) Lifting of and banning ALL sanctions worldwide. Sanctions are weaponized trade and travel restrictions. Sanctions violate the rules of International Law (see 1, above).

vi) (a) Setting up a War Crimes Tribunal for prosecuting war criminals, and (b) no immunity for war crimes for ANYBODY, including politicians.

vii) Establishment of a “Truth and Reconciliation Commission” – like others created in conflict areas, to reconcile grievances.

viii) Abolish NATO and its sub-organizations. The North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) was created in 1949 in Washington DC, with the US, Canada, and several European countries to provide collective security against the Western “perceived” threat from the Soviet Union. At best, NATO could be justified during the post-WWII, as counterpart of the USSR-established Warshaw Pact, until 1991, when the Soviet Union was collapsed, and the Warshaw Pact dissolved.

After this date, the continuation of NATO cannot be justified by any means. Therefore, NATO has become and acts like a Western war-driving machine, an aggressor, not a defense organization. NATO has long ago trespassed its transatlantic borders, as it creates conflicts and aggression around the world with impunity.

ix) Working out an economic- and monetary system, which enhances PEACE instead of WARS. Remember – “WAR is a racket.” – see above, by Smedley D. Butler.

x) [Foreign] land grabbing must be prohibited. A new sovereign Ukraine belongs to the free and sovereign Ukrainian population.

xi) Environmental protection: The 2015 Paris Environment / Climate Accord, in a semi-clandestine rule, exempts CO2 exhausts and other pollutants from military (and four other economic sectors) to be considered in the Accord’s targets. War and other military / conflict activities are arguably by far the largest the world’s polluters and creators of greenhouse gases. So, this rule must be brought to light and abandoned.

If the thus revised environment and climate rules would apply, wars would disappear.

xii) Germany and most European countries are by their Constitution prohibited to associate with NAZI-Regimes. Germany, as of this date, has no Peace Agreement with the Allies after WWII, but is still an occupied country under an Armistice Agreement. Germany has therefore no Constitution per se, but a “Grundgesetz” – a national Basic Law which bans Germany from associating locally and internationally with Nazism.

*

This list of suggestions for enhancement of lasting Peace, may not be complete, and the items may not appear in order of priority. Some of them appear as repetitions of points mentioned for a Ukraine-Russia Peace Agreement. They are merely an enhancement of these Peace conditions.

It is the Mutual Peace Engagement – Conference’s believe that adhering to the Peace Agreement Conditions, and the suggested enhancement rules – might lead to a lasting Peace.

*

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

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.

***

“Playing God: An Investigation into Medical Democide in the UK” is a documentary film investigating allegations of harmful medical practices and policies in the U.K. health care system

The film critically examines the unethical and potentially deadly use of medical protocols and medications in the National Health Service (NHS), suggesting they have led to patient harm and deaths under the guise of government policies

The documentary features testimonials from families affected by these dangerous practices, as well as analyses from medical professionals and legal experts

“Medical democide,” — death or harm caused by government policies or health care practices — appears widespread in the NHS

The film suggests that systemic issues deeply ingrained in NHS protocols hinder the delivery of humane care, from birth to the end of life

*

“Playing God: An Investigation into Medical Democide in the UK” is a documentary film that explores allegations of harmful medical practices and policies in the U.K. health care system.

Directed by Ash Mahmood and Naeem Mahmood, and co-produced by Phil Graham and investigative journalist Jacqui Deevoy, the film critically examines the unethical and potentially deadly use of medical protocols and medications in the National Health Service (NHS), suggesting they have led to patient harm and deaths under the guise of government policies.

The documentary features testimonials from families affected by these dangerous practices, as well as analyses from medical professionals and legal experts, aiming to shed light on “medical democide,” — death or harm caused by government policies or health care practices. The film suggests that systemic issues deeply ingrained in the NHS hinder the delivery of humane care, from birth to the end of life.

NHS Has Become a ‘Killing Machine’

“In the last 30 years,” says Kevin Corbett, Ph.D., in the film, “you can see good evidence that the National Health Service has become the killing machine.”1 He explains:2

“Toward the end of the 1980s, in medical, nursing and health care practice, the development of evidence-based medicine was seen as very positive. And evidence-based medicine sounded really good, because the idea was doctors, nurses and health care practitioners are not basing their clinical practice on much evidence or the best evidence or any evidence.

So, hey, let’s make some evidence, let’s look at what really works and apply it. It sounds so believable and so benign.

And, hey, presto, by the 1990s, doctors, nurses and all health care professionals practice was being geared by protocols and shaped by protocols. And once those protocols were instituted, it became very difficult for doctors, nurses and other health care professionals to use their own clinical acumen with patients.

The had to follow protocols, and in those protocols you’ve seen the administration of drugs like midazolam in dosages that are potentially lethal.”

Nurse Elena Vlaica details how her husband, Stuart, was “euthanized in hospital in November 2021” after going in for shortness of breath and a possible chest infection. She believes he was punished for not receiving a COVID-19 shot and put on an end-of-life care pathway that led to his death, instead of being provided with proper medical care.

In addition to withdrawing his blood pressure medications and antidepressants, Stuart was denied food or water for 11 days.3 Vlaica told Magzter:4

“I found out later, he’d had a DNR [do not resuscitate order] put on him. The reason given for that in his notes, which I managed to get with the help of a solicitor, was that he possibly had COVID and was unvaccinated. He’d also been put on midazolam and morphine without either of our consent.

I only discovered this later, when I saw his notes, and also found out that he’d been put on ‘fast-track end of life care,’ which was introduced at the start of the pandemic and allowed a consultant to decide whether a patient lives or dies.”

Because of COVID-19 restrictions, Vlaica wasn’t allowed to visit and didn’t know Stuart was put on the end-of-life care pathway. She later learned that he had tried to escape from the hospital four times, put medics pinned him down and sedated him using midazolam, a sedative drug often used in the U.S. for execution via lethal injection.5 Because it doesn’t relieve pain, an opioid such as morphine is usually added in. Deevoy wrote:6

“The day of Stuart’s death is the stuff of horror movies. On November 6, 2021 at 1 p.m., Elena had a call from the hospital to let her know that her Stuart was dying. When she arrived, Elena could see he was heavily sedated. ‘He looked like he was in a coma. I know now he was in a midazolam coma. I was kissing him and I could see his saturation levels improving.

He knew I was there and I knew he was fighting for his life. When the junior doctor saw me looking at the monitor, she switched it off. At that moment a nurse appeared with five 10ml syringes on a blue tray. She pushed two of them into Stuart’s canula, he took three breaths, then died in my arms. I shouted, ‘She’s killed him!’ then broke down. I don’t remember getting home that night.’”

Man Who Died From COVID-19 Shot Was Told He Had a Migraine

Another tragic story from the documentary is told by Vikki Spit, whose partner Zion died from a brain bleed caused by the AstraZeneca COVID-19 shot. His symptoms — an excruciating headache — started just eight days after he received the shot. After calling paramedics and being told Zion had a migraine, his condition worsened.

Spit called paramedics again two days later when Zion couldn’t get out of bed and began slurring his speech. He suffered a seizure and, at the hospital, was found to have a brain injury caused by a hemorrhage due to the COVID-19 shot.

“The neurosurgeon rang me and said they’d had to remove a massive piece of skull because the pressure on his brain was enormous,” Spit said. “They said they’d never seen anything like it — they didn’t expect him to wake up, and if he did he’d be in a vegetative state. And they said they thought it was caused by the AstraZeneca vaccine … If they had recognized what it was when I called them the first time, he would still be alive.”7

Medical Mistakes, Coverups Resulted in Avoidable Deaths

Other stories, including from Anne and Graeme Dixon, recount serious medical mistakes and coverups by NHS staff, including the death of Elizabeth Dixon at just 11 months old. In addition to misdiagnosing and managing Elizabeth’s high blood pressure, which led to permanent brain damage, she died from asphyxiation after her tracheostomy tube wasn’t cleared properly.8 Speaking to The Independent, Anne Dixon said:9

“Along our 19-year journey to find the truth, we have been failed by every agency possible. We have had to spend many years working tirelessly ourselves to gather and piece together the evidence of what happened to Lizzie and the 19-year cover-up that ensued. It is inconceivable to us that not one of these earlier agencies knew, or suspected, the truth. The evidence was there. We have been treated appallingly.”

Another mother, Joan Bye, whose daughter Helenor died after being treated for misdiagnosed epilepsy, stated, “She suffered much, she died needlessly, she could have been saved, but she was murdered by the state.”10

The Liverpool Care Pathway Is a ‘Pathway to Euthanasia’

Anna De Buisseret, a UK lawyer who used to work for Pfizer as an external management consultant, said, “The moment they go into hospital they’re being put on to these hospital protocols, which dictate which drugs, which treatment, they’re going to receive. And it’s a one-size-fits-all blanket policy.”11

It’s also a pathway to euthanasia for many. Deevoy previously ousted the scandal in another documentary film, “A Good Death? The Midazolam Murders.” She realized something was wrong when a DNR was put on her dad while he was in a care home.

“So, I spoke to a whistleblower doctor,” Deevoy said. “She told me they were being put on people who were over 60 — they were classed as elderly. She told me they were being put on people with mental health issues, people with physical disabilities, even on children with autism.”12

Continuing a death protocol put in place by the Liverpool Care Pathway, victims’ families allege the NHS is responsible for the involuntary euthanasia of up to 457 people per day, without the consent of patients or their caregivers — deaths often attributed to COVID pneumonia.13

The Liverpool Care Pathway for the Dying Patient (LCP) was a government protocol used in England and Wales to “improve end-of-life care.”14 Developed in the 1990s, the protocol was meant to provide best practice guidelines during a patient’s final days, and included guidance on symptom control, discontinuation of treatments and psychological, social and spiritual care.15

What occurred instead was a “pathway to euthanasia,” during which patients were drugged and deprived of food, water and medical treatments, even in cases when recovery may have been possible. The LCP was abolished in 2014, following public uproar and a government-commissioned review, which criticized its practices.16

End-of-Life Pathway ‘Has to Stop’

Even after LCP was abolished, however, reports continued from families who said their loved ones were put on the pathway and died as a result.17 Father Patrick Pullicino, retired neurologist and Catholic priest, states in “Playing God,” “We need patients to be able to face death in a natural way and not in a manufactured way.” Regarding the end-of-life pathway, Pullicino says:18

“It’s undermining medical ethics, because you have doctors who subscribe to the Hippocratic Oath and who would in no way voluntarily kill somebody, allowing these pathways to be used on their patients because they are ‘end of life.’ They used to audit the pathway very carefully, and they found that the average time to death from the time starting the pathway to the time the person died was about 39 hours. It really has to stop.”

The film gives a voice to the victims and their families, Deevoy says, but, ultimately, she hopes it will serve as a wake-up call to prompt change:19

“’Playing God’ serves as a wake-up call, urging society to stand against medical democide. It aims to raise awareness, encourage dialogue and demand accountability from those responsible … the film strives to create a lasting impact and initiate positive change within the U.K. healthcare system.”

Watch the documentary film below.

*

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, 2, 11 Children’s Health Defense, Playing God Movie April 17, 2024, 24:17

3, 4 Magzter July 2023

5 The New York Times March 8, 2022

6 Jacqui Deevoy, July 24, 2023

7 Chronicle Live June 26, 2021

8 BBC November 26, 2020

9 Independent November 26, 2020

10 The Solari Report April 20, 2024

12 Rumble, A Good Death? The Midazolam Murders, 1:11

13 Rumble, A Good Death? The Midazolam Murders, 14:06

14 Version 2. Wellcome Open Res. 2018; 3: 15., Abstract

15 Br J Gen Pract. 2013 Oct; 63(615): 509–510

16 The Guardian July 15, 2013

17 Daily Mail December 16, 2015

18 Children’s Health Defense, Playing God Movie April 17, 2024, 55:00

19 Children’s Health Defense April 22, 2024


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.

***

America’s addiction to nuclear weapons does not lend itself to deterrence-based stability. It only leads to war.

“That’s great, it starts with an earthquake…”

There’s nothing like a classic 1980’s rock song to get one’s blood up and running, and REM’s 1987 classic, It’s the End of the World as We Know It (And I Feel Fine), fits the bill just right on this hot and muggy summer day.

The only problem is, the song might as well be prophesy, because from where I sit, taking in the news about the rapidly escalating nuclear arms race between the United States and Russia, it very much looks like the end of the world as we know it.

And I don’t feel fine.

The news isn’t good. Last month, on May 6, the Russian Ministry of Defense announced that it would, on the orders of Russian President Vladimir Putin, conduct exercises involving the use of non-strategic nuclear weapons. According to Russian officials, the exercises were a response to “provocative statements and threats from certain Western officials directed at the Russian Federation.”

The Russians were responding to statements made by French President Emmanuel Macron to The Economist on May 2, where he declared that

“I’m not ruling anything out [when it comes to deploying French troops to Ukraine], because we are facing someone [Putin] who is not ruling anything out.” Macron added that “if Russia decided to go further [advancing in Ukraine], we will in any case all have to ask ourselves this question (whether to send of troops).”

While Macron described his remarks as a “strategic wake-up call for my counterparts,” it was clear not everyone was buying into what he was selling. “If a NATO member commits ground troops [to Ukraine],” Hungarian Foreign Minister Peter Szijjarto said after Macron’s words became public, “it will be a direct NATO-Russia confrontation, and then it will be World War III.”

The Russians conducted their exercises in two phases, with the first taking place in late May. There, the tactical missile forces of the Southern Military District practiced “the task of obtaining special training ammunition for the Iskander tactical missile system, equipping them with launch vehicles and secretly moving to the designated position area to prepare for missile launches.”

The Iskander-M is the nuclear-capable version of the Iskander family of missiles and can carry a single nuclear warhead with a variable yield of between 5 and 50 kilotons. (By way of comparison, the American atomic bomb dropped on Hiroshima had a yield of 15 kilotons.) The single-stage solid rocket missile flies at high hypersonic speeds, and possesses a maneuvering warhead, making it virtually impossible to shoot down. With a range of 500 kilometers, the Iskander-M, when fired from locations in Crimea, would be able to reach French bases located in Romania, which ostensibly would be used to surge forces into Ukraine.

The second phase of the exercises took place on June 10, when the Russian and Belorussian forces practiced the transfer of Russian nuclear weapons to Belorussian control as part of the new Russian nuclear sharing doctrine put in place by Vladimir Putin and his Belorussian counterpart, Alexander Lukashenko, earlier this year. The weapons involved included the Iskander-M missile and gravity bombs that would be delivered by modified Belorussian SU-25 aircraft. The weapons would put all of Poland and the Baltic States under the threat of nuclear attack.

Belorussian SU-25 aircraft

Around the same time that Russia was carrying out its tactical nuclear drills, several NATO nations, including Germany, announced that they had given Ukraine the green light to use weapons it had provided to strike targets inside Russia. NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg, speaking on the sidelines of a NATO foreign ministers meeting in Prague on May 29, said Ukraine had the right to strike legitimate military targets inside Russia.

“Ukraine has the right for self-defense,” Stoltenberg declared, adding that “we have the right to help Ukraine uphold the right for self-defense, and that does not make NATO allies a party to the conflict.”

Putin took time from his visit to Uzbekistan to reply, warning that NATO members in Europe were playing with fire by proposing to let Ukraine use Western weapons to strike deep inside Russia. Putin said Ukrainian strikes on Russia with long-range weapons would need Western satellite, intelligence and military assistance, thus making any Western help in this regard a direct participant in the conflict.

“Constant escalation can lead to serious consequences,” Putin said. “If these serious consequences occur in Europe, how will the United States behave, bearing in mind our parity in the field of strategic weapons? It’s hard to say,” Putin said, answering his own question. “Do they want a global conflict?”

On June 5, speaking to an audience of senior editors of international news agencies while attending the Saint Petersburg International Economic Forum, Putin observed that,

“For some reason, the West believes that Russia will never use it [nuclear weapons]. We have a nuclear doctrine,” Putin noted. “Look what it says. If someone’s actions threaten our sovereignty and territorial integrity, we consider it possible for us to use all means at our disposal. This should not be taken lightly, superficially.”

But the US and NATO were doing just that. In an interview to the British Telegraph newspaper given at NATO’s headquarters building in Brussels, Belgium, Stoltenberg said that NATO members were consulting about deploying more nuclear weapons, taking them out of storage and placing them on standby in the face of a growing threat from Russia and China.

“I won’t go into operational details about how many nuclear warheads should be operational and which should be stored, but we need to consult on these issues,” Stoltenberg said.

American technicians with a pair of B61 nuclear bombs

The only nuclear weapons currently in the NATO system are some 150 US-controlled B61 gravity bombs stored at six NATO bases: Kleine Brogel in Belgium, Büchel Air Base in Germany, Aviano and Ghedi Air Base in Italy, Volkel Air Base in the Netherlands and Incirlik in Turkey. NATO officials later clarified Stoltenberg’s remarks, saying there were no significant changes to the NATO nuclear posture, noting that Stoltenberg’s comments referred to the modernization of NATO’s nuclear deterrent, including the replacement of F-16 jets with F-35 stealth fighters, and the modernization of some of the B61 bombs currently deployed in Europe.

Stoltenberg’s comments to the Telegraph came 10 days after Pranay Vaddi, the senior director for arms control at the National Security Council, announced a “new era” for nuclear arms in which the US would deploy nuclear weapons “without numerical constraints.”

Stoltenberg’s statements, when viewed in the context of Vaddi’s declaration, points to a dangerous shift in focus within both NATO and the US away from the concept of nuclear weapons representing a force of deterrence, and instead increasingly being seen in the West as a usable weapon of war.

The concept of deterrence as the sole justification for the existence of nuclear weapons dates back to 1978, when the United Nations General Assembly held its first Special Session on Disarmament. One of the main ideas to emerge from this event was the notion of so-called negative security assurances, or NSAs, in which the declared nuclear-armed states committed to not using nuclear weapons against non-nuclear weapon states that were in good standing with the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) and not otherwise aligned with a nuclear-armed state.

These NSAs furthered the notion of nuclear deterrence as a formal binding doctrine among nuclear-armed states, operating on the idea that since nuclear weapons could only be used against a nuclear-armed state, and that any such use would lead to the mutual destruction of the involved parties, therefore the only rational purpose for the existence of nuclear weapons was to deter those nations that also possessed them from ever using them in the first place.

From this foundational understanding emerged modern concepts of nuclear disarmament which framed the arms control policies of the United States and the Soviet Union that emerged in the 1980’s and 1990’s—since the sole purpose of nuclear weapons was deterrence, it was in the best interest of all parties to a) significantly reduce their respective nuclear arsenals and b) implement policies designed to normalize relations to the point that nuclear arsenals became moot.

Barack Obama and Dmitry Medvedev sign the New START Treaty in 2010

The collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991, however, ushered in a new post-Cold War reality which saw the notion of a nuclear “balance” where the US and Soviets operated as equals being replaced by a doctrine of “managed supremacy” which saw the US use the mechanisms of arms control and disarmament to promote and sustain its position as the world’s dominant nuclear power. Arms control ceased being a concept premised on equitable deterrence, and instead became a tool designed to subordinate the nuclear capabilities of the Russian Federation that emerged from the ashes of the Soviet Empire to those of the newly-minted American hegemon.

The US began deconstructing the foundation of arms control treaties that had been negotiated on the premise of sustaining a nuclear deterrence-based balance of power, first by using the Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (START) process as a mechanism to promote the unilateral disarmament of the Russian strategic arsenal, and later by withdrawing from the Anti-Ballistic Missile (ABM) treaty that had served as the foundational agreement around which the concept of mutually assured destruction (MAD) was framed.

Deterrence theory is viable only so long as MAD is viewed as the inevitable outcome of any nuclear conflict. By re-embracing the notion of viable ballistic missile defense, the US undermined the premise enshrined in MAD, namely that to use nuclear weapons was to invite your own demise. The US now operated in a world where it embraced deterrence theory only in so far as it deterred other nations from attacking the US with nuclear weapons. From the US perspective, assured destruction was a dated notion, one that was replaced by the concept of a “winnable” nuclear war.

The proactive utility of nuclear weapons form the standpoint of US nuclear doctrine, as expressed in the US Nuclear Posture Review (NPR) of 2010, where the US, while continuing to commit not to “use, or threaten to use, nuclear weapons against [NPT-compliant] non-nuclear-weapon states,” declared that “there remains a narrow range of contingencies in which US nuclear weapons may still play a role in deterring a conventional or [chemical and biological weapons] attack.”

Subsequent NPRs have expanded on this notion, incorporating the possibility of US nuclear retaliation against cyber attacks and other non-WMD linked events. The proactive nature of the US nuclear posture was such that when a senior Trump administration official involved in making nuclear policy declared that the goal of the administration of President Donald Trump was to have the Chinese and Russians waking up every morning not knowing whether of not “this was the day the US nuked them,” one simply could not write off the statement as ill-conceived hyperbole, but rather recognize it as part and parcel of ill-conceived nuclear policy.

Russian President Vladimir Putin, however, is not one to wake up in the morning afraid of a potential US nuclear attack. Speaking recently from Hanoi, Putin said “They [the US and NATO] seem to think that at some point we will get scared. But at the same time, they also say they want to achieve a strategic defeat of Russia on the battlefield.” Putin then ominously remarked that, “It means the end of the 1,000-year history of the Russian state. I think this is clear to everyone. Isn’t it better to go all the way, until the end?”

Accusing the West of “lowering the threshold” for the use of nuclear weapons against Russia, Putin declared that Russia must now reconsider its own nuclear posture considering NATO’s apparent willingness to make operational tactical nuclear weapons—a clear reference to Jens Stoltenberg’s June 16 comments. Russia last published its nuclear weapons doctrine, formally known as “Basic Principles of State Policy on Nuclear Deterrence,” in 2020. This doctrine declares that Russia could use nuclear weapons if an enemy “threatened the existence of the Russian state” in response to an enemy’s use of weapons of mass destruction against Russia or its allies, or if Russia received credible information that a nuclear strike was being planned or about to take place.

Putin, in his Hanoi remarks, downplayed the notion of Russia embracing a policy of nuclear preemption. “We don’t need a preventive strike,” Putin said, “because with a retaliatory strike the enemy is guaranteed to be destroyed.”

When asked by reporters whether Ukraine’s use of Western long-range weapons against Russian territory could be considered an act of aggression and a direct threat to the Russian state, Putin replied “This requires additional research, but it’s close.”

Too damn close.

The United States and Russia are drifting closer and closer to all-out nuclear war. It is high time that the people who would pay the ultimate price for such folly decide, to borrow from the poetry of Dylan Thomas, if they want to go “gently into the night” of nuclear Armageddon, or instead “rage, rage against the dying of the light” by demanding better policy from their respective governments.

As for me, I choose rage.

There will be an event dedicated to stopping this mad rush toward on September 28, in Kingston, New York. Gerald Celente is putting this together, along with a coalition of like-minded citizen patriots.

We hope to organize sister events in cities across the country.

We want to put more than a million Americans into the streets that day, focused on one thing and one thing only—stop the madness of nuclear war.

Will you join us?

Or will you stay at home and listen to the music of the collective versions of modern-day Nero’s, fiddling while America and the rest of the world burns.

You vitriolic, patriotic, slam fight, bright light

Feeling pretty psyched

It’s the end of the world as we know it…

But not if I can help it.

*

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: Russian Iskander-M nuclear missile (Source: Scott Ritter Extra)


WWIII ScenarioTowards a World War III Scenario: The Dangers of Nuclear War” 

by Michel Chossudovsky

Available to order from Global Research! 

ISBN Number: 978-0-9737147-5-3
Year: 2012
Pages: 102

PDF Edition:  $6.50 (sent directly to your email account!)

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

Reviews

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

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

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

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 Bubble

The AI Bubble is in full swing, sucking all attention and trillions of dollars into itself.

The CEO Sam Altman from OpenAI travels the World to ask for $ 7 trillion for investment into AI and related technologies, including new chip factories, humongous datacenters, land, and even nuclear power to run AI’s insatiable appetite for energy. Yes, $ 7 trillion. This is more than the entire US federal budget in 2023, which at “only” $ 6 trillion is already too big to finance sustainably for the USA, the biggest economy in the World (measured in GDP).

The stock value of NVIDIA, the leading designer of number-crushing chips for AI in a matter of months just tripled its value to $ 2 trillion.

The $ 2 trillion is more than the GDP of most countries, and NVIDIA makes only chips – in fact, NVIDIA primarily makes only one kind of chips, which dominating use js for AI. Something is clearly out of proportion here. Microsoft has reached a market value of $ 3 trillion, also mostly based on Microsoft’s connection with OpenAI and investors’ hopes and dreams that Microsoft’s world-conquering program to build AI data centers to control the Globe will become profitable. And so we can go on. Amazon. Meta-Facebook. Google. Oracle. IBM. Their stock values all ride the AI bubble – promising trillions and trillions at the end of the rainbow.

What we see before our eyes is an investment bubble of historic proportions, all driven by the AI narrative.

The AI narrative is that AI is a wizard technology which is going to grow at unprecedented speed – and grow forever – to make everybody extremely rich (except those who lose their jobs, of course).   

AI = Deficient Technology

AI can do a lot of things, and often surprisingly so.

But the positive surprises brought by AI hide the fact, that AI is a completely deficient technology today.

You just cannot trust AI in a professional context for a lot of purposes, probably even for most purposes.

Who cares greatly about AI suggesting you a cookbook recipe, a workout program, or a little short story? You can get this in so many other ways, including by using the internet already available and your own imagination. The big promise of AI is the tantalizing narrative that it will revolutionize EVERYTHING – especially everything in technology, business, military etc. And in that – so far – AI falls far from the mark.

Let’s just pick a few of the grotesque examples how AI underwhelms and becomes even dangerous if you trust it.

We could start softly with the image generator of Microsoft’s Bing. Ask it to “paint an image of French President Macron as a French king in the style of Picasso”.

Immediately, the “liberal” nanny & censorship state running the US and Microsoft kicks in and finds that your request is “offensive”.

Come on, this is clearly within the freedom of speech allowed by the US Constitution – and actually, it is only a very mild irony, perhaps not even negative, but tongue-in-cheek.

But nope, AI decides that YOU are not allowed to do it.

Okay, ask Microsoft’s image creator to draw other things – and you find out at every turn and bend of the road, that the AI image creator draws grotesque features into every image, spooky hands, elements that don’t belong, faces which are twisted etc. All things, which you sometimes can be lucky to fix manually in an image editor, but then, after all, what’s the point of AI image creation in a professional context, if you always have to fix the obvious errors it makes?

Then personal assistant? I subscribed as a test-user of the AI-assistant of Excel spreadsheet, but it never worked.

It now turns out, that even though it doesn’t work, Microsoft wants to charge massively for this AI assistant feature. This is outrageous – especially given the fact that Microsoft for decades charges an exaggerated annual fee for its Office Package without adding any significant new features whatsoever. A functionable AI assistant as a free addition to Excel would only have been a small compensation for all the excess money I have had to spend over the past decades for Microsoft’s passive monopoly rent on owning the Office franchise.

Then take something like AI research.

Perplexity has been hailed as the next big thing to replace Google.

Perplexity builds on OpenAI’s system supported by Microsoft, purportedly the best in the World. Well, probably Perplexity is the best AI application of its kind, but as it turns out, that doesn’t say anything. You can be lucky, of course.

I asked Perplexity to research the background of a new person appointed to the Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs. It couldn’t.

Only because I kept driving Perplexity on and on with follow-up questions, Perplexity finally coughed-up with some very useful information in the form of a Curriculum Vitae for the person I was researching. I couldn’t have gotten that information any other way, but getting there with AI was not easy either, so this was only half-a-point scored by AI. But then, Perplexity fell completely flat. I recently asked Perplexity about who presented the Arab League case at the ICJ hearings on Israel’s occupation of Palestine. First, Perplexity denied that there was any such person or information existing. Upon my insistence that this was false, Perplexity then came up with the wrong name, a barrister at the ICJ, but one I found out was not representing the Arab League. As Perplexity failed completely, Google fortunately could quickly help me find the right name of the person representing the Arab League at the ICJ, it was Prof. Ralph Wilde. A friend of mine has had similar problems with Perplexity AI. He asked Perplexity for all investment-grade low-income and lower-middle-income countries. It gave a partial list. He said, “How about Indonesia?” It apologized and said “Yes, also Indonesia.” If a human assistant was as incompetent and inconsistent as Perplexity with OpenAI, that person would be fired. Perplexity, while occasionally giving very useful results, should also be fired as an advisor to be even half-way trusted. Use Perplexity sometimes, but don’t trust it.

What about AI in war?

Well – AI may in many instances be extremely dangerous in war, but not to the enemy, only to the army using it.

Palantir is perhaps the leading US company in AI for use in military and policing.

Palantir’s CEO Alex Karp boasts a high level of reliability for Palantir’s military and police products.

Palantir has military planning and execution systems which you feed with operational information (aka “intelligence”) and whoops, out pop ready-made plans and orders for your troops to follow – just let an officer sign off on it, and off they go to victory.

Well, in reality, troops guided by AI may go off, but not to victory. Palantir boasts that its military connections trust it enough to give it “access to the battlefield”. Early into the Ukraine war, Palantir’s CEO Alex Karp went to Kiev and signed a cooperation agreement with President Zelenskyi personally. Palantir then boasted about assisting Ukraine’s troops in their military endeavors in southern Ukraine – endeavors better know as Ukraine’s “counteroffensive” of 2023, which was nothing but a huge military disaster for Ukraine. And we speak not just of one single “mishap” of AI supported military operations by Ukraine. We probably talk about ALL of these Ukrainian operations in the South. AI designed by Palantir “assisted” Ukraine’s military forces on the ground, and this AI led to nothing but endless Ukrainian losses of lives – and defeat.

Trust AI, and pay with losing your fortune, your country  – and your life.

I will strongly recommend all governments and companies, big corporations and down to small entities, to NOT invest too much into AI for the foreseeable future. Perhaps China is underinvesting, but the US is definitely overinvesting. And contrary to primitive logic, gross overinvestment may not result in any safe margin but only in hugely added risks.

AI Bubble Makes AI Bubble

With this kind of fundamental and serious problems in AI, it will take years – not months – for a reliable and thus useful AI to emerge in a lot of fields.

Yes, trillions are being invested into AI. Huang Jensen, the CEO of NVIDIA, speaks of $ 1 trillion already being invested into AI related computing services. And that amount being doubled with another $ 1 trillion soon. The resulting computer centers consume electricity at an unimaginable (and seeming unsustainable rate). In Ireland, cloud computing already consumes more electricity than all private households combined.

The dot-com bubble of 2000 comes to mind.

The narrative about the ever-expanding internet drove the shares of technology to ever higher levels. Just like with AI, the internet is a reality, and like the internet, AI is also going to expand and expand.

But as we saw with the 2000 dot-com bubble, the fantasies about technological expansion soon overtook reality by several orders of magnitude. The expansion of the internet and the profitability of the technology just couldn’t even remotely honor the deluded fantasies about how much it would all be worth. That is where a bubble starts to make its own bubble.

This is where we seem to be with AI today.

AI is a potentially an immensely powerful technology.

AI is also a technology, which will keep expanding enormously.

But where are we actually?

How fast will this happen? And with which big setbacks on the road?

The examples above indicate beyond doubt, that AI is not going to be as transformative as believed for the next couple of years.

Even a corporation like Microsoft may still get itself seriously burned.

Microsoft is executing plans for billions if not more than a trillion dollars to expand its global AI cloud computing centers beyond belief.

What if private enterprise loses billions of dollars on AI investments which even incur insane losses? Widespread disappointment with AI can soon kick-in and result in a serious global backtrack on AI. As fast as customers were attracted to AI and wanted to ride the AI-wave to be safe with the “development”, even faster private and public customers may decide to skip lots of huge AI programs (and skip AI stocks) for a significant period to be on the safe side, not to risk the farm for a failed AI venture.

If that happens, many if not most of Microsoft’s AI cloud computing centers may become worthless – not useable and after a while obsolete and overtaken by the next new chips technology. In that scenario, which is absolutely possible, even Microsoft could get itself into deep financial trouble with AI. And not only Microsoft – the whole IT and AI industry could be sucked down in an enormous AI-maelstrom as well.

In the long term, in spite of booms and busts, AI will continue – but not all corporations and investors involved may survive.

*

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

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

He is a regular contributor to Global Research.

Featured image is from the author

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.

***

Ray McGovern is a former CIA officer for 27 years. He is an expert on Russia and beyond. He is a man with conscience. Since his retirement, he has become a prominent spokesperson for the cause of peace. 

Watch our conversation below on Russia, China and Gaza.

*

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, 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).  

Featured image is a screenshot from the video

Washington Faces Defeat in Red Sea Donnybrook

June 24th, 2024 by Mike Whitney

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 Houthis have agreed to end their attacks on commercial traffic in the Red Sea if Israel allows the delivery of humanitarian aid to the Palestinians. This is not just a reasonable proposal, it’s a policy that is supported by the vast majority of people around the world.

In June, the Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) released a report highlighting the impact of Houthi attacks on commercial shipping in the Red Sea. The report is a devastating account of Washington’s failure to protect critical transit corridors in one of the world’s most important waterways. The Biden administration’s makeshift naval coalition, dubbed Operation Prosperity Guardian, has not only been unable to ensure safe passage for commercial carriers in the Red Sea, it’s actually made matters worse. The Houthis have fine-tuned their military operations while adding more lethal weapons to their arsenal. In short, the Houthis have shown that a disparate group of militants can impose costly penalties on their enemies by implementing asymmetrical strategies that undermine the “rules-based order”. Here’s an excerpt from the DIA’s report:

As of mid-February, container shipping through Red Sea had declined by approximately 90% since December 2023; shipping via the Red Sea typically accounts for approximately 10-15% of international maritime trade….

Alternate shipping routes around Africa add about 11,000 nautical miles, 1-2 weeks of transit time, and approximately $1 million in fuel costs for each voyage. For many shipping companies, the combined costs of crew bonuses, war risk insurance (roughly 1000% more than pre-war costs)…

As of mid-February, insurance premiums for Red Sea transits have risen to 0.7-1.0% of a ship’s total value, compared to less than 0.1% prior to December 2023 Houthi Attacks Placing Pressure on International Trade, DIA

This is a shocking report. According to the Government’s own analysis, Biden’s Red Sea policy has been an abject failure. Container shipping is down by 90 percent while insurance premiums, fueling costs and ‘extra miles sailed’ have skyrocketed. There’s not a trace of optimism in the entire report. The Houthis have basically achieved all of their strategic objectives while Washington’s meddling has accomplished nothing.

Surprisingly, the journalists at Business Insider have drawn the same conclusion as the DIA, that the Houthis have out maneuvered Uncle Sam at every turn. Here’s a clip from a recent BI article:

The Houthis have proven to be a wily and formidable foe. Five months after rounds of US-led coalition airstrikes to “disrupt and degrade” their capabilities, the militants continue to wreak havoc. They’re routinely forcing the US-led task force to intercept their missiles, bomb boats, and flying drones that have turned shipping lanes in the Red Sea and Gulf of Aden into a dangerous — and deadly — corridor.

The Houthis have struck multiple ships in the last week, and US officials say these attacks are unlikely to end anytime soon, raising concerns the US is stuck in a costly and unsustainable standoff.

The Houthis have managed to drag Washington into a prolonged, expensive, resource-depleting conflict and driven shipping costs much higher. While no American warships have been hit, the US must bear the growing financial costs and wear and tear to its warships. US Navy warships are stuck in a Red Sea battle they can’t fight forever, Business Insider

The Houthis have essentially closed commercial shipping through one of the world’s most important transit chokepoints and the US is unable to do anything about it. Couldn’t someone have anticipated this scenario before Biden impulsively deployed a naval flotilla to the Red Sea?

There were plenty of skeptics who knew the Biden strategy had no chance of succeeding, but their voices were drowned-out by the armchair warriors who always set the policy. These are the senior members of the foreign policy establishment who invariably ignore the facts and charge ahead with their “shoot first and ask questions later” philosophy. In the present case, these tenacious uber-hawks simply couldn’t accept that an upstart battery of sandal-clad militants could deliver a blow to US interests by launching missile and drone attacks on merchant ships protected by US destroyers. But that is precisely what happened and—as we said earlier—Biden was warned that such a result was likely. This is from an article at Responsible Statecraft:

a number of realist voices are decrying the folly of once again falling into a spiral of retaliatory violence that will likely lead to a real military crisis, even the death of U.S. service members, before it is done.

“They (strikes) won’t work. They won’t sufficiently degrade Houthi capability or will stop their attacks on shipping,” says Ben Friedman, senior fellow of Defense Priorities. “Why do something that is so evidently reckless? Restraint reminds us that no such law says we must conduct airstrikes that won’t work. We always have the option not to employ pointless violence.” US strikes Yemen again, but Houthi attacks keep coming, Responsible Statecraft

“Restraint”? The author thinks the US foreign policy establishment is capable of restraint?

Unfortunately, all of the capable, sober-minded realists who once played a role in shaping US foreign policy have long-since been replaced by armchair warriors who reflexively respond to every crisis with the same counterproductive application of military force. We have no doubt that these same warhawks will escalate once again in Yemen as they have in Ukraine, dragging the country deeper into a conflict is has no chance of winning. Check out this revealing excerpt from Biden’s 2022 National Security Strategy:

…the United States will not allow foreign or regional powers to jeopardize freedom of navigation through the Middle East’s waterways, including the Strait of Hormuz and the Bab al Mandab, nor tolerate efforts by any country to dominate another—or the region—through military buildups, incursions, or threats.”

There you have it: The Houthis represent a clear and present danger to US national security by merely asserting control over their own territorial waters. Does that mean escalation is inevitable?

It does. The excerpt above is tantamount to a declaration of war. We should expect that Biden will act accordingly by increasing the bombardment of Yemeni cities and infrastructure, tightening the economic blockade and, eventually, deploying combat troops to conduct a ground offensive on the Arabian peninsula. Judging from past experience, the decisions on these matters have probably already been made.

By the way, Biden’s naval operation—Operation Prosperity Guardian—was never approved by the UN Security Council, the US Congress or the American people. It is another unilateral, fly-by-night intervention that precludes a diplomatic solution and guarantees the US will face another humiliating defeat at the hands of its enemies sometime in the future. Here’s more from energy studies fellow Jim Krane who helps explain the global impact of the Houthi attacks:

The Houthi attacks on Red Sea shipping present a new phenomenon in geo-economic conflict: a non-state actor using asymmetric warfare not just to fight conventional armed forces, but to also impose targeted economic sanctions by selectively attacking international shipping. The Houthis have made this leap by combining two factors: inexpensive and high-tech weaponry that can threaten—even sink—oceangoing ships and control over strategic coastal territory overlooking one of the world’s busiest maritime chokepoints: the Bab al-Mandab Strait….

The siege on Red Sea shipping has re-oriented trade between Asia and Europe in an uneven way. Shipping firms based in countries where governments have spoken out against the Israeli offensive in Gaza have received exemptions from Houthi attacks, resulting in cost advantages and higher profits. Conversely, shippers based in countries supporting Israel, along with those carrying Europe- or US-bound cargoes, have lost access to the Red Sea shortcut between Asia and Europe. As a result, cost and voyage duration have increased together with demand for vessels, which helped push up cargo fees, including on routes that do not travel via the Red Sea.

The skewed disruption to global shipping suggests that the Houthis have succeeded in meeting their objective of imposing costs on supporters of Israel… Houthi leaders have reportedly cemented competitive advantages for Chinese and Russian shippers …. The selective strategy employed by the Houthis is imposing economic penalties resembling economic sanctions that disproportionately affect EU-based firms … Indeed, the added supply chain costs are weighing heavily on already pessimistic economic forecasts for the European Union and Egypt. The longer the attacks continue, the greater the residual impact, dampening the prospects for growth.

The Houthi campaign in the Gulf of Aden and the Red Sea has produced a new form of global economic disruption based on grievances with Israel, and is proving difficult to deter or counter….The Houthi campaign has also exposed ineffective countermeasures by the United States and its NATO allies...

US and British attacks on Houthi sites inside Yemen have created new grievances and a rationale for a potential extension of the Red Sea attacks beyond a ceasefire in Gaza.... Houthi attacks on shipping actually intensified after the onset of US-UK retaliatory strikes….

The emboldened militant group announced on March 14 that it would extend attacks beyond the immediate Bab al-Mandab area to the broader Arabian Sea and Indian Ocean to target Israel- and allied-linked shipping diverted via the Cape of Good Hope. … Houthi Red Sea Attacks Have Global Economic Repercussions, Arab Center

Okay, let’s summarize: Houthi attacks on the Red Sea have…

  1. Created new opportunities for non-state actors to conduct asymmetric warfare on conventional armed forces.
  2. Imposed targeted economic sanctions on backers of Israeli genocide
  3. Re-oriented trade between Asia and Europe in a way that provides competitive advantages for Chinese and Russian shippers
  4. Helped the Houthis succeed in meeting their objective of imposing costs on supporters of Israel
  5. Added supply chain costs have negatively impacted already pessimistic economic forecasts for the European Union and Egypt… dampening the prospects for growth.
  6. Set the stage for the expansion of Houthi operations beyond the Red Sea to the broader Arabian Sea and Indian Ocean

Which of these outcomes advance US interests or strengthen US national security?

None of them, which is why we will ask a second question:

Do the people who make these short-sighted decisions ever wonder about the impact their choices have on the country or on the American people?

Probably, not.

And, please, let’s not blame the Houthis for a conflict for which the Biden administration is 100 percent responsible. No one put a gun to Joe Biden’s head and forced him to deploy the US Navy to the Red Sea to engage in pointless fracas in order to defend Israel’s right to murder women and children in Gaza. That’s a decision that Biden made unilaterally while disregarding the groundswell of international condemnation, the blistering rulings of the ICC and the ICJ and virtually every human rights organization on Planet Earth. Biden chose to ignore the moral judgement of the entire world to promote the sordid agenda of the Jewish state. That’s on him! In contrast, the Houthis are just doing their bit to stop Israel’s genocide. They weren’t itching for a war with the United States. That’s not it at all. They’re just trying to get the Israelis to lift their blockade, so more people don’t die of starvation. Is that too much to ask? Here’s how Houthi leader Mohammed Al-Bukhaiti summed it up:

Taking action to support the oppressed… is a true test of morality… and whoever does not take action to stop the crime of genocide… has lost his humanity.

Moral… values.. do not change with the race and religion of the person… If another group of humans were subjected to the injustice that the Palestinians are subjected to, we would take action to support them, regardless of their religion and race.

… the Yemeni people (are committed) ​​… to achieve a just peace that guarantees the dignity, safety and security of all countries and peoples Mohammed Al-Bukhaiti @M_N_Albukhaiti

Al-Bukhaiti’s statement might sound odd to people in the West who find it hard to believe that any leader would put moral convictions above their own self-interest or accumulation of more power. But that’s what energizes the Houthi movement; their determination to put their religious beliefs into practice. The Houthis have nothing to gain by fighting the United States. They are doing it because they oppose the sadistic brutality and homicidal violence of the IDF. That’s why they have put themselves at risk of serious injury or death. It’s because they believe it is the ‘right thing to do’; because justice is worth dying for, and because –as Al-Bukhaiti says—Taking action to support the oppressed is the true test of morality.

Ironically, the views of the American people align more closely with those of the Houthis than they do with their own government. The majority of Americans support justice for the Palestinians, support a sovereign Palestinian state, support a permanent ceasefire, and support an end to the violence and bloodshed. It is only our government (and Israel) that want the bloodbath to 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.

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 from TUR

Segundo a mídia alemã, a Ucrânia está perto de receber “tanques Frankenstein” alemães. As armas seriam armas híbridas, apresentando elementos de diferentes sistemas operacionais. Por um lado, a medida mostra como Berlim continua empenhada em apoiar o regime de Kiev, apesar de todas as perdas; por outro lado, mostra como a indústria de defesa alemã é incapaz de satisfazer as exigências militares ucranianas.

Espera-se que a empresa militar alemã Rheinmetall forneça em breve a Kiev sistemas de defesa aérea capazes de abater drones e mísseis russos. Esses sistemas, porém, não estão sendo fabricados de forma convencional, seguindo modelos existentes de equipamentos militares. Em vez disso, peças de diferentes armas estão sendo usadas para formar uma espécie de “sistema híbrido” – apelidado de “tanque Frankenstein”.

De acordo com informações preliminares, a “nova” arma está sendo desenvolvida com elementos do sistema antiaéreo Skyranger, acrescentando cascos dos tanques Leopard 1 da época da Guerra Fria. Além disso, acredita-se que o “tanque Frankenstein” será capaz de atingir alvos de curto alcance, tendo como foco principal abater drones e mísseis inimigos.

“Ainda existem muitos tanques de batalha Leopard 1 em cujos chassis poderíamos colocar a torre Skyranger com a metralhadora de 35 mm (…) Os sistemas de defesa aérea terrestre altamente móveis, modulares e escaláveis ​​estão a tornar-se cada vez mais importantes à medida que as forças da OTAN se voltam a concentrar na defesa nacional”, disse Rheinmetall em comunicado à imprensa.

Ainda não foi dada uma data precisa para Kiev receber o equipamento, mas acredita-se que as operações para desenvolver as armas estejam a decorrer nas recentemente anunciadas instalações secretas da Rheinmetall, no oeste da Ucrânia. Dadas as dificuldades logísticas de envio de armas para a Ucrânia e a elevada quantidade de equipamentos danificados no campo de batalha, a empresa alemã decidiu começar a operar dentro da própria Ucrânia, concentrando-se principalmente na reparação de armas atingidas pelas forças russas.

Até o momento, pelo menos 100 tanques alemães Leopard 1 foram entregues à Ucrânia. Muitos deles, se não a maioria, foram rapidamente destruídos pelas forças russas, que mantêm o controle do espaço aéreo sobre a maior parte do campo de batalha. Utilizando drones de baixo custo, Moscou conseguiu infligir danos irreversíveis às principais armas ocidentais na Ucrânia. Com elevados custos de fabrico e manutenção, equipamentos como o Leopard e outros tanques da OTAN revelaram-se inúteis na zona de conflito de alta intensidade.

É claro que a propaganda ocidental tentará relatar a notícia do “tanque Frankenstein” como algo positivo para a Ucrânia. Segundo jornais ocidentais, Kiev está a receber equipamentos avançados e modernos capazes de danificar as forças russas e promover os avanços ucranianos no campo de batalha. Mas isso é uma mentira infundada. Na prática, a medida alemã deve-se a dois fatores específicos: a incapacidade da Alemanha de continuar a produzir novos equipamentos e a desconfiança do país em fornecer ao regime de Kiev armas recentes e tecnologicamente avançadas.

Num grave processo de desindustrialização devido à crise energética, a Alemanha enfrenta dificuldades para manter a sua produção militar em níveis normais. O conflito atual exige uma produção militar elevada e constante, uma vez que a Ucrânia perde centenas de equipamentos todos os dias. Portanto, em vez de fabricar novas armas, a Alemanha está a concentrar-se em estratégias alternativas, como a reparação de armas danificadas e a produção de equipamento híbrido a partir de peças de armas antigas.

Na mesma linha, Kiev tem colocado forte pressão sobre a Alemanha e outros países da OTAN para fornecerem armas mais modernas com elevada capacidade destrutiva e tecnologia avançada. Berlim, no entanto, não parece confiar no regime nazista, e tem diversas objeções ao envio de equipamento tecnologicamente avançado. Além de enviar armas mais antigas, principalmente da época da Guerra Fria, Berlim sabota frequentemente equipamento militar enviado para “ajudar” a Ucrânia, reduzindo a sua capacidade tecnológica para evitar que as forças ucranianas roubem software. Dado que Kiev continua a insistir no envio de novos materiais, na criação de armas híbridas, misturando equipamentos antigos e novos, parece uma alternativa para a Alemanha “agradar” a Ucrânia sem lhe dar tecnologia militar relevante.

No final, o que a Alemanha pretende com estes “tanques Frankenstein” é encontrar uma forma barata e segura de continuar a ajudar a Ucrânia, mesmo face às graves perdas que sofreu recentemente no campo de batalha. Mais do que um bom gesto de apoio a Kiev, a medida parece um ato de desespero – que se tornará cada vez mais frequente, dado que o exército ucraniano está à beira do colapso e os países europeus continuam empenhados em enviar armas sistematicamente, independentemente da situação real no no campo de batalha.

Lucas Leiroz de Almeida

 

Artigo em inglês : Germany betting on ‘hybrid weapons’ to disguise its inability to keep arming Ukraine, InfoBrics, 19 de Junho de 2024.

*

Lucas Leiroz, jornalista, pesquisador do Center for Geostrategic Studies, consultor geopolítico.

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

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

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

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

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

AI translation into Japanese

***

爆弾:日本の元内務大臣が予防接種を受けていない人に謝罪:「あなたは正しかった、ワクチンは私たちの愛する人の何百万人もの人を殺している」

ミシェル・チョスドフスキーによる入門ノート

Introductory Note by Michel Chossudovsky

In Japan, the mRNA vaccine was launched in February 2021 allegedly as a means to protect the Japanese people against a non-existent “killer virus”.

More than 206 million doses had already been administered. The Japanese population was not informed regarding the dangers of the mRNA vaccine.

In December 2021, Japan’s Ministry of Health authorized booster shots of  Moderna and Pfizer vaccines, pointing to the “low rate of side effects such as myocarditis”. 

According to Japan’s Ministry of Heath’s early advisory (which was similar to that applied in numerous countries):

“The Government recommends that people get vaccinated because the benefits of vaccination are greater than the risk of side reactions.” (emphasis added)

The foregoing is misleading as pointed out in Kazuhiro Haraguchi’s courageous statement:

“‘You Were Right, Vaccines Are Killing Millions of Our Loved Ones”

「あなたは正しかった、ワクチンは私たちの愛する人の何百万人もの人を殺している」

“They are trying to block our freedom, our resistance, our power. But we will never lose.”

Haraguchi issued a rallying call for action.

He urged the people to stand united in challenging the government and its questionable decisions.

“Let’s overthrow this government,”

he proclaimed, emphasizing the need for change and accountability.

He called on legislators to continue fighting for the people’s lives and freedoms, “Let’s make it happen,” he concluded.


Excess Mortality (Japan) (2020-2022)

In Japan, the vaccine was launched in early 2021.

Suicides in Japan Resulting from Lockdown (2020)

Notice the surge in suicide rates immediately following the March 2020 lockdown (Source: Ministry of Health, Welfare and Labor/Graphic: Jason Kwok and Natalie Croker, CNN)

“Far more Japanese people are dying of suicide, likely exacerbated by the economic and social repercussions of the pandemic, than of the COVID-19 disease itself. …  Provisional statistics from the National Police Agency show suicides surged to 2,153 in October [2020] alone, marking the fourth straight month of increase.” CBS November 2020 report (emphasis added)

Suicides Among Japan’s Schoolchildren

A 2021 report by Japan’s Ministry of Education confirms that suicide among Japanese schoolchildren had hit a record high during the 2020 school year.  The report from the Ministry of Education suggests that

“the pandemic has caused changes in the school and family environment and had an impact on children’s behavior”. (For details see chapter 6 of  Michel Chossudovsky’s book)


A  note on my book entitled: 

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

first published in Japanese in April 2022.

In English it is available in E-book form. (See below).

I remain indebted to the Japanese publisher which brought out and promoted my book despite political pressures  and an atmosphere of censorship.  My thanks to both the Publisher and to the Translator.

The fraudulent narrative concerning the Covid “Vaccine” is collapsing in different parts of the World.

In California, 9th Circuit Court Rules that COVID-19 mRNA Injections Are Not “Vaccines”.  

In Germany, the Health authorities  have acknowledged the devastating nature and impacts of the Covid lockdowns, the mandatory wearing of the face mask, and the experimental mRNA “vaccines”.

Global Research has from the outset provided an extensive daily coverage of the devastating impacts of the “vaccine”. Our objective is to SAVE LIVES. 

In solidarity with the people of Japan.

In solidarity with people all over the World. 

Michel Chossudovsky, Global Research, June 11, June 24, 2024

 


Kazuhiro Haraguchi, the former Japanese Minister for Internal Affairs, has become the first major politician to apologize to the unvaccinated for the tsunami of deaths occuring among the vaccinated population.

His presentation  starts 7’o”

Earlier this week, huge numbers of Japanese citizens took to the streets to protest against the crimes against humanity perpetrated by globalist organizations such by World Health Organization (WHO) and World Economic Forum (WEF) during the pandemic.

During an opening speech at the protests, Haraguchi delivered a powerful and emotional apology for the huge numbers of deaths now occurring as a result of the deadly mRNA roll-out.

Haraguchi began by addressing the grief and loss felt by families who have lost loved ones who were coerced into taking the COVID jab. With a deep sense of sincerity, he extended his condolences and took responsibility for the failings of those in power. I apologize to all of you. So many have died, and they shouldn’t have,” he said.

Thelibertybeacon.com reports: One of the key points in Haraguchi’s speech was his criticism of the ban on Ivermectin, a drug developed by Dr. Satoshi Omura, which he believed could have played a significant role in combating the pandemic. Haraguchi questioned the motives behind the ban, suggesting that economic interests were prioritized over public health. “Why? Because they are cheap. They don’t want it because it will interfere with the sales of the vaccines,” he argued. This statement drew loud applause from the crowd, many of whom felt that corporate profits had taken precedence over human lives.

Haraguchi then shared a deeply personal story about his own health struggles. After receiving vaccines, he developed a severe illness, specifically a rapidly progressing form of cancer. “This time last year, I had neither eyebrows nor hair. Two out of the three supposed vaccines I received were lethal batches,” he revealed. This candid account of his battle with cancer, which included significant physical changes like hair loss, struck a chord with the audience. He recounted an incident where his appearance became a point of distraction in the Diet, with an opponent focusing more on his wig than the issues at hand.

Adding to the conversation, Haraguchi disclosed that he was not the only member of Japan’s National Diet (legislature) to suffer adverse effects from vaccines. He mentioned that three of his colleagues had been severely affected, with some even hospitalized. “They are falling to pieces, some hospitalized. But they don’t speak up,” he explained. This revelation underscored a broader issue: the reluctance or inability of public figures to discuss their personal health challenges openly.

Haraguchi was particularly passionate about the attempts to silence those who question current policies and government actions. He recounted a recent incident where he was banned from speaking on Channel 3 after an interview with its president. 

The other day, I spoke with the President of Channel 3, and I was banned. They are trying to silence our voices,” he stated. This attempt to censor dissenting voices highlighted a critical concern about freedom of speech and expression. Haraguchi urged the audience to remain steadfast in their resolve, saying,

“They are trying to block our freedom, our resistance, our power. But we will never lose.”

In the conclusion of his speech,

Haraguchi issued a rallying call for action. He urged the people to stand united in challenging the government and its questionable decisions. “Let’s overthrow this government,” he proclaimed, emphasizing the need for change and accountability. He called on legislators to continue fighting for the people’s lives and freedoms, “Let’s make it happen,” he concluded.

The protest that is happening right now (31st May 2024), which aims to draw tens of thousands of participants, marked a significant moment in the global discourse about pandemic management and health policies. Haraguchi’s speech, filled with personal anecdotes and strong criticisms, resonated deeply with the attendees.

Read this


爆弾:日本の元内務大臣が予防接種を受けていない人に謝罪:「あなたは正しかった、ワクチンは私たちの愛する人の何百万人もの人を殺している」

ミシェル・チョスドフスキーによる入門ノート

Introductory Note by Michel Chossudovsky

私の著書『 世界的なコロナ危機、人類に対するグローバルクーデター』  は、2022年4月に日本語で初めて出版されました。英語版は電子書籍の形で入手できます。

政治的圧力と検閲にもかかわらず私の本を出版してくれた日本の出版社には今でも感謝しています。

出版社と翻訳者に感謝します。

日本では、存在しない「殺人ウイルス」から日本人を守る手段として、mRNAワクチンが2021年2月に発売されたとされている。

すでに2億600万回以上が投与された。日本 国民はmRNAワクチンの危険性について知らされていなかった。

2021年12月、 日本の厚生労働省は 「心筋炎などの副作用の発生率が低い」ことを指摘し、モデルナ社とファイザー社のワクチンの追加接種を承認した。

日本の保健省の初期勧告によると(これは多くの国で適用されているものと同様でした。

「ワクチン接種のメリットは副反応のリスクよりも大きいため、 政府は人々にワクチン接種を推奨しています。」 (強調追加)

原口一博氏の勇気ある発言が指摘しているように、上記は誤解を招くものである。

「『あなたは正しかった。ワクチンは何百万人もの私たちの愛する人を殺している』」

新型コロナウイルスの「ワクチン」に関する欺瞞的な物語は、世界のさまざまな地域で崩壊しつつある。

カリフォルニア州の 第9巡回裁判所は、COVID-19 mRNA注射は「ワクチン」ではないとの判決を下した。

ドイツ では 、保健当局が、新型コロナウイルス対策のロックダウン、マスク着用義務、実験的なmRNA「ワクチン」の壊滅的な性質と影響を認めている。

日本の人々と連帯して。

世界中の人々と連帯します。

ミシェル・チョスドフスキー、グローバル・リサーチ、2024 年 6 月 11 日

 

日本の元総務大臣である原口一博氏は、ワクチン接種者の間で津波による死亡者が発生したことについて、ワクチン未接種者に謝罪した最初の主要政治家となった。

 

今週初め、大勢の日本国民が、パンデミックの最中に世界保健機関(WHO)や世界経済フォーラム(WEF)などのグローバリスト組織が犯した人道に対する罪に抗議するため街頭に出た。

原口氏は抗議活動の冒頭演説で、致命的なmRNAの流出の結果として現在発生している膨大な数の死者について力強く、感情的に謝罪した。

原口氏はまず、新型コロナウイルスのワクチン接種を強制され愛する人を失った遺族が感じている悲しみと喪失感について語った。 氏は心から哀悼の意を表し、権力者の失策の責任を認めた。  「皆さんにお詫びします。多くの人が亡くなりましたが、亡くなるべきではなかったのです」と氏は述べた。

Thelibertybeacon.com の報道によると、原口氏の演説の要点の一つは、 大村智博士が開発した イベルメクチンの禁止に対する批判だった。同氏は、この薬がパンデミック対策に大きな役割を果たせたと考えていた。原口氏は禁止の背後にある動機に疑問を呈し、公衆衛生よりも経済的利益が優先されたと示唆した。「なぜかって? 安いからだ。ワクチンの売り上げに支障が出るから嫌がるんだ」と同氏は主張した。この発言は、企業の利益が人命よりも優先されたと感じていた聴衆から大きな拍手を浴びた。

原口氏はその後、自身の健康問題に関する非常に個人的な話をした。 ワクチン接種後、深刻な病気、具体的には急速に進行する癌を発症した。 「去年の今頃は、眉毛も髪の毛もありませんでした。私が受けた3つのワクチンのうち2つは致死的なワクチンでした」と彼は明かした。脱毛などの著しい身体的変化を含む癌との闘いについてのこの率直な話は、聴衆の共感を呼んだ。彼は、国会で彼の外見が気を散らす原因となり、対立候補が目の前の問題よりも彼のかつらに注目したという出来事を語った。

会話に加えて、原口氏は、 ワクチンによる副作用に苦しんだ日本の国会議員は自分だけではないことを明らかにした。同氏は、同僚3人が重篤な影響を受け、中には入院した人もいると述べた。 「彼らはバラバラになっていて、中には入院している人もいる。しかし、彼らは声を上げません」と彼は説明した。この暴露は、公人が個人の健康問題について公然と話し合うことに消極的である、あるいはそれができないという、より広範な問題を浮き彫りにした。

原口氏は、現在の政策や政府の行動に疑問を抱く人々を黙らせる試みに特に情熱を注いだ。同氏は、チャンネル3の社長とのインタビュー後にチャンネル3での発言を禁止された最近の出来事について語った 。  「先日、私はチャンネル 3 の社長と話をしましたが、私は禁止されました。彼らは私たちの声を黙らせようとしている」と彼は述べた。反対意見を検閲するこの試みは、言論と表現の自由に対する重大な懸念を浮き彫りにした。原口氏は聴衆に対し、「彼らは私たちの自由、私たちの抵抗、私たちの力を阻止しようとしている。しかし、私たちは決して負けません。」

原口氏は演説の最後に、行動を起こすよう呼びかけた。 政府とその疑わしい決定に異議を唱えるために国民が団結するよう促した。  「この政府を打倒しよう」と宣言し、変革と説明責任の必要性を強調した。議員らに国民の命と自由のために戦い続けるよう呼びかけ、「実現させよう」と締めくくった。

現在(2024年5月31日)行われている抗議活動は、数万人の参加を目指しており、パンデミック管理と健康政策に関する世界的な議論において重要な瞬間を刻んだ。個人的な逸話と強い批判に満ちた原口氏の演説は、参加者の心に深く響いた。

これを読む。

 

 

*

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.

Having cut his teeth in the mainstream media, including stints at the BBC, Sean witnessed the corruption within the system and developed a burning desire to expose the secrets that protect the elite and allow them to continue waging war on humanity. Disturbed by the agenda of the elites and dissatisfied with the alternative media, Sean decided it was time to shake things up. Knight of Joseon (https://joseon.com)

Featured image is from TPV


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

Polônia prestes a instalar minas nas fronteiras russas.

June 23rd, 2024 by Lucas Leiroz de Almeida

A OTAN continua a escalar o seu conflito com a Federação Russa. Numa declaração recente, um importante deputado polaco e ex-ministro afirmou que o seu país terminará em breve a proibição da utilização de minas antipessoal na fronteira com a região russa de Kaliningrado. A medida é gravemente agravante, uma vez que este tipo de equipamento representa riscos significativos para os cidadãos russos, aumentando as tensões entre Moscou e Varsóvia.

Segundo o legislador, o antigo ministro da Defesa Mariusz Blaszczak, a Polônia deveria colocar minas na fronteira com o território russo para “fortalecer” a frente oriental da OTAN. Varsóvia está atualmente impedida de militarizar a região devido às regras da Convenção de Ottawa. O tratado visa eliminar gradualmente a utilização de minas antipessoal cuja Polônia é signatária.

“Como parte do programa para fortalecer a fronteira oriental, as autoridades devem retirar-se da Convenção de Ottawa”, disse ele.

A declaração de Blaszczak é particularmente preocupante porque ele é uma figura pública influente na sociedade polaca. Além de ter servido como ministro da Defesa, Blaszczak é atualmente membro do parlamento e tem influência tanto nas forças armadas como em setores da sociedade civil. Ele está bem posicionado para encorajar a aprovação de leis que permitirão os seus planos irresponsáveis ​​de militarização e escalada anti-russa. Importa ainda recordar que liderou a pasta de defesa do país até 2023, tendo sido responsável pelo comando das forças armadas polacas em momentos críticos do atual conflito na Ucrânia.

Na verdade, as tensões entre a Polônia e a Rússia têm sido um dos temas mais discutidos pelos especialistas nos últimos tempos. Varsóvia é um dos atores mais belicosos da Europa Oriental, fazendo constantemente movimentos agressivos no sentido de agravar as pressões militares regionais. Com o fim da proibição das minas antipessoal, a Polônia poderá dar passos ainda mais significativos nas suas tensões com a Rússia, dada a questão fronteiriça em Kaliningrado.

Kaliningrado é há muito tempo alvo das potências ocidentais devido à sua geografia estratégica, que permite a Moscou manter posições militares no Mar Báltico. A Polônia e a Lituânia, que fazem fronteira com a região, provocam constantemente as forças russas com exercícios militares e ameaças, tentando “isolar” e “sufocar” a Rússia no Mar Báltico. Neste sentido, com a possibilidade de colocação de minas na fronteira, haverá certamente um aumento exponencial dos riscos para a arquitetura de segurança regional.

Anteriormente, o primeiro-ministro Donald Tusk já se tinha pronunciado condenando a possibilidade de posicionamento de minas na fronteira com Kaliningrado e a Bielorrússia. Tusk também é contra a Polônia abandonar o tratado que proíbe as minas antipessoal. Contudo, o lobby pró-guerra no país é extremamente forte e há boas probabilidades de o governo ser forçado a obedecer à pressão do parlamento para aprovar a retirada da Convenção de Ottawa.

Com as minas perto de Kaliningrado, os cidadãos russos, especialmente os guardas de fronteira e o pessoal militar, estariam em risco constante. Se as minas também fossem colocadas perto da Bielorrússia, os riscos seriam os mesmos, uma vez que a Rússia e a Bielorrússia mantêm um pacto de defesa coletiva devido ao Estado da União, o que torna um ataque aos cidadãos bielorrussos equivalente a um ataque à Federação Russa. Os riscos, portanto, seriam elevados e constantes, tornando o cenário do Leste Europeu ainda mais instável e imprevisível.

No entanto, os russos, por sua vez, estão absolutamente seguros. Moscou tem força militar suficiente para dissuadir a Polônia e enfrentar quaisquer consequências graves de uma possível escalada. Ao contrário de Varsóvia e dos países bálticos, a Rússia está efetivamente em posição de enfrentar qualquer cenário de segurança. A Polônia e os restantes membros da OTAN esperam o total apoio da aliança atlântica em caso de conflito com a Rússia, não sendo capazes de lidar sozinhos com as possíveis consequências de uma crise.

Um dos temas mais comentados entre os analistas militares hoje é como a OTAN reagiria num confronto real com a Rússia. Até agora, a aliança tem dependido de países proxy não-membros para travar a guerra contra Moscou, mas é possível que a perigosa escalada resultante da iniciativa de países como a Polônia e os Estados Bálticos possa levar a fricções diretas no futuro. Se isso acontecer, a aliança será posta à prova no que diz respeito à sua cláusula de defesa coletiva. Muitos analistas prevêem que nesta situação os EUA, que são o verdadeiro líder da aliança, violariam as normas da OTAN e não autorizariam a intervenção coletiva.

No final, não há nada que a Polônia possa ganhar ao tomar iniciativas que agravem a crise de segurança com a Rússia. A coisa mais racional a fazer seria simplesmente evitar quaisquer medidas que possam piorar os laços com Moscou, evitando deixar que as tensões conduzam a um conflito real. Mas, infelizmente, uma mentalidade fanática russofóbica é atualmente hegemónica entre os tomadores de decisões polacos, impedindo-os de agir estrategicamente.

Lucas Leiroz de Almeida

 

Artigo em inglês : Poland about to deploy mines on Russian borders, InfoBrics, 20 de Junho de 2024.

*

Lucas Leiroz, jornalista, pesquisador do Center for Geostrategic Studies, consultor geopolítico.

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

There Never Was a “New Corona Virus”, There Never Was a Pandemic

June 23rd, 2024 by Prof Michel Chossudovsky

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.

First published on November 27, 2023. Video Interview added on November 29, 2023, Author’s Note, December 5, 2023

***

Author’s Message to Readers 

This article focussing on the alleged novel coronavirus is among the most important articles I have written. 

There is an element of simplicity and common sense in the text. My objective is that the article will be extensively read and debated at the grassroots of society, not only by scientists and medical doctors. The complexity of this crisis is overwhelming. This is not solely a “Public Health Crisis”.

The implications are far-reaching because the article refutes and invalidates ‘everything” pertaining to the Covid pandemic. These include the policies  related to The Lockdown and the  Covid-19 “Vaccine”, not to mention the infamous Pandemic Treaty and The World Economic Forum’s “Great Reset”. 

The official “corona narrative” is predicated on a “Big Lie” endorsed by corrupt politicians.

That “official consensus” is exceedingly fragile. Our intent is to precipitate its collapse “like a house of cards”. 

What is ultimately at stake is the value of human life and the future of humanity.

“‘You Were Right, Vaccines Are Killing Millions of Our Loved Ones”, Kazuhiro Haraguchi, Japan’s former Minister of Internal Affairs’s

Our objective is to save lives including those of newly born babies who are the victims of the Covid-19 “Vaccine”.

At this juncture in our history, the priority is to “Disable the Fear Campaign” and “Cancel the Vaccine” (including the repeal of the so-called “Pandemic Treaty”).

Hopefully this will set the stage for the development of a Worldwide movement of solidarity, which questions the legitimacy of the powerful “Big Money” financial elites which are behind this infamous project. 

Dear Readers, please forward this article and the video far and wide.

Michel Chossudovsky, Global Research, December 5, 2023, June 10, 2024

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

My response to Shakespeare: “Send the Devils Back to Where They Belong”

“When the Lie Becomes the Truth, There Is No Moving Backwards”

“Get off that crazy train. I know, it is scary, it can hurt. Take back your physical and intellectual autonomy and protect your children”. Dr. Pascal Sacré, Belgian author and Medical Doctor, November 2021. 

***

Introduction

Destabilizing the social, political and economic structure of 190 sovereign countries cannot constitute  a “solution” to combating a novel coronavirus  which mysteriously emerged in Wuhan, Hubei province (PRC) in late December 2019. That was the imposed “solution” —implemented in several stages from the very outset–, leading to The March 2020 Lockdown and the Rollout of a so-called Covid 19 “Vaccine” in December 2020, which since its inception has resulted in an upward trend in excess mortality. 

It’s the destruction of people’s lives Worldwide. It is the destabilization of civil society.

Fake science was supportive of this devastating agenda. The lies were sustained by a massive media disinformation campaign. 24/7, Incessant and Repetitive “Covid alerts” in the course of more than three years. In turn, the ongoing fear campaign had devastating impacts on people’s health

The  historic March 11, 2020 lockdown triggered economic and social chaos Worldwide. It was an act of “economic warfare”: a war against humanity. 

The New Virus: 2019-nCoV

The official story is that a dangerous NEW VIRUS was detected in Wuhan, Hubei Province, China in December 2019. It was entitled 2019-nCoV which stands for “2019 New (n) Corona (Co) Virus (V)”.

On  January 1, 2020, “the Chinese health authorities closed the Huanan Seafood Wholesale Market in Wuhan following Western media reports claiming that wild animals sold there may have been the source of the virus.

As of early January 2020, it was the object of extensive media coverage and an unfolding Worldwide fear campaign.  Media disinformation 24/7 went into high gear.

“The Chinese authorities (allegedly) “identified a new type of virus” on January 7, 2020, using the RT-PCR test. No specific details were provided regarding the process of isolation of the virus.

Failed Identification of the Novel Coronavirus

In late January 2020, the WHO confirmed that: 

It did not possess an isolate of 2019-nCoV from a purified sample from an infected patient, which meant that they were unable to confirm the identity of the novel coronavirus.

February 11, 2020. The Alleged “New Virus” is Renamed 

In early February. 2020, following the failure to identify the novel coronavirus, a decision was taken to change its name to:

Severe acute respiratory syndrome corona virus”: SARS-CoV-2 which (according to the WHO) is “similar” to a 20 year old virus entitled:

2003-SARS-CoV.

A Twenty Year Old 2003 Coronavirus Categorized in February 2020 as a “New Virus”? 

Confirmed by the WHO and The New England Journal of Medicine, May 2003 (NEJM):

“A Novel Coronavirus Associated with Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome” 

which broke out in China’s Southern Guangdong Province in 2002 WAS identified and categorized as a “new virus” on May 15, 2003. (More than 20 years ago). 

See Screenshot 0f NEJM May 15 2003 article below: 

 

It is not just a renaming process: the 20 year old virus 2003 SARS-CoV is the “point of reference” for everything pertaining to the alleged Covid-19 pandemic including the Lockdown and the Vaccination. 

(Scroll down for analysis and details pertaining to the identification and renaming of 2019-nCoV)

Video: The Non-existent “New Corona Virus”?

Michel Chossudovsky, Interview with Caroline Mailloux, Lux Media

 

 


To leave a comment or Access Rumble click here or lower right hand corner of screen

“Big Money” and “Big Pharma” Meet at Davos

The alleged new virus was actively debated at the World Economic Forum (WEF), meeting in Davos Switzerland (January 22, 2020).

Proposed by the Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations (CEPI) an entity financed by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, a 2019-nCoV vaccine program was put forth.  Announced at Davos,  Seattle-based Moderna (with the support of CEPI) was to manufacture an mRNA vaccine to build immunity against 2019-nCoV.

The evidence as well as the statements at Davos suggest that the 2019-nCoV vaccine project was already underway in early 2019. And CEPI had foreknowledge regarding the announcement of the 2019-nCoV. (Michel Chossudovsky, Chapter VIII).

Note: The development of a 2019 nCoV vaccine was announced at Davos, 2 weeks after the January 7, 2020 announcement, and barely a  week prior to the official launching of the WHO’s Worldwide Public Health emergency on January 30.  The WEF-Gates-CEPI Vaccine Announcement precedes the WHO Public Health Emergency (PHEIC)

Lies and Falsehoods

All of this was unfolding at a time when the alleged new coronavirus named 2019-nC0V had not been isolated, it’s identity had not been confirmed and the number of reported cases in China was exceedingly low: “As of 3 January 2020, there were 44 cases reported, 11 are severely ill, while the remaining 33 patients are in stable condition (WHO Report).

There was no evidence of an unfolding epidemic in China, nor was there evidence of a lab leakCEPI’s statement at Davos regarding “The Rapid Global Spread of the Novel Coronavirus” is a bold face lie. (See image above)

And then on January 30th, 2020, the Director General of the WHO Dr. Tedros declared a Public Health Emergency of  International Concern (PHEIC) with absolutely no evidence of a threatening epidemic.

On that same day there were 83 positive cases Worldwide out of China for a population of 6.4 billion people. See table below: 5 positive cases in the U.S, 3 in Canada, 4 in France and 4 in Germany. Ask yourself does that constitute a Worldwide emergency? 

And those (cumulative) cases were based on the RT-Polymerase Chain Reaction (PCR) Test which does not detect the identity of the virus. (See Appendix). 

 

page25image363279504

Screenshot from WHO, January 29, 2020.

Number of confirmed positive cases in US, Canada, France and Germany 

page29image1161272480Three weeks later at a press conference on the 20th of February 2020 the WHO Director-General Dr. Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus intimated that the pandemic was imminent:

“[I am] concerned that the chance to contain the coronavirus outbreak was “closing”

“I believe the window of opportunity is still there, but that the window is narrowing.”

What was the evidence put forth by Dr. Tedros in support of his bold statement?

On February 20, 2020, there were only 1076 confirmed cases outside China (including those of the Diamond Princess Cruise Ship stranded in Japan’s territorial waters).

On that same day, the  WHO provided the data of confirmed cases “by countries, territories or areas outside China”15 in the U.S., 8 in Canada, 16 in Germany, 12 in France, 9 in the U.K.

 

March 11, 2020: The historic COVID-19 pandemic lockdown, “Closing Down” of approximately 190 National Economies 

The WHO Director-General had already set the stage in his February 21st Press Conference.

 “The world should do more to prepare for a possible coronavirus pandemic.” 

The WHO officially declared a worldwide pandemic at a time when there were 44,279 (cumulative) positive Covid cases outside China for a population of 6.4 billion. (For details and analysis see Michel Chossudovsky, Chapter II)

Confirmed by the WHO, in the United States, recorded on March 9, 2020, there were 3,457 “confirmed cases” (RT-PCR positive) out of a population of  329.5 million people  (Screenshot of WHO graph Interactive WHO graph

In Canada on March 9, 2020, there were 125 “confirmed cases” out of a population of 38.5 million people

  Screenshot of WHO graph Interactive WHO graphData for Canada

In Germany on March 9, 2020, there were 2948 “confirmed cases” out of a population of 83.2 million people

For details, see Michel Chossudovsky, March 19, 2022)

The October 2019 “Event 201” Simulation of a “Dangerous Virus” entitled nCoV-2019

Event 201 was a table top simulation of a coronavirus epidemic, sponsored by John Hopkins and the Gates Foundation. 

The WHO initially adopted the same acronym, namely 2019-nCoV (to designate the novel coronavirus), as that of the Johns Hopkins simulated Pandemic Event 201 Exercise.

The name of the new coronavirus was (with the exception of the placement of 2019) identical to that of the Event 201 simulation.

Attended by prominent personalities, The Simulation was held on October 18, 2019, less than three months before the announcement  in early January 2020 of a new coronavirus.

Among the participants, were representatives (aka. decision-makers) from the WHO, US Intelligence, the Gates Foundation, the Global Alliance on Vaccines and Immunization (GAVI) (financed by the Gates Foundation), the Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations (CEPI), the World Economic Forum (WEF), the United Nations, the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), China’s Center for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC, Director Dr. George Fu Gao), Big Pharma, the World Bank, among others. 

These various organizations played a key role when the so-called pandemic went live in early 2020. Many features of the 201 “simulation exercise” did in fact correspond to what actually happened when the WHO Director-General launched a Global Public Health Emergency (PHEIC) on January 30, 2020. 
.

Moreover, the sponsors of Event 201 — including the WEF and the Gates Foundation — as well the participants were actively involved from the very outset in coordinating (and financing) COVID-19-related policies including the RT-PCR test, the March 2020 lockdown as well as as the mRNA vaccine, launched in December 2020

China’s CDC Director Dr. George Fu Gao –who participated in the 201 simulation– played a central role in overseeing the COVID-19 outbreak in Wuhan in early 2020, acting in close liaison with his mentor Dr. Anthony Fauci, as well as with the Gates Foundation, CEPI, et al. 

Dr. Gao Fu is an Oxford graduate with links to Big Pharma. He was also for several years a fellow of the Wellcome Charitable Foundation owned by GlaxoSmithKline (GSK, plc). 

The Mysterious “Identity of the New Virus”

The name of the virus was first identified: 

  • –October 2020: 201 Simulation Scenario October 2020: nCoV-2019 
  • –December 2019, Wuhan: 2019 nCoV 

And then mysteriously another change in the name of the novel coronavirus took place on February 11, 2020.

from 2019-nCoV to SARS-CoV-2, which stands for “Severe acute respiratory syndrome”: SARS – Corona (Co) Virus(V)-2″.  

There was no longer a “n” prefix (indicating that it was a NEW VIRUS). The “n” prefix was replaced by a “2” suffix 

What is the meaning of SARS-CoV-2. More specifically what is the meaning of the mysterious “2” suffix? It pertains to a 20 year old virus entitled: 

2003 -SARS-CoV, which can by no means be categorized as a NEW VIRUS

“New Virus” versus “Old Virus”: the 2002-2003 “Severe acute respiratory syndrome” (SARS)

SARS-CoV-2  –which since February 11, 2020 had become the official name of the 2019 novel coronavirus– is by no means A NEW VIRUS.  

Flash Back to China, Guangdong Province 2002-2003. Confirmed by the WHO and peer reviewed reports: 

“A Novel Coronavirus Associated with Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome” broke out in Guangdong, Province, PRC in 2002. (NEJM, May 2003)

SARS was categorized as Novel Coronavirus in 2003. i.e no longer NEW. It was detected and isolated 20 years ago in early 2003. 

In the course of the last twenty years it must have resulted in multiple variants of the original 2003-SARS-Coronavirus.

The Essential Features of the 2003-SARS-CoV Virus

Confirmed by the WHO

“the Severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) is a viral respiratory disease caused by a SARS-associated coronavirus. It was first identified at the end of February 2003 [more than 20 years ago] during an outbreak that emerged in China and spread to 4 other countries. … 

A worldwide outbreak of severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) has been associated with exposures originating from a single ill health care worker from Guangdong Province, China. We conducted studies to identify the etiologic agent of this outbreak.

… a novel coronavirus was isolated from patients who met the case definition of SARS. …  Consensus coronavirus primers designed to amplify a fragment of the polymerase gene by reverse transcription–polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) were used to obtain a sequence that clearly identified the isolate as a unique coronavirus only distantly related to previously sequenced coronaviruses.

What is significant in this report is that the WHO confirmed that the novel 2003 coronavirus entitled 2003 SARS-CoV had been isolated from patients’ samples, identified and designated “severe acute respiratory syndrome” in March 2003. 

Absence of An Isolate of the “New 2019 Virus (2019-nCoV)” 

While the 2003 SARS-CoV was duly isolated, the WHO acknowledged in January 2020 that it did not have an isolate and purified sample of  the new 2019 coronavirus from an infected patient, which meant that they were unable to confirm the identity of the (“dangerous”) 2019 novel coronavirus entitled 2019-nCoV. That was the reason given. Sounds Absurd. 

How was this matter resolved. Following advice from the Gates Foundation, the WHO was in liaison with the Berlin Virology Institute at Charité Hospital.

Under the scientific guidance of Dr. Christian Drosten, the Berlin Virology study was entitled:

page40image1120979488

The Berlin Virology Institute study firmly acknowledged that:

[While]… several viral genome sequences had been released,… virus isolates or samples [of 2019-nCoV] from infected patients were not available …”

What the Berlin team recommended to the WHO was that in the absence of an isolate of the 2019-nCoV virus, a similar 2003 SARS-CoV virus should be used as a “proxy” (point of reference) of the novel 2019 coronavirus:

“The genome sequences suggest presence of a virus closely related to the members of a viral species termed severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS)-related CoV, a species defined by the agent of the 2002/03 outbreak of SARS in humans [3,4].

We report on the the establishment and validation of a diagnostic workflow for 2019-nCoV screening and specific confirmation [using the RT-PCR test], designed in absence of available virus isolates or original patient specimens. Design and validation were enabled by the close genetic relatedness to the 2003 SARS-CoV, and aided by the use of synthetic nucleic acid technology.” (Eurosurveillance, January 23, 2020, emphasis added).

What this ambiguous statement suggests is that the identity of 2019-nCoV was not required and that “COVID-19 confirmed cases” (aka infection resulting from the 2019 novel coronavirus) would be validated by “the close genetic relatedness to the 2003 SARS-CoV.”

How could the new virus be categorized as similar without having been identified, i.e. without an “isolate”? Moreover, bear in mind that while the PCR test does not detect the virus, it detects genetic fragments (of numerous viruses)

Smoking Gun

What this means is that a coronavirus detected 20 years ago (at the time of writing) in Guangdong Province (2003 SARS-CoV) has been used to “validate” the identity of a so-called “novel coronavirus” first detected in China’s Hubei Province in late December 2019.

The recommendations of the Drosten study (financed with a grant of $249,550 from the Gates Foundation) were then transmitted to the WHO. 

They were subsequently endorsed by the Director- General of the WHO, Dr. Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus.

The WHO did not have in its possession the “virus isolate” required to identify the new virus.

“Never mind”. It was decided that an isolate of the new coronavirus was not required.

It stands to reason that if the PCR test uses the 2003 SARS-CoV virus as a proxy or “point of reference”, there can be no “confirmed” cases pertaining to the novel coronavirus 2019-nCoV.

The 2019 new coronavirus 2019 nCoV  was renamed SARS-CoV-2 on February 11, 2020 by the International Committee on Taxonomy of Viruses. That explains the 2 suffix.

The 2019 novel coronavirus is said to be “similar” to 2003-SARS-CoV, which was subsequently renamed SARS-CoV-1 (to distinguish it from SARS-CoV-2).

The NEW Virus (2019 nCoV) is “non-existent” (no RT-PCR confirmed cases). 

The RT-PCR Test Declared Invalid by the WHO

Amply documented, the RT-PCR test detects genetic fragments of numerous viruses without being able to identify the virus.

See the article below:

The WHO Confirms that the Covid-19 PCR Test is Flawed: Estimates of “Positive Cases” are Meaningless. The Lockdown Has No Scientific Basis

By Prof Michel Chossudovsky, December 10, 2023

See also our review of the RT- PCR in the Appendix of this article. 

The significance and ambiguity of the WHO decision –following the advice of the Berlin Virology Institute– namely the issue of the “isolate” of the novel coronavirus have been casually overlooked. “No Questions Asked”

The British Media reported on February 6, 2020 the change in the name of the virus:  

“[The] Deadly coronavirus will FINALLY get a name: Scientists plan to officially label the disease ‘within days’ – but it won’t be called after any places or animals. The International Committee on Taxonomy of Viruses has submitted a name. …

Big Money, Big Pharma. Patent Rights

Let’s bear in mind: The Covid Crisis which is still ongoing is a Big Money Operation Worldwide, with numerous Big Pharma products, extending from the global misuse of the RT-PCR test, to the multibillion dollar Big Pharma vaccine project, largely dominated by Pfizer.

Was the change in the name of the virus to SARS-CoV-2 an issue of “royalties” and intellectual property rights? The U.S Patent Rights, pertaining to 2003 SARS-CoV was filed in April 2004 and assigned in May 2007 to the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services:  

Patent No.: US 7,220,852 B1 Date of Patent: May 22 2007. (This is a matter for further investigation.)

“The Big Lie” and the “Non-Existent New Virus”. What are the Consequences?

As documented above (confirmed by the WHO) the new 2019 corona virus was never identified.

The use of  a 20 year old virus entitled 2003 SARS-CoV as a proxy for the alleged new virus confirms that there was NO PANDEMIC resulting from a NEW CORONAVIRUS in January-March 2020.

THERE WAS NO “NEW VIRUS”.

What this signifies is that both the Devastating Lockdown policies imposed on 190 countries (March 11, 2020) as well the Worldwide Rollout of the Covid-19 Vaccine (mid December 2020) are fraudulent. They are based on a “Big Lie”,  which has contributed in the course of almost four years to literally destroying people’s lives.

In turn the incessant fear campaign had a devastating impact on people’s health, their mental health, including a Worldwide wave of suicides. In several countries suicides among school children were recorded (See Michel Chossudovsky, Chapter VI)

“The Big Lie” Precipitates the Lockdown

The unspoken truth is that the novel coronavirus has provided a pretext and a justification to powerful financial interests and corrupt politicians to precipitate the entire world into a spiral of mass unemployment, bankruptcy, extreme poverty and despair.

The lockdown was an act of economic and social warfare. The labor force was confined, the work place is frozen, leading to an engineered Worldwide economic collapse.

This crisis is by no means over. The entire World is currently strangled in the Most Serious Debt Crisis is World history. All categories of indebtedness (private and public).

In the words of the WEF billionaires to those who are loosing their homes or cannot pay their monthly rent: their motto is: 

Own Nothing Be Happy”.  

The mRNA “Vaccine” Intended to Protect People against a “Non Existent New Virus”

Amply documented the mRNA “vaccine” which was intended to protect people against this non-existent new coronavirus renamed SARS-nCoV-2 has resulted in an upward trend in excess mortality. 

The Pfizer Confidential Report released under Freedom of Information confirms based on their own data that the vaccine is a toxic substance.  To access the complete Pfizer report click here

The evidence is overwhelming: See the carefully documented impacts of the “vaccine” by Dr. William Makis on people from all walks life: pilots, health workers, school children, students, athletes, pregnant women and new born babies (and many more). 

Excess Mortality

There are numerous studies on vaccine related excess mortality. Below is a summary of an incisive study pertaining to Cancer Related Excess Mortality in England and Wales resulting from the mRNA Vaccine conducted by the team of Edward Dowd

Dowd’s method was to analyze the number of deaths attributed to cancer in England and Wales between 2010 and 2022 (based on the data of the U.K. Office for National Statistics). 

The table below pertains to excess deaths related to malignant neoplasm (cancerous tumor) in England and Wales, recorded in three consecutive years: 2020, 2021, and 2022 vs. a 10 year trend (2010-2019).

The data for excess mortality in 2020 (the year prior to the vaccine) are negative with the exception of “malignant neoplasm without specification of site”.

The COVID-19 vaccine was rolled-out in several phases in England and Wales starting on December 8, 2020  and extending into March-April 2021.

The upward movement in excess mortality (%) commences in 2021. The increase in excess mortality related to malignant neoplasm is tabulated for the two first years of the vaccine. 

 

Below is a similar table pertaining to Excess Mortality in Germany, which points to the Deviation of Observed Mortality from Expected Mortality (by age group) in 2020, 2021, and 2022.

Notice the upward shift in excess mortality in 2021 and 2022 following the rollout of the Covid Vaccine in December 2020

Germany: Excess Mortality by Age Group (%)

Excess Mortality in Red by age group, Total Excess Mortality in Gray 

Japan. Excess Mortality (2020-2022): Jump in Excess mortality in 2021 and 2022 (January-October 2022)

Media Disinformation, Boldface Lies 

There are numerous studies on excess mortality resulting from the vaccine, which are ignored by the media.

Invariably the Press reports state with authority that it is the virus which is “dangerous”or “deadly”, when in fact it is the “Vaccine” which has triggered an upward trend in mortality.

The Daily Mail (February 6, 2020) refers to a “deadly coronavirus” intimating that it is spreading Worldwide

The dangerous virus designation is a boldface LIE:

Confirmed by the WHO, the CDC and peer reviewed reports, the 2019 nCoV-19 is not dangerous. See the Appendix below.

 

“When the Lie Become the Truth, There is No Moving Backwards”

CENSORSHIP: The original Global Research video produced by Ariel Rodriguez in February 2021 was taken down by Vimeo on March 5, 2022

Below is the Version on Rumble

***

Our thanks to Vaccine Choice Canada 

 

 


Our analysis in this short article has provided evidence: 

  • that the alleged NEW CORONAVIRUS entitled 2019 nCoV was never isolated, 
  • the renamed new coronavirus entitled SARS-CoV-2 is NOT A NEW VIRUS. It is similar to an OLD VIRUS entitled 2003-SARS-CoV.

I should mention that there are many other issues which invalidate the “official narrative”, specifically the RT-PCR test which does not identify the virus.  

See sections 1, 2, 3 4 of the Appendix below as well as our review of The Reverse Transcription Polymerase Chain Reaction (RT-PCR) Test. 

Scroll down to consult the Appendix


Michel Chossudovsky’s Message

Dear Readers,

We stand in solidarity Worldwide. My thanks for your support in the course of more than twenty years.

You are welcome to download (free of charge) my Book (15  chapters) which provides a detailed analysis of a crisis which is still ongoing.

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

Free of Charge for ALL our Readers. Click here to Download 


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.

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

 


Appendix

 

Our analysis above provides evidence: 

  • that the alleged NEW CORONAVIRUS entitled 2019 nCoV was never isolated and that
  • the renamed new coronavirus entitled SARS-CoV-2 is similar to a 20 year old virus entitled 2003-SARS-CoV 

It should be understood that there are many other issues which invalidate the “official narrative” which are not addressed in the article(See sections 1, 2, 3 4 below as well as our review of The Reverse Transcription Polymerase Chain Reaction (RT-PCR) Test

Of significance to our understanding of “fear campaigns”, the WHO and CDC confirm that the 2019 nCoV (SARS-CoV-2) is not a dangerous virus.

1. The WHO Statement Regarding 2019-nCoV

The most recently discovered coronavirus causes coronavirus disease COVID-19. The most common symptoms of COVID-19 are fever, dry cough, and tiredness. … These symptoms are usually mild and begin gradually. Some people become infected but only have very mild symptoms. Most people (about 80%) recover from the disease without needing hospital treatment. Around 1 out of every 5 people who gets COVID-19 becomes seriously ill and develops difficulty breathing.” (For further details see Michel Chossudovsky, August 2022, emphasis added)

2. Dr. Anthony Fauci  Regarding SARS-CoV-2 in the NEJM

From the outset, Fauci has persistently warned of the imminent dangers of the SARS-CoV-2 (including its variants and sub-variants), while acknowledging in his peer reviewed article in the New England Journal of Medicine (together with H. Clifford Lane, M.D. and Robert R. Redfield, M.D. that:

“The overall clinical consequences of Covid-19 may ultimately be more akin to those of a severe seasonal influenza (which has a case fatality rate of approximately 0.1%) or a pandemic influenza (similar to those in 1957 and 1968)…” (See Covid-19 — Navigating the Uncharted, NEJM)

3. The WHO’s Definition of 2003-SARS

SARS is an airborne virus and can spread through small droplets of saliva in a similar way to the cold and influenza. … SARS can also be spread indirectly via surfaces that have been touched by someone who is infected with the virus.

Most patients identified with SARS were previously healthy adults aged 25–70 years. A few suspected cases of SARS have been reported among children under 15 years. The case fatality among persons with illness meeting the current WHO case definition for probable and suspected cases of SARS is around 3%.  

One month prior to the change of name of the novel 2019 nCoV coronavirus to SARS-CoV-2 (On February 11), the WHO released, a detailed document pertaining to the 2003 Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome (Operational Support & Logistics Disease Commodity Packages pdf).

4. The CDC’s Comparison of SARS-CoV-2 with Seasonal Influenza 

“Influenza (Flu) and COVID-19 are both contagious respiratory illnesses, but they are caused by different viruses. COVID-19 is caused by infection with a new coronavirus (called SARS-CoV-2) and flu is caused by infection with influenza viruses.

Because some of the symptoms of flu and COVID-19 are similar, it may be hard to tell the difference between them based on symptoms alone, and testing may be needed to help confirm a diagnosis. Flu and COVID-19 share many characteristics, but there are some key differences between the two.”

If the public had been informed and reassured that COVID is “similar to Influenza”, the fear campaign would have fallen flat.

The lockdown and closure of the national economy would have been rejected outright, not to mention the subsequent imposition of the Covid-19 Vaccine.

 

The Reverse Transcription

Polymerase Chain Reaction (RT-PCR) Test

 

The slanted methodology applied under WHO guidance for detecting the alleged spread of the virus is the Reverse Transcription Polymerase Chain Reaction (RT-PCR) test, which has been routinely applied all over the world since February 2020. (This Text is an excerpt from Michel Chossudovsky’s book,  August 2022)

The RT-PCR test has been used worldwide to generate millions of erroneous “COVID-19 confirmed cases”, which are then used to sustain the illusion that the alleged pandemic is real.

This assessment based on erroneous numbers has been used in the course of three and and a half years to spearhead and sustain the fear campaign.

“Confirmed” is a misnomer. A “confirmed RT-PCR positive case” does not imply a “COVID-19 confirmed case”.

Positive RT-PCR is not synonymous with the COVID-19 disease! PCR specialists make it clear that a test must always be compared with the clinical record of the patient being tested, with the patient’s state of health to confirm its value [reliability]. (Dr. Pascal Sacré)

The procedure used by the national health authorities is to categorize all RT-PCR positive cases as “COVID-19 confirmed cases” (with or without a medical diagnosis). Ironically, this routine process of identifying “confirmed cases” is in derogation of the CDC’s own guidelines:

“Detection of viral RNA may not indicate the presence of infectious virus or that 2019-nCoV is the causative agent for clinical symptoms. The performance of this test has not been established for monitoring treatment of 2019-nCoV infection. This test cannot rule out diseases caused by other bacterial or viral pathogens.”8 (emphasis added)

The methodology used to detect and estimate the spread of the virus is flawed and invalid.

False Positives

The earlier debate at the outset of the crisis focused on the issue of “false positives.”

Acknowledged by the WHO and the CDC, the RT-PCR test was known to produce a high percentage of false positives. According to Dr. Pascal Sacré:

“Today, as authorities test more people, there are bound to be more positive RT-PCR tests. This does not mean that COVID-19 is coming back, or that the epidemic is moving in waves. There are more people being tested, that’s all.”9

The debate on false positives (acknowledged by health authorities) points to so-called errors without necessarily questioning the overall validity of the RT-PCR test as a means to detecting the alleged spread of the SARS-CoV-2 virus.

The PCR Test Does Not Detect the Identity of the Virus

The RT-PCR test does not identify/detect the virus. What the PCR test identifies are genetic fragments of numerous viruses (including influenza viruses types A and B and coronaviruses which trigger common colds).

The results of the RT-PCR test cannot “confirm” whether an individual who undertakes the test is infected with SARS-CoV-2.

The following diagram summarizes the process of identifying positive and negative cases. All that is required is the presence of “viral genetic material” for it to be categorized as “positive”. The procedure does not identity or isolate COVID-19. What appears in the tests are fragments of the virus.10

Failures of the PCR Test, Ridiculously Low Numbers

Even if the 2019 nCoV had been detected and duly identified, the numbers of PCR-RT confirmed (cumulative) positive cases in the period leading up to to March 11, 2020 used as a justification to enforce the Lockdown of more than 190 countries were ridiculously low.

 
page30image710502480

Image: Total cumulative cases on March 12, 2020 (Source: WHO)

 

 

 

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.

First published on December 22, 2023

***

A minor but significant spark of direct action occurred in New York on 15 December 2023. A group of people entered a Whole Foods store (owned by Amazon), took groceries without paying and exited wearing Jeff Bezos masks.  

Independent reporter Talia Jane posted the following on Twitter/X:  

“The action was in protest against corporate wealth alongside increased food insecurity & to call attention to Amazon’s contracts with Israel.” 

She also posted a video of the event with people throwing around flyers and shouting, “Feed the people, eat the rich!” Jane stated the food was later redistributed and given to food ‘distros’ and community care spaces feeding migrants and the unhoused. 

It’s Going Down — which describes itself as “a digital community center for anarchist, anti-fascist, autonomous anti-capitalist and anti-colonial movements across so-called North America” — has published on its website the texts of the flyers.  

Here is an abridged version of one of the texts: 

“We assert that corporations like Amazon and Whole Foods do a tremendous amount of harm: hoarding wealth and resources, stealing labor, and destroying the land we live on. When we purchase food from Whole Foods, only a small fraction of what we spend is going back to those doing the labor to produce the food — the vast majority of it is funneled into Jeff Bezos’s coffers, where it is in turn reinvested in weapon manufacturing, war, and big oil. 

“Furthermore, Amazon’s contract for Project Nimbus with the IOF [Israel Occupation Forces] means that Bezos profits directly from the ongoing genocide in Palestine. Boycott. Divest. Shoplift. Not another dime for genocide! 

“We believe direct action is a vital form of resistance against the capitalist institutions built to crush, starve, and bleed us to death. Solidarity with shoplifters everywhere! We hope you will be inspired to take similar action wherever you are. 

“Move like water. Take back what has always been yours. Become ungovernable.” 

Some of the unscrupulous practices and the adverse impacts of Bezos and his Amazon corporation are described in the online article ‘Amazon, ‘Economic Terrorism’ and the Destruction of Livelihoods’. Indeed, US Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin said in 2019 that Amazon had “destroyed the retail industry across the United States.” 

Project Nimbus, referred to in the flyer, is a $1.2bn contract to provide cloud services for the Israeli military and government and it will allow for further surveillance of and unlawful data collection on Palestinians while facilitating expansion of Israel’s illegal settlements on Palestinian land. 

Direct Action 

Of course, there will be those who condemn the direct action described above. And they will do so while remaining blissfully unaware of or silent on the direct action of the super-wealthy that has plunged hundreds of millions into hardship and poverty. 

The wholly unavoidable conflict in Ukraine (which profits corporate vultures), speculative food commodity trading, the impact of closing down the global economy via the COVID event and the inflationary impacts of pumping trillions of dollars into the financial system have driven people into poverty and denied them access to sufficient food.  

All such events did not result from an ‘act of God’. They were orchestrated and brought about by deliberate policy decisions. And the effects have been devastating. 

In 2022, it was estimated that a quarter of a billion people across the world would be pushed into absolute  poverty in that year alone.   

In the UK, poverty is increasing in two-thirds of communities, food banks are now a necessary part of life for millions of people and living standards are plummeting. The poorest families are enduring a ‘frightening’ collapse in living standards, resulting in life-changing and life-limiting poverty. Absolute poverty is set to be at 18.3 per cent by 2023-2024.   

In the US, around 30 million low-income people are on the edge of a “hunger cliff” as a portion of their federal food assistance is taken away. In 2021, it was estimated that one in eight children were going hungry in the US.   

Small businesses are filing for bankruptcy in the US at a record rate. Private bankruptcy filings in 2023 have exceeded the highest point recorded during the early stages of COVID by a considerable amount. The four-week moving average for private filings in late February 2023 was 73% higher than in June 2020. 

As hundreds of millions suffer, a relative handful of multi-billionaires have gained at their expense.     

February 2023 report by Greenpeace International showed that 20 food corporations delivered $53.5 billion to shareholders in the financial years 2020 and 2021. At the same time, the UN estimated that $51.5 billion would be enough to provide food, shelter and lifesaving support for the world’s 230 million most vulnerable people.   

These ‘hunger profiteers’ exploited crises to gain grotesque profits. They plunged millions into hunger while tightening their grip on the global food system.  

Meanwhile, nearly 100 of the biggest US publicly traded companies recorded 2021 profit margins that were at least 50 per cent higher than their 2019 levels.   

In a July 2021 report, Yahoo Finance noted that the richest 0.01% — around 18,000 US families — hold 10% of the country’s wealth today. In 1913, the top 0.01% held 9% of US wealth and just 2% in the late 1970s. 

The wealth of the world’s billionaires increased by $3.9tn between 18 March and 31 December 2020. Their total wealth then stood at $11.95tn, a 50% increase in just 9.5 months. Between April and July 2020, during the initial lockdowns, the wealth held by these billionaires grew from $8 trillion to more than $10 trillion.  

The world’s 10 richest billionaires collectively saw their wealth increase by $540bn over this period. In September 2020, Jeff Bezos could have paid all 876,000 Amazon employees a $105,000 bonus and still be as wealthy as he was before COVID. 

And do not forget the offshoring of plundered wealth by the super-rich of $50 trillion into hidden accounts. 

These are the ‘direct actions’ we should really be concerned about.  

A point rammed home via another flyer that was issued during the protest in New York: 

“The shelves in this store have been stocked with items that were harvested, prepared, and cooked via a long supply chain of exploitation and extraction from people and land. 

“This food was made by the People and it should fill the bellies of the People. 

“Don’t fall prey to the myth of scarcity! Look around you: there is enough for all of us. This food is being hoarded, and we are giving it back to our communities. The world belongs to us – everything is already ours. 

“We deserve to eat whether we can pay or not. Tear down the system that starves and kills people, one liberated apple at a time!” 

*

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

Renowned author Colin Todhunter specialises in development, food and agriculture. He is a Research Associate of the Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG).


Read Colin Todhunter’s e-Book entitled

Food, Dispossession and Dependency. Resisting the New World Order

We are currently seeing an acceleration of the corporate consolidation of the entire global agri-food chain. The high-tech/big data conglomerates, including Amazon, Microsoft, Facebook and Google, have joined traditional agribusiness giants, such as Corteva, Bayer, Cargill and Syngenta, in a quest to impose their model of food and agriculture on the world.

The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation is also involved (documented in ‘Gates to a Global Empire‘ by Navdanya International), whether through buying up huge tracts of farmland, promoting a much-heralded (but failed) ‘green revolution’ for Africa, pushing biosynthetic food and genetic engineering technologies or more generally facilitating the aims of the mega agri-food corporations.

Click here to read.

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.

Big Tech’s Effort to Silence Truth-tellers: Global Research Online Referral Campaign

***

In his recent article “The Destabilization of Haiti: Anatomy of a Military Coup d’Etat“, Professor Michel Chossudovsky memorizes 29 February 2024 as the 20th anniversary of the coup d’État against Haiti’s elected president Jean-Bertrand Aristide.

He also describes the military motives for controlling Haiti, namely to destabilize the country and to plunge it into constant chaos. This is precisely what has happened. Haiti is in a constant state of near absolute poverty – by far the poorest country in all Latin America according to official UN / World Bank indices.

Is there a reason?

As we will see, Haiti is also one of the world’s richest countries, per capita, judged by available natural resources, oil and gas. Discovered before the 2010 earthquake and confirmed by the tremendous 7.0 Richter seism.

Haiti’s Potential Hydrocarbon Deposits

The Economic Commission for Latin America and the Caribbean (ECLAC), issued in May 1980 a report under the Caribbean Development and Cooperation Committee (CDCC), describing the likelihood of large oil deposits in the Caribbean, including off-shore of Port-au-Prince, Haiti, see this. Haiti is also said to have trillions of dollars-worth of off-shore natural gas, see this.

These discoveries were likely made in the 1970s and 1980s, perhaps earlier, by US satellite imaging. US satellites have mapped the world for hydrocarbon resources already at least 50 years ago. Such information used to be available on internet – no longer.

Brief Haitian History and Background

François Duvalier, also known as Papa Doc, served as the president of Haiti from 1957 until his death in 1971. He was succeeded by his 19-year-old son, Jean-Claude Duvalier, nicknamed “Baby Doc”.

The Duvalier dynasty was an autocratic hereditary dictatorship, indiscriminately killing people who dared interfering with their government style. The dynasty empire lasted almost 29 years, from 1957 until 1986, spanning the rule of the father-and-son duo, François and Jean-Claude Duvalier. Both served the US’ political and economic interests.

The sociopolitical situation in Haiti deteriorated seriously under the regime of Baby Doc and his powerful wife. In 1986, President Reagon asked Jean-Claude to leave Haiti, so that the US could “help install” a more stable and serious government. In February 1986 Baby Doc fled to France in a US airforce jet.

The end of the Duvalier dynasty brought hope for “freedom” and democracy to the Haitian people. There was a succession of short-lived presidents until 1991, when Jean-Bertrand Aristide was first elected in February 1991. His presidency lasted 234 days, when a brief military government took over.

In the ten years following Mr. Aristide’s first election, the US-supported political turmoil in Haiti, with a succession of heads of state, during which Mr. Aristide was four times elected president.

His last presidency started in February 2001 and ended three years later when Mr. Aristide, Haiti’s first democratically elected President, was quietly deposed by a US-guided coup on 29 February 2004 and deported to South Africa, where he presumably still lives in exile. He was discouraged by the US State Department from returning to Haiti. 

This coup was planned well in advance, by the US, France and Canada. The subsequent process of militarization (foreign troops) was undertaken on behalf of  Washington Brazil under the helm of progressive “socialist” President, Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva – Lula for short — and George W. Bush, both then Presidents of their respective countries, Brazil and United States.

By now we know that Lula has nothing of progressive, and even less of “socialist” in him. He is and has been totally sold to the usurping west, to Wall Street and the IMF – and that already during his first two terms as President of Brazil, 2003-2011.

Both Lula and Bush are traitors of their countries but Lula, a make-believe socialist, has deeply betrayed his country during his first two terms, and now, since 1 January 2023, in his third term, but also the people of Haiti.

After associating with Wall Street and the IMF during his first two terms, Lula is again allying with the money brokers – the debt machines, as one may call them.  

Remember during the French Revolution (1789-99), French black slaves in Haiti launched the Haitian Revolution (1791-1804), led by a former slave and black general of the French Army. After 12 years of struggle and conflict, Napoleon Bonaparte’s forces were defeated, and on 1 January 1804 Haiti declared her sovereign independence.

Haiti, thus, became the first independent nation of Latin America and the Caribbean, and the first country in the Americas to eliminate slavery. Haiti is the only state in history established by a successful slave revolt.

In the 1980s, with close to 200 years of independence (on January 1, 2024, Haiti celebrated 220 years of independence), a black, sovereign, autonomous island in the Caribbean was perceived as a “danger” for the United States’ “national security”. There already was a “Communist Cuba” to deal with just 90 miles (150 km) from the southern Florida border. A black independent, uncontrolled, Haiti was beyond limits for a still racist white US supremacy.

Plus, at that time, Haiti’s riches in petrol and gas were already known to Washington, though, most likely not to Haiti.

Thus, the US, French and Canada ganged up against Haiti’s government to control the island and her riches. Chaos was the modus operandi – and US-induced chaos and crime reign up to this day over Haiti.

The 2010 Earthquake 

What is important to know is that there are no coincidences.

In the 1970s / 1980s and perhaps up to early 1990s, huge petrol resources were satellite-discovered deep under the sea floor off-shore from Port-au-Prince, Haiti. To get to these resources is expensive.

Unless they are brought up closer to the surface – for example by an earthquake, that cracks the tectonic plates, letting pressure bring the oil closer into shallower areas.

undefined

Assistance camp set up by the Brazilian Army (Licensed under CC BY 3.0 br)

On 12 January 2010, a 7.0 magnitude earthquake struck Haiti, leaving its capital Port-au-Prince devastated. About 220,000 people were reportedly killed.

Among other aid, the Clinton Foundation was supposed to bring order and development back to Haiti, after the seismic devastation. In fact, the contrary is true. More than ten years later, chaos and crime continue dominating the Haitian part of the island of Hispaniola.

Is there a purpose behind it, other than that the Clinton Foundation enriched itself by the multi-million-dollar donations it received to help restore social and economic order in Haiti?

According to the World Atlas (January 2019), recent findings have confirmed Haiti’s enormous oil and gas reserves. Discoveries show that the nation of Haiti (yet to be confirmed) might have some of the largest oil reserves in the world. They are estimated to be potentially larger than those of Venezuela. See this for more details. 

This amply explains why the United States will not leave Haiti to her independence. The monetary stakes, the riches are too high.

Today, the same Lula, who helped instigate the 2004 coup against President Aristide, is “volunteering” in setting up a UN occupation / security force in Haiti, consisting mainly of Brazilian troops. This military occupation is supposed to bring back order and promote economic development.

They will also prepare the ground – or waters – for massive exploitation and extraction of the huge hydrocarbon reserves. This is the military’s hidden agenda. Of course, not part of the official terms of reference.

May Haiti remember her status of the first independent state in Latin America – and rise again.

These hydrocarbon riches belong to the people of Haiti.

*

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: FILE PHOTO: United Nations peacekeepers conduct a patrol in Port-au-Prince, Haiti, April 2004. (Credit: UN / Sophia Paris)

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.

Global Research Wants to Hear From You!

***

The treaties that we broke, the lands that we filched
The settlements put to the torch
The children we abused
All for your own good, of course

It happens to be the way
History has been made

Don’t go play with a toy gun
Or change lanes without signaling

Don’t comply, don’t resist
‘Cause it don’t make no difference”

Propagandhi, from the song Comply/Resist [1]

LISTEN TO THE SHOW


Click to download the audio (MP3 format)

Imagine, if you can, your culture, your way of life, your language, even your very personal identity was trampled, discredited, eradicated, and tossed to the gutter, as the newcomers to this land made the rules that benefited them.

This is the sad story facing Indigenous people all over North and South America. The dark counter-point to the joyous verse of Christopher Columbus ‘discovering America.’ It is also part of the savage opera of millions of Africans losing their trust from the Motherland and replacing it with the constructed new life and vision of the slave. [2][3]

Shortly after becoming a country, the Canadian government, aided by racist policies and racist mentalities, put in place a railroad which affected the native dwellers directly. They instituted the Indian Act, a policy subsumed by colonial laws aimed at eradicating First Nations culture and replacing it with policies of assimilation into the Euro-Canadian culture. The vicious record of Indian residential schools, which involved ripping young native children from their parents and indoctrinating them into a foreign (White Christian) culture is a result of the Indian Act. [4][5]

The inter-generational impacts see the traumas of the past being passed on from parent to child. So recent trends within our society expressing grief, and an apology from our governmental masters does not mean we have achieved full, or even any decolonization.[6]

As we mentioned in an earlier episode of this series, colonization can continue in a targeted country even after it achieves “liberation.” When a country is dominated by a foreign power, it penetrates the people on levels one cannot completely appreciate. And living for generations as a colonial power wipes away an understanding of conducting affairs in any other way.[7]

In the case of Canada’s Indigenous people, while an elaborate and diverse land containing multiple medical, hunting, language, and other treasures of a people were ravaged by settlers, similar in a way to clear-cutting rain-forests and replacing them with single crops, their understanding of their own way of life were not extinguished.[8]

This episode of the Global Research News Hour tends to be a kind of survivor’s tale. A story of an Elder generation handed down to a young man trying to regain the peace and the balance that has eluded him. It is hosted by White Thunderbird in conversation with Anishinaabeg knowledge keeper Wally Chartrand. The two discuss multiple instances of colonization and assimilation and ways to escape it through ceremony, through establishing relations with the natural world, and with each other.

This episode is also a salute to National Indigenous Peoples Day.

Wally Chartrand is a knowledge Keeper originally from Mallard, Manitoba.

(Global Research News Hour episode 437)

LISTEN TO THE SHOW


Click to download the audio (MP3 format)

The Global Research News Hour airs every Friday at 1pm CT on CKUW 95.9FM out of the University of Winnipeg.

The programme is also broadcast weekly (Monday, 1-2pm ET) by the Progressive Radio Network in the US.

The programme is also podcast at globalresearch.ca .

Other stations airing the show:

CIXX 106.9 FM, broadcasting from Fanshawe College in London, Ontario. It airs Sundays at 6am.

Campus and community radio CFMH 107.3fm in  Saint John, N.B. airs the Global Research News Hour Fridays at 7pm.

CJMP 90.1 FM, Powell River Community Radio, airs the Global Research News Hour every Saturday at 8am.

Caper Radio CJBU 107.3FM in Sydney, Cape Breton, Nova Scotia airs the Global Research News Hour starting Wednesday afternoon from 3-4pm.

Cowichan Valley Community Radio CICV 98.7 FM serving the Cowichan Lake area of Vancouver Island, BC airs the program Thursdays at 9am pacific time.

WZBC 90.3 FM in Newton Massachusetts is Boston College Radio and broadcasts to the greater Boston area. The Global Research News Hour airs Global Research News Hour excerpts infrequently during Truth and Justice Radio which starts Sunday at 6am.

Notes:

  1. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nneZ5jgrXlA
  2. Andrew Woolford, Jeff Benvenuto, and Alexander Laban Hinton (2014), ‘Colonial Genocide in Indigenous North America’,
    Durham: Duke University Press; https://academic.oup.com/jah/article-abstract/103/3/739/2647597?redirectedFrom=fulltext&login=false
  3. https://www.britannica.com/topic/slavery-sociology/Slave-culture
  4. https://www.nationalobserver.com/2020/12/21/opinion/bloody-legacy-canadas-railways-indigenous-peoples
  5. https://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.ca/en/article/indian-act
  6. https://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.ca/en/article/intergenerational-trauma-and-residential-schools
  7. https://www.globalresearch.ca/rooting-the-periphery-not-the-core-white-supremacist-domination-in-the-caribbean/5850963
  8. https://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.ca/en/article/aboriginal-rights

 

 

Sowing the GMO Seeds of Depopulation?

June 22nd, 2024 by Colin Todhunter

First published by Global Research on May 23, 2015, Colin Todhunter focusses on the socially destructive role of GMO Seeds.

***

If physical violence is to be used only as a final resort, a dominant class must seek to gain people’s consent if it is to govern and control a population. It must attempt to legitimize its position in the eyes of the ruled over by achieving a kind of ‘consented coercion’ that disguises the true fist of power. This can be achieved by many means and over the years commentators from Gramsci to Althusser and Chomsky have described how it may be done.

However, one of the most basic and arguably effective forms of control is eugenics/ depopulation, a philosophy that includes reducing the reproductive capacity of the ‘less desirable’ sections of a population.

There is a growing fear that eugenics is being used to get rid of sections of the world population that are ‘surplus to requirements’.

And it is a legitimate fear, not least because there is a sordid history of forced/covert sterilizations carried out on those deemed ‘undesirable’ or ‘surplus to requirements’, which reflects the concerns of eugenicists who have operated at the highest levels of policy making. From early 20th century ‘philanthropists’ and the Nazis to the nascent genetics movement and rich elites, by one means or another ridding the planet of the great unwanted masses has always been fairly high on the ‘to do’ list (see this informative piece)

Millionaire US media baron Ted Turner believes a global population of two billion would be ideal, and billionaire Bill Gates has pledged hundreds of millions of dollars to improve access to contraception in the Global South.

Gates has also purchased shares in Monsanto valued at more than $23 million at the time of purchase. His agenda is to help Monsanto get their genetically modified organisms (GMOs) into Africa on a grand scale. In 2001, Monsanto and Du Pont bought a small biotech company called Epicyte that had created a gene that basically makes the male sperm sterile and the female egg unreceptive.

Bill Gates’ father has long been involved with Planned Parenthood:

“When I was growing up, my parents were always involved in various volunteer things. My dad was head of Planned Parenthood. And it was very controversial to be involved with that.”

The above quotation comes from a 2003 interview with Bill Gates.

Planned Parenthood was founded on the concept that most human beings are reckless breeders. Gates senior is co-chair of the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation and a guiding light behind the vision and direction of the Gates Foundation, which is heavily focused on promoting GMOs in Africa via its financing of the Alliance for a Green Revolution in Africa (AGRA).

The Gates Foundation has given at least $264.5 million to AGRA.

According to a report published by La Via Campesina in 2010, 70 percent of AGRA’s grantees in Kenya work directly with Monsanto and nearly 80 percent of the Gates Foundation funding is devoted to biotechnology.

The report also explains that the Gates Foundation has pledged $880 million to create the Global Agriculture and Food Security Program (GAFSP), which is a heavy promoter of GMOs.

The issue of genetic engineering cannot be fully understood without looking at the global spread of US power. The oil-rich Rockefeller dynasty helped promote the ‘green revolution’, which allowed the US to colonise indigenous agriculture across large parts of the planet. By projecting power through the WTO, IMF and World Bank, Washington has been able to make food and agriculture central to its geopolitical strategy of securing global dominance.

As with the control of food and agriculture, the US also regards depopulation as a potential geo-strategic tool (see this) in the quest for control of global resources. What better way to achieve this via a (GM) tampered-with food system that US agribusiness has increasingly come to dominate?

What better way to achieve this than with ‘spermicidal corn’ for example? In Mexico, there is concern about biopharmaceutical corn. Some years ago, Silvia Ribeiro, of the ETC organization, stated:

“The potential of spermicidal corn as a biological weapon is outrageous, since it easily interbreeds with other varieties, is capable of going undetected and could lodge itself at the very core of indigenous and farming cultures. We have witnessed the execution of repeated sterilization campaigns performed against indigenous communities. This method is certainly much more difficult to trace.”

While most of the literature on GMOs is concerned with the impacts of crops that have been genetically modified to deal with pests or herbicide spraying, there are very worrying trends regarding plants being genetically modified to contain industrial pharmaceuticals or possess possible contraceptive traits.

The world’s problems are not being caused by overpopulation, as Turner states, but by greed and a system of ownership and global power relations that ensures wealth flows from bottom to top. The issue at hand should not be about stopping population growth in its tracks but about changing a socially divisive global economic system and the unsustainable depletion of natural resources.

Millionaires like Ted Turner believe it should be a case of carry on consuming regardless, as long as the population is cut.

This is the ideology of the rich who regard the rest of humanity as a problem to be ‘dealt with.’ He says there are “too many people using too much stuff.” He couldn’t be more wrong. For instance, developing nations account for more than 80 percent of world population, but consume only about one third of the world’s energy. US citizens constitute 5 percent of the world’s population but consume 24 percent of the world’s energy.

We should be weary of a politically and militarily well-connected biotech sector which has ownership of technology that allows for the genetic engineering of food and a gene that could be used (or already is) for involuntary sterilization. From covert vaccination campaigns to germ warfare and geo-engineering, sections of the population around the world have too often been sprayed on, injected or exposed to harmful processes to induce sterility, infertility or to merely see the outcome of exposures to radiation, bacteria or some virus. It is for good reason some conflate GMOs and bio-terror.

Herbert Marcuse once summed up the problem facing us by saying that the capabilities — both intellectual and technological — of contemporary society are immeasurably greater than before. As a result, the scope of society’s domination over the individual is also immeasurably greater than ever before. That domination comes in increasingly sinister forms.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Sowing the GMO Seeds of Depopulation?

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.

First published on December 21, 2023

***

Many of the UN SD goals ‘sound like’ worthy ideals’, for example, who could argue against the goal of eliminating poverty from the world?  In this article I attempt to decode the true meaning behind the deceptive marketing language of the UN Sustainable Development goals (SDGs).

The UN SDGs can be a bit tricky to decode, certainly with all the weaponized buzz words they use. Many of these goals maybe unattainable, but for the global elite, the point isn’t to improve the world, the point is to control it, and control you.  Of course, the cost of this deceptive ‘planetary utopia’ is handing over control of all planetary resources to the unelected dictators at the UN, for alleged ‘conservation’.

Real Environmentalism Was Hijacked by Deceptive UN Political Schemes

In a previous article initially published in February 2023 titled ‘1500 scientists say ‘Climate Change Not Due to Co2’ – The real environment movement was hijacked’ I provided evidences and testimonies from renowned international climate scientists that contradict the UN assertion that climate change is caused by CO2 emissions.

I also referred to the conclusion of 1500 climate scientists and climate professionals at the Climate Intelligence Foundation (CLINTEL) that the climate changes naturally and slowly in its own cycle, and that solar activity is the dominant factor in climate; and that CO2 emissions or methane from livestock, such as cows, are not the dominant factors in climate change. This is comprehensively detailed in the books Transcending the Climate Change Deception Toward Real Sustainability and in the book Climate CO2 Hoax. Furthermore, the number of signatories of the CLINTEL declaration has now increased to 1860.

The UN climate change, sustainable development and green economy policies over the past 30 years are little more than worldwide marketing tricks that have tragically brainwashed two generations of people who do not understand what the UN actually is, and who is it is really designed to serve. 

The word “sustainable” was hijacked decades ago, and it is now deceptively used to advance the agendas of globalist mega-corporate interests who couldn’t care less about the environment.

The aim is to catapult humanity into the arms of UN Agenda 2030 and other deceptive marketing plans entirely aligned with the objectives of the so-called financial elites of the World Economic Forum (WEF) Davos group. UN Agenda 2030 is not about real environmentalism it is all to scare people into accepting totalitarian authority and limitations to their freedom and personal wellbeing.

What the UN really means by ‘sustainable development’ is population control, central planning, global governance, and education to indoctrinate your children into a new set of beliefs in preparation for the new fake “sustainable” world order. 

The ‘real sustainability’ movement was hijacked by the deceptive UN political schemes of sustainable development and the ideology of man-made climate change as evidenced in this article including video testimony by whistleblower George Hunt.

Note also that UN-defined sustainable development actually endorses the unjust debt-money banking and flawed globalisation / hypergrowth economic system; and that over the past 30 years of UN-defined sustainable development has not solved the real environmental and human wellbeing problems that do exist worldwide. UN-defined sustainable development is, and always has been, a false narrative operating under cover of continued environmentally destructive globalisation. Sustainable development is not real sustainability at all – it is a political and economic scheme that has detracted from what real environmentalism is. 

Part of the problem is globalisation does not distinguish between what could be termed ‘good growth’ and ‘bad environmentally and socially destructive growth’.

Any type of growth will do for the international money-masters for without GDP growth their entire system of monetary trickery collapses. Thus, globalisation has been the vehicle that enabled decades of interest payments in which trillions continuously flowed to the privately-owned mega-banks of the world, regardless of whether the ‘economy’ was expanding or contracting. The mega-banks pulling the strings of the economy are always the winners in the numerous boom-bust-bailout scenarios that have beset the governments of the world. 

For decades, there have been serious detrimental environmental and societal consequences from the debt-money banking and globalisation / hypergrowth economic paradigm. The financial winner in that paradigm has been the financial orthodoxy of private-bankers.

Everyone else has been left on a treadmill of debt, compelled to join the ‘rat race’ or the ‘hamster wheel’ to pay interest on debt-money that private bankers created from nothing. There is never enough money in the system to pay the interest on the ever-increasing debt, thus the entire system is a scam. It has been akin to a sadistic game of musical chairs in which everyone is scrambling for a seat, whilst private bankers sit on the throne of the world’s money-creation process. From their unelected office of money-creation, the worldwide private banking system has for decades been bleeding an estimated 35% of the entire profit of the nations of the world via the mechanisms of debt-money, interest, and government taxation (much of which goes to pay interest on national debts). 

The private-banking sector creates vast amounts of debt-money out of thin air and lends it worldwide at interest. Control of this mechanism enabled the private banking sector to expand or contract the economy at will and create boom-bust-bailout cycles in which the bankers were always the winners, at the expense of the environment and the general population. These orchestrated cycles are explained in my book Demonic Economics. Hypergrowth resulted in real environmental destruction and pollution. No UN policy ever mentions this or attempts to reform the privately-owned debt-money system, which is at the root of the world’s real environmental and human wellbeing problems.

The UN did not challenge globalisation, in fact, it represented globalisation and for decades has been part of the machinery of globalisation; and the political schemes and ideologies of the mega-corporate WEF Davos group.

UN politically-defined ‘sustainable development’ has been an illusory ‘greenwashing’ of the current flawed system, thereby temporarily perpetuating a system that will ultimately fail due to its unsustainable, “eco-cidal”, and human welfare diminishing effects. 

UN Agenda 2030 involves a plan to get all people off the land and into so-called smart towns and smart cities, where they will be monitored, tracked and traced; forced to comply with new rules to access digital social credits; and be unable to grow much food. This is also detailed in the World Economic Forum ‘Great Reset’ document.

Free creative people are not meant to be pent up or corralled in cities like cattle in a pen, or controlled by an unelected UN and government-corporate partnerships, but that is what UN Agenda 2030 attempts to do.

Real sustainability would involve developing self-sufficiency in the localities and regions, and an entire reworking of the education system to re-establish truth, as well as material, health, and spiritual knowledge for thriving networks and human wellbeing.

This is in contrast to the systems of the so-called globalised economy or the corporation-serving, technocratic futures the WEF, UN, and government bureaucrats have planned for us. Real sustainability would be unhindered by debt-money banking and never-ending taxation, in which much of the taxes goes directly to the international mega-banks and financial institutions that have the unearned privilege of creating money. 

“The slogan of the UN Agenda 21, to protect the rights of future generations and all species against the potential crimes of the present, is both a smokescreen and a declaration of entitlement. By standing on this high-sounding platform the rights of the individual are called selfish and those who would fight for them slurred as immoral.” – Rosa Koire, Author

Environmentalists and green politicians that enthusiastically endorse UN Agenda 2030 policies have yet to navigate their way out of UN marketing propaganda and the bogus science of manmade climate change. If they realised what the UN actually is, and the ‘real’ agenda, they would surely not support Agenda 2030.  

“UN Agenda 21/Sustainable Development is the action plan implemented worldwide to inventory and control all land, all water, all minerals, all plants, all animals, all construction, all means of production, all energy, all education, all information, and all human beings in the world… Moreover, people should be rounded up off the land and packed into human settlements, or islands of human habitation, close to employment centers and transportation (where they can be surveilled and controlled)… 

UN Agenda 21/Sustainable Development is a global plan that is implemented locally. Over 600 cities in the U.S. are members… The costs are paid by taxpayers…..  Although counties say that they support agricultural uses, eating locally produced food, farmer’s markets, etc, in fact there are so many regulations restricting water and land use (there are scenic corridors, inland rural corridors, baylands corridors, area plans, specific plans, redevelopment plans, huge fees, fines) that farmers are losing their lands altogether…

The push is for people to get off of the land, become more dependent, come into the cities…

The plan is to restrict your choices, limit your funds, narrow your freedoms, and take away your voice… ” – Rosa Koire, Author, see Endnote . 

Decoding the Real Objectives Behind the UN 17 ‘New Sustainable Development Goals’

“The 2030 agenda is comparable to chasing imaginary giraffes, and epitomizes the collective movement as it calls upon individuals to set aside their ambitions, to forfeit their natural rights, and to subjugate themselves to the state – presumably in the interest of 17 lofty goals, that incidentally position the goal creators to anoint themselves as your caretaker and keeper…

The 2030 agenda poses a real threat to life as you know it, as the United Nations’ purported attempts to secure the peace and provide for domestic tranquility and equality for all is intoxicating because it plays on Maslows instinctive human need for security above all other desires… when faced with threats… free people will willingly cast off their freedoms and embrace tyranny, if only their new keepers can assure them safety. That is what the United Nations, in my opinion, is attempting to accomplish in its 2030 Agenda…. To the ill-informed… the (17) goals are a beacon of hope. But to the critical thinkers and freedom lovers… they are the all-embracing and tyrannical arms of the nanny state – guided by a coven of elites who will never live by the restricted standards and forfeited rights they impose on its willing subjects” – Ron Taylor, Author

Let us take a closer look at the SDGs:

Goal 1: End poverty in all its forms everywhere 

Translation: 

Keep the developing world in vast debt under the pretext of economic development, globalisation and ‘technology transfer programs’ that are marketed with the illusory goal of ending poverty.

The disastrous effect of such policies has actually been to increase debt and poverty in the so-called developing world, this is described in my book Transcending the Climate Change Deception Toward Real Sustainability.

Centralized banking, IMF, World Bank, Federal Reserve to continue to control all world finances. The so-called financial powers that be (PTB) will only cancel world debt (on money they created from nothing) when they can introduce their digital one world currency, social credit system and cashless society, ensuring people must conform to their rules.

Goal 2: End hunger, achieve food security and improved nutrition and promote sustainable agriculture 

2.5 By 2020, maintain the genetic diversity of seeds, cultivated plants and farmed and domesticated animals and their related wild species, including through soundly managed and diversified seed and plant banks at the national, regional and international levels, and promote access to and fair and equitable sharing of benefits arising for the utilisation of genetic resources and associated traditional knowledge, as internationally agreed.

Translation: Rampant expansion of GMO, and no local control of seed banks. “as internationally agreed” means mega-corporate control of genetic resources.

In contrast to centuries past when people had shared use of the commons, in modern times virtually everything has been privatised and nothing is available to, or owned by, the people.  Shared use of the commons is no longer the case for the land and water of the world, nature, seeds, and the sky (the airwaves). Even life itself is being privatised, via the advent of patenting and bio-piracy of genes, foods, plants, animals, biodiversity and resources of nature, and life-forms – including pathogens, genetic markers, and viruses. In almost all cases, you will find it owned by corporations. Whereas, all these natural resources used to be called the commons and were shared and used by everyone.

Major pesticide and GMO mega-corporations include BASF, Bayer Dupont, Dow Chemical, Monsanto, and Syngenta.

They own a vast number of seed, pesticide and biotech companies. Monsanto was responsible for the introduction of GM crops and toxic chemicals, such as aspartame, DDT, Agent Orange, petroleum-based fertilisers, rGBH, glyphosate, and more. In addition, the godless corporate practice of patenting nature itself is carried out by such companies.

It has displaced thousands of years of traditional agriculture and farmers’ rights. The World Trade Organisation’s Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS) has facilitated the granting of patents to all genetic material, including seeds, plants, and animals.

“By May 2002, there were 1,457 biotechnology companies in the US with a total value of $224 billion…. consolidation is acute, 70% of patents on staple food crops are held by six multinational corporations who can set the market price for them and block competition for 20 years, thereby monopolizing the market… The developing world, where 75% of people’s livelihoods depend on agriculture, is the source of 90% of all biological resources. Yet transnational companies based in the developed countries hold 97% of global patents….  patenting of life goes against the sharing of knowledge and the preservation of biodiversity and culture” – Dr Sahadeva das, Author

Consequently, farmers in developing countries are now not permitted to store seeds without paying corporations for the privilege. Who gave corporations this privilege? This issue is known as ‘bio-piracy’. In India, millions of farmers borrowed money to purchase corporate-produced GM seeds that were around 1,000 times more expensive than traditional seeds, but when the crops failed these farmers were left with huge debts. The situation was compounded by the fact that the GM seeds contain terminator technology, so that famers had to buy new seeds each year. This crisis is said to have resulted in over 250,000 farmers committing suicide in India between 1995 and 2009, see Endnote .

Goal 3: Ensure healthy lives and promote well-being for all at all ages 

3.7 By 2030, ensure universal access to sexual and reproductive health-care services, including for family planning, information and education, and the integration of reproductive health into national strategies and programmes. 

3.8 By 2030, universal health coverage, including financial risk protection, access to quality essential health-care services and access to safe, effective, quality and affordable essential medicines and vaccines for all. 

3.b Support the research and development of vaccines and medicines for the communicable and non-communicable diseases that primarily affect development countries.

Translation: Mass vaccination, mass abortion and population control. For evidence of the devasting effects and deaths due to the Covid-19 vaccinations see the book No Worries No Virus

Goal 4: Ensure inclusive and equitable quality education and promote lifelong learning opportunities for all 

4.7 By 2030, ensure that all learners acquire the knowledge and skills needed to promote sustainable development, including, among others, through education for sustainable development and sustainable lifestyles, human rights, gender equality, promotion of a culture of peace and non-violence, global citizenship and appreciation of cultural diversity…

Translation: UN propaganda and brainwashing through compulsory education from “cradle to grave”. All learners must be indoctrinated into  sustainable development and sustainable lifestyles. What is a sustainable lifestyle? In part it is one that complies with the bogus UN doctrine that CO2 emissions or methane from cows causes climate change. The word ‘ensure’ is also a blatant admission of forced indoctrination. How do they intend to enforce this?

Goal 5: Achieve gender equality and empower all women and girls

5.5. Ensure women’s full and effective participation and equal opportunities for leadership at all levels of decision-making in political, economic and public life. 

5. C Adopt and strengthen sound policies and enforceable legislation for the promotion of gender equality and the empowerment of all women and girls at all levels.”

Translation: I, and surely everyone, fully agrees, of course, that women, and all people, should be paid equal pay for equal work. However, there is a deeper story here that should be noted and that story involves the tax system. When you understand the tax system you may begin to realise that the UN goal of ‘gender equality’ is not the noble endeavour it may appear to be.

It is actually about imposing tax trickery upon both genders, ‘equally’, and adding another 2 billion odd people to the tax base. The “powers that be”, not only want billions of men working as tax slaves, they also want billions of women working as tax slaves. These are emotionally sensitive issues, and, for many people, it is not easy to accept that we have been misled about the true motivations of the UN and what lies behind government policy in relation to gender equality.

Note here the video testimony of Aaron Russo who was, at one time, a family friend to the Rockefeller banking family.

He stated that the Rockefeller banking dynasty planned and funded the modern feminist movement and the political roots of gender equality specifically for reasons including: Social engineering to destroy the traditional family unit in which the parents were the main influence on the child, i.e., so that all control of society and children would be under the auspices of the state, and so that children could be indoctrinated with state values from a young age; population control to be achieved through forced ‘Family Planning’; to turn women into tax payers; and to stop women producing children.

If I said to you:

“Men and women will only be allowed to work in this world, to generate money for themselves and their families, if they pay around 80% of their earnings to wealthy international privately-owned mega-banks, and to national government bureaucracies that are fully aligned with, and subservient to, the dictates and policies of those mega-banks.”

Would you think that is fair? Would you think that is something to campaign in favour of? Yet, that is a close approximation of what is actually occurring in the current world-wide government and tax system via direct and hidden taxes. 

Tragically, the entire process, which was funded by mega-banks, has also resulted in a sort of political schism, or mental tension, between some men and women. It appears to me that, all men and all women, would be better served by working with each other to eliminate the fraudulent systems of taxations and banking usury. Then, both women and men, and all working families, would have much more money in their pockets, because the trillions of dollars that are being paid to international mega-banks each year, as interest on the national debts, would no longer need to be collected from the people in the form of taxes.

Note here that over the past centuries men have been conditioned to accept the fraud and trickery of increasingly higher levels of tax upon earnings. Few people realise that the government typically takes around 80% of your entire income. This 80% is taken via various tax mechanisms that act upon your personal income, and upon the money you spend on products. All consumer products have a large amount of hidden tax embedded in their retail price. This hidden embedded tax has accumulated at each of the multiple stages of the product supply chain. 

Furthermore, for decades, around one quarter, and up to one half, of the 80% tax take goes directly from the government to international privately-owned mega-banks and financial institutions, to pay the interest on national debt-money loans. This debt-money is created from nothing by these banks, and, the national debt, is therefore a hoax and a scam. 

The essential point here that governments, or the UN, do not tell you, is that this means that, for around nine and a half months of every year, you are working for nothing as a slave for the government, i.e., you only get to keep around two and a half-months of your annual income for yourself. 

When you realise the truth about the tax system, you may begin to realise that the UN gender equality goal is not primarily about ensuring women have equal pay rights, it is primarily about conditioning women to be a willing and enthusiastic part of the current deceptive worldwide tax system, so that around 80% of women’s earnings will go directly to government. Surely, neither men nor women would consent to this. Both men and women that are aware of this would surely not consent to have around 80% of their earnings taken from them via direct and hidden taxes.

UN gender equality is not so much about gender equality, it is primarily about promoting and ensuring tax slavery for all, equally. For thousands of years, women and men have always worked, albeit, often in differing ways and roles. The government taxation system has been stealthily inflicted upon the populace, in particular, in recent centuries. The UN do not want women (or men) working for themselves outside the punitive tax system. Of course, women and men should work if they so wish, and for equal pay for equal work, but why pay 80% tax? Do you see the trickery? Do you see why the UN want to control the entire narrative? A narrative that is promoted and implemented by governments who will take around 80% of your earnings one way or another.

Recall that around half of the monies the government takes in taxes goes directly from the government to international privately-owned mega-banks and financial institutions, to pay the interest on national debt-money loans. This debt-money is created from nothing by these banks. Recall that the international private-banking cartel of banking families is pre-dominantly Jewish. Is it just a co-incidence that all the major promoters of the banker-funded feminist movement, and the most prominent feminists ever, were dozens of Jewish women? These women include Gloria Steinem, Andrea Dworkin, Betty Friedan, Eve Ensler, Rosa Luxemburg, Blu Greenberg, Judy Cohen, Gertrude Stein, Helen Cohen, Jean Rothernberg, Lisa Goldberg, Madelaine Stern, Ruth Ginsburg, Ruth Morgenthau, etc. For example, if you look at the Jewish Womens Archive website it will show you a list of key Jewish feminists, containing 1,193 profiles.

Goal 6: Ensure availability and sustainable management of water and sanitation for all 

Translation: Privatize all water sources, don’t forget to add fluoride (hydro fluorosilicate, which is an industrial by-product and toxin) and aluminum (which is extremely toxic to humans).

Goal 7: Ensure access to affordable, reliable, sustainable and modern energy for all 

Translation: Smart grid control of your access to energy. Smart meters that emit electro-magnetic field radiation compulsorily inserted into your home to access your data, and introduce peak pricing, etc. They never tell you about the vast energy and environmental expenditure to build a smart grid, hundreds of millions of ‘smart meters’, billions of smart devices, such as TVs, fridges, smartphones, smart cars, etc.

Goal 8: Promote sustained, inclusive and sustainable economic growth, full and productive employment and decent work for all 

8.1. Sustain per capita economic growth in accordance with national circumstances and, in particular, at least 7 per cent gross domestic product per annum in the least developed countries.

8.3. Promote development oriented policies… including through access to financial services

8.4. … Endeavour to de-couple economic growth from environmental degradation

Translation: A continuation of the usury economy in which wealth always flows upwards to the private banking system. “At least 7% GDP growth in least developed countries” means the globalists want these economies growing under the whip of globalisation, so these countries can pay vast sums of interest to international mega-banks on fraudulent debt-money loans created from nothing.  GDP growth is always needed so that vast sums of interest collected via taxes will continue to flow from governments to the private international banking cartel. Free trade zones, as espoused by the UN, would favour mega-corporate interests, globalisation, and endless polluting forms of GDP growth. 

Is ‘free trade’ really free or is it just a deceptive buzzword for corporate globalisation? The UK government sustainable development strategy states “internationally, we need to promote the mutual supportiveness of trade liberalisation…”, see Endnote , yet traditionally, environmentalists have taken a strong line against free trade, see Endnote . The concept of trade liberalisation has always been a contentious issue environmentally due to needless shipping of goods worldwide that could be produced locally. It also involves the exportation of manufacturing jobs to sweat shops across the so-called developing world, resulting in the suppression of opportunity and income in the importing country to achieve so-called economic equality, which is actually illusory. 

“Endeavour to de-couple economic growth from environmental degradation” means even though it has already been comprehensively demonstrated that 30 years of attempting to de-couple economic growth from environmental impacts has completely failed and is a policy that will never work, we are going to keep repeating this de-coupling nonsense to pretend that we are trying to stop ‘real’ pollution.

Goal 10: Reduce inequality within and among countries

10.b. Encourage official development assistance and financial flows, including foreign direct investment, to…  in particular developing countries 

10.c. By 2030, reduce to less than 3 per cent the transaction costs of migrant remittances and eliminate remittance corridors with costs higher than 5 per cent

Translation: “Development assistance” means get developing countries hooked on debt-money loans (created from nothing) and have them put up national assets as collateral. Then later, pull the plug, with a boom-bust-bailout scenario, just as has been done in many other countries, and leave the country in perpetual debt slavery. Virtually every government worldwide is in vast debt to the privately-owned debt-money banking system, see the book Demonic Economics.

We the globalists want the whole world under our thumb of globalisation. We do not want people to develop ‘real local sustainability’ in their own country or have any knowledge of how to do that. Rather, we want large amounts of people to be displaced, subject to migration from orchestrated wars, and living in our ‘smart’ cities as slaves to the globalised economy, which is owned by our mega-banks and mega-corporations.

Goal 11: Make cities and human settlements inclusive, safe, resilient and sustainable

Translation: Have a ‘Big Brother’ big data surveillance state and a behaviour-based digital social credit system to keep you under our control. This is already in operation in China, where over 200 million surveillance cameras had been installed by 2018, with plans for over 600 million.

UN Agenda 2030 and WEF-promoted smart cities are smart for the so-called powers that be, but not smart for you. Furthermore, sustainable development, as defined in Agenda 2030 involves the mass rollout and utilisation of so-called smart technology. This includes wireless technology, such as WIFI, smartphones, 5G, smart meters, and the so called ‘Internet of Things’, etc. However, it has clearly been demonstrated by thousands of studies, see Endnote , that the above microwave-based wireless technologies utilise electromagnetic frequencies (EMFs) that can harm human health, and in particular, the brain development of children. In these studies, EMFs are linked with chronic fatigue, headaches, tinnitus, depression, cancer and chronic degenerative disorders.

Smart cities will utilise social credit-scoring, which is already in use in China, and requires large data collection on every citizen. In China, for example, financial transactions, organisation affiliations, social interactions, friendships, and data-mining of a citizen’s history on social media are collected.

The surveillance network is an integral part of the data collection process. A person’s social credit score depends on, for example, whether they criticise the government or comply with the government – therefore, each person is compelled to comply with government to maintain their social credit scoring and receive benefits. It is a sort of digital dictatorship. It has been reported that the Chinese authorities even run ‘pre-crime’ algorithms against the data collected.

In these UN-planned smart cities, the right to privacy is entirely subverted, as people are expected to consent to their data being collected, and their activities being monitored constantly, under the pretext of preventing crime. The smart city requires wireless connectivity to function, and this is the real reason that 5G is being rolled out worldwide at rapid pace. Even whilst the so-called pandemic was in full swing, and everyone else was locked down, communications companies’ employees installing 5G infrastructure were working full-time. So, 5G enables ‘smart-city’ super-computers to analyse the activities of a whole city of people in real-time, and to utilise Geospatial Intelligence to monitor and manage large crowds of people, supposedly for reasons, such as improving the flow of shoppers. The expenditure of trillions of dollars on technology and surveillance infrastructure to improve the flow of shoppers – am I the only one that doesn’t buy that?

Goal 12: Ensure sustainable consumption and production patterns 

*Acknowledging that the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change is the primary international, intergovernmental forum for negotiating the global response to climate change.

Translation: Forced austerity, reduced access to resources, and more taxation for the people under the pretext of combatting manmade climate change and other SCP policies – meanwhile our mega-corporations continue to plunder and pollute the natural world, for example to produce many millions of batteries for electric cars. Oh, and by the way don’t forget, the UN framework is the only place where you are allowed to discuss the climate change issue – we do not want scientists to convene outside of our bogus UN climate change framework. Books such as Transcending the Climate Change Deception Toward Real Sustainability and Climate CO2 Hoax describe that thousands of scientists dispute the unproven UN-promoted man-made climate-change theory, but we the UN don’t tell the public about that. The above books also describe additional deceptive aspects of our UN policies that are not open for discussion, such as:

  • the failure of resource-efficiency, resource substitution or eco-efficiency strategies;
  • the UN trick of blaming population growth rather than addressing the root causes of environmental destruction and human poverty worldwide, i.e., the privately owned worldwide debt-money banking system that was instrumental in creating the unelected UN and the system of environmentally destructive corporate globalisation in the first place’
  • the UN Brundtland definition of sustainable development actually enabled ‘polluting’ forms of globalisation/GDP growth to rampantly continue.

Goal 13: Take urgent action to combat climate change and its impacts 

13.2. Integrate climate change measures into national policies, strategies and planning

13.3. Improve education, awareness-raising and human and institutional capacity on climate change mitigation, adaptation, impact reduction and early warning.

Translation: This is simply promotion of globalist policies e.g., Cap and Trade, carbon taxes/credits, and footprint taxes. We the globalists are trying to change your society to suit our own agenda and you will have no say in how your society will function. We are trying to indoctrinate your children and all of society to believe our man-made climate-change lie, so that we can achieve complete control of society, as well as manipulate society and population behaviour the way we want to without any resistance.

Goal 16: Promote peaceful and inclusive societies for sustainable development, provide access to justice for all and build effective, accountable and inclusive institutions at all levels

16.1 Significantly reduce all forms of violence and related deaths rates everywhere

16.3 Promote the rule of law at the national and international levels and ensure equal access to justice for all

16.4 By 2030, significantly reduce illicit financial and arms flows… and combat all forms of organised crime

16.8 Broaden and strengthen the participation of developing countries in the institutions of global governance

16.9 By 2030, provide legal identity for all, including birth registration. 

Translation: 

16.1. “Significantly reduce all forms of violence and related deaths rates everywhere” means except when we the globalists do it – i.e. implement violence and population reduction via intentionally orchestrated wars, the mass sale of toxic vaccines, the proliferation of drug culture, human trafficking networks, and the promotion of mass abortion. In these horrific punch-and-judy show wars (the economics of destruction) both sides are assured funding, our military-industrial corporations make countless billions from sales of weapons, military technology and equipment; and our mega-corporations secure huge post-war contracts for rebuilding infrastructure.

16.3 means we want you to obey our laws, even though you did not write them.

16.4 “significantly reduce illicit financial and arms flows” means except for our corporate ‘legitimate’ military industrial complex that supplies arms to our member governments, especially the US, Israel, Russia, China, U.K., France, Germany, and the G20, which we own and control. 

16.8 means we the globalists want all developing countries (that is poorer countries whose people are particularly burdened by debt and whose resources are exploited by corporate globalisation) to be subject to and ruled by our institutions of global governance i.e., the unelected UN, the WHO, the World Bank, the IMF, the WTO, etc. 

16.9 means we the globalists want everyone registered so we know where you are and can tax you. This is all a rationale for digital IDs. Note that in a UN Conference in 2016, Bill Gates was able to introduce into the 16th SDG sub-targets his rationale to introduce digital IDs, according to some sources, most likely injected via vaccines, with trials conducted in the third world, see Endnote . Remember that we “the globalists” think we own you, and that you “the common people” are no more than government collateral on loans your government received from our international private banking cartel – money that we never had in the first place – that we created out of thin air via our debt-money system. 

Goal 17: Strengthen the means of implementation and revitalize the global partnership for sustainable development 

17.1 Strengthen domestic resource mobilization, including through international support to developing countries, to improve domestic capacity for tax and other revenue collection.

17.4 Assist developing countries in attaining long-term debt sustainability through coordinated policies aimed at fostering debt financing, debt relief and debt restructuring, as appropriate, and address the external debt of highly indebted poor countries to reduce debt distress.

17.7 Promote the development, transfer, dissemination and diffusion of environmentally sound technologies to developing countries on favourable terms, including on concessional and preferential terms, as mutually agreed.

17.9 Enhance international support for implementing effective and targeted capacity-building in developing countries to support national plans to implement all the Sustainable Development Goals…

17.10 Promote a universal, rules-based, open, non-discriminatory and equitable multilateral trading systems under the World Trade Organisation…

17.17 Encourage and promote effective public, public-private and civil society partnerships, building on the experience and resourcing strategies of partnerships.

17.18 By 2020, enhance capacity-building support to developing countries…  to increase significantly the availability of high-quality, timely and reliable data disaggregated by income, gender, age, race, ethnicity, migratory status, disability, geographic location…

Translation: Remove the ability of people worldwide to decide how to live their own lives, and promote global authority, mega-corporate influence, and bloated unelected bureaucracy of international institutions, including the UN, the World Economic Forum, and public-private (corporate) partnerships.

17.1. means we the globalists want to collect more tax from everyone.

17.4 means as long as the world is in vast debt we don’t really care – even if the debt is restructured it doesn’t matter. We don’t care just as long as developing countries remain in debt to the mega-banks and financial institutions of our private banking cartel and continue to flail on our hook. The one thing we will never do is cancel debt – if we ever do so it will be to introduce conditionalities of control. If we introduce a one world digital currency and cancel your national debt you will have to give up ownership of assets, just as is stated in our marketing document on our World Economic Forum website…

“Welcome to 2030: I Own Nothing, Have No Privacy And Life Has Never Been Better”.

17.7 means we the globalists want developing countries hooked on contracts and debts to pay for our corporate technologies that will leave them dependent on the globalised corporate system that we control. Never let countries, regions or communities develop real local self-sufficiency, locally suitable technologies, or mid-level intermediate technologies that are suited to their local needs and can be sustained long term from their local resources, local manpower, local skills and local knowledge.

17.9 means let us put international pressure on these poorer countries so that they will accept and implement our deceptive plans.

17.10 means the WTO rules world trade.  We the globalists run the WTO and we make up the trading rules. We say its equitable, but you have to obey our trading rules, which are economic tricks based on the monetary system that we own and control.

17.17 means we the globalists must ensure corporate (private) influence in politics is effective so that we can control the levers of the political system. Civil society has little money in comparison to the mega-corporations of the world, thus the corporate and financial institutions will have the most influence.

17.18 means in our system of globalisation we want to know everything about everyone so that we can utilise or manipulate the masses, as we see fit – just as a farmer keeps registration charts for each cow on his farm, we have a chart on you too. 

*

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

Mark Gerard Keenan, is a former scientist at the UK Government Dept. of Energy and Climate Change, and at the United Nations Environment Division. He is author of the following books:

Make a donation for Mark’s articles via Paypal.

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.

Global Research Fundraising: Stop the Pentagon’s Ides of March

***

“The opening up of new markets, foreign or domestic, and the organizational development… incessantly revolutionizes the economic structure from within, incessantly destroying the old one, incessantly creating a new one. That process of creative destruction is the essential fact about capitalism.”  —Joseph Schumpeter (1883-1950), American economist and political thinker of Austrian origin, in his book Capitalism, Socialism and Democracy, 1942.

“Every change is a menace to stability.  That’s another reason why we’re so chary of applying new inventions. Every discovery in pure science is potentially subversive; even science must sometimes be treated as a possible enemy. Yes, even science.” —Aldous Huxley (1894-1963), British author of the 1932 futuristic novel Brave New World, ch.16.

“Technological progress has merely provided us with more efficient means for going backwards.” —Aldous Huxley (1894-1963), British author, in his essay ‘Adonis and the Alphabet’, 1956.

“Our entire much-praised technological progress, and civilization generally, could be compared to an axe in the hand of a pathological criminal.” —Albert Einstein (1879-1955), German-born theoretical physicist, 1917.

“Artificial Intelligence (AI) is probably the most important thing humanity has ever worked on. I think of it as something more profound than electricity or fire.” —Sundar Picha (1972- ), chief executive officer (CEO) of Alphabet Inc. and of its subsidiary Google, in 2018.

Introduction

The digital revolution of Artificial Intelligence (AI), currently evolving very rapidly, is a technological innovation that uses complex computer programs and sophisticated mathematical algorithms. These robotic systems and AI-based models, powered by AI chips and using super computers, can automate repetitive tasks, produce texts and quickly process vast quantities of data, in complementarity with humans.

However, beyond the economic benefits that would result, there is the threat of a gradual replacement of human beings by intelligent robots, in a number of functions and activities that lend themselves to such a substitution.

Such technological advances have great potential to profoundly upend national economies, businesses and societies in decades to come, when new capital investments replace older obsolete capital investments, and some categories of workers would be replaced by intelligent machines that require more specialized workers.

This could even possibly lead to a dystopian ‘Brave New World‘, if autonomous brain-machines, in the next futuristic era, are capable of self-improvement and are able to think by themselves, and possibly, could even learn to program other brainy machines, with hardly any human input.

The Global Impact of Industrial Revolutions

All technological inventions produce positive advances but can also be accompanied by various disruptions and negative effects.

For example, the invention of the knife, which can be used to cut bread; but it also enables one to cut someone’s throat. Likewise, the invention of dynamite and explosives helped the mining industry, but it also made wars deadlier and increased the destructive power of terrorists tenfold.

The same is true of the discovery of the fission of the atom, which led to the development of nuclear energy. This invention made it possible to produce electricity; it also made it possible to build atomic bombs and destroy entire cities and their inhabitants.

It is difficult to know precisely, in advance, what purpose a new technology will serve, for good or for evil, for economic progress or for human regression.

Questions Raised by Artificial Intelligence (AI)

As with any new technology, the AI applications today and their generalization in the future will undoubtedly create winners and losers, and not only in the economic field, but also in politics, geopolitics, social affairs, biology, in arts and even in military conflicts. It is therefore important to assess whether the winners will be more numerous than the losers, or whether it will be rather the opposite, with a small number of successful operators and a large number of expendables.

For instance, what will be the consequences of Nvidia’s AI systems or of the pre-programmed conversational robots, such as those of ChatGPT (Open AI), Copilot (Microsoft) or Gemini (Google)? Will they improve the standard of living and the quality of life of the greatest number, or will they allow some to get rich, but render entire categories of workers obsolete and impoverished? In such case, they could end up increasing income and wealth disparities.

Indeed, each new industrial revolution in the past made some successful capitalist pioneers ultra rich. For instance, there was a period in the United States, in the late 19th century, called the era of the Robber Barons. It was a time characterized by rich monopolists (Carnegie, Rockefeller, Vanderbilt, Mellon, etc.), in the industries of steel, oil, railroads or finance, who crushed competitors, rigged markets, and corrupted governments.

At the political and geopolitical levels, is it possible nowadays that some malicious oligarchies could use such digital machines to better monitor and control people and to more easily launch wars in the future?

All of this is far from being of purely theoretical concerns. The U.S. Pentagon is already planning to use intelligent robots and drones, controlled by Artificial Intelligence, to wage the wars of the future.

The Short and Medium Term and Longer Term Economic Effects of AI and the Four Industrial Revolutions Since 1760

In economics, the notions of short-term (1-4 years), medium-term (4-9 years) and long-term (10 years or more) can vary, depending on the economic and financial sectors. For the economy as a whole, it is possible to refer to short, medium and longer term economic business cycles. For example, many years passed between the invention of the first giant computer, as large as a building, in 1946, and the innovation of the portable computer on the computer market, in 1977, and then the arrival of Apple’s Macintosh computers, in 1998.

The first industrial revolution (1760-1870) began in the mid-18th century in Britain, in the textile industry. For the first time in history, overall production and consumption in a country could grow faster than population, thanks to the productivity gains that technological innovations and production techniques made possible.

The discoveries of new sources of energy, such as those coming from gas and oil, in addition to that of coal, as well as electricity, were at the center of the second industrial revolution (1870-1914). This led to innovations in means of transport (railway, steamboat, automobile and airplane). Increased industrialization then caused a demographic migration from the countryside to the cities, which accentuated the phenomenon of urbanization, resulting in the creation of large cities and mega-metropolises with high population density.

The third industrial revolution (1930-2010) is characterized by the innovation of nuclear energy and the advent of the information age, mainly during the second part of the 20th century. It was made possible by the invention of the microprocessor and by the creation of the first computers, followed by the innovation of the Internet, satellites and wireless communication.

As for the ongoing fourth industrial revolution (arising from applications of Artificial Intelligence, an expression first introduced in 2011, at a conference held in Germany to design a new industrial policy for that country based on high technology strategies), it would be wise to distinguish an initial period of shock and transition, and a longer period of gradual acceptance and maturity, which can extend over several decades, even a century or more.

A Difficult Transition of Layoffs, in the Short and Medium Term, for Workers in the Tertiary Sector Most Threatened by Digitalization and Automation

Already, institutions such as the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and the Goldman Sacks investment bank, among others, have attempted to quantify the net effect that applications of Artificial Intelligence will have on different categories of workers. For the IMF, 40% of jobs in the world could be affected, in one way or another, by the development of AI. These will mainly be jobs in the tertiary service sector, which risk being replaced, or affected to varying degrees, by intelligent robots. Indeed, we can classify jobs likely to be affected in one way or another by AI systems in three categories:

1- jobs potentially substituted or replaced, (such as support or secretarial jobs in banks, insurance companies, accounting offices, libraries, etc.);

2- jobs not threatened by AI because they are performed either outdoors or because they require physical activity ( e.g. carpenter, plumber, electrician, painter, roofer, hairdresser, etc.);

3- the vast majority of jobs will be influenced to a certain degree by AI, particularly in finance, education, health, medicine, engineering, administration, cybernetics, video games, etc.

For example, in a study published in March 2023, Goldman Sachs estimated how much Artificial Intelligence could influence employment for the entire American economy. Their conclusion was that AI could replace 7% of current jobs, mainly jobs of office and white-collar workers, in years to come. However, the majority of jobs, 63% of the total, can be expected to be complementary to AI, would benefit from productivity gains and could even increase in importance. On the other hand, some 30% of jobs, mainly manual jobs, would hardly or not at all be affected by AI.

The Role of Politics, Supervision and Regulation of Applications of Artificial Intelligence (AI)

The Artificial Intelligence revolution can undoubtedly both replace and create jobs, and, by increasing labor productivity, create wealth. However, this risks causing some upheaval in certain labor markets and resulting in significant layoffs of workers in some industries.

This is why governments, responsible for the general interest, must ensure that there are no major economic and social excesses and adapt educational programs to the qualifications required in the future. They must also ensure that workers potentially penalized by layoffs are compensated and that the new wealth thus generated can benefit society as a whole, and not just a handful of operators. This will not be an easy task because there is international competition between countries to monopolize the beneficial impacts of the new technologies.

Currently, the countries that are at the forefront of regulating Artificial Intelligence technologies and AI systems are the European Union, China, the United States and the United Kingdom. The EU has put forward a preliminary regulatory and digital strategy framework called the AI Act. The objective is to identify acceptable and unacceptable risks that will arise from the applications of new digital technologies. Likewise, in June 2022, the Canadian federal government introduced the Artificial Intelligence and Data Act (LIAD) as part of bill C-27, i.e. the Digital Charter Implementation Act of 2022. The purpose is to guide AI innovation in a positive direction and to encourage a responsible adoption of AI technologies by Canadians and Canadian businesses.

Conclusions

Does the advent of the Artificial Intelligence (AI) revolution herald an extraordinarily promising breakthrough for humanity, or does it rather carry a risk of great confusion and civilizational regression?

Indeed, many questions come to mind: will humans master the various Artificial Intelligence systems so that they serve not only the private economic and industrial interests behind their applications, but also that of displaced workers and the common interest? Is it possible that these systems will become so pervasive and so powerful that they could end up becoming forces of control, dehumanization and enslavement for large numbers of people?

A first conclusion is that no one can definitely answer these questions with precision and with full knowledge of the facts. And if we ever do get the answers, it may be too late. Consequently, everything will depend on the uses that we make of this new technology.

The digital revolution of Artificial Intelligence therefore raises more questions than it gives answers, as it is a technology that is expected to evolve and find new applications, good or bad, over time.

A second conclusion is that countries and economies that fall behind in adopting the AI technology could experience economic difficulties in the years and decades to come. Even those economies in the forefront of the new industrial revolution could expect an increase in incomes and wealth disparities.

A third conclusion is that the innovation of intelligent robots driven by Artificial Intelligence certainly opens up a new field for gains in labor productivity through creative destruction,  in a certain number of professions and industries. However, it is rightly a cause for concern, as it could also facilitate cheating, falsification, confusion and dehumanization of human beings in many areas.

*

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 blog site, Dr. Rodrigue Tremblay.

International economist Dr. Rodrigue Tremblay is the author of the book about morals “The code for Global Ethics, Ten Humanist Principles” of the book about geopolitics “The New American Empire“, and the recent book, in French, “La régression tranquille du Québec, 1980-2018“. He was Minister of Trade and Industry (1976-79) in the Lévesque government. He holds a Ph.D. in international finance from Stanford University. Please visit Dr Tremblay’s site or email to a friend here.

Prof. Rodrigue Tremblay is a Research Associate of the Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG).

Featured image is licensed under Wikimedia Commons


The Code for Global Ethics: Ten Humanist Principles

by Rodrigue Tremblay, Preface by Paul Kurtz

Publisher: ‎ Prometheus (April 27, 2010)

Hardcover: ‎ 300 pages

ISBN-10: ‎ 1616141727

ISBN-13: ‎ 978-1616141721

Humanists have long contended that morality is a strictly human concern and should be independent of religious creeds and dogma. This principle was clearly articulated in the two Humanist Manifestos issued in the mid-twentieth century and in Humanist Manifesto 2000, which appeared at the beginning of the twenty-first century. Now this code for global ethics further elaborates ten humanist principles designed for a world community that is growing ever closer together. In the face of the obvious challenges to international stability-from nuclear proliferation, environmental degradation, economic turmoil, and reactionary and sometimes violent religious movements-a code based on the “natural dignity and inherent worth of all human beings” is needed more than ever. In separate chapters the author delves into the issues surrounding these ten humanist principles: preserving individual dignity and equality, respecting life and property, tolerance, sharing, preventing domination of others, eliminating superstition, conserving the natural environment, resolving differences cooperatively without resort to violence or war, political and economic democracy, and providing for universal education. This forward-looking, optimistic, and eminently reasonable discussion of humanist ideals makes an important contribution to laying the foundations for a just and peaceable global community.

Click here to purchase.

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.

Big Tech’s Effort to Silence Truth-tellers: Global Research Online Referral Campaign

first published on March 5, 2024

 

***

More than ten months into Sudan’s war, local sources across the country have told Middle East Eye that people are dying of starvation every day.

The humanitarian situation is dire, with the Sudanese Armed Forces (SAF) and its enemy, the Rapid Support Forces (RSF) paramilitary, accusing each other of obstructing aid deliveries and cutting access to the internet.

At the end of January, the International Organisation for Migration (IOM) reported that 10.7 million people have been displaced by conflicts in Sudan, nine million of them inside the country. This would leave Sudan with the highest rate of internal displacement in the world, surpassing even Syria’s 7.2 million.

The needs of the population dwarf the available funding. United Nations agencies say Sudan requires $2.7bn of assistance this year. So far, less than four percent of that has been provided by donors.

Just 43 percent of last year’s plan was funded and multiple sources have told MEE that Sudan struggles to gain international attention in comparison to conflicts in Ukraine and Gaza.

On the ground, malnutrition is killing children. A raft of diseases, including cholera – there are now more than 10,000 suspected cases in Sudan – have broken out. Doctors, hospitals, and emergency room activists providing aid in local neighbourhoods have been attacked. The harvest season has failed.

The army-aligned government is facing bankruptcy and has failed to provide proper humanitarian support, while the RSF has been accused of preventing aid from reaching the areas it controls.

The UN’s World Food Programme says that “at least 25 million people are struggling with soaring rates of hunger and malnutrition”, and that 3.8 million children under the age of five are malnourished.

Children Dying Every Day

Multiple sources across Sudan told MEE that children are dying every day of hunger.

Three members of the nationwide network of mutual aid groups known as emergency response rooms (ERRs) told MEE that in the capital Khartoum, people are dying silently in their homes because of hunger.

In southern Khartoum’s Kalakla neighbourhood, one emergency room activist said,

“we found three people who had died of hunger inside their home. Their neighbours buried them silently. It seems they had no food, no money and were afraid to go outside because of the continuous shelling”. 

Other emergency room members told MEE the same thing was happening in Omdurman, Khartoum’s twin city and the site of a recent army offensive. 

A doctor in Kassala state, eastern Sudan, said many children there were dying of malnutrition.

“Children in the remote areas of Talkok, Allafa and other villages are dying of malnutrition,” the doctor told MEE. “When some of them arrived at Kassala hospital they were seriously malnourished and we failed to save their lives.” 

The situation is perhaps worst in Darfur, the vast western region that serves as the RSF’s power base. There, Sudanese displaced by decades of fighting and living in internally displaced persons (IDP) camps face famine, malnourishment and much more. 

Aid organisation Medicins Sans Frontieres (MSF) has estimated that in Zamzam, a camp in North Darfur, one child is dying every two hours and around 13 are dying every day. 

“What we are seeing in Zamzam camp is an absolutely catastrophic situation. We estimate that at least one child is dying every two hours in the camp,” said Claire Nicolet, head of MSF’s emergency response in Sudan.

“Those with severe malnutrition who have not yet died are at high risk of dying within three to six weeks if they do not get treatment. Their condition is treatable if they can get to a health facility. But many cannot.”

Adam Rigal, a spokesman for those living in the IDP camps, said that children, pregnant women and the elderly were dying every day in camps across the region. 

“We live in catastrophic and unprecedented humanitarian conditions imposed on us by both parties in the conflict as tens of children, pregnant women and elderly IDPs are dying daily due to acute malnutrition, lack of food, medicine and drinking water,” he told MEE.

“The health situation in Darfur, especially in the refugee camps, is disastrous,” Rigal added, pointing out that children had no access to food, medicine or shelter. 

Tens of Millions in Need

Almost 25 million Sudanese are now in need of assistance, according to the UN. 

“Currently, nearly 18 million people face acute food insecurity in Sudan, of which nearly five million are at emergency levels of hunger (IPC4),” the organisation’s World Food Programme (WFP) has said.

“International society should provide more attention and support to the humanitarian crisis in Sudan, given the severity of the country’s situation,” it said.

Sudanese Finance Minister Gibril Ibrahim has admitted the country is facing “serious economic challenges, with more than 80 percent of revenues lost due to the war”. 

Addressing a press conference in Port Sudan on Tuesday, Ibrahim warned that the harvest season had failed in different states because of insecurity brought on by the war.

“We know that our people are suffering from high prices and lack of commodities, but we have to be patient and work together to end the war by the victory of our army. I think all these problems will be solved,” Ibrahim said.

The Sudanese organisation Fikra for Studies and Development has reported that Sudan’s domestic food production has dropped significantly because of the war.

“Only 37 percent Sudan’s agricultural land has been cultivated in comparison to previous years. Also, Sudan’s national wheat production has reduced by 70 percent,” the organisation said in a press release. 

Blame Game

Amid this turmoil, the two warring parties have traded accusations over who is responsible.

The army has accused the RSF of cutting off the country’s access to the internet, while the RSF has accused the army of blocking the flow of aid into Darfur. 

Many more allegations have been made, as each side seeks to win the information war that has been raging since the fighting began on 15 April last year. 

The army-aligned foreign ministry has denied blocking aid coming into Darfur from Chad, saying that this is one of the main routes for military supplies to the RSF.

Middle East Eye has previously reported on the RSF’s supply lines, which run into Darfur from Chad and the Central African Republic, and often originate in the United Arab Emirates. 

In June last year, local witnesses told MEE that the RSF was behind the looting of WFP warehouses in el-Obeid. Markets named after the paramilitary leader, Mohamed Hamdan Dagalo, have sprung up across Sudan, selling looted goods.

“The RSF did not loot humanitarian aid warehouses in the areas under our protection, as relief aid did not reach these facilities in the first place,” the Rapid Support Forces said in a statement. 

“Additionally, our forces are committed to protecting and delivering humanitarian aid to civilians in all areas, as per the permanent orders issued to them by the RSF leadership in this regard.”

Sudan has been under an internet blackout for more than a month, prompting thousands of people to use Elon Musk’s Starlink satellite internet to communicate and use banking apps.

Trying to gather further international support in Sudan’s darkest hour, Fikra for Studies and Development has launched a global call for the announcement of famine in Sudan by aid agencies. 

“The humanitarian situation in Sudan, especially in Khartoum, has sharply deteriorated after the cut of telecommunications. The mass kitchens operated by the emergency rooms have stopped their work due to the lack of the groceries,” the organisation said.

“It seems that the international community has lost its interest in helping Sudan, so at this moment let us raise our voices to say that the Sudanese are not just dying because of bullets but rather that they are also dying of hunger and disease.”

*

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

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

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

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

Donation Drive: Global Research Is Committed to the “Unspoken Truth”

***

Preparations have now begun for this year’s Summit of the Future, that will be held September 22–23 at the United Nations headquarters in New York.

During this meeting world leaders will sign the outcome document “The Pact for the Future”.

This will be agreed in advance through intergovernmental negotiations and is based on United Nations Our Common Agenda and the fullfilment of Agenda 2030 with its 17 Sustainable Development Goals.

A zero draft of the pact was released January 26th after input from over 500 Major Groups and other Stakeholders.[1] It was presented by the co-facilitators in the UN Trusteeship Council and followed by a debate with member states representatives January 29th.[2]

As described on the Summit of the Future webpage:

The result will be a world – and an international system – that is better prepared to manage the challenges we face now and in the future, for the sake of all humanity and for future generations.[3]

The purpose is to “take action to safeguard the future for present and coming generations”. Crises management is at the Pact’s core. And there is no lack of crises in need of effective management. As described in the zero draft:

We are at a moment of acute global peril. Across our world, people are suffering from the effects of poverty, hunger, inequality, armed conflicts, violence, displacement, terrorism, climate change, disease, and the adverse impacts of technology. Humanity faces a range of potentially catastrophic and existential risks.[4]

But with crises comes opportunities. At least for some powerful actors.

The goal of the pact should, according to United Nation’s High-Level Advisory Panel on Effective Multilateralism, be: “a global transition by States and non-State actors to a circular economy, addressing both supply and demand in a way that achieves balance with the planet.” This is a technocratic concept.

The HLAB was set up in March 2022 by Secretary General António Guterres to advise the Member States

“on those issues of key global concern where governance improvements are most needed.”

Their report, A Breakthrough for People and Planet: Effective and Inclusive Global Governance for Today and the Future, recommends six transformative shifts to “support a radical shift in international cooperation for the resolution of shared global challenges and the advancement of the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development”. These are:

  1. Rebuild trust in multilateralism – Improve legitimacy and effectiveness through inclusion and accountability
  2. Planet and People – Regain balance with nature and provide clean energy for all
  3. Global Finance – Ensure sustainable finance that delivers for all
  4. Digital and Data Governance – Support a just digital transition that unlocks the value of data and protects against digital harms
  5. Peace and Prevention – Empower effective, equitable collective security arrangements
  6. Anticipatory Action – Strengthen governance for current and emerging transnational risks

This has been anchored from the top echelons of power.

Among the members in the HLAB on Effective Multilateralism were WEF-board member Tharman Shanmugaratnam (newly elected President of Singapore), WEF Young Global Leader Ilona Szabó de Carvalho, Rockefeller Foundation-trustee Donald Kaberuka and Council on Foreign Relations and Trilateral Commission member, Ann-Marie Slaughter.

Their advice is a recipe for a world-wide technocratic management system that, if everything goes according to plan, will be guided by the global public–private partnership that was formalised in June 2019 with the signing of United Nation’s and World Economic Forum’s strategic partnership.

The intergovernmental forum G20 will have an important role to anchor these ambitions, influence legislators and implement the policies nationally.[5]

Since the adoption of the 2016 G20 Action Plan on the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development, G20 Leaders have consistently recognized the key role of the G20 in contributing to implementation of the 2030 Agenda.[6]

Our Common Agenda and the “Pact for the Future” can be seen as the United Nations’ answer to the call for a Great Reset that was announced in June 2020 by Klaus Schwab, António Guterres and Prince Charles (King Charles III). In the words of Guterres:

The Great Reset is a welcome recognition that this human tragedy must be a wake-up call. As you rightly say, it is imperative that we reimagine, rebuilt, redesign, reinvigorate and rebalance our world…

We must build more equal, inclusive and sustainable economies and societies that are more resilient in the face of pandemics, climate change and many of the other global challenges we face.

Behind the fine wording of “equal” and “inclusive” hides a technocratic collectivist management system that leaves little room for free choice by individuals. What they have in mind is the building of a digital control grid to oversee and manage the world. A sort of digital world brain.

You will be required to transform your values, “serve the common good” and connect to the digital world brain. It will also give immense power to the UN-system and partnering organisations in case of a global planetary emergency.

During the last year, eleven Policy Briefs have been released about how to achieve the twelve commitments that were proposed in Our Common Agenda by General Secretary Guterres.

The policy process is also interlinked with the negotiations on a new WHO Pandemic Accord (and an update of the International Health Regulations) that is planned to be concluded at World Health Assembly in May.

The accord goes hand in hand with the proposed “Emergency Platform” (Policy Brief 2) that will be convened by the UN General Secretary in case of a complex global shock including “future pandemics with cascading secondary impacts”.

Member States should according to the policy brief therefore “improve preparedness not only for health-related crises but also for other challenges and crises”. The aim is a set of protocols that will be activated in case of a major crisis.

HLAB Co-chair Ellen Sirleaf headed the WHO Independent Panel on Pandemic Preparedness and Response (2020-21) whereas Tharman Shanmugaratnam headed the G20 High Level Independent Panel on Financing the Global Commons for Pandemic Preparedness and Response (2021). Both these reports have served as a foundation for the proposed accord.

However, according to WHO Director General Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus, the accord is threatened because of “fake news, lies and conspiracy theories” that undermines the process.[7] This is something that is addressed in the Policy Brief Information Integrity on Digital Platforms.

Mis- and disinformation are having a profound impact on democracy, weakening trust in democratic institutions and independent media, and dampening participation in political and public affairs.[8]

It means that this problem has to be managed. Countering mis- and disinformation is an important part of the UN/WEF/G20 agenda.[9]

The eleven Policy Briefs contain the blueprint for a digital system (Global Digital Compact) that will be run with the help of “trustworthy” Artificial Intelligence. We can assume that “trustworthy” means that it will not criticise UN policies (like the SDGs and The Paris Agreement). The AI has to be in tune with the “Al Gore rhythm”.

“Pact for the Future”: Summary of the Policy Briefs

Below is my presentation of the main components in the proposed “Pact for the Future”, followed by an oversight of the Policy Briefs, key proposals and projects currently being developed by United Nations and external affiliated actors.

“Population Control”

1. Safeguarding the Future

Halt and prevent developments that could threaten the survival of future generations

The goal of the UN Futures Lab is to improve long-term decision-making, by guiding teams in putting foresight into practice and providing frameworks and capacity-building that empower them to build the resilient, anticipatory United Nations the world needs.[10]

“Martial Law”

2. Managing Global Shocks

Rapid international response to complex global shocks

Strengthening the International Response to Complex Global Shocks – An Emergency Platform | Our Common Agenda Policy Brief 2 - Diplo Resource

The platform would not be a new permanent or standing body or institution. It would be triggered automatically in crises of sufficient scale and magnitude, regardless of the type or nature of the crisis involved.[11]

“Youth Activism to Transform the World”

3. Meaningful inclusion of Young People

Make youth into “torchbearers” for the SDGs

In recent years, young people have become a driving force for societal change through social mobilization – pushing for climate action, seeking racial justice, promoting gender equality and demanding dignity for all.[12]

 

“Data Collection”

4. Measuring what we value

 

 

Comprehensive metrics to ensure policymaking is guided by the needs of people and planet

We need a paradigm shift in what we measure as progress, so that we can capture data on the activities and outcomes that a society truly values and then use the data to better inform our policy and financial decisions.[13]

“Digital World Brain”

5. Open, free and secure Digital Future

Human-centred digital future anchored in human rights, enabling the SDGs

Global Digital Compact : Intergovernmental Process led by the Co-facilitators : Informal consultations with Member States and Stakeholders

The transformative potential of AI for good is difficult even to grasp.  And we are in urgent need of this enabler and accelerator.  As many countries are already reeling from the impact of the climate crisis.  The 2030 Agenda — our global blueprint for peace and prosperity on a healthy planet — is in deep trouble.[14]

AI could help to turn that around.  It could supercharge climate action and efforts to achieve the 17 Sustainable Development Goals by 2030.

Click here to read the full article.

*

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

All images in this article are from the author

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.

New Year Donation Drive: Global Research Is Committed to the “Unspoken Truth”

First published on January 15, 2024

***

“Hell is empty and all the devils are here.” ― William Shakespeare, The Tempest

It’s A 21st Century Tempest:

Lets Ensure that the Devils Go Down to Where they Rightfully Belong” 

 

Below is a timely Report by Radio Canada (in French) referring to Davos24 with a title intent upon reassuring its readers:

 

TRANSLATION:

“‘The Great Reset’ is not a Conspiracy to Control the World.

“This initiative of the World Economic Forum to Rethink the Post-Epidemic Economy is the Object of an Important Disinformation Campaign”

M. Ch. Global Research, January 15, 2024

 ***

Introduction: Davos24. The WEF Agenda

As these lines go to print, some 3000 invited guests will flock to the 54th Annual Meeting of the World Economic Forum (WEF) in Davos, from 15 to 19 January. Some 60+ heads of state and many “dignitaries” – most without dignity – wannabe leaders of one kind or another, corporate CEOs, are expected. 

It is a meeting of a globalist cartel of unelected “leaders”, who give themselves the right to attempt deciding the future of the world.

They include, of course, bankers and the financial elite – foremost BlackRock, also a key sponsor and financier of the WEF.

This globalist cabal will, like every year, clog the airports of Zurich, Geneva, and Basle, with their private jets.

Like military worldwide, they are way beyond the “climate change” fraud-agenda they impose on the common plebs.

Some of the heads of state invited by Klaus Schwab, the eternal Chairman and CEO of the WEF, might be considered de facto murderers. 

As Volodymyr Zelenskyy, who this year is making a physical appearance in Davos, is traveling with a high caliber security detail, his critiques are being murdered at home. As reported by RT (12 January 2024) and confirmed by the US State Department, Chilean-US journalist Gonzalo Lira was tortured to death in a Ukraine prison. See this

President Zelenskyy is also responsible for sending tens of thousands of Ukrainian soldiers to their death in an unwinnable war against Russia – for which Russia has offered multiple times peace negotiations, Zelenskyy refused on the order of NATO and western leaders.

Other WEF attendees, like, Isaac Herzog, President of Israel, stands behind the horrendous genocide Israel is inflicting on Palestine; Antony Blinken, US Secretary of State, sitting in for President Biden, as well as Ursula von der Leyen, (image left with Zelenskyy) unelected President European Council (EC) and member of the WEF’s Board of Trustees – might they also fall into the category of de facto murderers for their relentless encouraging Israel to continue the merciless genocide on Gaza, already expanded to the West Bank and Southern Lebanon; as well as cheering on Zelenskyy with countless billions of dollars and an arsenal of sophisticated American and European weaponry to continue the atrocious war in Ukraine? 

Bill Gates, the vaxx king and insect-food promoter, farm-killer and foremost and outspoken eugenist, as well as WHO’s DG, Dr. Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus, might they fit the criteria of “Triggering Depopulation” 

The WEF’s 2024 Motto: Rebuilding Trust

With this kind of noble ilk, Davos 2024 is off to a good start. 

Not for nothing, this year’s motto is “Rebuilding Trust”. Are you effing kidding? “Rebuilding trust”, that says it all. Something is changing. The WEF is realizing that more and more people – including high-level executives – have lost and are increasingly losing trust in this corrupt dystopian, rules-based, One-World wannabe Order.

Other indications that trust in the system is quickly losing ground around the world can be seen from a recent Telegraph article, according to which Defense Secretary Grant Shaps is planning recruiting women for military service, to make up for the ever diminishing mail recruits.

Young people no longer trust their governments, and less so their war policies. It is just a question of time, when women too decline to do war service for the government. Maybe the time is here already. See this.

One certain solution for peace and harmony in the world would be ALL people refusing serving in the military. No military around the world, and the system would fall flat.

The WEF could pack up, and Davos could regain its illustrious reputation of a swell tourist location in the eastern Alps of Switzerland.

The Globalist Dream 

Be sure, WEF and Co., your globalist dream of a One World Order and One World Government, and One Health Order (see below) will not happen. It is a joke.

Dear Mr. Schwab, how are you gonna “Rebuild Trust” with the same corrupt agenda and the same corrupt elitists? You have not changed one iota from the Great Reset’s and UN Agenda’s 2030 – primary goals of drastic population reduction, euthanizing large swaths of people, in whatever way possible, and full digitization of the remaining humanity, to the point where your Israeli Professor and Brother-in-Crime, Yuval Noah Hariri, asks in no uncertain terms:

What to do with the useless eaters, once robots and Artificial Intelligences (AI) will have taken over?

The answer is clear.

Be Sure, it has Nothing to do with Building Trust 

Indeed, things are a-changing. And perhaps in unpredictable ways. Since we are not living in a linear world and the vast majority of humanity does not want a digitized world with digitally-controlled, digitized humanoids. Take note – people are waking up.

Davos24: 100+ Behind Closed Doors Sessions

The WEF’s traditional and official agenda for Davos24, of Trade, Climate Change, AI / digitization does not inspire trust, especially not for the awakened ones. And many of the 3000-plus elite-guests are increasingly aware of the rapid awakening within the populace at large.

Indeed, a conscience shift is taking hold throughout the world. Maybe the elite come in these record numbers to Davos24, to see what the WEF has to offer as alternatives to maintain the status quo as long as possible. 

In addition to the official agenda, really the key of the WEF agenda, are the 100-plus secret close-door sessions for by-invitation-only guests.

In these sessions, the psychopaths, or Übermenschen hovering above humanity, led by Schwab, will discuss how to control, tyrannize, reduce, and robotize the world population – and the best and fastest way to deprive them of their hard-earned resources and how quickest transferring these resources to a small corporate and private elite. 

These secret topics, will most likely include methodologies on how to impose on society new fear factors – after the covid, lockdown and vaxx fraud is gradually but speedily coming to light and ebbing off. 

To get the maximum out of fear-mongering and mind manipulation of the population at large, the WEF might have invited experts from Tavistock, the British institute for social engineering of the collective and individual minds.

Special items of discussions may include, as priorities,

  • how to assure that the new US President – elections in November 2024, IF they take place – will play along, Biden-style;  
  • implementation of the yet to be defined new disease “X” which will be multiple times deadlier than covid;
  • how to manipulate the Pandemic Treaty and the new International Health Regulations (IHR) through the World Health Assembly (WHA) in May 2024, to make WHO effectively the tyrant and dictator of a One Health Order (OHO), leading up to a One World Government;
  • next dimensions of AI, robotization, digitization and the blanket imposition of Digital ID and how to link them to individual bank accounts, and / or Central Bank Digital Currency (CBDC) – imposition at once, or gradually, in the hope of halting a revolution; and

A Polygon Cyberattack May also be on the Agenda for 2024. 

After all, We the People, were recently warned by the Barack and Michelle Obama produced Netflix movie, Leave the World Behind – depicting a cyber-attack by an unknown enemy, attempting to leave the people in awe and fear of what might be coming.

Also it is worth noting that in 2021: 

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

“Klaus Schwab intimated in no uncertain terms based on the simulation that a cyber-attack:  

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

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

NO FEAR, Please – is of the Order.

We, the People, must become cognizant of the fact that the Western world is run by A Money Driven Cult, a Death Cult, or a Diabolical Cult.

Hard to believe but true.

What we have been experiencing during the last several decades are attacks on human dignity, emotions, by warnings causing fear and obedience. These are typical rituals Cults must follow, to be successful in their diabolical actions.

If we pay no attention, especially do not fall for the fear-factor, and do not hate them for what they are doing, we are safe. They want us to hate them, because hatred emits the same low emotional vibes they use for their atrocities. If we emit similar signals, they have us under control.

Being indifferent to them, or even loving them, monsters they are – according to the maxim, they don’t know what they are doing – is a must for ascending from the darkness of their control into the light, where We the People, eventually become free, autonomous and sovereign beings, ready to create a new society, a new civilization. 

We must not ever succumb to their control, lest they drive us to the graveyard, or at best, to their slave-yard. NEVER must we allow that.

*

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

Freeing America from the Quagmire of Inequality

June 22nd, 2024 by Prof. Sam Ben-Meir

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

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

Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

First published on March 15, 2024

***

The levels of wealth inequality we are currently witnessing in this country are unprecedented and alarming. The very richest among us have succeeded in grabbing ever more of the proverbial pie, and the trend is only worsening. Wealth inequality is proving disastrous for America. On both collective and individual levels, we are suffering because of the ever-growing concentration of wealth in the hands of a tiny few. What is to be done? As we explain below, raise taxes on the topmost bracket of earners, and begin realizing the potential and promise of worker self-management, which has historically proven itself to be the indispensable foundation of genuine equality.

According to the Council on Foreign Relations,

“Income and wealth inequality is higher in the United States than almost any other developed country, and it is rising.” In September 2022 the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) released a report entitled Trends in the Distribution of Family Wealth, 1989-2019. The CBO found that the “growth of real wealth over the past three decades was not uniform… In 2019, families in the top 10 percent of the distribution held 72 percent of total wealth, and families in the top 1 percent of the distribution held more than one-third; families in the bottom half of the distribution held only 2 percent of total wealth.”

In fact, families in the top 1 percent saw their share of the total wealth increase by at least 7.4 percentage points – from 26.6 percent in 1989 to 34.0 percent in 2019.

Since 1989 income gains have been heavily skewed toward the topmost bracket of high earners. This is strikingly evident in the growth of CEO compensation since 1965, when “a typical corporate CEO earned about twenty times that earned by a typical worker; by 2018, the ratio was 278:1.” As the Economic Policy Institute points out, from 1978 to 2018, CEO compensation grew by over 940 percent. Wages for the typical worker on the other hand grew by less than 12 percent. CEOs are getting paid exorbitantly because of their power to set pay, “not because they are increasing productivity or possess specific, high-demand skills,” according to the EPI.

This obscene source of inequality cannot even pretend to have any legitimate economic justification: it represents unchecked greed and self-aggrandizement at the expense of everyone else—especially ordinary workers. We could learn something from Spain’s Mondragon Corporation, undoubtedly the world’s largest and most successful cooperative enterprise. Mondragon employs over 80,000 workers across nearly one hundred businesses, but no manager or executive within the company can make over six times the pay than any worker. The excessive compensation of CEOs is only one contributing factor to the rise of wealth inequality in the United States, but it is a significant factor and one that “we could safely do away with.”

The intensifying concentration of wealth, and unjustifiable level of income inequality is proving disastrous in many ways. Here are just a few of them. First, less equal societies typically have more unstable economies, and this country is no exception. “The United States experienced two major economic crises over the past century—the Great Depression starting in 1929 and the Great Recession starting in 2007. Both were preceded by a sharp increase in income and wealth inequality…” It is also well-known that societies with greater economic equality generally also enjoy longer periods of sustained growth: simply put, “longer growth spells are robustly associated with more equality in the income distribution.”

Second, there is an incontrovertible link between economic inequality and violent crime. The fact is that rates of violence are higher in more unequal societies. Why is inequality associated with an increase in criminal activity? As equalitytrust.org observes, economic inequality “may curtail opportunities for some, giving rise to a sense of hopelessness which incites fear, violence and murder.” Certainly, inequality erodes social solidarity and trust, so much so that societies with “large income differences and low levels of trust may lack the social capacity to create safe communities.”

The erosion of perceived fairness and trust also explains the inverse relationship between economic inequality and happiness: a 2011 study, Income Inequality and Happiness, found that “the negative link between income inequality and the happiness of lower-income respondents was explained not by lower household income, but by perceived unfairness and lack of trust.”

Third, the undeniable fact is that the greater the economic inequality that exists, the worse it is for general health outcomes. What is sometimes overlooked is that income inequality is bad for health outcomes across economic strata, not just for those in poverty. To be sure, poor health and poverty are closely linked; but the epidemiological research shows that high levels of economic inequality “negatively affect the health of even the affluent, mainly because… inequality reduces social cohesion, a dynamic that leads to more stress, fear, and insecurity for everyone.” People live longer in countries with lower levels of inequality, as the World Bank reports. In the United States, for example, “average life expectancy is four years shorter than in some of the most equitable countries.”

The most obvious and readily available method for addressing wealth inequality is through taxation policy, subjecting those in the topmost economic echelon to a “high and rising marginal tax rates on earnings.” In 1944 the top marginal tax rate reached 94 percent, applying to income over $200,000, roughly equivalent to $2.8 million today, adjusted for inflation. With our collective amnesia Americans often forget that the top tax rate remained above 90 percent through the 1950s and did not dip below 70 percent until 1981. At no point during the decades that saw America’s greatest economic growth did the tax on the wealthy drop below 70 percent. Today it is somewhere around 37 percent.

There is another method, no less important, for addressing inequality, but one that gets little attention because it involves a fundamental reorganization of the relations of production: namely, worker self-management, workplace democracy – or, perhaps most accurately, worker self-directed enterprises, to use the wording of economist Richard Wolff. As Wolff points out, these enterprises “divide all the labors to be performed… determine what is to be produced, how it is to be produced, and where it is to be produced” and, perhaps most crucially, “decide on the use and distribution of the resulting output or revenues.”

One essential way to appreciate a worker self-directed enterprise is to contrast it to a typical, hierarchically organized corporation where a small board of directors, selected by a tiny number of shareholders, appropriate and distribute the surplus produced by employees. (Surplus refers to the difference between the value added by workers and the value paid to workers). In a worker self-directed enterprise, the surplus-producing workers themselves make the basic decisions about production and distribution.

According to Democracy at Work Institute, worker cooperatives have grown in number by more than 30 percent since 2019. It is estimated that there are some 900-1000 worker cooperatives in the United States, comprising roughly 10,000 workers. What these non-capitalist firms have demonstrated, among other things, is first, that they can succeed and be competitive with respect to traditionally organized firms. And second, worker self-directed enterprises can serve to alleviate income inequality, as Mondragon Corporation does, for example, by establishing a minimum and maximum income level for all workers that is equitable, and reasonable. At US worker cooperatives, the “2:1 top-to-bottom pay ratio… points to the prioritization of reducing internal inequality over other compensation goals.”

Extricating ourselves from the quagmire of inequality will require a progressive taxation policy that includes closing corporate loopholes and tax havens. But taxation is not sufficient: genuine, meaningful equality demands economic democracy. Fortunately, there is ample historical evidence to show that worker self-management can be successfully implemented on a large scale. We also know that “investment funds can be generated by taxation instead of from private savings,” as the philosopher David Schweickart has observed.

Worker self-directed enterprises will not only facilitate economic equality but will also foster a participatory-democratic consciousness within the firm and society at large, and ultimately serve as an antidote to the alienation of labor under capitalism. This is because the members of democratized workplaces are arguably no longer estranged from the act of production: empowered to make decisions regarding the labor process, production is no longer an activity ‘alien’ to the worker. In conclusion, workers self-management is an essential component in the struggle against gross inequality, exploitation, and the alienation of labor, a process that truly begins with workers formulating their own rules.

*

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

Sam Ben-Meir is an assistant adjunct professor of philosophy at City University of New York, College of Technology. He is a regular contributor to Global Research.

Featured image is from Common Dreams

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Freeing America from the Quagmire of Inequality

All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the Translate Website button below the author’s name.

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

Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

***

 

 

 

 

Recent publications on the global crisis have prompted me to repeat an appeal already made to fellow citizens a year and a half ago: “Say NO to the new dictators and their crimes against humanity!” These have already begun to “thin out” humanity with their Corona emergency measures and killer vaccines, plunging it into social and economic chaos (1).  

Worth mentioning in this context is, on the one hand, the new PDF ebook by Michel Chossudovsky: “The Worldwide Corona crisis, Global Coup d’état against Humanity” (2) and, on the other hand, an interview by the Austrian author and politician Gerald Grosz about the failure of governments as a “crime of unimagined proportions” (3). 

But it is not only governing politicians who are “supplied” by unscrupulous and financially strong backers who fail disgracefully: we citizens also fail because we are so manipulated by our traditional upbringing by state and church that we are capable of anything except saying NO. As a result, we keep falling for the lures of supposed authorities and march along with them – as we once did under Hitler.

World political situation has become confusing and more worrying

When I reflect on the current world political situation, Michel Chossudovsky’s book, published a quarter of a century ago, The Globalization of Poverty “GLOBAL BRUTAL. Unleashed World Trade, Poverty, War” (German Edition) comes to mind (4):  

“Humanity, after the Cold War era, has been plunged into an economic and social crisis of unprecedented rapid impoverishment of large parts of the world’s population. Entire economies are collapsing, unemployment is rampant. (…). The New World Order feeds on human poverty and the destruction of the natural environment. It creates social apartheid, fuels racism and ethnic struggles (…) and often plunges countries into destructive conflicts between different ethnic groups.” (…).

This global crisis is more devastating than the Great Depression of the 1930s. It has far-reaching geopolitical implications. The economic dislocations are accompanied by regional wars, the break-up of nation states and in some cases the destruction of entire countries. It is by far the most severe economic crisis in modern history.” (5)

Don’t these book excerpts apply to the current world political situation? What is missing is the danger of a nuclear world war.

As long as man has not recognised himself as a self-responsible being, but delegates the solution of the pressing problems of humanity to politicians, the world will not change.

Do not delegate the solution of humanity’s problems to politicians

Governments cannot be trusted, neither today nor in the future. Especially in recent years, many weak, ignorant and corrupt aspirants have been elevated to authoritative political posts in the Western world, knowing that they will one day bless and rubber-stamp political crimes concocted by the well-known “world conspirators” such as Klaus Schwab (WEF) and others. 

Already in the last century, the Russian writer Lev Nikolayevich Count Tolstoy (1812-1910) wrote in his political pamphlets that this was no accident:

“One could still justify the subordination of a whole people to a few people if those who governed were the best people; but this is not the case, has never been the case and can never be the case. The worst, most insignificant, most cruel, most immoral and especially the most mendacious people often rule. And that this is so is no accident.” (7)

Many adults look up to these rulers like children – and this has consequences: Belief in authority inevitably leads to allegiance to authority, which usually triggers the reflex of absolute spiritual obedience and paralysis of the mind. Adults can then no longer think independently and judge rationally. That is why they hand over decision-making power to professional politicians.

Man as a self-responsible being must not hand over power to anyone!

Ignorant people are so sluggish that they prefer to be guided by supposed authorities rather than by their experience and reason. This was already written 250 years ago by the French Enlightenment philosopher Paul-Henry Thiry d’Holbach in his book “System of Nature” (8).

Since history is a work of human beings, human beings must be changed when one wants to change the world. They must realise that they are autonomous beings who can take their destiny into their own hands and must not hand over power to anyone else. When these people approach the problem of war, for example, they are able to distinguish: Which people are waging war? Is it only the others, the rulers – or are we ourselves also part of it?

Scientific psychology is the appropriate instrument for this self-knowledge. It is a science about man, about human nature: how he becomes, how he grows up, what experiences and knowledge he acquires, how he finds his way in life. His experiences are imparted to him above all by his parents and teachers. He is then the product of his experiences and impressions in childhood.

Already in the first years of life – at the age of five to six – the child has a compass. It then knows how to behave. It also has an opinion about the other child and about the father, mother and siblings. It already has its character and knows its position in the world.

Enlightenment and education are the most important protective measures against war and all other inhumane and freedom-stealing “orders” of the corrupt authorities. The authoritarian education of the past created a type of human being who only knew the categories of “ruling” and “serving”. No wonder that this type of person could neither solve social problems nor eliminate war. Religious and social ideologies as well as privileges in social life prevent people from understanding the unity of the human race. Thus second thoughts are sown among those who would depend on it to secure a tolerable existence on this earth.

Today we know that only psychological methods of education – renunciation of inappropriate authority and the use of violence as well as an understanding of the child’s soul – can develop people who are immune to the entanglements of power madness and no longer possess a subjugated mentality.

It is not yet possible to say when the conscience of humanity, whose call of admonition goes through the centuries, will finally make itself heard. But since the existence of the human race depends on people professing all-human solidarity to a far greater extent than before, we should leave no stone unturned in taking the appropriate psychological measures.

*

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

Dr. Rudolf Lothar Hänsel holds a doctorate in education (Dr. paed.) and a degree in psychology (Dipl.-Psych.). He was a teacher for many decades (retired headmaster) and as a retired psychotherapist in his own practice. In his books and educational-psychological articles, he calls for a conscious ethical-moral values education as well as an education for public spirit and peace. He is a regular contributor to Global Research.

Notes 

(1) https://www.globalresearch.ca/der-manipulierte-mensch-ist-zu-allem-fahig-auser-nein-zu-sagen/5747724 

(2) https://www.globalresearch.ca/new-pdf-ebook-the-worldwide-corona-crisis-global-coup-detat-against-humanity-by-michel-chossudovsky/5791054

(3) https://de.rt.com/europa/154103-es-ist-verbrechen-an-demokratie/

(4) Zweitausendeins. German first edition 2002

(5) op. cit., p. 23

(6) op. cit., p. 1

(7) https://www.globalresearch.ca/leo-n-tolstoi-rede-gegen-den-krieg-aufruf-an-die-menschen-du-sollst-nicht-toten/5777397

(8) https://www.globalresearch.ca/returning-man-nature-paul-thiry-dholbach/5798348

Global WAR-NING! Geoengineering Is Wrecking Our Planet and Humanity

June 22nd, 2024 by Prof. Claudia von Werlhof

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

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @globalresearch_crg.


E-Book First published on December 26, 2021

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Global WAR-NING!

 

Geoengineering Is Wrecking Our Planet and Humanity

 

Prof. Claudia von Werlhof (Editor)

With Contributions by 

Vilma Almendra, Rosalie Bertell, Michel Chossudovsky,

  Josefina Fraile, Elana Freeland, Claire Henrion, 

Maria Heibel, Conny Kadia, Linda Leblanc, Claudia von Werlhof

 

 


 

 

Table of Contents

Preface

by Michel Chossudovsky

Chapter I

Introduction. GLOBAL WAR-NING! How to Explain What Is Happening Today?,

by Claudia von Werlhof

 

Part I

Geoengineering, Politics, and the Planet

 

Chapter II

Slowly Wrecking Our Planet, 

by Rosalie Bertell

Chapter III

Geoengineering, the “Deep State”, and Planetary Lockdown, 

by Elana Freeland

Chapter IV 

Engineered Forest Fires in Portugal 2017,

by Conny Kadia

Chapter V

From Geoengineering to a New Deal for Nature: Destroying the Earth for Profit 

by Josefina Fraile

Chapter VI

Eyes Wide Open in Cyprus,

by Linda Leblanc

Chapter VII

Why Do People Not Realise They Are Sprayed Like Insects?,

by Claire Henrion

Chapter VIII

CO2 as the Scapegoat and the Way to a ‘Brave New World’,

by Maria Heibel

Chapter IX

Geoengineering: From Geo-Weaponry to Geo-Warfare. The Destruction of Mother Earth as the Ultimate and Supreme Crime of Patriarchal Civilization,

by Claudia von Werlhof

Part II

Women in Defense of Mother Earth

 

Chapter X

The “Hatred of Life” as Patriarchy’s Core Element,

by Claudia von Werlhof

Chapter XI

Between Our Capture by Patriarchy and Our Liberation with Mother Life,

by Vilma Almendra

Appendices

Appendix I

Planetary Movement for Mother Earth: Second Open Letter to Greta Thunberg, 2019

Appendix II

Rosalie Bertell: Letter to the Durban UN Conference 2011

Appendix III

United Nations: Convention on the Prohibition of Military or Any Other Hostile Use of Environmental Modification Techniques, United Nations, Geneva, May 18, 1977. Entered into force: 5 October 1978

 


 

The Authors

Vilma Rocío Almendra Quiguanás is a native Nasa-Misak from the North of Cauca, Colombia. She is weaving communications for the truth and for life. She is the author of the books: “Regresar del olvido liberándonos con Uma Kiwe. Desafíos de la lucha Nasa del Cauca, Colombia: Tejiendo memoria entre la emancipación y la captura” (2017) and “Encontrar la palabra perfecta: experiencia del tejido de comunicación del pueblo nasa en Colombia” (2010). She is part of the initiative “Pueblos en Camino” which has the mandate to promote weaving the resistance and autonomy between peoples and processes.

Rosalie Bertell, born in 1929 in the USA, has passed in 2012 in her convent “Grey Nuns of the Sacred Heart” in Pennsylvania. She has PhD in Biometrics from the Catholic Univ., Washington DC in 1966. She has nine PhD honoris causae, several awards, f.i. the Right Livelihood Award in 1986 for “No Immediate Danger? Prognosis for a Radioactive Earth”, 1985.

She is co-founder of the International Institute of Concern for Public Health, IICPH, Toronto, and others. She is the author of “Planet Earth. The Latest Weapon of War”, 2000. She is an expert of UN Commissions on Chernobyl, Bhopal, Marshall Islands, etc. working in 60 countries on industrial accidents.

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

He is the author of twelve books including The Globalization of Poverty and The New World Order (2003), America’s “War on Terrorism” (2005),  The Globalization of War, America’s Long War against Humanity (2015).He is a contributor to the Encyclopaedia Britannica.  His writings have been published in more than twenty languages. 

In 2014, he was awarded the Gold Medal for Merit of the Republic of Serbia for his writings on NATO’s war of aggression against Yugoslavia. 

Josefina Fraile Martín is from Spain. She is an environmental researcher and activist. She was the official Spanish candidate of the Greens to the European Parliament in 2004. She is President of the Association Terra SOS-tenible. She is also promoter of the international civil society platforms Skyguards and Guardacielos opposing ongoing global climate manipulation programs, aka geoengineering, in the political instances of European countries and European institutions.

Elana Freeland from the USA is best known for Chemtrails, HAARP, and the Full Spectrum Dominance of Planet Earth (Feral House, 2014) and has recently completed its sequel Under an Ionized Sky: From Chemtrails to Space Fence Lockdown (Sub Rosa America, 2018) about the resurrected SDI “Star Wars” Space Fence. To be published in 2021, Geoengineered Transhumanism: How the Environment Has Been Weaponized by Chemicals, Electromagnetics, & Nanotechnology for Synthetic Biology. This is the third book in the trilogy on geoengineering.

Maria Heibel was born in Limburg Germany. She studied at the Johann-Wolfgang-Goethe University of Frankfurt/Main. She was granted in 1976 in political and historical sciences for instructional work, and in 1980 in pedagogy. From 1981 to 1991, her main occupation was in graphic art with exhibitions in Italy, Germany, Japan, Poland etc. From 1991, her main occupation has been in the social field. She is the curator of the website: Nogeoingegneria.com. She lives in Florence-Toscana, Italy since 1981.

Claire Henrion, born in La Rochelle (France) in 1960, has founded the ACSEIPICA (Public Association for the Study, follow-up and Information on Atmospheric and Climate Intervention Programmes – www.acseipica.fr). Her website is www.rockastres.org that focuses on research, art and popular education in Astronomy and Astrology, to restore a cosmology able to generate peace.

Conny Kadia, born in 1965 in Germany, studied music, politics, philosophy and languages. She was a professional musician in African Drumming, as well as classical piano and jazz saxophone. She migrated definitively to Portugal in 2000. She loves nature and studies animals. Since 2014, she has been a geoengineering activist in Portugal and in 2017 was a witness of the organized fires by states and military on 15th Oct 17. She is mainly working as a music teacher and translator. She is the co-founder of the groups “Why Fire Group” and “Grupo Céus Limpos” in Central Portugal. Since 2019, she has been an activist in the “National Movements Against Mining“ in Portugal.

Linda Leblanc, a Canadian/naturalized Cypriot, has lived in Cyprus since 1989. She is a writer, politician and active member of the Cyprus Green Party. She made history in 2006 as the first person of non-Cypriot origin to be elected to a Town Council in Cyprus. She is the first woman elected to Pegeia Council and was re-elected in 2011 and 2016.

Claudia von Werlhof, born in 1943 near Berlin, Germany, is a University Professor of political sciences and women’s studies in Austria at Innsbruck, mother of a sun. She co-invented the “Bielefeld School” in Germany, worked at the grass roots in Central- and South America, developed the “Critical Theory of Patriarchy”, co-founded FIPAZ (Research Institute for the Critique of Patriarchy and Alternative Civilizations), the “Planetary Movement for Mother Earth” and “BOOMERANG – Journal for the Critique of Patriarchy”. She is a Research Associate of the Centre for Research on Globalization, Montreal.

 


 

Preface

by

Michel Chossudovsky

This important book entitled Global WAR-NING! Geoengineering Is Wrecking Our Planet and Humanity by Prof. Claudia von Werlhof (Editor) encompasses contributions by prominent scholars and activists.

In Part I, the focus is on Geoengineering, Politics, and the Planet. Part II analyses Women in Defense of Mother Earth

As we go to Press, World leaders are meeting in Glasgow at COP-26 under the auspices of the Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC).

All eyes are now on “the imminent  dangers of CO2 and greenhouse gas emissions”.

The so-called “climate emergency”  has become a timely and convenient instrument of propaganda which is used to distract people from questioning “the real crisis”, namely the Covid-19 “plandemic” (instigated by the financial elites) which is destroying people’s lives Worldwide.

Exclusion of Geo-Engineering and Environmental Modification Techniques (ENMOD) from the Climate Debate

The COP climate debate under the UNFCCC has persistently excluded the analysis of geo-engineering which is Slowly Wrecking our Planet as outlined by the late Rosalie Bertell (Chapter II). In the words of Rosalie Bertell: “Geoengineering is defined as planetary-scale environmental engineering of our atmosphere: that is, manipulating our weather, our oceans, and our home planet itself.”

As in previous Climate summits, geo-engineering and environmental modification techniques (ENMOD) will not be addressed at the Glasgow COP26 venue. The debate on Climate Change focuses solely on the impacts of greenhouse gas emissions and measures to reduce so-called manmade CO2 emissions under the Kyoto Protocol.

Ironically, Environmental Modification Techniques (ENMOD) have been acknowledged by the UN in 1977 upon the signing in Geneva of  the Convention on the Prohibition of Military or Any Other Hostile Use of Environmental Modification Techniques.

The  1977 Convention was ratified by the UN General Assembly which banned “military or other hostile use of environmental modification techniques having widespread, long-lasting or severe effects.” (AP, 18 May 1977).

Both the US and the Soviet Union were signatories to the Convention.

Guided by the interest of consolidating peace, … and of saving mankind from the danger of using new means of warfare, (…)

Recognizing that military … use of such [environmental modification techniques] could have effects extremely harmful to human welfare,

Desiring to prohibit effectively military … use of environmental modification techniques in order to eliminate the dangers to mankind. … and affirming their willingness to work towards the achievement of this objective, (…)

Each State Party to this Convention undertakes not to engage in military … use of environmental modification techniques having widespread, long-lasting or severe effects as the means of destruction, damage or injury to any other State Party. (Convention on the Prohibition of Military or Any Other Hostile Use of Environmental Modification Techniques, United Nations, Geneva, May 18, 1977. Entered into force: 5 October 1978, see full text of Convention in Annex)

The Convention defined “‘environmental modification techniques’ as referring to any technique for changing–through the deliberate manipulation of natural processes–the dynamics, composition or structure of the earth, including its biota, lithosphere, hydrosphere and atmosphere or of outer space.” (Environmental Modification Ban Faithfully Observed, States Parties Declare, UN Chronicle, July, 1984, Vol. 21, p. 27)

The substance of the 1977 Convention was reasserted in very general terms in the Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) signed at the 1992 Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro:

“States have… in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations and the principles of international law, the (…) responsibility to ensure that activities within their jurisdiction or control do not cause damage to the environment of other States or of areas beyond the limits of national jurisdiction.”  (UN Framework Convention on Climate Change, New York, 1992)

Following the 1992 Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro, the issue of Climate Change for military use was never raised in subsequent climate UNFCCC summits. The issue was erased, deliberately forgotten. It is not part of the debate on climate change. The UNFCC’s exclusion of the 1977 Convention pertaining to Environmental Modification Techniques constitutes a blatant violation of the UN Charter. 

In the words of Claudia von Werlhof in Chapter I

Military geoengineering is a macro-technology to influence and to change planetary processes and at the same time a micro-technology to influence our bodies and minds, a mind control technology. But military geoengineering is kept not only hidden from the public. … In the meantime, the real geoengineering is, however, violently transforming the planet for military use against us and itself. This means that Mother Earth is “weaponized”, trying to change her into a giant war machine.

In February 1998, however, the European Parliament’s Committee on Foreign Affairs, Security and Defense Policy held public hearings in Brussels on the U.S based weather warfare facility developed under the HAARP program.

The Committee’s “Motion for Resolution” submitted to the European Parliament:

“Considers HAARP.[The High Frequency Active Auroral Research Program  based in Alaska].. by virtue of its far-reaching impact on the environment to be a global concern and calls for its legal, ecological and ethical implications to be examined by an international independent body…; [the Committee] regrets the repeated refusal of the United States Administration… to give evidence to the public hearing …into the environmental and public risks [of] the HAARP program.” (European Parliament, Committee on Foreign Affairs, Security and Defense Policy, Brussels, doc. no. A4-0005/99, 14 January 1999).

The Committee’s request to draw up a “Green Paper” on “the environmental impacts of military activities”, however, was casually dismissed.  Brussels was anxious to avoid a showdown with Washington. (see European Report, 3 February 1999).

“Weather as a Force Multiplier: Owning the Weather” for Military Use

The Climate consensus is challenged by the authors of Global WAR-NING: Geoengineering Is Wrecking Our Planet and Humanity.  The Military use of ENMOD is amply documented. It is part of a military agenda, which is confirmed by the US Air Force:

“[Weather modification] offers the war fighter a wide range of possible options to defeat or coerce an adversary… Weather modification will become a part of domestic and international security and could be done unilaterally… It could have offensive and defensive applications and even be used for deterrence purposes. The ability to generate precipitation, fog and storms on earth or to modify space weather… and the production of artificial weather all are a part of an integrated set of [military] technologies.” (US Air Force document AF 2025 Final Report)

The stated purpose of the Report is described below:

In this paper we show that appropriate application of weather-modification can provide battlespace dominance to a degree never before imagined. In the future, such operations will enhance air and space superiority and provide new options for battlespace shaping and battlespace awareness there, waiting for us to pull it all together;” in 2025 we can “Own the Weather.” (Commissioned by US Air Force document AF 2025 Final Report,  (public document)

(For further details see Michel Chossudovsky, Climate Change, Geoengineering and Environmental Modification Techniques (ENMOD), Global Research, November 2018)

Weather-modification, according to US Air Force document AF 2025 Final Report, 

offers the war fighter a wide range of possible options to defeat or coerce an adversary”, capabilities, it says, extend to the triggering of floods, hurricanes, droughts and earthquakes:

‘Weather modification will become a part of domestic and international security and could be done unilaterally… It could have offensive and defensive applications and even be used for deterrence purposes. The ability to generate precipitation, fog and storms on earth or to modify space weather… and the production of artificial weather all are a part of an integrated set of [military] technologies.” 

See complete reports commissioned by the US Air Force

 ….From enhancing friendly operations or disrupting those of the enemy via small-scale tailoring of natural weather patterns to complete dominance of global communications and counterspace control, weather-modification offers the war fighter a wide-range of possible options to defeat or coerce an adversary. Some of the potential capabilities a weather-modification system could provide to a war-fighting commander in chief (CINC) are listed in table 1.

Source: US Air Force

Why Would We Want to Mess with the Weather? is the subtitle of chapter 2 of the Report

“According to Gen Gordon Sullivan, former Army chief of staff, “As we leap technology into the 21st century, we will be able to see the enemy day or night, in any weather— and go after him relentlessly.” global, precise, real-time, robust, systematic weather-modification capability would provide war-fighting CINCs with a powerful force multiplier to achieve military objectives. Since weather will be common to all possible futures, a weather-modification capability would be universally applicable and have utility across the entire spectrum of conflict. The capability of influencing the weather even on a small scale could change it from a force degrader to a force multiplier.”

Under the heading:

What Do We Mean by “Weather-modification”?

The report states:

“The term weather-modification may have negative connotations for many people, civilians and military members alike. It is thus important to define the scope to be considered in this paper so that potential critics or proponents of further research have a common basis for discussion.

In the broadest sense, weather-modification can be divided into two major categories: suppression and intensification of weather patterns. In extreme cases, it might involve the creation of completely new weather patterns, attenuation or control of severe storms, or even alteration of global climate on a far-reaching and/or long-lasting scale. In the mildest and least controversial cases it may consist of inducing or suppressing precipitation, clouds, or fog for short times over a small-scale region. Other low-intensity applications might include the alteration and/or use of near space as a medium to enhance communications, disrupt active or passive sensing, or other purposes.” (emphasis added)

The Triggering of Storms: 

“Weather-modification technologies might involve techniques that would increase latent heat release in the atmosphere, provide additional water vapor for cloud cell development, and provide additional surface and lower atmospheric heating to increase atmospheric instability.

Critical to the success of any attempt to trigger a storm cell is the pre-existing atmospheric conditions locally and regionally. The atmosphere must already be conditionally unstable and the large-scale dynamics must be supportive of vertical cloud development. The focus of the weather-modification effort would be to provide additional “conditions” that would make the atmosphere unstable enough to generate cloud and eventually storm cell development. The path of storm cells once developed or enhanced is dependent not only on the mesoscale dynamics of the storm but the regional and synoptic (global) scale atmospheric wind flow patterns in the area which are currently not subject to human control.” (page 19)

Military analysts are mute on the subject. Meteorologists are not investigating the matter, and environmentalists are strung on global warming and the Kyoto protocol.

The HAARP Program

The High-Frequency Active Auroral Research Program (HAARP) was initially established in Gokona, Alaska, in 1992. According to a US Air Force statement, the HAARP facility was closed down in May 2014. The weather modification technology nonetheless prevails. Was it moved to an undisclosed location? In the mid-1990s, the HAARP technology was fully operational. The evolution of weather modification technologies for military use in the course of last twenty years has not been disclosed. 

HAARP was part of a generation of sophisticated weaponry under the US Strategic Defense Initiative (SDI). Operated by the Air Force Research Laboratory’s Space Vehicles Directorate, HAARP constitutes a system of powerful antennas capable of creating “controlled local modifications of the ionosphere” [upper layer of the atmosphere]:

HAARP was presented to public opinion as a program of scientific and academic research. US military documents seem to suggest, however, that HAARP’s main objective is to “exploit the ionosphere for Department of Defense purposes.” (See Michel Chossudovsky, The Ultimate Weapon of Mass Destruction: “Owning the Weather” for Military Use, Global Research, September 27, 2004

Without explicitly referring to the HAARP program, the US Air Force study quoted above points to the use of “induced ionospheric modifications” as a means of altering weather patterns as well as disrupting enemy communications and radar. (Ibid)

HAARP also has the ability of triggering blackouts and disrupting the electricity power system of entire regions:

Rosalie Bertell, president of the International Institute of Concern for Public Health, says HAARP operates as ‘a gigantic heater that can cause major disruptions in the ionosphere, creating not just holes, but long incisions in the protective layer that keeps deadly radiation from bombarding the planet’.

Physicist Dr Bernard Eastlund called it ‘the largest ionospheric heater ever built’. HAARP is presented by the US Air Force as a research programme, but military documents confirm its main objective is to ‘induce ionospheric modifications’ with a view to altering weather patterns and disrupting communications and radar.

According to a report by the Russian State Duma: ‘The US plans to carry out large-scale experiments under the HAARP programme [and] create weapons capable of breaking radio communication lines and equipment installed on spaceships and rockets, provoke serious accidents in electricity networks and in oil and gas pipelines, and have a negative impact on the mental health of entire regions.’

Weather manipulation is the pre-emptive weapon par excellence. It can be directed against enemy countries or ‘friendly nations’ without their knowledge, used to destabilise economies, ecosystems and agriculture. It can also trigger havoc in financial and commodity markets. The disruption in agriculture creates a greater dependency on food aid and imported grain staples from the US and other Western countries.” (Michel Chossudovsky, Weather Warfare: Beware the US military’s experiments with climatic warfare, The Ecologist, December 2007)

An analysis of statements emanating from the US Air Force points to the unthinkable: the covert manipulation of weather patterns, communications systems and electric power as a weapon of global warfare, enabling the US to disrupt and dominate entire regions of the World.

This is the unspoken truth affecting all humanity which is addressed in this book. In the words of Rosalie Bertell:

“Geoengineering is defined as planetary-scale environmental engineering of our atmosphere: that is, manipulating our weather, our oceans, and our home planet itself.”

And those are the realities which have been casually dismissed by the COP Climate Debate under the UNFCCC auspices which from the very outset has been generously funded by the Rockefellers.

 


Chapter I

Introduction

GLOBAL WAR-NING!

How to Explain What Is Happening Today?

by

Claudia von Werlhof

After more than one year of “lockdowns” all over the world, the issue of “global warming” and “climate change” is back on the table of the international debate.

It seems that natural catastrophies have started to surround us everywhere – from the animal world next to us as well as from the sky above us. Is “nature” the enemy that has to be combatted today, be it by vaccinating humanity against the coronavirus that allegedly jumped out of the wilderness attacking us, be it by tearing down industrial production and consumption in order to avoid the alleged greenhouse gas CO2 emissions, being officially identified as the sole culprit of a so-called global warming? Or be it by applying methods of an alleged civil “geoengineering” against an ongoing climate change that seems to threaten the world?

This is the best moment to publish our book “Global War-ning! Geoengineering Is Wrecking Our Planet and Humanity”. Our warning, however, is not a warning against CO2 emissions that are the alleged reason for the warming of the planet. This is claimed from above, especially the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), from governments, the media, and the super rich, as well as from corrupted social movements everywhere (see Second Letter to Greta Thunberg, Annex).

We are, however, warning against the effects of a form of geoengineering that is not of civil, but of military origin, and a technology which alone is able to produce effects that appear as global warming, climate change, and much more, such as damage to the planet’s ozone layer (Werlhof in this vol.).

This military technology, nevertheless, is not debated nearly anywhere despite its development internationally 75 years ago. Military geoengineering is a macro-technology to influence and to change planetary processes and at the same time a micro-technology to influence our bodies and minds, a mind control technology. But military geoengineering is kept not only hidden from the public, even when some of its “civil” applications are discussed and defined as the only “geoengineering” that exists, but also – referring to its “civil” applications – it is defined the other way around as the technology that would even rescue the planet. In the meantime, the real geoengineering is, however, violently transforming the planet for military use against us and itself. This means that Mother Earth is “weaponized”, trying to change her into a giant war machine.

The technology of military geoengineering has been profoundly analyzed in all its aspects and historical development by North American scientist and UN expert, Dr. Rosalie Bertell (1929-2012), accompanied and followed by many others (Bertell 2000, 2020; Chossudovsky 2020). Bertell concludes and warns that this technology is turning our planet as a whole into a weapon of mass destruction, including “wrecking” it itself, as she says. So, geoengineering should be stopped immediately instead of being defined as a civil science and inversely proclaimed as a means to even save the Earth!

This shows that concepts of the public discourse used today are part of an information war that is producing an incredible confusion everywhere (Engdahl 2018).

So, the time has come to have a new look at military geoengineering in order to better understand what is really going on with the Earth in general and her “climate”, specifically, as well as with humans and our societies.

What we can see now is the beginning of a policy of “climate protection” that has become the major project of the European Union for decades to come, the so-called “Green New Deal” (Rifkin 2019). The same allegedly “green” policies are also central for the concepts of the “Great Reset” in the 21st century, propagated by the “World Economic Forum” (WEF) and its leader, Klaus Schwab, in Davos (Schwab & Malleret 2020). Schwab promotes nothing less than the interests of the world’s super rich. His program looks as if the often-quoted “New World Order” would be “green”, nature-friendly and the dangers for nature – as well as from nature – eliminating civilizational undertaking for the wellbeing of all of us. It seems as if it would liberate us from the sins of resource waste, industrial mass production and overconsumption under capitalism. Were not these the goals of all ecological and anti-capitalist movements of the last century?

Yes, they were, but there is first of all, one argument that points to the real direction of the new global plans. It is the argument of a so-called “overpopulation” that has to disappear as it allegedly threatens nature by being responsible for producing ever growing CO2 emissions due to an always higher production and consumption level. Indeed, only when the world population is reduced to a much lower level can the current development model and its resource use as well as its income concentration be maintained and even expanded. Only in this way can a fundamental change be avoided in the direction of an alternative, truly egalitarian society that does not need to be capital-oriented in production and consumption anymore. In order to go on with capitalism, therefore, it has to be reduced to a minority-project, insofar as production and consumption of limited resources are concerned, because otherwise it would necessarily fail in the near future. “Peak oil” would become the peak of everything.

But, what are the changes the new, allegedly green and resource-protecting political programs from above are announcing, besides “depopulation” – a goal which is unimaginable for most people until today, anyway?

Whereas people are held to believe in the new green and moreover “sustainable” political projects, also supported by the UN Agenda 2010 and 2030, we have to ask what these projects mean in reality and beyond their propaganda. So, is it true that we are witnessing the beginning of a process of transforming our societies into really ecological ones, be it with or without its actual “overpopulation”?

The new “Great Transformation” is announced everywhere. It consists in starting to do away with the results of the former industrial revolutions, based on the energy of coal, natural gas, and oil (Engdahl 2021). Today, a new technological and energy regime is to be established, called the “fourth industrial revolution”. It is supposed to be mostly based on “clean” renewable energies out of water, wind, biomass and sunlight which do not emit much CO2, compared with the times before. The new civilizational project would then be far from leading to more global warming, stabilizing it at the proposed 1.5 degrees, and the climate catastrophes allegedly resulting from it would be limited.

The new energy regime, however, does not exclude nuclear energy – regarded as green for allegedly not producing CO2 emissions (Werlhof 2019) which is not true when at least considering uranium mining, for instance, its precondition, as well. The maintenance of nuclear power supply shows, however, that in reality renewable energies would not be enough at all to maintain the production of all inputs needed, and the requirements of a growing energy supply in an e-oriented traffic, economy and society, not to mention the military which is not going to give up its primary interests in nuclear technologies, with which – by the way – the project of geoengineering had started (Bertell 2000, Werlhof in this vol).

Most importantly, however, the fourth industrial revolution itself is defined by the general application of new technologies that have never been used before on a generalized basis, namely genetic engineering and synthetic biology – the biotechnologies – Artificial Intelligence (AI), nanotechnology, and last but not least, geoengineering!

So, whereas the narrative from above has to do with nature in all her aspects, being the source of all energy, life, and matter, we have to ask: What happens to nature in the time of the new industrial revolution?

It happens that nature in her form as matter and life is systematically dismantled down to its cellular, molecular and even atomic structure, and recombined afterwards to a new “creation”, but a creation beyond all its natural forms, limits, evolution and evolutionary boundaries (Chargaff 1988). I call this the “new alchemy” in which the complete dissolution of all matter, its “mortification”, becomes the precondition of a new “creation”, an Opus Magnum beyond nature as we know it (Werlhof 2020, Bizarri 2012).

This revolution is a revolution, indeed, and may be the most decisive ever. It is inventing a completely new world, a mixture of life and the machine, and of different life forms and matter as such, unseen to the present day. But this revolution has nothing to do with nature, life, and even human life within the natural order on Earth anymore. On the contrary, it wants to supercede and surmount nature in all its appearances, ties, and bonds. The same is true for Mother Earth. “Hacking the planet” by military geoengineering means taking control of its energies and life support systems, and recombining them in the form of a weaponized, giant machinery.

What is green about all that? It is green insofar as all life is concerned, but this life is being destroyed and transformed into part and parcel of a huge mega-machine of AI, the digitized “Internet of Things” moved by military 5G frequencies. In the IoT, all parts are defined as things, as “information”. So, as we all are supposed to become parts of it, we human beings – for the first time in history – will principally not be recognized as living beings or even humans anymore! There will be no need to acknowledge human beings, their rights and freedom, not to speak of democracy anymore. The new life forms in the IoT will – like any innovation – just be patents owned by mega-enterprises (Werlhof 2020).

This is what most people do not understand: We, as human beings, are going to be eliminated, if it happens as being planned (Werlhof 2021).

Is that what ecological movements around the world originally defined as green? Of course not. What we see emerging is a utopian civilization that is the opposite of green in the sense of nature-friendly, because it does away with and replaces nature, life, and also human life by the machine, and machine-guided combinations of them. In this way, the “Anthropocene”, the Age of Man controlling the Earth is conceived as an age that does not count with man as being human the way we have known him and her in history any longer.

I, therefore, suppose that almost nobody does really understand what the Green New Deal and the Great Reset mean in reality.

Connecting the dots, however, we get it together – connecting the alleged pandemic that has  been prepared as a “plandemic” already 10 years ago (Rockefeller 2010), with the alleged CO2 danger; connecting the lockdowns with the plans for geoengineering against so-called global warming; connecting the ongoing vaccination against COVID-19 of billions of people with the plans for depopulating the planet and the first step to transhumanism for those surviving, being already altered into genetically modified organisms (GMOs); connecting the ongoing war against the alleged dangers of nature in general with the war against an allegedly greedy human nature; and connecting the “nature” of today’s waste-civilization invented by the ruling classes themselves that now is to be abolished for the majority, with the “weaponization” of the  planetary nature.

What is generally forgotten to be said in this context, is that those who proclaim a new “sustainable” civilization are the same ones who invented and forced upon humanity greed, waste and overproduction, overconsumption and even overpopulation themselves during the first Great Transformation in the 16th century, leading to modern civilization, and the hundreds of years following it. Did the inventors of this transformation now understand what was wrong about it?

The answer is no, because they are not propagating a really green and non-capitalistic new civilization but, on the contrary, a new and much more industrialized one, in which nature, matter, life and human life are even more degraded, destroyed and finally always more abolished, like the genders we have known so far, and the mothers needed for procreation. Because the transhuman cyborg, finally, will not be born anymore, but be “man”-made, a product of the new machinery that is developing rapidly.

What we are observing now is a global war that has been started from above, a sort of World War III. (Chossudovsky 2021, Köenig 2021), and one of a completely new character than any war before, as it is not declared as such, does not distinguish between friends and enemies, and is occurring mostly through apparently “natural” catastrophes. It is exactly the new war which Rosalie Bertell foresaw 20 years ago. This war shows what military geoengineering would be like and is most probably already good for. There is no proof, but the means, the technology, and the reasons to apply it do exist (Werlhof in  this vol.). For instance, when there are catastrophes, the public can be mobilized against CO2 and in favor of the demolition of the former industrial civilisation.

In this respect, our prognosis would be that the coming reduction of CO2 emissions would not be accompanied by a reduction in natural catastrophes, as the latter ones are of course not caused by CO2 – an invisible natural plant gas that is needed to produce the oxygen we are breathing and that constitutes not more than 0.04% of the atmosphere!

So, in the new concepts of the information war, its technologies and policies, nature plays the central role. It is regarded either as bad, evil, and dangerous, be it by itself, be it because of its reactions vis-a-vis the sins of humanity; or, on the other hand, nature is regarded as good which has to be protected, or even created as an always “better” one, the so-called “second nature”. The best nature is always defined as the one man has created himself! This is what it is all about: the creation of a “second” nature which finally is allegedly the only one mankind or the world ultimately can live with. Nature as the original or “first nature” is, however, regarded as all that has to be dominated, controlled, done away with and transformed into its opposite, a counter-nature.

Today, the transformed and newly created nature is the one that is supposed to be the result of the fourth industrial revolution. Its definition as “nature” is, however, completely misleading when we look at the products of this revolution: a digitized world of AI combining humans with the soft- and the hardware of computers, transhumans or cyborgs, new creations of biotechnology that have passed the evolutionary borders of the species, equipped with nanobots, molecular-sized machines that run through their bodies and brains accomplishing the orders they received from EM, electromagnetic frequencies from the world outside. Many forms of mind control, emotional control, and the control of the will of human, half-human or chimera beings are developing. The resulting mega-machine or super-computer which controls it all is even identified as God himself, the “God-machine” (Harari 2017). This way we would be approaching a totalitarian “technological dictatorship” (Film 2021) with no freedom, free will, democracy, and human individuals the way we are accustomed to know them any longer, and on top of this, a planet that has been geoengineered into a war machine.

What is called “nature” in this context, is “second nature”, the machine itself, proclaimed as the “higher form of life”, nature’s opposite and that which has been invented to replace it. It goes from the nanobot as the mini-machine to the Earth as a planetary macro-machine, in the middle society as a digitized mega-machine with ex-humans as transhumans, cyborgs, robots and bio-computers within it.

This would be the result of a civilization of “patriarchy” as I define it (Werlhof 2011) in contrast to most others, patriarchy being an historical process leading to a purely patriarchal civilization in which everything is man-made instead of born by women/mothers and nature, finally by Mother Earth. It means pater arché instead of mater arché, arché being the origin of everything, the uterus, now the machine as the ultimate male creation of an allegedly “better and higher nature”, a goal that stems from the beginnings of patriarchy in antiquity, and has accompanied us until today where it tries to become our final reality. Patriarchy is about to become really true – for the first time in thousands of years! This is the tradition within which the Great Transformation of today is occurring, and why its followers and producers, the “Fathers of a New World”, are not going to give up whatever is going to happen in the course of time.

Whereas the super rich could maintain modernity as we have known it and remain human, the many, however, would enter into their ultimate dusk — the human race disappearing within a “smart” – instead of brave new world (Heibel in this vol.) or vanishing from the face of the Earth altogether, as “they” don’t need us anymore (Kurzweil 1999, Moravec 1988).

These are the plans laid open, but will they be realized?

It is in these strange and appalling times that we have written our book that sheds a new light on many details of this historical process (Bertell in  this vol.), be it the spraying of the skies (Henrion in this vol.), be it the work of ionospheric heaters in relation to other methods of geoengineering (Werlhof in this vol.), be it the possibility to produce natural catastrophes of completely new dimensions on Earth (Kadia in this vol.) and the denial of it all (Leblanc in this vol.), be it mind control and the planetary lockdown from above, the surrounding cosmos itself (Freeland in  this vol.), be it the corrupted national and international institutions which organize it all (Fraile in this vol.), the governments and the UN (Bertell in Annex), or the IPCC, for instance, and the media leading the infowar against us, the people (Second Letter to Greta Thunberg, Annex), who have no idea of the wrong of it all, as we have been accustomed to believe that change is always needed and always one to the better and a more civilized world.

Now, however, the new Great Transformation is breaking with the last good traditions of modernity that have remained in spite of their ongoing dissolution – an ethics of respect for humanity and human life, and the aesthetics of a culture of the arts, of the power of thought, of love, and of the beautiful.

We are closing our book with a call against the “Hatred of Life”, this civilization of modern patriarchy is expressing (Werlhof in this vol.) and remembering our ancient indigenous and non-patriarchal traditions of honouring Mother Life and the Earth (Almendra in this vol.).

Military geoengineering could even result in the ultimate matricide, that of our Mother Earth. Additionally, the latest news is that the same is already happening to us as humanity: It has been revealed that nanoparticles made of graphene oxide seem to be the most important substance found in all COVID-19 vaccines, in PCR tests, the masks, and even in the aerosols sprayed into the atmosphere (Global Research 2021, Wigington 2021). If this proves to be true and we do not stop the vaccinations and start with the detoxification of our bodies and air immediately, our destiny as humanity will be determined – as unimaginable as it may appear at that very moment!

We hope to have removed what is in the way to recognize what is happening to our planet and us in reality. It is the moment of truth.

Sources

Authors of this volume, quoted without year: Vilma Almendra, Rosalie Bertell, Josefina Fraile, Elana Freeland, Maria Heibel, Claire Henrion, Conny Kadia, Linda Leblanc, Claudia von Werlhof

Bertell, Rosalie: Planet Earth – the Latest Weapon of War, London 2000, Dublin 2020

Bizarri, Mariano, 2012: The New Alchemists. The Risk of Genetic Modification, Southampton, WIT Press

Chargaff, Erwin: 1988: Unbegreifliches Geheimnis. Wissenschaft als Kampf für und gegen die Natur, Stuttgart, Klett-Cotta

Chossudovsky, Michel, 2020: Does the US Military “Own the Weather”? “Weaponizing the Weather” as an Instrument of Modern Warfare? Global Research, 15.1. (first: 12.9.2017)

Chossudovsky, Michel, 2021: The 2020-21 Worldwide Corona Crisis: Destroying Civil Society, Engineered Economic Depression, Global Coup d’État and the “Great Reset”, Global Research, 21.7

Engdahl, F. William, 2018: Climate Change, Panic Scenarios, Killing Scientific Debate. The Dark Story Behind “Global Warming”, www.globalresearch.ca, 16.10.

Engdahl, F. William, 2021: “Fit for 55”: The EU Green Deal and the Industrial Collapse of Europe, on Global Research, 14.7.

Film 2021, Die technokratische Diktatur, Victoria – Film, Leipzig

Global Research, 2021:

Harari, Yuval, 2017: Homo Deus, München, Beck

Köenig, Peter, 2021: The WEF’s Great Reset – Euphemism for a WWIII Scenario? on Global Research 27 April

Kurzweil, Ray, 1999: The Age of Spiritual Machines: When Computers Exceed Human Intelligence, New York, Penguin Books

Moravec, Hans, 1988: Mind Children: The Future of Robot and Human Intelligence, Cambridge/London, Harvard University Press

Rifkin, Jeremy, 2019: Der Globale Green New Deal, Frankfurt a. M., Campus

Rockefeller Foundation, 2010: Scenario for the Future of Technology and International Development, New York

Schwab, Klaus & Malleret, Thierry, 2020: Covid-19: The Great Reset, WEF, Davos

Werlhof, Claudia von, 2011: The Failure of Modern Civilization and the Struggle for a “Deep” Alternative, Frankfurt/New York, Peter Lang

Werlhof, Claudia von, 2019: Is the Nuclear “Green”? “CO2– And Climate Neutral”? European Parliament votes in favor of nuclear energy, Global Research, 30.11.2019

Werlhof, Claudia von, 2020: Compulsory Vaccination that Genetically Alters the Human Body – No longer a Human Being? Global Research 22.6.

Werlhof, Claudia von, 2021: A Call for Mother Earth and Humanity, in Klein, Renate und Hawthorne, Susan (Eds): Not Dead Yet. Feminism, Passion and Women´s Liberation, Melbourne, Spinifex Press 2021, p. 369-375

Wigington, Dane, 2021: https://www.geoengineeringwatch.org/graphene-skies/


Part I

Geoengineering, Politics, and the Planet

 

 


Chapter II 

Slowly Wrecking Our Planet

by

Rosalie Bertell

We are all children of the universe. Billions of years before we were born, the furnace of the stars made, in prolific abundance, the basic chemicals which are needed for all of life, and the supernovas gave up their lives to make all of the heaviest chemicals and trace metal which our bodies need to properly function. More than four billion years ago our planet Earth was formed.

Not too close or too far from our planet’s sun, so that our temperature was just right to support life. Our planet formed a moon, to rule over the night, the water waves and life-giving cycles. Water covered our early planet forming a chemical soup in which long molecules including the proteins of life were formed of the elements made in the stars. Then the waters receded to the places of oceans and the dry land flourished into grasses, trees, flowers, insects, butterflies, birds, amphibians, animals of all sorts and humans. How grateful we must be for this magnificent gift of life and all we have needed to sustain it over the last hundreds of thousands of years! Yet, today it is under threats never felt before in its entire unfolding journey.

While the Earth’s human civic community has been trying to rid itself of nuclear weapons over the last 65 years, some economically developed nations have quietly moved into the realm of geo-warfare. Geo-weaponry has recently been introduced to the public as a ‘new’ high-tech way to mitigate the effects of global warming, and it is being called “geoengineering.”

Geoengineering is defined as planetary-scale environmental engineering of our atmosphere: that is, manipulating our weather, our oceans, and our home planet itself. The methods that are being proposed in geoengineering are already a reality without public participation in debate, prior public notification, or democratic oversight. They are based on a deep understanding of the Earth system, learned through space exploration, and are staggering in number and scope.

Why have these plans not been known to the public and openly discussed, even in so-called democracies, although the geo-experiments have been taking place since the post-World War II period? This question was answered by a geoengineer at the February 2010 meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS):

“…Studies show, however, that people make judgments based primarily on their values, belief systems, world views, and emotions. Facts play a much more minor role. This gap cannot be bridged by loading the public with facts, or trying to make the public more science literate…”

Likely the legal reasons have to do with the fact that no one owns the atmosphere above the Earth, and environmental impact studies for atmospheric manipulations are not required by law. One might add that military secrecy is also an essential part of military culture. The implications of these global experiments involve profound impacts on life itself! Clearly the public and their life-support system are under attack and no one has clearly considered, laid out and admitted to the potential consequences nor have they sought a formal permission from the at-risk public.

The Background

Since the Nuremberg trials after World War II, the legal principles guiding experimentation with human beings have been clearly stated. Its very first principle is:

Persons involved should have legal capacity to give consent; and should be so situated as to be able to exercise free power of choice, without the intervention of any element of force, fraud, deceit, duress, overreaching, or other ulterior form of constraint or coercion; and should have sufficient knowledge and comprehension of the elements of the subject matter involved as to enable him/her to make an understanding and enlightened decision. This latter element requires that before the acceptance of an affirmative decision by the experimental subject there should be made known to him/her the nature, duration, and purpose of the experiment; the method and means by which it is to be conducted; all inconveniences and hazards reasonable to be expected; and the effects upon his/her health or person which may possibly come from his/her participation in the experiment.[1]

It seems quite clear to me (although I do not know the legal opinion) that experimentation with one’s life-support system, Earth itself, is an experiment which fits this definition and requires informed consent!

As early as 1946, the General Electric Company discovered that by dropping dry ice in a cold room one could “create” ice crystals similar to those in clouds. Within months of this discovery they were dropping dry ice from planes into cumulus clouds, converting the water droplets into ice crystals, and then watching them drop onto the Earth like snow! By 1950, industry researchers had found that silver iodide had the same effect. The era of weather modification had begun, and no one considered the people’s right to know and accept this experimentation. Of course, rain was natural, so there was no reason to bother getting permission. The original expressed purpose of rainmaking was to make the dry areas of the plain states more fruitful. It is said that Russia used rainmaking to cause the fallout from Chernobyl to drop before reaching Moscow.

The Escalation

In the race to the moon, early in 1958, both the U.S. and the U.S.S.R. cosmonauts discovered the Van Allen belts, magnetic belts protecting the Earth from the destructive solar wind’s charged particles. Between August and September 1958, in Project Argus, the U.S. Navy exploded three fission-type nuclear bombs 480 km (300 miles) above the South Atlantic Ocean in the lower Van Allen belt. The U.S. Atomic Energy Agency called it “the biggest scientific experiment ever undertaken.”[2] The ‘experiment’ caused worldwide effects creating new artificial aurora borealis. Long-term effects of this incredible destruction, that occurred before the protective function of the Van Allen belts was understood, have never been declassified.

This ‘great’ experiment was repeated a second time over the Pacific Ocean on 9 July 1962 in Project Starfish. Three nuclear ‘devices’, one kiloton, one megaton, and one multi-megaton, were exploded, seriously disturbing the lower Van Allen belt and altering its shape and intensity. Scientists predicted that the belts would not return to their original formation for a hundred years (which may be wishful thinking!).[3,4] This so disturbed the Queen’s Astronomer in the U.K., Sir Martin Ryle, that he became a staunch anti-nuclear critic.

By 1962, the U.S. military was using electronic beams to ionize and de-ionize areas of the atmosphere in imitation of lightning. In the same year Canada began launching satellites into the Earth’s ionosphere and chemically simulating the plasma.

Plasma is a fourth state of matter. Starting with the solid state, followed by the more energetic liquid then gaseous states, plasma is even more energetic and contains molecules which are dissociated into positive and negative ions. For example, water molecules in air can be converted into HO+ and H, positive and negative ions. An example of plasma is lightning.

Later in 1962, the U.S.S.R. undertook similar planetary ‘experiments’, creating three new radiation belts between 7,000 and 13,000 km (4,300 and 8,100 miles) above the Earth. The electron fluxes in the Van Allen belts have changed markedly since this event and have never returned to their former state.[5,6]

Zbigniew Brzezinski, advisor on Foreign Affairs to Presidents John F. Kennedy and Lyndon Johnson during the Vietnam War, discussed, investigating ways of using artificial lightning as a weapon in Project Skyfire and hurricanes in Project Stormfury.[7] According to Lowell Ponte, author of The Cooling, the military also investigated the possibility of destroying the ozone layer over North Vietnam with lasers or chemicals, causing damage to crops and humans.[8]

The Effects

The United Nations General Assembly became so alarmed by these activities that on 10 December 1976 they approved a Convention on the Prohibition of Military or Any Other Hostile Use of Environmental Modification Techniques. However, they failed to exclude “peaceful projects” such as ‘pure research’, solar energy projects or industrial resource development. No thought was given to informed consent of the public. Governments merely changed their public relations posture. As an example, the U.S. began weather research to increase the output of food in the North American plains. Russia was carrying on comparable research to increase food production.

For over 50 years, atmospheric modification experiments have been undertaken either by adding chemicals to the atmosphere causing reactions that may or may not be seen from Earth, such as artificial aurora borealis[9], or wave experiments using heat or electromagnetic force[10], or even nuclear atmospheric explosions! These latter interrupt or distort the normal wave motion of the upper atmosphere, often effecting weather changes in the troposphere.

Chemicals dumped into Earth’s atmosphere included barium acid, barium chlorate, barium nitrate, barium perchlorate and barium peroxide. All are combustible and destructive of the ozone layer. In 1980 alone, about 2,000 barium acid kg (4,400 pounds) of chemicals were dumped into the atmosphere including 1,000 kg (2,200 pounds) of barium and 100 kg (220 pounds) of lithium. Lithium is a highly reactive toxic chemical easily ionized by the sun. This increases the density of the lower ionosphere and creates free radicals capable of causing further chemical changes.[11] Although these experiments are clearly a part of the military desire to control weather as a weapon, reports of their environmental impact are non-existent in the public sector. Instead, ozone depletion was blamed on under arm deodorant and cologne, atomizers and asthma medicine dispensers!

Actually, it became evident in the early 1970s that the 300 megatons of atmospheric nuclear bomb testing by the U.S., the U.K. and U.S.S.R. between 1945 and 1963 had depleted the ozone layer by 4% and seriously damaged human embryos, fetuses, children, adults and the whole living environment.[12]

Supersonic military planes and rockets also damage the ozone layer and cause atmospheric changes. This was made public in the evening news during the 70s, and probably influenced the decision of commercial airlines to decline supersonic flight with the exception of the Concord. However, the public soon looked the other way and forgot the supersonic flight problem and atmospheric nuclear testing when refrigerators were blamed for the serious ozone hole damaging human health and crops in various parts of the world, especially the southern tip of South America. Civilian uses of CFC’s exacerbated the problem but were not likely the first cause.

By 1974, U.S. research into heating the lowest edge of the ionosphere first undertaken at the Pennsylvania State University, moved to Plattsville, Colorado, Arecibo, Puerto Rice and Armidale, New South Wales, Australia. This prompted the U.S. Senate to introduce legislation which would bring all military experimentation in weather modification under the control of a civilian oversight committee. Unfortunately, the bill failed to pass Congress.

In 1981, the Plattsville Ionospheric Heater moved to the Poker Flats rocket launch site in Alaska. A second Plasma Physics Laboratory (exploring the ionosphere) is located at Two Rivers, Alaska, and is called HIPAS (High Power Auroral Stimulation). In the foothills of the Rocky Mountains, near Gacona, Alaska, a massive array of transmitters has been erected, called HAARP (High Active Auroral Research Project) by the U.S. Army and Navy. It now contains 180 transmission towers in grid formation, although it began operations in a modular form of a 48 Tower grid in 1994. This powerful synchronized transformer is companioned by a series of SuperDARNS (Dual Auroral Radar Networks) which continuously monitors the effects on Earth’s surface of manipulations of HAARP on Earth’s ionosphere.[1,13]

It now appears to be possible to ‘steer’ the jet stream, deciding the line between warm and cool air in geographic regions; or manipulate the large vapor rivers which move the rain from the tropics to the temperate zones, causing drought or floods. Natural occurrences or instabilities like monsoons, hurricanes, tornadoes, etc., in the atmosphere can be made more severe by ‘adding energy’. Insertion of oil in tectonic faults or creating artificial Earth vibrations with electromagnetic pulses can cause earthquakes.

This is not to say that military experimentation causes all atmospheric events and ultimately climate change. I am just saying that it is difficult in each case to separate out the military geo-experiments from the genuine heaving of the planet! The increase in violent weather is obvious to everyone. Is Mother Earth trying to send us a message of distress? Is only the civilian economy responsible for climate change? I think not.

The Future

Not only the U.S. is involved with this high-tech assault on the Earth system. At least Russia, China, the U.K., Australia, Canada and Japan are involved. The geo-warriors are, I believe, wishing to go public with even more risky experiments, with public approval, and maybe even become ‘climate change heroes’. At the United Nations Conference on Climate Change in Copenhagen, 2010, geo-warriors made their most public pitch under the guise of “geoengineering” as a “solution to global climate change.” Those who watch the military prepare for a weather war are alarmed.

Noctilucent clouds over Uppsala, Sweden (Licensed under CC BY-SA 4.0)

On 19 September 2010, the U.S. Navy undertook an artificial cloud study called CARE (Charged Aerosol Releases Experiment). The Naval Research Laboratory and the Department of Defense Space Test Program used a NASA four stage Black Brant XII suborbital sounding rocket from Wallops Island, Virginia, to dump aluminum oxide and chaff, creating an artificial cloud in Earth’s outer atmosphere at 280 km (174 miles) above the surface (normal clouds are at a maximum of about 80.5 km (50 miles) above the surface in the mesosphere). The cloud was designed to glow in the dark. The aluminum will, of course, eventually drop into the ocean or on farmland polluting crops, polluting the food supply. The tests may damage the various atmospheric boundaries that protect life on Earth, and no one knows what they will do to climate, agriculture, human health or if they will alter infrared or UV radiation reaching the planet. The U.S. marine breeding habitats, including the National Marine Sanctuary, are at risk from this experiment. Apparently, this artificial cloud shading of the U.S. East Coast in the fall of 2009 brought on unusual snow and wintry weather. What else it caused is not reported.[14,15,16,17]

Similar naval experiments include: The Unified Aerosol Experiment (UAE 2) in the United Arab Emirates in 2004 and seven South East Asian Studies conducted from Singapore in 2007. Earth has already become a “research victim” of militarism and it is time to stop geoengineering as a cruel farce and crime against life itself! Civil society should clearly not give the geo-warriors a public blessing to do more planetary damage.

Shall we place the healing of our Earth in the hands of those who have for over 65 years shown the grossest carelessness of its well-being? Shall we throw away this magnificent planet, like we do the cheap plastic trinkets? It is time to honor and protect planet Earth as the indigenous people have done for thousands of years. We must acknowledge our philosophy of life to be faulty since it has brought us to this crisis. It is time to question patriarchy, which implies domination over all living things; and raw capitalism that requires excessive military force to guard its greedy hoarding of natural resources. We sorely need a critical plan for a more intelligent, feminized and humanized future.

There is great need to stimulate a sober look at our global lifestyle, philosophy, and social planning so that humans, all life and planet Earth may have a long and fruitful era of peace and prosperity. Our sun has some 4 to 5 billion more years to bless us with its energy – let’s not squander it!

Notes

[1] Trials of War Criminals before the Nuremberg Military Tribunals under Control Council Law No. 10, Vol. 2, pp. 181-182. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1949.

[2] New York Times, 19 March 1959.

[3] Multimedia Encyclopedia 1996 and 1998.

[4] Microsoft Encarta Multimedia Encyclopedia, 1999.

[5] Keesings Historisch Archief (K.H.A.) 13-20 August 1961, 11 May 1962, and 29 June 1962.

[6] Nigel Harle, Vandalizing the Van Allen Belts, Earth Island Journal, Winter 1988-89, p.11.

[7] Zbigniew Brezinski, Between Two Ages: America’s Role in the Technetronic Era, Penguin Books, Cambridge, MA 1976.

[8] Lowell Ponte, The Cooling, Prentice-Hall Inc., Upper Saddle River, NJ, 1976.

[9] Northern Lights Thrill Sky Watchers from Texas to Ohio, Kansas City Star, 10 Nov. 1991.

[10] The NASA / U.S. Air Force CRESS 1990 Press Kit outlines an atmospheric NASA testing program (linked to H.A.A.R.P. and the U.S. Air Force, that could produce the Vibrant Spectrums (auroras).

[11] Nick Begich and Jeanne Manning, Angels don’t Play this HAARP, Earth Pulse Press, Anchorage, AK, 1995.

[12] Long-term effects of Multiple Nuclear Weapons Detonations, U.S. National Academy of Science, 1975.

[13] Rosalie Bertell, Planet Earth: The Latest Weapon of War, The Women’s Press, London, 2000; p.119-128].

[14] “U.S. Navy & NASA Dust Cloud Experiments May Begin on Tuesday, September 15, 2009”, Live Science.com September 14, 2009 Article By Clara Moskowitz, Staff Writer (Actually occurred on 19 September).

[15] An Update on the Charged Aerosol Release Experiment (CARE) Paul A. Bernhardt – [email protected].

[16] The NASA / U.S. Air Force CRESS 1990 Press Kit outlines an atmospheric NASA testing program (linked to HAARP and the U.S. Air Force, that could produce the Vibrant Spectrums (auroras).

[17] http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2003/20jun_tmaclouds/.


Chapter III

Geoengineering,

“The Deep State,” and Planetary Lockdown

by  

Elana Freeland

 

Just as, at the dawning of a new geological era, the whole world collapses in a gigantic crack, new mountains rise up while gaping abysses open up, and new plains and seas take shape, so will the present structure of Europe be capsized in an immense cataclysm . . . The only chance for Germany to resist this pressure will be to seize the initiative and take control of the inevitable upheaval from which will come a new dawning of history. — Hermann Rauschning, Hitler Speaks / Voice of Destruction, 1939

We’ve arranged a society on science and technology in which nobody understands anything about science and technology, and this combustible mixture of ignorance and power sooner or later is going to blow up in our faces. I mean, who is running the science and technology in a democracy if the people don’t know anything about it?  Carl Sagan to Charlie Rose, May 27, 1996

Before leaving office, the 44th U.S. President struck the word “limited” from the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) and thus publicly reinstated the “Star Wars” program of 33 years ago—and on Christmas Eve, no less.

Republican Congressman Trent Franks, who introduced and shepherded the policy changes in the House, said he drew inspiration from former president Ronald Reagan’s Strategic Defense Initiative of the 1980s, which was intended to use lasers and other space-based weaponry to render nuclear weapons “impotent and obsolete.” Known as “Star Wars,” the initiative cost taxpayers US$30 billion, but no system was ever deployed.[1]

Then with the impending inauguration of the 45th President[2], mainstream media began normalizing the “Star Wars” geoengineering we’ve been covertly undergoing for two decades in the name of “easing climate change.”[3] Space news is now hot and heavy, beginning with increased ozone over 3.5 million square miles of the Pacific Ocean and the Western U.S. (“the most unusual meteorological event we’ve had in decades”[4]), then “magnetized Rossby waves on the Sun” making it easier to “predict” space weather in advance (National Center for Atmospheric Research):

On Earth, Rossby waves are associated with the path of the jet stream and the formation of low- and high-pressure systems, which in turn influence local weather events.[5]

In April 2017, “anthropogenic weather” was finally officially admitted—

Anthropogenic effects on the space environment started in the late 19th century and reached their peak in the 1960s when high-altitude nuclear explosions were carried out by the USA and the Soviet Union. These explosions created artificial radiation belts near Earth that resulted in major damages to several satellites . . . Other anthropogenic impacts on the space environment include chemical release experiments, high-frequency wave heating of the ionosphere and the interaction of VLF waves with the radiation belts . . .[6] (Emphasis added.)

In May 2017, NASA announced “a massive, human-made ‘barrier’ surrounding Earth,” a “humungous bubble we created out in space” that calls for “a whole new geological epoch to be named after us.”[7]

The following month, 36,000 kilometers above the Earth, the AMC-9 satellite in geostationary orbit since 2003 lost contact with its Luxembourg-based SES telecommunications operator and began drifting and breaking up. Radar film footage revealed three orb-like objects flying near the satellite in triangular formation with another orb following aft.[8] Global news discussed the breakup but not the possibility that it could have been a laser space attack.[9]

13 days after the incident, President Trump revived the National Space Council[10], and the U.S. House of Representatives passed the massive $696 billion NDAA that eliminated the Defense Space Council while streamlining and strengthening Air Force Space Command (AFSC). A year and a half later on February 19, 2019, Space Policy Directive 4 centralized all military space functions under the new Space Force overseen by the U.S. Air Force.[11]

Space Age Background

The race to control space began in 1945 when Operation Paperclip brought 10,000 Nazi engineers, technicians, and scientists to the United States under cover of the Hegelian ruse known to history as the Cold War.[12] SS Nazi Wernher von Braun became chief scientist of the Army Ballistic Missile Agency in Alabama, then of the Aero Propulsion Laboratory at Wright-Patterson Air Force Base in Ohio. Von Braun’s commanding officer in Germany, ballistic missile engineer Walter Dornberger, went to work for Bell Helicopter, and the aerospace engineer Arthur Rudolph, who had directed the Mittelwerk underground V-2 rocket factory nicknamed “Dante’s Inferno,” went to work for Martin Marietta[13] where he ran R&D for the Pershing missile before becoming director of NASA’s Marshall Space Flight Center. Rudolph headed up the Saturn V project (1967-73), then in 1984 renounced his American citizenship and returned to Germany, having faithfully served the transfer of the Third Reich to the resource-rich United States.

Thus, it was through the military-industrial complex that the Trojan horse of amoral, cryptic Nazism entered the naïve, resource-rich United States. In short order, the National Security Act, formation of the CIA, and 44-year Cold War followed. Rockets, satellites, computers, MK-ULTRA brain engineering, and exotic propulsion craft thrust the 20th century into a weaponized 21st century space age, the very opposite of what President Kennedy had envisioned.

Geoengineering Operations

The Dr. Strangeloves serving this militarized Space Age have recognized from the beginning that full spectrum dominance over planet Earth, its airspace, near-Earth orbit, and space/atmospheric weather must be their first objective. In the 1950s, Cold War propaganda depended upon the two-pronged lie of a Soviet threat and an imminent ice age, then co-opted the environmental movement and began to showcase international climate conferences packed with PhDs serving up decimals on greenhouse gases and desertification and implanting dire “solutions”[14] like geoengineering. The Stanford Environmental Law Journal defines geoengineering as the intentional human-directed manipulation of the Earth’s climatic systems, but while geoengineering would maintain the weather as an electromagnetic force multiplier[15], it would also include chemical and biological warfare (CBW) experimentation on populations cloaked by the National Security Act. With need-to-know clearances and compartmentalization, most scientists and government officials would know nothing of the Operation Cloverleaf program for more than half a century.[16]

In Chemtrails, HAARP, and the Full Spectrum Dominance of Planet Earth (2014), I laid out seven military operations underway under the geoengineering rubric: (1) weather engineering, (2) environmental/geophysical modification, (3) electromagnetic manipulation, (4) military/intelligence directed energy weapons, (5) surveillance/neural operations, (6) biological/Transhumanism operations, and (7) detection/obscuration of exotic propulsion technology.[17] With the “Star Wars” Space Fence in place, the 2018 sequel Under An Ionized Sky: From Chemtrails to Space Fence Lockdown expands on operational specifics dependent upon using weather as the sine qua non force multiplier.

The first three operations concentrate on environmental manipulation, while the last three either indirectly or directly concentrate on manipulating the human being and other living organisms in the biosphere.

Geoengineering Operations

1. Weather engineering 

  • Chemical/electromagnetic ionization of the atmosphere and plasma cloud cover 

2. Environmental/Geophysical modification

  • Ionospheric manipulation for charging, building and steering storm systems
  • Utilize droughts, floods, hurricanes, tornadoes, earthquakes for environmental modification and disaster capitalism profits
  • Earth harvesting for REITs (real estate investment trusts)
  • Sun simulation/solar experiments[18]

3. Electromagnetic manipulation

  • Ionization of the atmosphere
  • Plasma and antimatter “farming”
  • Manmade Birkeland currents, Alfven “whistler” waves, rotating electrical fields (the Hutchison Effect), etc.
  • Holography

4. Military/Intelligence directed energy weapons (C4)

  • Scalar interferometry (ionospheric heaters, lasers/masers, particle beams, HPMs, etc.)
  • Cloaking
  • Detection/obscuration of exotic propulsion systems

5. Surveillance/Neural operations

  • Artificial intelligence (AI)
  • Remote neural monitoring (RNM)
  • EM targeting of populations and individuals
  • 5G millimeter waves and the Internet of Things (IoT)

6. Biological/Transhumanism operations

  • “Hive mind” Morgellons delivery
  • Nanoparticle delivery of sensors, microprocessors, and other electro-optical technology
  • Remote genetic engineering of DNA
  • Replace Nature with virtual reality

7. Detection/Obscuration of exotic propulsion technology 

The “Climate Control” Edifice

The Federal Government has been involved for over 30 years in a number of aspects of weather modification, through activities of both the Congress and the executive branch. Since 1947, weather modification bills pertaining to research support, operations, policy studies, regulations, liabilities, activity reporting, establishment of panels and committees, and international concerns have been introduced in the Congress. There have been hearings on many of these proposed measures, and oversight hearings have also been conducted on pertinent ongoing programs.[19]

Infiltration and co-optation, compartmentalization, nondisclosure agreements, backroom deals, threats, bribes, skewed research, packed peer review committees, embedded international media—one can only marvel at the legerdemain it takes to steer international conferences, publishing houses, news outlets, university and elementary school curricula in order to construct a vast global house of cards turning on carbons, the building blocks of life now become a straw man diversion from the purposeful transformation of our atmosphere and weather by ionospheric manipulation. Carbon taxes and emissions trading ignore the fact that CO2 is at an all-time low for sustaining plant life.[20] Nations should be increasing CO2 instead of being penalized for the CO2 they do have.[21]

But then, the emperor wears no clothes. The first U.S. congressional report on geoengineering was not until October 2010, just before the moratorium against geoengineering issued by the 10th Conference of Parties to the Convention on Biological Diversity (COP10) in Nagoya, Japan—a moratorium the U.S. had no intention of ratifying.[22] Were the delegates from 193 nations aware that geoengineering had been going on in the U.S. and other NATO nations for well over a decade?

Four months after the Nagoya moratorium, the geoengineered Fukushima earthquake struck Japan. Since then, embedded media have ramped up weather confusion in the public mind, blaming cars and industrial pollutants while assiduously ignoring the greatest polluters and propagandists of all: the over-inflated American military and military-industrial-intelligence complex that runs it.

Once in a while we hear what’s really going on from scientists like CERN particle physicist Jasper Kirby[23] and NASA Goddard Space Flight Center heliophysicist Douglas E. Rowland (“There’s different kinds of chemtrails, as you probably know . . .”[24]). In 2013, the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) basically admitted that solar radiation management (SRM) was already underway: “If SRM were terminated for any reason, there is high confidence that global surface temperatures would rise very rapidly to values consistent with the greenhouse gas forcing.”[25] But such revelations are tacitly ignored by embedded mainstream media. When an Italian senator called for declassification of chemtrail documents[26], and a Cyprus agriculture and environment minister pledged to look into “chemtrail” aerial spraying[27]—nothing.

Now and then, agents and agencies near the hub of the “climate change” mafia (NASA, NOAA, EPA, IPCC, etc.) are caught lying, but embedded news versions roll on. NASA proclaimed July 2012 to be the hottest month on record and NOAA’s National Climatic Data Center agreed: the July 2012 temperature average of 77.6ºF was 3.3ºF above the 20th century average and 0.2ºF above the previously warmest July of 1936 (during the Oklahoma Dust Bowl years). Meteorologist Anthony Watts checked NOAA’s data and found that July 1936 had been reinstated as the hottest month on record.

“You can’t get any clearer proof of NOAA adjusting past temperatures,” Watts wrote. “This isn’t just some issue with gridding, or anomalies, or method; it is about NOAA not being able to present historical climate information of the United States accurately . . . This is not acceptable. It is not being honest with the public. It is not scientific. It violates the Data Quality Act.”[28]

David L. Lewis, former microbiologist for the EPA’s Office of Research & Development, wrote in Science For Sale: How the Government Uses Powerful Corporations and Leading Universities to Support Government Policies, Silence Top Scientists, Jeopardize Our Health, and Protect Corporate Profits (Skyhorse Publishing, 2014) that EPA leadership consistently “mishandles science.” One bizarre incident among many occurred in 2003 when former Acting Assistant Administrator Henry L. Longest II made midlevel EPA managers read “management consultant” Margaret Wheatley’s Turning to One Another urging environmentalists “to abandon Western science in favor of ‘New Science’ . . . the ‘space of not knowing’ and the ‘abyss.’ While passing through the abyss, new scientists shed their religious beliefs and sexual inhibitions, then turn to one another.”[29] Managerial candidates were required to fill out a confidential questionnaire about their promiscuity, religion, morality, and willingness to keep secrets. What exactly was the EPA up to in the Bush II years? Like NASA, the EPA does not appear to be what it seems.

Image on the right: Kucinich outside the Capitol in June 2007 (Source: Public Domain)

The arsenal of propaganda, manipulation of international convocations, forging bonds of secrecy and sexual confessions, and blackmailing nations with weather threats may even include murder. Ohio U.S. Representative Dennis Kucinich fought hard for the 2001 Space Preservation Act (HR2977)—the first bill to address chemtrails[30] and directed energy weapons—but it finally died after being “revised” and stalled in committee after committee. The deaths of Kucinich’s brother and sister in 2007 and 2008 respectively remain suspicious, as do the deaths of Alaskan bush pilot Theron “Terry” Smith and Alaskan U.S. Senator Ted Stevens in an aircraft crash on August 9, 2010, while investigating HAARP. NASA administrator Sean O’Keefe was also onboard but lived. (Smith’s son-in-law was killed just days before in a C-17 crash at Elmendorf Air Force Base.) The National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) blamed “temporary unresponsiveness [of Smith] for reasons that could not be established.”[31]

Because biologicals like desiccated red blood cells[32] have been found in the detritus falling from chemical trails, we must look carefully at other death-related fallout. When the “Star Wars” Strategic Defense Initiative (SDI) “went black,” two dozen Marconi and Plessey Defense Systems microbiologists either disappeared or died.[33] More recently, naturopathic doctors and health-minded MDs peering into the big pharma vaccination delivery system and cancer-for-profit may be being sent a message.[34]

Bizarre nation-level purges are underway. For one example, Canada—a Five Eyes (FVEY) Anglophone intelligence consortium member along with the U.S., UK, Australia, and New Zealand—dismissed 2,000 scientists and hundreds of programs monitoring smoke stack emissions[35], food inspections, oil spills, water quality, climate change, etc., while closing seven of the 11 Fisheries and Oceans libraries:

. . . a document classified as “secret” that was obtained by Postmedia News mentioned “culling of materials” as a main activity in the reduction of libraries . . . reports have emerged of books being strewn across floors and even piled into dumpsters.[36]

In short, decades of subterfuge, manipulation, extreme weather, murder and mayhem have preceded the present normalization of geoengineering, and still citizens and scientists continue to sleep under the spell of “climate change” propaganda.

When it comes to geoengineering, the public is the adversary.

“Science Is Broken”

If you have faith in the soundness of our scientific institutions, you will assume that the dissidents are marginalized for very good reason: their work is substandard. If you believe that the peer review process is fair and open, then the dearth of peer-reviewed citations for [Electric Universe] research is a damning indictment of their theory. And if you believe that the corpus of mainstream physics is fundamentally correct, and that science is progressing closer and closer to truth, you will be highly skeptical of any major departure from standard theories . . . Can we trust scientific consensus? Can we trust the integrity of our scientific institutions? Perhaps not. Over the last few years, a growing chorus of insider critics have been exposing serious flaws in the ways that scientific research is funded and published, leading some to go so far as to say, “Science is broken.”[37]

Tellingly, Rutgers University climatologist Alan Robock has related how CIA-funded consultants once asked him two questions: “If we control someone else’s climate, would they know about it?” and “Would climate experts be able to determine if another nation was attempting to control the climate?”

Few realize that the national security status of geoengineering operations translates to the presence of intelligence agencies and their defense contractors. The history of HAARP is littered with CIA control over scientists, patents, and media outlets.[38] General Henry H. Shelton, chairman of the Pentagon’s Joint Chiefs of Staff, has confessed that a crucial component of the military doctrine of full spectrum dominance is the use of deception to “defend decision-making processes by neutralizing an adversary’s perception management and intelligence collection efforts.”[39]

(3)(b) To employ propaganda assets to [negate] and refute the attacks of the critics. Book reviews and feature articles are particularly appropriate for this purpose . . . Our ploy should point out, as applicable, that the critics are (I) wedded to theories adopted before the evidence was in, (II) politically interested, (III) financially interested, (IV) hasty and inaccurate research, or (V) infatuated with their own theories.[40]

Intelligence and military grant monies supporting university labs largely explain how science has been held hostage for decades by CIA-dominated defense contractors like Raytheon, Lockheed Martin, Northrup Grumman, L3, SAIC, etc.—the military-industrial-intelligence complex intent on weaponizing everything under the sun, if not the sun itself.

Then there’s the captive peer review system relegating scientists who don’t play “national security” ball to the outer darkness of non-publication, stonewalled careers, and worse, plus muzzling heterodox scientists and ideas (like Electric Universe theories). Nobel Laureate biologist Sydney Brenner blasts the system:

I think peer review is hindering science. In fact, I think it has become a completely corrupt system. It’s corrupt in many ways, in that scientists and academics have handed over to the editors of these journals the ability to make judgment on science and scientists. There are universities in America, and I’ve heard from many committees, that won’t consider people’s publications in low impact factor journals . . . it puts the judgment in the hands of people who really have no reason to exercise judgment at all. And that’s all been done in the aid of commerce, because they are now giant organizations making money out of it.[41]

The publishing spigot is useful when it comes to marginalizing heterodoxy. Between 1973 and 2013, six publishers (ACS, Reed Elsevier, Sage, Taylor & Francis, Springer, and Wiley-Blackwell) exercised control over what papers would be allowed to see the light of day:

As long as publishing in high impact factor journals is a requirement for researchers to obtain positions, research funding, and recognition from peers, the major commercial publishers will maintain their hold on the academic publishing system.[42]

With science under control, weather operations weaponized, and the Space Fence up and running under artificial intelligence (AI), the globalist instrument known as the United Nations (UN) is all set to use environment and “climate change” for moving sovereign nations into the New World Order mold of Agenda 21/2030.

The UN Power Shift

The participation of the U.S. and China is significant, as the two account for more than 40 percent of global greenhouse gas emissions. The agreement goes into force once 55 countries accounting for at least 55 percent of global emissions officially sign . . . Parties to the agreement will still have to go through the process of joining the agreement, which for most will require processes of approval in their home countries . . .[43]

COP 21: Heads of delegations (Licensed under CC BY 2.0)

The long-awaited United Nations Climate Change Conference (COP21) in Paris (November 30 – December 11, 2015) was quite a show. Climate mouthpieces had been carefully chosen—the IPCC, geoengineers David Keith and Ken Caldeira, other prestigious PhDs, embedded NGOs, government agencies, the World Bank and IMF, and of course the usual Wall Street-London-Hong Kong deep pockets. Scriptwriters worked overtime on the fate of the Earth as cameras panned in on lightning flashes, rolling storms, deluges and droughts, crying babies, hospital emergency rooms filled to overflowing . . .

Climate and environment were to hand over to the UN vast new tax and regulatory powers. Multiple conferences had preceded COP21 to hammer out details and grease the wheels of the New World Order being quietly wheeled through the gates of once-sovereign nations. A month before COP21, the Sustainable Development Summit in New York City had focused on Agenda 21/2030:

To cheers, applause and probably a tinge of relief, the 17 global goals that will provide the blueprint for the world’s development over the next 15 years were ratified by UN member states in New York on Friday. After speeches from Pope Francis and the Nobel laureate Malala Yousafzai, and songs from Shakira and Angelique Kidjo, the ambitious agenda – which aims to tackle poverty, climate change and inequality for all people in all countries – was signed off by 193 countries at the start of a three-day UN summit on sustainable development … The global goals summit continues until Sunday, after which all eyes will be on the UN climate talks in November. Asked if the goals will be scuppered without a strong deal in Paris [COP21], Mogens Lykketoft, the president of the UN general assembly, was hesitant, saying leaders were making more commitments than they were in previous COP meetings. “From what we know and hope for, we will be approaching a better deal.”[44]

Following the two conferences, a militaristic drum roll sounded below all the one-world enthusiasm. The Dutch Defense Joint Meteorological Group (JMG) announced it would provide “weather forecasts for every exercise or deployment of [NATO’s] Very High Readiness Joint Task Force (VJTF)”[45]— “weather forecasts” being Orwellian for planned and engineered weather.

Military weather control by the few was surely why developing nations at the 2011 COP17 in Durban, South Africa had attempted to include an International Tribunal of Climate Justice provision.[46] Needless to say, the provision had vanished by COP21.

On Earth Day 2016, the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (the Paris Climate Accord) was signed by the 44th U.S. President but remained unratified by Congress. To get around Congress, a September 2016 Executive Order “adopted” it. Incoming President Trump ignored the EO and made it clear that he intended to exit the unratified Accord.

. . . Trump Administration ‘exited’ an accord that had, materially, no legally binding power to change anything. Which also flies in the face of the President claiming he can re-negotiate the U.S. position in the Paris agreement. Why would you need to renegotiate that which can be changed unilaterally at will?

As the Paris Agreement is non-binding and non-enforceable, calling the U.S. participation in it an example of U.S. ‘leadership’ is nonsense. Calling the U.S. withdrawal from it a ‘tragedy’ is a case of hysterical overreaction. And, equally, calling it ‘draconian’ in terms of its potential impact on the U.S. is pure demagoguery.[47]

COP21 and its Accord were basically a Punch and Judy show using environment and weather catastrophes to tweak public fear and generate cash flow. Geoengineering is not about preserving the Earth; it is about controlling and terraforming the Earth for a technocrat-run Space Age. For example, the North American Climate, Clean Energy, and Environment Partnership Action Plan signed in June 2016 by Canada, the U.S., and Mexico is attempting to move the three sovereign nations toward an Agenda 2030 hemispheric bloc.[48]

The problem of removing CO2 from the atmosphere “using an infrastructure we don’t have and with technology that won’t work on the scale we need, and finally to store it in places we can’t find”[49] points to the fact that the carbon solution is little more than a slick way to rake in disaster capitalist cash—$90 trillion in energy infrastructure investments, $1 trillion green bond market, multi-trillion dollar carbon trading market, $391 billion climate finance industry.[50] The UN Green Climate Fund, purportedly to support carbons mitigation in developing countries, would clear $100 billion per year, but how much would ever make it to the developing nations?[51] The naked emperor’s “philanthrocapitalism” is not known for keeping its treaties or promises.

Traditional bureaucratic foundations like Ford, Rockefeller and Carnegie were said to be giving way to “philanthrocapitalism,” a muscular new approach to charity in which the presumed entrepreneurial skills of billionaires would be applied to the world’s most pressing challenges . . .[52]

When will the public finally awaken to the fact that its institutions, agencies, universities, laboratories, and courts obey the very powers that milk public assets dry? Worker and food safety, gone. The world-famous U.S. Bill of Rights, gone. Anti-trust legislation, gone. Environmental protections, gone. With or without the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) and Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP), technocratic corporate feudalism in the guise of billionaire Good Club[53] “brain institutes” and “sustainable development” is pushing hard for a weaponized Space Age in which Brain Initiative neuroscience and Transhumanism will guarantee the electromagnetic acquiescence of the masses.[54]

Space Fence Lockdown

Obviously, we are a long way from President Kennedy’s 1960s Space Age dream. Physics and directed energy have merged with politics and business; soon, a physics doctorate will be standard for the U.S. Secretary of Defense,[55] plus legislation like the U.S. Commercial Space Launch Competitiveness Act (HR2262) aka Space Act of 2015 that erases the thin line between space and defense corporation control over planetary profits from mining asteroids and helium-3 on the moon.

Then there is the problem of what we are to believe or not believe about the terra incognita of space, given that science and technology are now dominated by geopolitics and a propaganda mind meld. In 2015, the twin LIGOs (Laser Interferometer-Gravitational wave Observatory)[56] were said to have detected a “gravitational wave” generated by two merging black holes at a distance of 1.3 billion light years[57], whereas heterodox Electric Universe scientists insist that “black holes” don’t exist. And what of NASA’s asteroid “drill” under the National Near-Earth Object Preparedness Strategy and Action Plan?[58] And the “meteors” people see flashing across the sky—are they meteors, or plasma discharges from space operations already underway?

Extreme weather attributed to God, nature, or carbons is wearing thin as the propaganda hiding the militarized Space Age is either unraveling or being slowly admitted.[59] The very first U.S. Department of Defense financial audit ever done has already exposed a padded inventory of 39 UH-60 Black Hawk helicopters ($830,700,000) and 478 structures and buildings at 12 installations[60]—and that’s just the beginning. Investment analyst Catherine Austin Fitts has discovered that $21 trillion is missing from the U.S. government since fiscal 1998 and over $20 trillion from financial crisis bailouts.[61]

The chemical trails from jets and rockets are blotting out the sun and cosmos. The increase in hurricanes, tornadoes, earthquakes, floods, and droughts is suspicious, as is the presence of FEMA, Homeland Security, military and private security forces at every disaster site days in advance, patiently awaiting the event that will spell population removal, bargain basement real estate deals, and lucrative insurance company lawsuits against devastated communities for their failure to prepare for “climate change.”[62]

Geoengineering translates to a road of gold for disaster capitalists and a force multiplier for the military, but what else is it designed for?

Enter the Space Fence, the culmination of “Star Wars” SDI began so long ago. The SSS (Space Surveillance System) Space Fence is a global surveillance and containment infrastructure whose many parts above and below the firmament — ionospheric heaters, radar and laser installations, NexRads, cell and GWEN towers, power lines, fiber optics cable, fracking wells, wind farms, WSACs, Internet of Things (IoT), satellites, etc. — are run by giant military contractors like Lockheed Martin and Raytheon. The Space Fence provides space situational awareness (SSA) not just of near-Earth space debris, satellites, and space weather, but of the entire planet inside and out, down to its molten plasma core and biosphere DNA.

Biosphere means all of life and us. Biological/Transhumanism operations.

With such powerful phalanxes of power and propaganda arrayed against our human and planetary health, it is not difficult to see how chemical giants like Dow, Monsanto, Bayer, and other big pharma corporations collude with military contractors and the medical industry in alliance with the neuroscience and optogenetics paid for by DARPA, the CIA, NASA, EPA, and NGA (National Geospatial Intelligence Agency). Thus it behooves us to learn to read between the lines of Orwellian documents like the “Leaders Statement on a North American Climate, Clean Energy, and Environment Partnership”:

Our actions to align climate and energy policies will protect human health and help level the playing field for our businesses, households, and workers . . . that sets us firmly on the path to a more sustainable future.[63]

“Protect human health,” “level the playing field,” and “sustainable future” sound suspiciously like Fitts’ “free-range totalitarianism”—

AUSTIN FITTS: I call it ‘Free Range Totalitarianism’.

DARRELL HAMAMOTO: Free range chicken necks, yes. That’s what’s happening. The thing is that they won’t have to invest anything into the infrastructure – no prison guards, no prison guard unions, no brick and mortar, no debased food. People are walking around, as you say, free range.

AUSTIN FITTS: So, they support themselves and tithe, so you’re making money on each hamster. They’ve got a smartphone, and you’ve got them online 24/7 between the smart meters and the phone, and you’ve got them on drugs, and you’re right.

DARRELL HAMAMOTO: And you’re assaulting them from the sky with the chemtrails . . .[64]

Inundated outside and in by nanoparticles of chemicals, conductive metals (aluminum, barium, strontium, titanium, lithium, etc.), polymers, sensors, microprocessors, fungi, genetically engineered pathogens, we have become test tubes for a synergy of manifold environmental pollutants being zapped by ionized and non-ionized radiation. We breathe, ingest, and wear this nano onslaught as it slips into our blood with every breath, every bite. Once beyond the blood brain barrier, the nanobots await their instructions from pulsed iPhones.

The linchpin of the entire AI-run Space Fence infrastructure may be the 5G millimeter waves emanating from phased array antennas coupling with the Internet of Things (IoT) whose “neural mesh” blankets every neighborhood. It is no longer just cancer we need to worry about, but how our immune systems and genetics, thoughts, emotions, and what it is to be human are being remotely manipulated by AI algorithms.

Most concerning is that the nature of nanoparticles is still unknown.

“Nanotechnology is a novel technology that poses unique risks unlike anything we’ve seen before,” said Jaydee Hanson, policy director at the International Center for Technology Assessment. “Scientists agree that nanomaterials create novel risks that require new forms of toxicity testing. EPA’s use of a conditional registration could not be more inappropriate in this context.”[65]

Not only is the impact of nanoparticles on the biosphere unknown, but the end-result of the synergy they create inside and outside our bodies, thanks to the ubiquitous radio wave and microwave matrix we are all enmeshed in, is also unknown.

This aerosol delivery system is an international crime against humanity and all of life on the scale of the 1940’s Manhattan Project,[66] Hiroshima, Nagasaki, and the down-winders. It is thus imperative that we educate ourselves about the ionized (electrified and radiated) atmosphere we now breathe and learn how the AI-run Space Fence affects all of life now and for generations to come. Chemtrails, HAARP, and the Full Spectrum Dominance of Planet Earth (2014) concentrates on weather engineering and Morgellons, whereas Under an Ionized Sky: From Chemtrails to Space Fence Lockdown (2018) lays out the infrastructure of our weaponized wireless world. The third and final book in my trilogy is due out in August 2021: Geoengineered Transhumanism: How the Environment Has Been Weaponized by Chemicals, Electromagnetics, & Nanotechnology for Synthetic Biology.

It will examine how synthetic biology follows from the virtual reality and Transhumanism built into this AI-run infrastructure whose driving intent is to change forever the human being and life on Earth as we have known it for untold millennia. It completes the picture of what geoengineering has been from its very inception decades ago: to control the ionosphere with phased array heater blasts so as to maintain an ionized atmosphere in which chemicals, nanotechnology, and synbio (synthetic biology) synergies can be continuously laid by jets, drones, and rockets in the name of “climate change.”

Thus, the groundwork for the synbio neural network inside Human 1.0 began by manipulating the macro-environment upon which our extraordinary interior micro-environment depends. The air we breathe, the soil we grow our food in, the water we must replenish—all have been commandeered by biotech and big pharma for Human 2.0 Transhumanism. Chemicals, nanotechnology, and electromagnetics are manipulated for geoengineering, genetics, and vaccinations, all in preparation for the software phase of the brain-computer interface (BCI) we now face after decades of “quiet war” preparation.

Notes

[1] Tyler Durden, “While Blaming Trump for ‘Arms Race,’ Obama Signs Momentous ‘Star Wars II’ Defense Bill. Zero Hedge, December 24, 2016.

[2] President Trump’s paternal uncle was John G. Trump: “In 1943, as the technical aide in Division 14 of the NDRC, [John G.] Trump reviewed and analyzed the papers of Nikola Tesla when the inventor died in a New York City hotel. The research was completed on behalf of the Alien Property Custodian office in Washington, DC. From February 1944 to the end of the war in Europe, Trump was the Director of the British Branch of the Radiation Laboratory.” – Wikipedia

[3] Jamie Condliffe, “Geoengineering Gets Green Light from Federal Scientists.” MIT Technology Review, January 11, 2017.

[4] “A Massive ‘Blob’ of Abnormal Conditions in the Pacific Has Increased Ozone Levels.” Science Alert, 17 February 2017.

[5] “Planetary waves, first found on Earth, are discovered on Sun.” PhysOrg, March 27, 2017.

[6] T.I. Gombosi et al., “Anthropogenic Space Weather.” Space Science Reviews, 13 April 2017.

[7] “NASA Space Probes Have Detected a Human-Made Barrier Surrounding Earth.” ScienceAlert, 18 May 2017.

[8] BPEarthWatch, “4 Unidentified Objects Take Out Satellite/On Radar!” July 2, 2017, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NQ6xsqhDTaU.

[9] Eric Berger, “A satellite may be falling apart in geostationary orbit.” ArsTechnica, July 2, 2017.

[10] Bob Fredericks, “Trump signs executive order reviving National Space Council.” New York Post, June 30, 2017.

[11] Valerie Insinna, “Trump officially organizes the Space Force under the Air Force … for now.” Defense News, February 19, 2019.

[12] The Joint Intelligence Objectives Agency (JIOA) circumvented then-President Truman’s anti-Nazi order by scrubbing Nazi affiliations and granting them new identities and security clearances.

[13] In 1995, defense contractor Martin Marietta merged with Lockheed Corporation to form Lockheed Martin, which is presently heading up the Space Fence.

[14] Define (or invent) the problem, then control the solution.

[15] Col. Tamzy J. House et al. “Weather as a Force Multiplier: Owning the Weather in 2025,” August 1996. “2025 is a study designed to comply with a directive from the chief of staff of the Air Force to examine the concepts, capabilities, and technologies the United States will require to remain the dominant air and space force in the future.”

[16] Read Amy Worthington, “Operation Cloverleaf: The Most Dangerous Weapons Testing Program In World History.” Millennium Report, August 29, 2015.

[17] These categories were initiated by independent scientist Clifford Carnicom in his 2005 film Cloud Cover/Aerosol Crimes, and have been subsequently tweaked.

[18] Tesla: “Man could tap the breast of Mother Sun and release her energy toward Earth as needed, magnetic as well as light.”

[19] Robert E. Morrison, Specialist in Earth Sciences, Science Policy Research Division, Congressional Research Service, “Chapter 5: Federal Activities in Weather Modification.” Weather Modification: Programs, Problems, Policy, and Potential. U.S. Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation, November 15, 1978.

[20] P. Gosselin, “Atmospheric CO2 Concentrations At 400 PPM Are Still Dangerously Low for Life On Earth.” NoTricksZone, 17 May 2013.

[21] “Deserts ‘greening’ from rising CO2.” Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organization (CSIRO), 3 July 2013.

[22] Juliet Eilperin, “Geoengineering sparks international ban, first-ever congressional report.” Washington Post, October 29, 2010.

[23] “Chemtrails Confirmed: Climate Scientist Admits Jets Are ‘Dumping Aerosols.’” Chemtrailsplanet.net, January 9, 2015.

[24] “NASA Scientist Admits ‘Chemtrails’ Are Real.” Chemtrailsplanet.net, March 11, 2016.

[25] Rady Ananda, “Solar Radiation Management, Geoengineering and Chemtrails.” Global Research, November 5, 2013.

[26] Christina Sarich, “Italian Senator Calls for Declassification of Chemtrail Documents.” Naturalsociety.com, April 15, 2014.

[27] “Minister pledges probe into chemtrails,” Cyprus-mail.com, February 17, 2016.

[28] J.D. Heyes, “NOAA quietly revises website after getting caught in global warming lie, admitting 1936 was hotter than 2012.” Naturalnews.com, July 1, 2014.

[29] David Lewis, “EPA’s disturbing leadership.” The Oconee Enterprise, May 12, 2016.

[30] Presently in Rhode Island, the Geoengineering Act of 2017 (H6011) is undergoing scrutiny: “Theories abound about chemical engineering of the atmosphere and the cloudy spray from aircraft, called chemtrails. The legislation makes Rhode Island one of the first states to study the issue. A five-member committee will make recommendations for licensing geoengineering technologies — real or not — such as solar radiation management, ocean fertilization, and cloud cover protection and cloud whitening. The House commission is tasked to report its findings by April 2, 2018.”

[31] Alan Levin, “NTSB: Ted Stevens’ plane crash remains a mystery.” USA Today, May 24, 2011. Multiple patents exist for remote piloting of aircraft, overriding pilot control, etc.

[32] Clifford Carnicom, “Biological Components Identified,” May 11, 2000, https://carnicominstitute.org/wp/biological-components-identified/.

[33] Mark J. Harper, “Dead Scientists and Microbiologists – Master List,” February 5, 2005, http://rense.com/general62/list.htm.

[34] Erin Elizabeth, “A Connection with the Holistic Doctor Deaths?” HealthNutNews.com, February 1, 2016.

[35] Wet surface air cooling (WSAC) of thousands of power plants (including nuclear) is used by geoengineers to feed and steer storm systems. See WeatherWar101.

[36] Ari Phillips, “Canadian Government Dismantles Ecological Libraries After Dismissing Thousands of Scientists.” Climate Progress, January 10, 2014.

[37] Ibid.

[38]  “Operation Mockingbird, CIA Media Control Program,” January 21, 2012, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cDCfTIapds0; also “CIA Operation Mockingbird: How the CIA Controls the Media,” Source Watch, October 10, 2016.

[39] Quoted in Planet Earth: The Latest Weapon of War by Rosalie Bertell (Black Rose, 2001).

[40] CIA Document #1035-960, “Concerning Criticism of the Warren Report,” 1967.

[41] Charles Eisenstein, “The Need For Venture Science.” Huntington Post, August 27, 2015.

[42] Sean Adl-Tabatabai, “Nearly All Scientific Papers Controlled By Same Six Corporations.” YourNewsWire.com, July 20, 2015.

[43] “World Leaders Sign Paris Climate Agreement.” Huffington Post, April 22, 2016. The article closed with “a group of businesses, including Google, Ikea, Starbucks and General Mills, lent their support to the signing ceremony.”

[44] Liz Ford, “Global goals received with rapture in New York – now comes the hard part.” The Guardian, 25 September 2015.

[45] “The Netherlands takes over meteorology for the NATO Response Force.” SHAPE (Supreme Headquarters Allied Powers Europe) press release, 13 January 2016.

[46] Sarah Malm, “UN planning an ‘international tribunal of climate justice’ which would allow nations to take developed countries to court.” Daily Mail, 2 November 2015.

[47] True economics: “6/6/17: Trump, Paris, Climate: The Problem is Bigger than COP21,” http://trueeconomics.blogspot.com/2017/06/6617-trump-paris-climate-problem-is.html.

[48] Amy Chozick et al., “Leaked Speech Excerpts Show a Hillary Clinton at Ease With Wall Street.” New York Times, October 7, 2016.

[49] Jocelyn Timperley, “Academics call for geoengineering preparation in wake of Paris Agreement’s ‘deadly flaws.’” BusinessGreen, 11 January 2016.

[50] James Corbett, “And Now for The 100 Trillion Dollar Bankster Climate Swindle . . .” The Corbett Report, February 24, 2016.

[51] Tyler Durden, “Deutsche Bank Sued For Running An ‘International Criminal Organization’ in Italian Court.” Zerohedge.com, May 18, 2017.

[52] Jacob Levich, “The Real Agenda of the Gates Foundation.” Aspects of India’s Economy, No. 57, May 2014.

[53] Paul Harris, “They’re called the Good Club – and they want to save the world.” The Guardian, 30 May 2009.

[54] William J. Broad, “Billionaires with Big Ideas Are Privatizing American Science.” New York Times, March 15, 2014.

[55] So far, two Secretaries of Defense have met this standard: Harold Brown (1977-1981) and Ashton B. Carter (2015-2017).

[56] One in Hanford, Washington and one in Livingston, Louisiana.

[57] Stephen J. Crothers, “A Critical Analysis of Ligo’s Recent Detection of Gravitational Waves Caused by Merging Black Holes.” viXra.com, March 8, 2016.

[58] Doyle Rice, “Are we ready for the end of the world? NASA conducts drill for potential asteroid strike.” USA Today, April 29, 2019.

[59] Joel van der Reijden, “Special Access Programs: A Look At Secrecy Levels and the Pentagon’s Missing Trillions,” updated May 2, 2017. Institute for the Study of Globalization and Covert Politics, https://isgp-studies.com/USAPs.

[60] Tyler Durden, “Army Finds $830 Million in ‘Missing’ Helicopters as First Ever Audit Begins.” Zero Hedge, January 11, 2018. The U.S. Department of Defense is the largest employer in the world with 3.2 million employees and $2.4 trillion in assets, and yet has never been required to administer an audit.

[61] Catherine Austin Fitts, “Who’s Who & What’s Up in The Space-Based Economy.” The Solari Report, Vol. 2018, No. 2.

[62] John Roach, “Insurer’s Message: “Prepare for Climate Change or Get Sued.” NBC News, June 6, 2014.

[63] Patrick Wood, “NAU Reborn As ‘North American Climate, Clean Energy and Environment Partnership’.” Technocracy News, June 30, 2016.

[64] “Universities & Financial Fraud,” The Solari Report, March 24, 2016. Professor Darrell Hamamoto is a professor at UC Davis in Asian American Studies.

[65] “Groups Sue EPA over Faulty Approval of Nanotechnology Pesticide.” Center for Food Safety press release, July 27, 2015.

[66] See Peter A. Kirby’s book Chemtrails Exposed: A New Manhattan Project. Self-published, 2016. 


Chapter IV

Geoengineered Forest Fires in Portugal 2017

by

Conny Kadia

 

Introduction

A few months after the ecological disasters in Portugal – the result of June and October fires in 2017 in our region – I started to write notes, to share our experience.

We believe that Portugal fires in 2017 are part of the global program of using the planet as a weapon (see: Planet Earth – The Latest Weapon of War by Rosalie Bertell, Black Rose Books 2001). Here it is the international wood industry (eucalyptus), a cooperation between Goldman Sachs Investment Bank from New York and the local Portuguese wood industry, who are renting or buying cheap properties from village people, growing and selling eucalyptus, destroying Portugal’s agriculture and natural forests, the same as in Brazil, Angola, etc. This is not only happening to “produce paper” as reported in mainstream information, but mainly to produce biomass to extract ethanol, which serves as energy for fuel.

In 2017, 30,000,000 GMO eucalyptus trees were ready to be planted even before the fires.[1] We are also concerned about new lithium, gas, 5G, AI and the modern tourism industry. New contracts have been signed since 2017 in Portugal and the biggest lithium mine of Europe is planned for 2020 in Northern Portugal.[2]

In 1974, Portugal emerged from dictatorship and since that time, the “eucalyptus-mafia” started to expand, taking over part of the country and at the same time the “forest-fires” started to increase constantly.

In 1992, Portugal became a full member of the European Community with the objective to serve Europe with paper and tourism industry and also to be geographically an important country as a strategic NATO base in Southern Europe.

Government of Portugal, Islands & the Spraying Programs

Image on the right: Google Maps Azores

In 2010, the Portuguese Government signed the “Contrato Céu Único” (“Contract One Sky”).[3] It seems that since then, “spraying” has been authorized in the airspace of Portugal. From 1972 onwards, the Joint Force Command Lisbon was one of the biggest NATO bases in South European Allied Command Operations. It was based in Oeiras, Lisbon, and was deactivated in 2012.

Today, the “United States Forces Azores” (USAFORAZ) is based at Lajes Field, on Terceira, the Azores, Portugal, the best strategic position in the Northwestern Atlantic Ocean, between Europe and the United States. We believe that in this decade, this military base became very important for the international and intercontinental “spraying program,” passing Portugal on departure and on arrival towards Europe.

At Sta. Maria, the Azores, now being installed is the Portugal Space 2019-2030, a “Space Port” for satellites and spaceships with laser weapons from one of the largest military producers of laser weapons and spaceships, Martin Lockheed Corporation in California, also based in Ireland, Scotland and Canada and selling to China, North Korea, Australia and elsewhere.[4]

Image below: Map Motoristas Portugal 2020

We wonder if these laser weapons during the Portugal fires in 2017 and 2018 have also been used in California, Greece, Sweden and Australia.[5]

Region and Geography

Between June and October 2017, the center of Portugal was threatened by thousands of fires and daily geoengineering, drying out the country and burning down three counties: Inner Pine Forest North, Inner Pine Forest South and Natural Park Serra da Estrela.

It is a region with green hills and many beautiful river valleys and the mountain range Serra da Estrela, elevation 2000 m. Pinhal Interior Norte, with an area of 2,617 km² and ca. 130,000 inhabitants, includes 14 councils all covered with eucalyptus monoculture for the past 30 years.

Our council is Oliveira do Hospital, the only registered city in this region and the last council rejecting eucalyptus plantations, preserving an 80-100-year old “Traditional Pine Forest” (mixed forest with pine, oak and cork oak). This council also belongs to the Parque Natural Serra da Estrela, which participated in UNESCO “Geopark Estrela” in November 2017 (the month after the catastrophe). This area of 2,216 km² and 170,000 inhabitants includes nine councils with two schools, “Instituto Politécnico da Guarda” and the “Universidade da Beira Interior” Covilhã. The Geopark promotes education, science and culture.[6] Programs for the preservation of nature and traditional village life, rural, nature and the upper-class ecotourism have stabilized the local market and small industries. Hundreds of river beaches, thousands of hiking routes and other outdoor sports make this region a famous Mountain Range for National and International Nature-Outdoor-Tourism. It was completely burnt down in 2017.

Google Maps Fires Portugal, 2017 ICNF (Instituto da Conservação da Natureza e das Florestas)

“The Council Oliveira do Hospital burnt down within three hours,” said a witness. An area of 234,000 ha, 40 km wide to ca. 60 km long, or twice the size of Paris.

On Sunday, 15th October 2017, between 8:00 p.m. and 11:00 p.m., 97% of the territory of Oliveira do Hospital was burnt down, an area of 234.52 km2 with almost 21,000 inhabitants. In our council, 12 people died and four were still in recovery after months, 5,000 sheep and goats died, also many domestic animals such as dogs, horses, cats, chickens, ca. 500 houses and 108 enterprises were destroyed, 480 jobs lost, 65 families affected — all that in only one council!

After four months, some villages were still without telephone and internet. Some money was paid by a governmental program for burnt fruit trees, stables, animals or machines. Houses were under analysis for the next 12 months, people have been “evacuated” to alternative places for temporary stay or have been offered a “new” house in the village in exchange to leave their farm behind. This would fit into a program of depopulating the countryside. One year after the disaster, we might say that possibly only 25% of promised reconstructions have been approved.  The vast majority of reconstructions had not been completed by the second winter following the catastrophe.

The Portuguese population endured a type of “desperate state” afterwards for a few months, such as mainly men complaining about life and women still crying, but everyone is always trying to look forward. The choice to live in the countryside means to live in nature which now seems completely destroyed. Everyone knows that this destruction was not done by nature but was organized terror. Foreign families and couples, so-called “climate nomads,” who had chosen Portugal for an alternative sustainable living, are thinking to leave the country, whether they have lost everything or just having been witness to this disaster. Security has been lost, many people do not know where to go, as they understand it could happen again, and it could also happen elsewhere. After one year, many dead pine trees have been cut and a new shape of the traditional, native oak forest is starting to appear, where hopefully no eucalyptus will be planted by governmental programs.

Center of historical village Midões/Tábua – Portugal.

Here seven houses burnt in the night of the catastrophe, a drone landed in a garden of people. Nobody knows who the owner is.[7] (Photo ck, October 2017).

In the villages of Lajeosa/Oliveira do Hospital, military munitions were found in uninhabited houses and an airplane was seen at 11:00 a.m. almost landing on a roof of a house, which started to burn 12 hours later, in the center of the village.

However, there is a nice social observation: “People are coming closer to each other!”

Official and Unofficial Causes and Behavior of the Fires

Concentrating on the two huge fires which caused the death of over 120 people on the 17th of June and the 15th of October 2017, the Pinhal Interior Norte Region, 6% of the country of Portugal, was burnt down in only two weekends and, in the year 2017, burnt in total over 500,000 ha of Portugal.

Both fires had a very similar character in “behavior and time schedule.” We have no doubt that both fires had been well planned by the local and international industry, together with the military, on land and from the air. Unofficially communicated, there have been several “letters of threat” and after the June fire which destroyed one part of this county, some people knew that a second huge fire was planned for October to burn the rest of it. Relating to governmental statements, both fires happened outside the high summer season (July – September) and their most catastrophic moments were in the evening between 8:00-9:00 p.m. Suddenly, a kind of “fire tsunami” overwhelmed both regions with flames higher than 30 meters, expanding to 15 km within ten minutes. Everybody had five minutes to escape, to run for their lives or to prepare to try to save the house. There was no warning, no fire brigade, no emergency, no infrastructure.

We question: “Is Europe still a safe continent?”

“Because this happened before summer and at this time of the day, with normally reduced danger for that kind of meteorological conditions, the risk had not been understood by the operating services. This sort of behavior of the fire could not have been foreseen by any emergency service in Portugal, nor in Europe. The forest fire of Pedrogão Grande is an example and an alert … to be confronted with a new problem originating in Climate Change.” (Summary of Independent Technical Commission, Portuguese Government, 12th October 2017, translated from Portuguese.)[8]

Wikipedia continues with the false “mainstream information” after the October fires.[9] In the same year, the number of fires in Europe doubled, the “experts” blaming this phenomenon on global warming.

In my opinion another murder of hundreds of people in 2017, this time in Portugal, a European country — engineered with military weapons and under “false flag” using the term “climate change” as a general lie in terms of physics, with economical interest and power, to control the population by mainstream psychology – a threat against humanity?

Dr. Rosie Bertell in 2013 wrote:

“Further investigations show that in the late 1960s, scientists from the United States together with scientists from the Soviet Union were elaborating efforts about a possible warming of the Arctic, documented in 1976 in the Lowell Pontes Book, ‘The Cooling’. In 1974, at the Meeting in Vladivostok, the leaders of the United States and the Soviet Union started manipulating the weather with common operations. In the late 1970s, the United States participated in weather modification through ELF-signals (extreme low frequency EM-waves.)”[10]

The Movement Against Geoengineering in Portugal Since 2010

In 2012, Benjamin Levy, a therapist from Lisbon, started to organize the first speeches about geoengineering and to inform the public through his website.[11] In 2013, the Facebook group “Rastos Químicos Portugal” started as an important forum for exchange of information and contacts, increasing constantly to over 17,000 Facebook members after six years. Tiago Lopes from Coimbra is an important activist of that group and documents daily spraying with his website.[12] In 2014, I joined that group and started a website for my personal research in Portuguese.[13] Since 2018, many Portuguese citizens have started to publish facts about geoengineering, 5G and the whole spectrum. I also participated in several “Global March Against Geoengineering,” thanks to Marcelo Chelão (Brazil) and Fernando Jorge (Lisbon), who organize this movement for Portugal.

In 2016, we organized regular “Meetings about Geoengineering” in Coimbra.

On 6th February 2017, the “Petition against geoengingeering, initiated by the Group Rastos Químicos Portugal, was officially passed to the Portuguese Government with over 4,000 signatures.[14]

The Portuguese Department for Environment invited the group, represented by Tiago Lopes (Coimbra) and Elvira Vieira (Porto), for two hearings, 19th April and 27th October 2017. Both hearings brought no response to our concerns about climate manipulation by any of the parties. The petition was likely ignored.

On 17th June 2017, Engineered Forest Fire Pedrogão Grande occurred (officially 64 victims). Further details below.

On 15th October 2017, Engineered Forest Fire Oliveira do Hospital took place (officially 45 victims). Further details below.

On 5th November 2017, Prof. Filipe Duarte Santos, Dept. of Sciences of the University of Lisbon and Director of the National Committee of Environment and Sustainable Development (CNADS), confirmed on Portuguese TV program RTP 3 that “the atmosphere will be pulverized with toxic chemicals to cool down the planet”.[15]

2nd December 2017 was the initiation of the international “Group Why Fire” (WiFi) Climate Engineering and Forest Fires Portugal 2017. A first meeting was planned for the end of the summer in central Portugal, but the home of the organizer burnt down from the 15th October fire. Up to 2019, the Why Fire Organization expanded into several sub-groups – such as Geoengineering – Space Fence, Transhumanism by Hendrik, Lilli, Conny & others, 5G by Ariel, Vaccinations and How to Protect by Leen, Environment for Life by Hanne and Rudy, Reforest for Life – cleaning and planting on burnt land by Leoni, Exposition with local painters “Forest fires Portugal 2017 – questions and answers” by Annie Moreels, Book “Histórias do Fogo/Fire stories” by Rita Fernandes Martins.

16th December 2017 was the start of the Portuguese “Grupo Céus Limpos”/Clean Skies Group founded by the witnesses of crime from the October fire in central Portugal with mostly Portuguese members, co-founders Maria João Sousa, Isabel Pimenta, Júlio Santos Perreira and Prof. João Dinís (Director of the National Confederation for Agriculture CNA).

We published several flyers about geoengineering in cooperation with native experts. Both groups coordinated and worked together.[16] From January 2018, the “Grupo Céus/Clean Skies Group” sensitized journalists and the media with interviews and articles in regional newspapers on how forest fires are more aggressive with high and uncontrollable flames, eliminating forests, passing through villages and entering cities. The group were witnesses of organized fire, from land and from air and referred to their impression that possibly chemical products have been used and speaking about geoengineering as well as laser weapons and drones.

A local newspaper supported our movement by publishing our events, “Crime in the Fires”, which we discussed officially with local politicians and fire brigades, thanks to Director Amadeu Diniz da Fonseca and journalist José Leite who contacted us. Also, we wrote about regular presentations where we invited experts and investigators such as therapist Benjamin Levy from Lisbon, “Geoengineering, to control the climate – an unofficial exotic weapon… and uncontrollable.”[17] More information about our public relations campaigns can be found on our website.[18]

In the first months after the disaster, we communicated with local councils, engineers and professors from different investigation commissions of the Portuguese government so as to be involved as witnesses, to show places where we have seen or heard drones, where uninhabited houses exploded, where airplanes flew past a few minutes before types of fire bombs fell and a kind of fire tsunami exploded from everywhere.[19] We collected soil from the forest and bark from trees to be analyzed for chemicals which have been sprayed before and during the fire (aluminum, magnesium, lithium, manganese, napalm). They were impressed, as they already knew about Geo- and Climate-Engineering. They also wondered about “strange physical happenings” in our forest, what happened to quartz, or to burnt houses. “It should be investigated” was the reply. But the Portuguese government never gave an order to investigate about the crime. Is the Portuguese government hiding secrets? Do they protect the crime of these fires? Why was there no rescue service and no fire brigade working in our villages that night?

In 2019, there were several events in cooperation with the local council and we continued our communication with fire brigades. It is important for every single person to understand that these were “unnatural fires” which have been engineered and can knock on every house door anytime as long as we do not stop this geoengineering program. Is this modern civil war?

Portugal as Part of International Resistance Against Climate-Engineering Since 2017

Many thanks to Franz Miller (Austria)[20] for his patience and support in the very first days. We also hoped to have analyzed “hammered” trees in the forest that look like being eaten at around one meter high, with some up to four meters high. Looks rather like after an atomic bomb. There is a video about our once green paradise … three days after the disaster.[21] We found damaged rocks of quartz, granite and slate with broken exploded small pieces, some pieces as big as two hands. We found very regular holes of 2-3 sq.cm. on the floor. We believe that this could have been caused by directed energy which has also burnt thousands of trees on the inside, “melted” iron in the brick walls of houses and twisted whole factory buildings. In the June fire in Pedrogão Grande, there are witnesses of how people were burnt to ashes just next to another person who was not burnt at all.

Physicist Manuel Feliz from Porto,[22] member of Grupo Céus Limpos, private investigator and publisher on geoengineering, contrails and chemical trails, explains in one of our flyers:

“Possibly inflammable chemical products have been used and (or) electromagnetic weapons. It is a fact that these normally produce such violent fires and inside the trees, as the sap conducts electricity. Holes of 2-5 cm diameter in the forest everywhere? The most strange in these fires was that rocks and crystals of quartz exploded, which was caused due to very high temperature in the inside of these rocks (600⁰C), or otherwise they exploded due to “forced resonance oscillations” by an electromagnetic wave. The resonance frequency of quartz is basically the same frequency as of the HAARP emission, an electromagnetic system for atmospheric experimentations, but not only. A mobile electromagnetic weapon could also emit in this frequency!” (translated from Portuguese)[23]

Granite walls have scratches and walls are crumbling. Some burnt houses have to be destroyed as “prevention of danger” (Photo ck 12/2017)

Broken and partly pulverized quartz.

Forest Fire in Portugal, 17th June 2017 — Pedrogao Grande

The June fire was about 100 km south of us. We were witnessing on TV a so-called “natural disaster” 24 hours live on all TV channels during these days. It was like watching a bad movie, just showing the reality, which means sensitizing people, getting them close to death and catastrophes — a kind of terror.

During the summer, I made notes about the June fire circumstances, as I was working on a leaflet for Portugal about geoengineering and forest fires. I was not expecting a similar disaster knocking on our house door just a few months later. Thanks to Maria João Gaspar Oliveira (philosopher and writer) from Coimbra for all her help in research about this fire.

Was the dryness in Portugal and Southern Europe (Spain, Southern France, Italy, Greece) also engineered everywhere else?

 (Photo ck 08.06.2017 Oliveira do Hospital 100km north of Pedrogão Grande Microwaves in Artificial Clouds – Radiation)

In the week before 17th June 2017, we were witnessing a very unusual wave of heat in central Portugal. From Tuesday 12th June, we had several days with almost 40⁰C heat, grass was burning yellow within two days after a permanently engineered white sky with white and yellow smog in the morning.

Our green tomatoes cooked black hanging on the green plant in our vegetable garden and my neighbor had the same effect with her beans. It was a very unusual heat for this season and only four days were enough for a massive drying out of a whole county. Then came Saturday 17th June 2017. On that day people were killed as if they were “microwaved” in their cars and houses, “carbonized” while they were fleeing on roads or from the forest. One person burnt, another next to a witness, however, was not. The governmental investigation report did not publish the chapter about the dead victims. Many wild and domestic animals also died.

Officially the number of dead victims did not increase further after 24 hours (64), even though there were still people missing. Weeks later, private investigations mentioned 72 casualties, but it is possible that even more people lost their lives. What is the Portuguese government hiding when lying about the number of victims and hiding the death investigations?

“Flames of Hell” were described by witnesses, a very loud noise and 30 m high flames flying over villages. Some animals were killed only by high temperatures with no direct contact with the fire. The same was reported about trees that burnt, without having been in contact with fire. Losing life by radiation?

During the summer, it looked as if everything north of Lisbon up to the Spanish border was burning. Central Portugal and the southern side of the Mountain Range Serra da Estrela seemed to have burnt from June until October. 

Disinformation by Mainstream Media and Governmental Chaos

Statements from the government did change several times during the weeks after the June disaster.

The first statement was transmitted on TV saying that it was dry thunder that hit a tree. The tree was found as proof only two hours later. Several days later, nevertheless, a witness’ footage was played on TV, showing how silent the first fire started, no thunder, no lightning at all. Other witnesses heard loud noises as the fire grew very quickly and uncontrollably.

The second statement of the government changed implicating a “criminal hand” as origin of the fire.

The third statement then came two weeks later, 3rd of July, where the fire brigade stated that due to a defect in the high-tension cable the fire started as an effect of high voltage: “efeito arco voltaico.”

The Internal Police continued saying a dry thunderstorm might be the reason for the huge fire.

The IPMA (Institute of Sea and Atmosphere) said that, “In that region no lightning occurred at the time of the beginning of the fire.”(sic)

Also, we would like to ask the meteorology institution (IPMA) how is it possible to get different meteorological information on the same day on different TV channels?

The fourth version came from an investigation group saying that electric discharges (descarga eléctrica) between high tension cables and too close trees lit the fire.

But the EDP, an electricity company, denied these accusations as there were no trees.

The fifth version was to be read in the CTI (Independent Technical Commission) Report from the 12th October 2017 (published only three days before 15th October fire) p. 12, about the “unforeseeable downburst … due to Climate Change.”[sic][24]

Official Witness with Proof of a Geoengineered Fire?

An anonymous witness is mentioned in this official governmental report concerning this “downburst”:

“A bit after 8:00 p.m. (I cannot say the exact time), it became totally dark and immediately after, a huge fire ball came, pushed by a wind like a cyclone (…). What has happened here was no fire that came from the pine forests around here, but this was a kind of bomb that exploded from nowhere, that opened a sky full of a bright shine of flames which is pouring out amber lights or fire tongues toward all directions. It was these fire tongues, which burnt down my village and others around here.” (translated from Portuguese)[25]

Witness Luis Gregório sent me a video from near Santarem, 100 km away from Pedrogão. He observed a sky full of spraying as well as ELF-Waves.

“It has become normal to see spraying today and it is normal that they become clouds with a strange behavior … but what was not normal this time was that the clouds were standing still for a long time, and at the time when the fire started, about two to three hours later, rain was falling and made thunder.”[26]

On 19th June 2017, the national newspaper “Diário de Notícias” wrote, with plenty of witnesses:

“This was no fire, this was a firestorm!”

On 20th June 2017, spraying before and during the June fire was witnessed by Tiago Lopes from Coimbra. (Admin Facebook Group Rastos Químicos, Anti-Spraying Activism Portugal)[27]

Forest Fire in Portugal, 15th of October 2017 — Oliveira do Hospital

In the morning of 15th October, ten hours before our fire started, I had received an email from Claudia v. Werlhof which I only read two weeks later. As I read it, I became frozen again, as it was the perfect description of what we have survived.

On 15th Oct 2017, at 09:43, Von Werlhof, Claudia <[email protected]> wrote:

“The Californian fires look like those in Portugal and remember … 911 effects, explained by Judy Wood. Jim Stone: “California ‘wildfires’ were not wild, they were engineered”: … there should have been several cases of exploding dry trees where there was no fire there before at all. Lots of people are saying these fires suddenly “exploded out of nowhere” – no hint of any previous fire, no lightning, no NOTHING, just a sudden high wind happening at the same time the forest nearby suddenly burst into flames. That would be a telltale sign of a sudden massive electric field heating everything up (everything that could not conduct electricity very well, which means air and dry leaves). There are people saying space-based laser systems are doing this … but I still believe they are using phase cancellation of radio waves to cause a bias field, because whatever happened when a laser was used would not be easily controllable and would too easily result in the creation of massive ionosphere to ground lightning bolts. That is not happening, which is why I am sticking with the EM wave approach to this. Maybe as they get more brazen and not caring about noticeable effects, they will start using lasers, which would be a whole lot easier.

How could you possibly get 66 widely-spaced, massive wildfires appearing instantly with no natural weather causing them, growing rapidly, with perfectly calm weather before, sudden massive winds at the initiation of the fires, blue sparks in the air, malfunctioning electronics, and in some people heart palpitations? My answer: just ask Darpa (Jim Stone). On Darpa see Bertell. Claudia v. Werlhof”

Witnesses of the October fire shared incredible circumstances. “We will have rain on Sunday 15th October” was one of the false meteorological forecasts days before the fire, a sort of mind control of the population, so they would not water anything. And it did work. Friends who are even into geoengineering told me that they were so silly to clean trenches for rainwater instead of watering around house and garden. This could have avoided fire crawling along and burning the Earth every single square meter.

Electricity was off three hours before the fire started so there was no water supply for most houses with their own wells with electric water pumps. Mobile telecommunication started to fail just before the fire and was off during 48 hours, so no rescue communication during the fire was possible, no fire brigade, no official warning or help before and during the fire, no evacuations in our villages. People had five minutes to get prepared to fight or just to run for their lives. Everybody was abandoned in a life-threatening disaster attack. (We heard the same from residents of California.)

To survive was lucky and to have the house kept safe was a wonder. The next morning, we had very dense toxic smog, bright and yellow. We wonder if this could be from burnt iron-oxide, one of the chemicals we guess to have been sprayed.[28]

One village was without electricity for seven days, with no internet or telephone for three months in our village, which made resistance work almost impossible. The circumstances psychologically became worse in the affected population. We had no idea what the media said about the fire or about us. We were under an “emergency state” for three days, no work, no school, no ATM machines working to get money, no charging of phones, no information, no communication. All we could do was to try to come down from the shock and “screwing things back together” around our houses, vegetable gardens and stables. People were still crying months afterwards. Generators were almost sold out in all shops in our region. For those who had been in this fire, life has changed. Everybody knows that this was an attack and not a natural fire.

There was a perfect chaos in the governmental leadership towards financial help for victims who lost houses, stables, animals and jobs, etc., even after one and a half years. Thankfully, thousands of people acted in solidarity immediately and many groups and villages were bringing clothes and food for people and animals. This was rather well-organized in our local council Oliveira do Hospital.

Only two weeks later, I was able to use the internet for the first time in our local coffeeshop, sending my first SOS-EMAIL to international resistance activists and to Claudia v. Werlhof. I found no special emails from friends who normally would ask when forest fires had happened in Portugal. Neither my family in Germany seemed very much worried. I understood then that this fire was not publicized in mainstream media in Europe. Biggest thanks to Claudia, who “heard my SOS” and replied immediately and spread my message to colleagues and sent me a video of California wildfire in October 2017, tree burning from inside.[29]

She brought me into contact with Franz Miller (from Austria) who explained to me about Directed Energy Laser Weapons and sent me a video where I saw Elana Freeland’s research for the first time.[30]

(Photo ck December 2017 central Portugal)

With goosebumps on my skin, I started to put pictures together from Portugal fires and the very similar phenomena in California — Directed Energy Weapon? I published it on my personal website.[31] The same evening my car battery was totally dead, from one moment to the next. No cable from another car battery nor pushing the car down a hill made the engine start, so it went to the garage the next day. I thought, “I hope I am not that important.”

For the 15th October 2017, the weather forecasts had changed at the last minute, depending on which TV channel one watched. Suddenly there were high temperatures around 30ºC announced for Sunday, quite warm for autumn and a few people also heard something about storm warnings. Different channels were giving different information. Remember, only three days earlier the beginning of the seasonal winter rain was announced in the media.

Four big fires had started between 6:30 a.m. and 11:00 a.m. on the Serra Estrela Mountain Range, all fires in one line, east to west, distance around 20 km each, 50 km south from us. A yellow airplane, similar to ones used in fighting fire, had been seen flying along the east border of our council of Oliveira do Hospital during the day; and everything burnt along that 50 km border, from Seia (Sandomil) towards Nelas later in the afternoon.

When the electricity shut down around 5:00 p.m., a smaller fire was still about 15 km away. Neighbors, all Portuguese inhabitants of the village, aged between 60 and 80 years old, came up to our road where there is a nice view towards the mountains, commenting, “In other countries there are attacks in cities, like Paris or Brussels, to make terror. Here it is the fire!

I mentioned that I heard an airplane spraying strongly at high altitude. It was the normal and “everyday spraying”, but this time it was even louder. When I hear this, rain usually follows in about 30 minutes or the temperature changes. This time I thought, “Are they spraying the fuel to burn down the rest of the region as well?” In fact, they did and the wind started to get stronger only 30 minutes later!

Between 5:00 p.m. and 7:00 p.m., four smaller fires had started southeast from us, again all in a line, south direction towards north, all in our council and wind in direction north, towards us.

Around 7:00 p.m., mobile communication went off and friends came by asking for “fire asylum”, in case they would need to leave their farms in the forest with dogs and horses. We were still joking and laughing at this time.

Painting: Annie Moreels 2018

Group Why Fire (WiFi)

(Photo below ck December 2017 Central Portugal)

“At 8 p.m. or a bit later, we heard that the fire suddenly appeared in the wood factory of the village, only three km away. From our front door we saw a throat of dark red and black fire clouds, about 500 m high – twisted in direction north, as the wind was blowing from south. The top of the throat was open and I saw small clouds turning in a kind of a square, dark red and blue colored. I heard the sound of a quarry, iron falling on metal, sound of electricity like lightning … but I did not see any lightning.  I thought: HAARP – microwaves and laser. I could imagine a fire tornado coming towards us, taking everything!” – Witness: Conny Kadia, October 2017

Other witnesses have seen yellow airplanes flying in our region during this time, making a circle, coming from Santa Comba Dão towards south of Tábua, continuing in the direction Oliveira do Hospital. We believe that those airplanes flew up to the northern border of our council, Rio Mondego, and back from there over our villages. All this was happening within 15 minutes. Obviously, the plan was to make sure that our council would be black. 97% of our council’s territory burnt in not more than three hours (35 km wide, 60 km long!). Hundreds of people confirmed that the noise was like from an airplane. The fires exploded everywhere at the same time and everything was surrounded by high flames immediately.

One witness thinks that this was the sound of a US military fighter, maybe with laser weapon. A neighbor thinks it could have been an old military bomber (B52). They saw six fireballs falling on their farm, starting small fires with no loud explosions.  Within minutes, the whole forest went completely black and suddenly everything was in 30 m high standing flames – five minutes’ time for escaping and rescuing dogs and horses and their lives.

It seems exactly the same phenomenon that we have affirmed in the official governmental report from the witness in the June fire. Also, at the same time of the day, in both fires, most people died between 8:00 p.m. and 9:00 p.m.

We also found thousands of glass bottles along forest tracks and roads between villages (as in the fire in the Pine Forest Leiria). We had hoped to intervene with all our proof and knowledge that the second report of the CTI Commission about forest fires 2017 should include “Crime in fire, from earth and from air” as can be read in the Portuguese newspapers due to our publications. But it didn’t.

Climate Engineering in Collaboration with Local Wood Industry and Others for this Ecological Disaster

We asked the CTI Commission and the council to analyze the residue of the sprayings in the soil to find out what chemicals or other materials had been sprayed during the last years as well as during the fires by smaller local airplanes and by drones. We wanted them to study houses, where iron melted in the walls and the entire structures of the houses were destroyed. We also heard from an architect that brick walls became “powder” through the fire. Also, antique granite houses, older than 100 years that usually remain without a roof for decades in rain and wind without harm to the walls, have been mostly destroyed structurally in the October 2017 fire.

There was no further response from the Technical Commission. No investigation of crime on the part of the government. Experts, fire agents and others who were speaking about crime in fire had to be careful so as not to be threatened or to lose their jobs.

Another witness:

“Next to a huge pile of wood in the Industrial Zone Oliveira do Hospital, a lorry machine started to burn, which was about 30 m distance to the fire”. Were electromagnetic microwaves melting metal? Also, he said, “fire brigade was spraying full pressure water on the wooden pile but water was evaporating in the air, not even reaching the wood, neither the flames!”

(Photo, ck October 2017, Lorries, Industrial Zone, Oliveira do Hospital – Portugal)

On the other hand, trees next to burnt vehicles and houses stood intact – something reported as well from the California and Australian “wildfires”.[32]

A farmer reports, “It seemed that water was not extinguishing the flames.”

From a local expert, President of the Fire Brigade B.V.V.N. Oliveirinha, Tábua, District of Coimbra, Vitor Melo, we received some very important information on the unusual circumstances of the October 2017 Fire: “Measurements of wind of 200 km/h (hurricane Ophélia?) and temperature of 70⁰C – BEFORE the fire passed! This would explain why leaves on trees were dried out and did not burn, needles on pine trees were in a vertical position, dried out but did not burn.” This would also explain how some animals, trees or even people died, without having been in touch with fire – just by radiation? The battery of his lorry was suddenly depleted during the night of the fire when he arrived in Midões, where they still succeeded to stop the fire but unable to move towards Póvoa de Midões.

“There was radiation in the air.”

“A normal natural fire would burn on average 900 meters per hour. This fire made 33 ha (3.3 km x 1 km, or 33 football fields, as a Portuguese measurement) in one minute!”

“Also the white smoke was not normal.”

“The command of fire brigade needs to be changed, to ensure an efficient fight against fires in Portugal.”

“This was an Attack of Terrorism!” He continues to state also two years after the disaster:

“Nobody provides for me the opposite!”  

Thanks and respect for this encouraging witness, his authorization and collaboration in the investigation work.

Political Crime, Governmental Scandal and Military “Defense” Programs

Did the international corrupt Climate-Change-Industry provoke “un-natural” fire disaster by climate engineering?

Is the 2018 Monchique Fire Just Another Example?

Local government and most mainstream media were reporting in the first weeks that this was an act of terror and a criminal fire, which has to be investigated. After a few months and general advice from the Portuguese and possibly international governments, things “calmed down” and after a year the statements have changed into “natural fire” or “climate change.”

At our events, we continued to include regional fire brigade, as we had witnesses mention that the local fire brigade (Lagares da Beira) did not leave their basement during the night, as they could hardly load water into their empty lorries without main electricity which was shut off. No generator at the location, no generator on each lorry.

From the Monchique fire (02-09 August 2018, between Silvas and Portimão, Algarve) we have been informed that the fire brigade was told to wait for hours. Was there no command to fight the fire? The fire brigade mostly received permission once fires were too big or just to evacuate people. From another witness we heard that the fire brigade emptied the water tanks before driving back to the base station, without fighting the fire.

About this fire we have unofficial information that a member of the government had warned private people to leave that area. So, during the 2018 Monchique fire, the government knew about the plan and did not prevent it?

Thanks to Su Pires from Santarem for helping with the investigation in this fire.

This particular fire lasted seven days and nobody knows why it took so long.

Disorganization or sabotage on the part of the Command, which had been “upgraded” years ago, from Fire Brigade Commander to military generals, or even to a computer (AI)? In this way, it is easier for governmental order to control the Commander – or to let it burn?

We believe that in this Monchique fire, nobody died because people had been sensitized by the results of the fires in 2017 and the consistent information of resistance work and protest about incredible contradictions and miserable crisis management. Entire villages refused to follow the orders of Civil Protection, Police and Fire Brigade to evacuate. It seems that official orders were once again to send people towards the flames, same as happened by police order in June 2017, where 40 people died unnecessarily within ten minutes by a simple mistake. In the Monchique fire in August 2018, only 34 people were injured and no one died. The population refused the order of authorities. They stayed at home and saved their goods and lives. On TV, witnesses were shouting at the government in direct interviews, as the authorities were threatening, policemen were without respect and tried to pull people out of their houses: This is a political crime in times of freedom!”, reported in coverage by TV Sapo Portugal.[33]

In the future, we would like to include the main electricity company (EDP) in our fire investigations, as well as the Institute for Sea and Atmosphere Portugal (IPMA), who deny governmental accusations from the 2017 June fire that trees were standing too close to high tension cables to cause explosions and that no ‘dry thunder’ was registered in the region when the fires started.

Strangely, on 14th October 2018, exactly the same autumn weekend one year after the fire disaster in our region – we had in the same geographical zone another “hot storm” (Hurricane “Leslie”) – and at about 8:30 p.m. (same time of day as one year ago), in the forest of our village, an explosion cut two electricity wires and lit two smaller fires which the fire brigade managed to control immediately. No tree had fallen on wires. Can wind cut wire in four places and in a distance of five to ten meters? Our local fire brigade explained that possibly ”dry thunder had cut the electric wires, which were lying on the ground”. Would this be confirmed by IPMA or was it something else that cut the wires? Was it to remind the inhabitants, who were coming together at several different memorial events? During two hours, a hot storm was circulating around from all directions with very dark and deep clouds. People got the same feelings of danger and fear as exactly one year before. “We mobilized immediately the entire fire brigade, as we thought the same can happen as last year, with this strange wind, strange heat, strange circumstances,” mentioned the Fire Brigade Commander. Electricity was then cut off. At our stable in the village, we had suddenly the same group of people together, as one year before, rescuing horses and waiting what to do. The fire was finished at 9:00 p.m. The storm had stopped immediately, everything went quiet, electricity came back and everyone went home.

We suggest that there is the possibility of DEW (Directed Energy Weapons) being used with the installation of the 5G electric fence. The pulverization of metallic nanoparticles produce artificial clouds, which serve as a conductor for electromagnetic waves, in order to change temperature and humidity within minutes in the air as well as on the ground. By heating the atmosphere, waves of winds can become as strong as you like, and flying flames over houses and villages can be managed due to fuel in the air. With these wind waves, water can evaporate in air, as fuel and heat make water almost useless!

Is It Possible to Control the Climate of a Geographical Zone in Any Country of Europe to Control the Population? Civil War in Times of Freedom?

We continue to discuss our experiences with responsible institutions and continue to sensitize people to our movements. We also inform the population and our local councils with our activities, our leaflets, festivals, exhibitions and information events.

Drones have been witnessed starting fires at the south border of our council (in Vide). Thousands of empty glass bottles have been found, all in a line along the streets and forest tracks around our villages and in some places it looks (even after one year) as though something had been sprayed from the street into smaller hedges. Was this from jeeps and other land vehicles from the local wood industry? Motorbikes had been heard days before the fire in the forest and were seen racing along our streets. One drone was heard by a witness in an urbanization of Oliveira do Hospital, where in the next minutes “Casa do Espirito” and several uninhabited houses exploded. Hundreds of explosions have been witnessed by the population out in the woods, from nowhere – where no electricity cables are passing, just in nature. A 5G experiment in central Portugal during these days could also explain the possible use of DEW during the fire. Airplanes have been witnessed. Chemicals could have been sprayed by an airplane in high altitude about three hours before the fire started in our villages. Wind started 30 minutes after hearing the spraying. Why is none of this under investigation by Portuguese or European governments?

So, has something like a league of military on the ground, together with air force, been in action to terrorize us, the people and the local governments of the region and continue to do so?

The Movement against Weather and Climate Engineering is now part of the social media and political environment in central Portugal. Every single participant makes the difference, slowly but steadily.

Benjamin Levy from Lisbon, (Holistic and Transpersonal Therapist and Geoengineering Investigator), a very important member of Group Why Fire and Group Céus Limpos, said in February 2018, people need to wake up from their hypnosis as one of the solutions, becoming active, getting information and informing others!”

Summary of Circumstances Around the Portugal Fire 2017-2020

2017 

  • April 2017 – “disappearance” of military munitions from the Military Base Loulé, south of Portugal, hand grenades, tank grenades, etc. (made official only two months later, ten days after June fire, center of Portugal.)[34]
  • 16 June 2017 fire – Pedrogão Grande (53,000 ha burnt in three days, 64 people killed according to official reports but possibly 90 people died)
  • 28 June 2017 – Information made public that military weapons had disappeared in Portugal military base end of April 2017. This information was held secret for two months.[35]
  • 12-14 October 2017 – 5G Tests in Portugal. Ericsson tests 5G between Lisbon (Vodafone) and Aveiro (Altice) for the first time in coast region central Portugal[36]
  • 15 October 2017 fire in Oliveira do Hospital – 240,000 ha burnt down in 12 hours by “Strong Radiation, Artificial Heat and Artificial Fire Storm” (49 people killed according to official reports). Possible use of laser weapon and spraying of chemicals to start fires everywhere at the same time, at strategic points such as exits of cities and villages, no escape. Some factories yes, others not. We wonder if the thousands of explosions out in the woods could have anything to do with the stolen (disappeared) military munitions?
  • 18 October 2017 – Military munitions found (three days after the devastating October fire center of Portugal).  Suddenly, “criminal military case” is published.[37]
  • 28 October 2017 – Lisbon – Artificial Intelligence Conference[38]
  • 4 November 2017 – Mining Portugal – The Mining Law Review – Edition 6, published by authors Rui Botica Santos, Luis Moreira Cortez, Coelho Ribeir & Associados (“The territory of Portugal covers 50 per cent of the Iberian Pyrite Belt (IPB), which is considered to be the main metallogenic province in the EU. The IPB is the primary source of base metals in the EU.”)[39]

 2018

  • 6 July 2018 – Barak Obama in Porto: Guest Speaker at Climate Change Summit Portugal[40]
  • 2-9 August 2018, Monchique fire Silvas Portimão (Algarve-Southern Portugal) – 34 injured people, none killed. Population refused order of authorities to evacuate houses. They would have burnt on the roads. So they stayed and saved their goods and lives. TV direct: “A political crime in times of freedom!”[33]
  • 16 August 2018 – “strong radiation” in the afternoon in our region, an incredible heat in and outside the houses, with dark black clouds, hanging deep under the sky. About one third of the old pine trees that had obviously survived the October 2017 fire suffered here a second attack of radiation and started to die completely. Also a sudden white powder on the top of the trees had been observed by farmers. Has aluminum been sprayed? Eight months after the disaster, another dying of pine trees started, after they had become green again in the spring 2018.
  • 24 September 2018 – “Portugal Space 2019-2030″/”Portugal Espaco”[41]
  • One of the largest military producers of laser weapons and spaceships, Martin Lockheed Corporation from California, also based in Ireland, Scotland and Canada … will be part of the Portuguese “Space Port.”[42] Thanks to Josefina Fraile – Skyguards – Spain for this information.[43] We wonder if, unfortunately, these laser weapons have been used in Portugal, California, Sweden, Italy and Greece.
  • 7 November 2018 – Announcements of Largest Lithium Mine of Europe in Northern Portugal under Savannah Resources. Australian Lithium Industry is opening in 2020. Lithium not only for smart phones, computers, and cars but also for satellites and spaceships[44]
  • We believe that there could be a connection between the NASA Project Portugal Space 2019-30, the national lithium industry and the vast forest fires in 2017/18, for some geographical zones to be “re-organized” to serve the new industrial objectives. Electric Car Industry, AI is to be installed and 5G (=DEW) is easily to be used, after taking the forest away on hundreds of square kilometers.
  • 5G Is War on Humanity (May 2018)[48] – Claire Edwards, UN Staff Member, Editor and Trainer in Intercultural Writing, United Nations (1999-2017)

2019 

  • On 8 February 2019, the Groups Why Fire and Céus Limpos organized together with local artists the exhibit “Forest Fires 2017, Questions and Answers” at the council of Oliveira do Hospital.  Thanks to Annie Moreels, painter and political investigator for our region and for Portugal.
  • 16 February 2019 – “Climate Engineering” – A subtle way to control the population on Planet Earth?” Symposium in the council’s library, organized by Group Why Fire and supported by Group Céus Limpos.
  • 5-7 March 2019, Climate Change Leadership Porto 2019,[46] Al Gore as special guest speaker in “Solutions for the Wine Industry” (False Flag – Climate Change Event)
  • 1 May 2019 – Portugal Raises the Stakes in the Lithium Market[47], Portugal plans to open a lithium licensing auction in May, as part of an ongoing bid to expand their lithium production, streamline their refinement process, and become a major power in the global energy market.
  • 28-31 May 2019 – ECCA 2019 CCB, Lisbon[48] Fourth European Climate Change Adaptation Conference, Working together to prepare for change. About ECCA: The biennial European Climate Change Adaptation conference is convened by EU-funded projects on behalf of the European Commission. (False Flag – Climate Change Event)
  • June 2019 – 2nd Festival, “Environment for Life” Organized by Group Why Fire

2020 

  • February 2020 – National Manifest against Plans for Mineral Extraction in Portugal signed by over 15 Environmental National Organizations.[49]

Acknowledgements and Appreciation

We thank very much Benjamin Levy from Lisbon, (Holistic and Transpersonal Therapist and Geoengineering Investigator), Group Why Fire and Group Céus Limpos, and the council of Oliveira do Hospital for collaboration and hosting events.

Many thanks to Elana Freeland, Jamie Lee and Rick Duarte, who have sent us so much information from the California fires which occurred at the same time, for our comparative investigation in Portugal. (Elana Freeland books: 2014, 2018)[50]

I appreciate all the interdisciplinary work from the editor of this book, Claudia v. Werlhof from Germany/Austria, having introduced me to these international scientists and accepted me in her group where I discovered the Planetary Movement Mother Earth: “From weapon to wreckage – the abuse of the Earth as a mega-machine”[51]

Other important collaborating scientists for research in Portugal are Judy Wood from USA,[52] Harry Rhodes and Terry Lawton from Great Britain[53] and Robert Deutsch from Australia[54] as well to Maria Heibel from Italy[55]. Many thanks to Maria João Gaspar Oliveira[56], Paulo Silva[57], Guido Verrier[58], Annie Moreels, Rita Martins, Laura Wilson, João M. Félix Galizes and Trevor[59] for all the important interdisciplinary work in Portugal and to Pierre Teuber, who rescued my life once I discovered the spraying in 2014. Suddenly I did not know how to breathe anymore and how to find protection. He introduced me into the old native technique of Energy Vortex, to clean the air around our house and vegetable garden and how to raise energy and consciousness. This method is being practiced by more people here in the region. Merci![60]

Many thanks also to Franz Miller (Austria) for all his information and to Linda Leblanc (Cyprus) for her revision and patience in reviewing this article.

Every single person is important, to make the change, to expose the truth, and to stay connected with our planet Earth. The movement against geoengineering is growing. Nature is giving back to us!

THANK YOU ALL VERY MUCH for your advice and responding to all our questions. Peace and thanks to all who make this movement happen. Please continue “keeping an eye” on Portugal!

Obrigada!

Notes

[1] Jornal Diário de Notícias: Environment, 29th July 2018, Ricardo J. Rodrigues, Eukalyptus has five times more support than native forest, https://www.dn.pt/edicao-do-dia/29-jul-2018/interior/-eucaliptos-tem-cinco-vezes-mais-apoio-do-que-floresta-nativa-9650078.html

[2] London South East, Savannah Resources (SAV):  September 2018, http://www.lse.co.uk/ShareChat.asp?ShareTicker=SAV&thread=629DABBD-230E-46FF-94E4-D9A45DC771C8&page=20
https://www.savannahresources.com/cms/wp-content/uploads/2018/09/Portugal-Resource-Upgrade.pdf

[3] Single European Sky ATM Research (SESAR) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Single_European_Sky_ATM_Research#Project

[4] Jornal Expresso: 24.09.3018, Virgílio Azevedo, Governo lança concurso internacional para instalar base espacial nos Açores
https://expresso.sapo.pt/sociedade/2018-09-24-Governo-lanca-concurso-internacional-para-instalar-base-espacial-nos-Acores?fb_ref=aY_0nrmXwK-Facebook

[5] Digital Trends: March 7, 2015, by Jason Hahn, https://www.digitaltrends.com/cool-tech/lockheed-martins-newest-laser-weapon-can-destroy-a-trucks-engine-from-a-mile-away/

[6] Estrela Geopark, Portugal: www.geoparkestrela.pt

[7] Group Why Fire / Grupo Céus Limpos: Co-Production Video Channel – Witnesses Forest Fire Portugal, October 2017 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kE1-tNVmEC4&feature=youtu.be

[8] Portuguese Parliament:  12th October 2017, Report of Independent Technical Commission, Portuguese Government, Forest fire 17 – 24 June 2017, page 12, https://www.parlamento.pt/Documents/2017/Outubro/Relat%C3%B3rioCTI_VF%20.pdf
Relatório Comissão Técnica Independente, Assembleia da República, Portugal, October 12, 2017, “O facto de tal ter sucedido antes do início do verão e à hora do dia em que normalmente diminui a severidade das condições meteorológicas presumivelmente afetou a perceção de risco por parte dos operacionais. A … MODIFICAÇÃO DO COMPORTAMENTO do fogo não poderia ser prevista por nenhum serviço de emergências em Portugal ou na Europa. “O incêndio de Pedrogão Grande é, portanto, um exemplo e um aviso … para enfrentar um novo problema com raiz nas alterações climáticas.”

[9]  Wikipedia: Forest fires Portugal 2017, https://pt.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inc%C3%AAndios_florestais_em_Portugal_de_outubro_de_2017

[10] Dr. Rosalie Bertell: “PLANET EARTH – The Latest Weapon of War”, 2. German Ed.2013, p. 445 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vladivostok_Summit_Meeting_on_Arms_Control

[11]  Benjamim Levy: Geoengineering Investigator and Holistic Therapist, Lisbon, http://despertar.eterhum.com

[12] Tiago Lopes: www.warsphere.blogspot.pt

[13]  Conny Kadia: www.chemtrailsportugal.netpack.pt

[14]  Public Petition against Geoengineering, Portugal: February 2017, http://peticaopublica.com/pview.aspx?pi=P2012N21770

[15]  Prof. Filipe Duarte Santos, Dept. of Sciences of the University of Lisbon and Director of the National Committee of Environment and Sustainable Development (CNADS), 05th November 2017https://www.bitchute.com/video/73FCD44UCnEr/?fbclid=IwAR3FTr3I0yACNGr0KaumbVQqICJVXM7VyDISCx3CQLCUAJOYVQJzJovmEBM

[16] Conny Kadia: https://www.chemtrailsportugal.netpack.pt/Panfletos%20Ceu%20Limpo%20Portugal.html

[17] Jornal O Tabuense: https://www.chemtrailsportugal.netpack.pt/Art%20ck%20Tabuense%2015.01.2018.pdf

[18] Conny Kadia: https://chemtrailsportugal.netpack.pt/Public%20Relation%20Climat%20Engineering%20Portugal.html

[19] Fire Aviation: Bill Gabbert, August 2015,Helitorch video, https://fireaviation.com/tag/helitorch/

[20] Franz Miller: http://www.franzmiller.at/websites/climate-engineering.html

[21] Jornal de Notícias: Video dokumentation of fire, October 2017, https://www.jn.pt/local/videos/interior/drone-mostra-devastacao-causada-por-fogos-em-oliveira-do-hospital-8856835.html

[22] Dr. Manuel Feliz: Physics, Porto, Publications,2011, https://paginas.fe.up.pt/~feliz/e_paper28_chemtrails-revised.pdf
2018, Artificial Contrails, Artificial Weather, Artificial Climate­ Change? The climate scientist as an abuser and a criminal? https://yadi.sk/i/mERJ3LC13UbRYV

[23] Dr. Manuel Feliz:https://chemtrailsportugal.netpack.pt/CeuLimpo7.pdf
“O que faz pensar nahipotese de terem sido utilizados químicos inflamáveis e(ou) armas electromagnéticas e o facto de normalmente serem eles que produzem fogos desta violência, e no interior das árvores, pois a seiva é condutora eléctrica..” Buracos de 2-5cm de diâmetro na floresta em todo lado? “Mas o mais curioso nesses fogos foi, terem explodido seixos e cristais de quartzo… que ou se deveu a uma transmissão enorme de temperatura para o interior dessas rochas (600ºC), ou então explodiram por terem estado sujeitas a “oscilações forcadas de ressonância” por uma onda electromagnética… A frequência de ressonância do quartzo é basicamente a mesma que a frequência de emissão do HAARP sistema electromagnético de experimentação atmosférica, mas não só. Uma arma electromagnética movel poderia emitir nessa frequência também!”

[24] Portuguese Parliament: Report, Portugal Fires, 12th October 2017, https://www.parlamento.pt/Documents/2017/Outubro/Relat%C3%B3rioCTI_VF%20.pdf

[25] Portuguese Parliament: Report page 67, Portugal Fires, 12th October 2017, https://www.parlamento.pt/Documents/2017/Outubro/Relat%C3%B3rioCTI_VF%20.pdf  – Relatório CTI “Cerca das 20 horas e pouco (não posso precisar a hora exata) escureceu totalmente e logo de seguir surgiu uma grande bola de fogo precedida por um vento, parecido com ciclone (…). O que por aqui passou não é o fogo que vinha lavrando nos pinhais circundantes mas sim uma espécie de bomba que rebenta do nada e que abre o céu numa claridade de chamas que espalha faúlhas, ou línguas de fogo, em todas as direções. Foram essas línguas de fogo que incendiaram a minha aldeia e outras em redor.”

[26] Luís MSG: Video documentation, 17th June 2017, https://www.otempo.pt/satelite/ 

Dia 17 de Junho 2017 Incêndio Pedrogão! Informação do video: VideoTime 12:30-13:00

[27] Tiago Lopes, Group Rastos Químicos, Anti-Spraying Activism Portugal, witness report video documentation,  June 2017, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=27o0MJVxVms

[28] Roxy Lopez, http://www.thetruthdenied.com/news/2014/07/30/fires-burn-hotter-with-nano-metals-in-chemtrails/

[29] Matthew Mc Dermott: Video documentation, 13th October 2017, Tree burning from inside, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z9CKmegMIC0

[30] ALCYON PLEYADEN 68: Video documentation, 01st November 2017, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YkTeWobAX6g

[31] Conny Kadia: Forest fires Portugal, 2017, documentation, https://chemtrailsportugal.netpack.pt/incendios%20portugal%20forestfires%202017.html

[32] Peter Luis Venero: The most selective forest fire in history, December 2017, https://twitter.com/peterluisvenero/status/940074757222932480

[33] Júlio Heitor: TV Sapo Portugal, Portuguese President Marcelo Rebelo de Sousa is confronted with witnesses of Monchique Fire, Southern Portugal, August 2018, https://rr.sapo.pt/noticia/121359/marcelo-ouve-queixas-em-monchique-e-pede-compreensao-sobre-evacuacoes

[34] Jornal Zap: September 2018, https://zap.aeiou.pt/detencoes-caso-roubo-tancos-219772

[35] Jornal Diário de Notícias: Tiago Petinga, June 2017, https://www.dn.pt/portugal/interior/ministro-da-defesa-admite-que-roubo-de-material-militar-em-tancos-e-grave-8601268.html

[36] TV Europa: 29th September 2017, https://www.tveuropa.pt/noticias/ericsson-testa-e-demonstra-5g-em-portugal/

[37] Jornal Diário de Notícias: 18th October 2017, Henriques da Cunha, https://www.dn.pt/portugal/interior/pj-militar-recuperou-na-chamusca-material-roubado-em-tancos-8853123.html

[38] Artificial Intelligence Fair Lisbon: 29th October 2017, http://www.lisbon.ai/

[39] The Law Reviews: The Mining Law Review, October 2019, Erik Richer La Flèche, https://thelawreviews.co.uk/edition/the-mining-law-review-edition-6/1149548/mining-portugal

[40] Portuguese American Journal: July 2018, President Barack Obama, http://portuguese-american-journal.com/porto-president-barack-obama-guest-speaker-at-climate-change-summit-portugal/

[41] Jornal Expresso: International Announcement for Space Port “Portugal Space”, Açores Island, September 2018, https://expresso.sapo.pt/sociedade/2018-09-24-Governo-lanca-concurso-internacional-para-instalar-base-espacial-nos-Acores?fb_ref=aY_0nrmXwK-Facebook

[42] Martin Lockheed: International Military Industry, Directed Energy Weapon, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_Martin
https://www.digitaltrends.com/cool-tech/lockheed-martins-newest-laser-weapon-can-destroy-a-trucks-engine-from-a-mile-away/
https://www.siliconrepublic.com/machines/lockheed-martin-supersonic-jet-passengers

https://www.irishexaminer.com/breakingnews/technow/new-futuristic-helicopters-have-been-teased-by-us-defence-tech-firm-lockheed-martin-786159.html

[43] Josephina Fraile: Skyguards Spain, http://guardacielos.org/

[44] Slipstream Resources: November 2018, https://slipstreamresources.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/11/Portugal-Drilling-Update-7.11.18.pdfhttp://www.lse.co.uk/ShareChat.asp?ShareTicker=SAV&thread=629DABBD-230E-46FF-94E4-D9A45DC771C8&page=20

[45] Claire Edwards UN Staff Member: 5G Is War on Humanity, 2018, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lNZOtrAzJzg

[46] Climate Change Leadership: Al Gore at Climate Change Conference in Porto, October 2018, https://www.thedrinksbusiness.com/2018/10/al-gore-to-speak-at-climate-change-conference-in-porto/
Solutions for the wine industry, Porto, March 2019, https://climatechange-porto.com/

[47] Mining See: Environment & Natural Resources, Portugal raises the Stakes in the Lithium Market, May 2019, https://www.miningsee.eu/portugal-raises-the-stakes-in-the-lithium-market/

[48] European Climate Change Adaption Conference: Lisbon, May 2019, https://www.ecca2019.eu/

[49] National Resistence against Mining in Portugal – National Manifest: 17th January 2020, https://drive.google.com/file/d/11o7xZVDsnwwGsYbifrWXQjtORck49lk7/view

[50] Elana Freeland: Publications, 2014, https://www.amazon.com/Chemtrails-HAARP-Spectrum-Dominance-Planet/dp/1936239930 , 2018, https://www.amazon.com/Under-Ionized-Sky-Chemtrails-Lockdown-ebook/dp/B079LZWDTH

[51]Prof. Claudia v. Werlhof: 14.09.2015, Interview with Querdenken TV, Germany http://www.pbme-online.org/2015/09/14/prof-dr-claudia-von-werlhof-bei-quer-denken-tv/

[52] Dr. Judy D. Wood: Publication, January 2010, “Where did the Towers Go? Evidence of Directed Free-Energy Technology on 9/11” https://www.amazon.com/Judy-Wood/e/B005IF6EPM

[53] Aircrap: Alexandra May Hunter, Monitoring the Planned Poisoning of Humanity, Chemtrail Weather Forecast, https://www.aircrap.org/2016/07/27/cern-weather-satellite-weapons-chemtrails-cloud-busters/

[54] Robert Deutsch Weather Page: www.zerogeoengineering.com/2017/rob-ds-weather-page/

[55] Maria Heibl: http: //www.nogeoingegneria.com/category/news-eng/

[56] Maria João Gaspar Oliveira: https://www.facebook.com/mariajoaogaspar.oliveira

[57] Paulo Silva: http://factos-desconhecidos-portugal.mozello.com/incendios/geoengenharia/params/post/1557682/

[58] Guido Verrier: “Why FIRE/ Céus Limpos –  Video Channel” https://chemtrailsportugal.netpack.pt/incendios%20portugal%20forestfires%202017.html

[59] Odiariodumet: https://odiariodeumet.wordpress.com/

[60] Pierre Teuber: http://regenbogenwirbler.de/


Chapter V

From Geoengineering to a New Deal for Nature: Destroying the Earth for Profit

by

Josefina Fraile

 

How Climate Deception Is Used by Military and Corporate Interests to Privatize the Global Commons with the Compliance of a Corrupted UN

The purpose of this chapter is to understand the object of the climate warming-climate change deception and the geoengineering proposal, despite the destructive threat that it poses to our environment and public health. In our search to connect the dots, we identify coincident military and corporate interests of global dominance to control global resources and global commons hindered by national sovereignties.

To this end, they created the global national security threat — climate warming — requiring a global technological solution, geoengineering, that in turn demands renouncement of national sovereignties! They also created a myriad of globalist environmental NGOs, movements, private and public institutions and chose the people in charge of issuing global environmental policies from within the United Nations to suit their goals.

The Club of Rome is one of those globalist entities which excelled in its results through many of its members, especially the late Maurice Strong and Al Gore. The Rio Earth Summit was the first of the many steps that would conduct the total corporate takeover of the United Nations on June 13, 2019, with the signature of the multistakeholders’ Memorandum of Understanding.

Our conclusion is that the climate, an essential part of our global commons, has been instrumental to achieve an old globalist agenda of one world government for control and privatization of all Earth’s resources. That agenda is now pressing (Agenda 2030) in face of publicly acknowledged free fall of capitalism, and is sold to us under misleading names such as The Green New Deal, Natural Capital, New Climate Economy, New Deal for Nature, etc., all euphemisms to save the capitalist system.

These glossy names hide a thoroughly planned “Fourth Industrial Revolution”, helmed by the World Economic Forum and the UN, whose costs exceed $100 trillion. Bringing this about will entail a global bailout paid by us (tax and pension funds), the grabbing of land and the monetization of nature at global levels by corporations operating within a corrupted United Nations. In the process, the climate warming gurus Maurice Strong and Al Gore commanded the green non-profit industrial complex for social engineering and for social consent to this insanity by means of indoctrination, creation and manipulation of global climate movements.

Geoengineering, a military weapon for full spectrum dominance, is the key instrument in the globalist agenda promoted by the United Nations that will hold together this gigantic “House of Cards” built on a climate warming deception, setting the stage of the global warming proof and climate chaos, in charge of NATO, under the guise of civil defence programs, right on schedule.

It is a lengthy paper but it covers four decades with much relevant information not usually treated by mainstream mass media, on a subject that regards the gravest issue taking place today, with capacity to destroy our planet as we know it: geoengineering. Hopefully it will be of help to take a firm stand on it.

Understanding the Object of Climate Deception and Geoengineering

Climate Warming, Climate Change and Geoengineering: The Official Scenario

According to the official premises, anthropogenic emissions of greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide (CO2) alter the balance of terrestrial radiation, potentially posing climate change risks to present and future generations.

The United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change calls for the reduction of greenhouse gases that interfere with the climate system (UNFCC1992). The reduction of these gases addresses the problem at its root but this method would be too slow and expensive (Barker et al 2007, Keller et al 2007, Nordhaus 2008)[1], so alternatives are proposed such as engineering the climate system (e.g., Keith 2000, COSEPUP 1992, Carlin 2007, Crutzen 2006, Teller et al, 2003, Wigley 2006, Blackstock et al 2009)[1]. Of all geoengineering technologies and strategies, dispersing aerosols in the atmosphere to increase terrestrial albedo is considered the most effective and cheapest way to reduce global temperatures (Nordhaus 2001; Wigley 2006; Shepherd et al 2009)[1].

The arguments are mainly based on cost-benefit studies, leaving aside other essential parameters such as the impact of geoengineering on the environment, safety, public health, etc., and legal, moral or ethical aspects. In fact, the analysis for the decision to implement geoengineering strategies assumed that it did not pose any risk, or even that it was benign for the environment!

Wigley (2006)[1] also thought that a modest investment in geoengineering could reduce substantially the economic and technological burden of mitigating the climate, postponing the need to reduce emissions in the short term. It is shocking when one realizes that these are the advisors of the most powerful governments of the world. Crutzen 2006[2], the expert from the Congress of Deputies of the Kingdom of Spain and also from the Pontifical Academy of Sciences, affirms that if the positive effects outweigh the negative ones, the option of albedo modification should be considered. This is without any regard for issues of impact on the environment and on the public health. Nor is it clear who determines what a positive or negative effect should be.

Admitted Risks of Geoengineering

Some authors made objections, pointing out various risks of geoengineering which, although limited to the stratosphere and leaving out the terrestrial impact, are not minor:

  1. If the atmospheric dispersal of aerosols were to be suppressed, for example, in the case of war or as a consequence of the abandonment of an international agreement (such as Trump’s), or of the discovery of major negative effects, the result would be one of abrupt warming to unprecedented levels in the history of modern societies and would cause enormous economic damage (Lempert et al 2000, Matthews and Caldeira 2007, Nordhaus 1004a)[1].
  2. Aerosol geoengineering would destroy polar ozone (Tilmes et al 2008)[1] and affect natural ecosystems and human health (Solomon 2008)[1]. Aerosol geoengineering would not counteract the acidification of the ocean caused by the reaction between CO2 and seawater (Shepherd et al 2009)[1]. Ocean acidification can have a negative impact on coral colonies and the species that depend on them (Feeley et al 2004, Stoll et al 2007)[1].
  3. Finally, aerosol geoengineering and aerosol concentrations can affect the properties of the climate system, such as El Niño (Adams et al 2003)[1], rain and temperature patterns (Rasch et al 2008, Trenberth and Dai 2007)[1] and the summer monsoons of Africa and Asia (Robock et al 2008)[1].

This brief list of risks is not exhaustive but enough to suggest that analysis of geoengineering strategies requires consideration of the risks of geoengineering (Jamieson 1996, Keith 2000, Robock 2008, Schneider and Broecker 2007)[1]. Geographer Allan Robock cites 20 reasons why geoengineering is a bad idea but continues working on it.

It is evident that geoengineering has become for these researchers their modus vivendi and that they will persist in their delusions for as long as society allows it.

However, in our opinion, the greatest problem with clandestine geoengineering as well as with “academic geoengineering”, being a military weapon, is what it hides from beginning to end. We have no reason to believe that they will tell us the truth, bad as it is, after four decades of global climate deception, propaganda, manipulation and social engineering. We are convinced that as in the case of fracking we will never be told what are the real materials being aerosolized in our troposphere which will allow for a fast assessment, diagnosis and treatment of its impact on our environment and public health, mainly because they will never facilitate us owning the burden of proof to demand accountability to governments and corporations.

Another Vision of Geoengineering: Impacts on the Environment and Public Health

The American scientist, John von Neumann, wondered if we could survive technology. In 1995, he wrote that climate control by solar radiation management was irrational. In his opinion, “it would alter the planet in its entirety, break down the existing political order, cause the interests of each nation to clash with those of other nations, and provoke completely unimaginable forms of war.” He compared climate control with the nuclear threat (J. Fleming 2010)[3].

From the human point of view, after the atomic bomb, geoengineering is the most serious issue which threatens the survival of the planet. However, despite this, the debate on the subject is being confined to academic and scientific circles and the controversial decision to intervene in the natural climate systems is being taken behind the backs of the billions of citizens of this world by people who are not legitimized to do so.

The so-called geoengineers, incidentally protected by the Convention of the Privileges and Immunities of the United Nations, are claiming legitimization on the grounds of extreme weather events, the failure of CO2 mitigation measures and in face of political institutions not backing geoengineering openly for fear of paying the political price. On top of this anti-democratic dynamic, some social scientists from universities such as Oxford, with its “Oxford Principles,” claim the role of interface between citizens and geoengineers, arrogating to themselves the representation of society in this grand theatrical play. In this way, everything remains “within the family.” It is widely known that geoengineers talk about geoengineering as a hypothetical technological fix to cool the Earth in case it should be needed, without any field trial. How reassuring! Ten thousand years of civilization played on a single card! As the Romans said: explicatio non petita accusatio manifesta! (He who excuses himself, accuses himself). Certainly, the evidence points out to the opposite conclusion as it coincides fully with the list of causes and effects described in much of their “scientific” literature.

Shielding the Sun with Aerosols Means a Frontal Attack on Life

More and more farmers worldwide are denouncing atmospheric phenomena that they have never seen before and that they do not understand but whose consequences are a substantial loss of soil productivity. Extended in time and space, it could cause a serious food crisis. They report abnormal formation of clouds, disappearance of rain clouds from one moment to the next, obscuration of the sun by a strange white layer that prevents the ripening of fruits, promotes the colonization of trees by fungi and lichens causing the forest to die, the spreading of strange wildfires, crop decline or failure, the occurrence of aluminum particles in soil and rainwater, and the rise of serious health problems.

The following intervention abstract was presented to the Second Conference on Climate Engineering by IASS in Berlin 2017, on behalf of the Spanish farmer, Marcos Alonso, aimed at questioning the geoengineers who participated in it. The proposal was discarded, like so many other critical interventions on the subject:

As a farmer I spend my days in the fields, keeping a caring eye on the development of crops and the related environmental factors. Until very recently farmers had the knowledge of their profession transmitted from generation to generation for ages. They were able to interpret the sky, the clouds and the wind without mathematical models, we knew how to determine the humidity of the soil and the wellbeing of the plants without sensors or latest technological means, and we knew how to find solutions to it. This is not true anymore. In the last decade farmers have witnessed a very odd behaviour of natural weather patterns linked to the aerosol dispersal in the sky which is altering solar light and the weather, destroying the clouds, decimating crops and deteriorating plant life with the disappearance of many species. The aluminum rate in ecological soil has passed in one year from 5.680 mg/kg to 19.300 mg/kg and the titanium rate from 100 mg/kg to 1.500 mg/kg. These materials match with those proposed by geoengineers for climate modification purposes. We have no rain, a poisoned soil and many health problems. These are real facts, not models or academic geoengineering hypothesis. It is obvious that what is dispersed up will come down to Earth. Anyone of you has considered the impact of this contamination for plants, animals and people? So I plead you to stop this madness.

Obscuring the sun with aerosols is a frontal attack on life and must have criminal charges at the highest level. Sunlight is not only essential for the process of photosynthesis, production, reproduction and ripening for plants, for the evapotranspiration and creation of clouds, but also for the immune system and human health. To this scientific aberration has been added the aberration of silence on the part of the scientific community. Among the few exceptions stands Dr. Marvin Herndon[4], who affirms that geoengineering is actually being carried out with a deadly impact on the terrestrial biota, including human beings, and that the main material used in the climate manipulation programs is coal fly ash, coal combustion residues from power plants.

Coal fly ash is extremely toxic, containing neurodegenerative elements such as aluminum, barium, mercury, etc., which would explain the alarming rise of cases of Alzheimer’s, Parkinson’s or childhood and juvenile autism throughout the world, but also of respiratory diseases and lung cancers. Dr Herndon[5] et al. conclude that these geoengineering programs are not only not alleviating global warming but they are generating it. In addition, they have found that deadly ultraviolet radiation UV-B and UV-C are now penetrating the Earth’s surface “with devastating effects on humans, phytoplankton, coral, insects and plants”.[6]

Photomicrograph made with a scanning electron microscope (SEM) and back-scatter detector: cross section of fly ash particles at 750× magnification (Licensed under CC BY-SA 3.0)

In their view the aerial spraying of coal fly ash “places vast amounts of chlorine, bromine, fluorine and iodine into the atmosphere all of which can deplete the ozone layer.” This finding challenges the scientific consensus of the Montreal Protocol stipulating that the Ozone layer blocks the deadly portion of solar radiation, UV-C and most UV-B, from reaching the Earth’s surface. NASA knew that UV-B and UV-C reached Earth’s surface since 2007 (D’Antoni et al 2007), but:

Despite the implications of NASA’s 2007 findings for atmospheric science and despite their profound implications for human and environmental health, NASA failed to conduct a follow up investigation… This inaction begs the question: Is NASA complicit in a covert global activity, such as military ‘national defence’ aerial jet-spraying of toxic coal fly ash that poses serious risks to life on Earth?

Geoengineering: A Tool for Spoliation and Concentration of Property that Threatens Food Sovereignty

Geoengineering, which by its nature encompasses complementary agendas such as biotechnology with genetically modified organisms (GMO) among others, synthetic engineering, artificial intelligence, nanotechnologies and nanomaterials, supercomputing, quantum computing, energy, power and telecommunications grid, satellites, etc., is not only a vector of infinite corporate interests, but a geopolitical weapon and a definite threat to the global food sovereignty. This is not only because he who has the power to control the tap of the world controls the markets and the economy, determining who will live and who will die, but also because it is a tool of spoliation and transfer of land from the poor to the wealthy. Technological droughts and contamination by materials dispersed in the atmosphere for the purpose of manipulating the climate impair the productivity of the soil. The same could be said in the case of transgenic seeds designed to withstand high levels of aluminum, water stress and ultraviolet radiation put in the market incidentally, by multinationals like Monsanto, Bayer, DuPont and Syngenta.

In this situation small farmers sell their land at bargain prices, either to foreign corporations or to international consortiums of unknown origins, which under the umbrella of environmental restorations projects have access to the land for a small rent with the right to purchase. In fact, whoever has the land but does not have the water has nothing, whereas whoever has the means to acquire land and the technology to restore it and to control the weather or the climate, has it all.

In this light, considering its global scale and its military origins, geoengineering is above all a geopolitical tool that violates fundamental human rights and could be used to achieve a full spectrum dominance, aka one world government for global control of resources through technological dominion, implying the colonization and privatization of a global common: the atmosphere.

The Right to be Informed and the Duty to Rebel

Denied all public and parliamentary debate on a matter of the utmost importance to humanity as geoengineering, and in the face of misinformation, deception and denial policies by governments involved, we citizens have the right to be informed and the duty to rebel against the total helplessness to which we are subjected in order to organize our own defence. In this respect, it is necessary and unavoidable to transcend with courage the mantle of darkness that surrounds us and seek the truth; questioning in the process the role of the institutions to which we have erroneously entrusted our faith and the fate of our planet because we have been betrayed by them all.

The well-known American astronomer Carl Sagan[7], in an interview shortly before his death in 1996, warned that in a time of scientific and technological progress, whoever makes the decisions in science and technology will determine the future of our children. However, those that legislate in Congress have no scientific or technological background posing a danger, so that this combustible mixture of ignorance and power will explode in our faces. Did Sagan ignore that actually our congressmen limit themselves to pass laws made by corporations directly involved in science and technologies without any public scrutiny? Will the combustible mixture of greed and power on the part of corporations explode in our faces? We are heading to it because corporations do not care for anything outside profits and this does not necessarily guarantee a betterment of mankind future.

However Carl Sagan’s best warning relates to scientific scepticism. He warned that science is much more than a body of knowledge, it is a way of thinking, a sceptical way of questioning the universe with a subtle understanding of human power. If we are not able to ask sceptical questions to those who tell us that something is true, to be sceptical of those who maintain authority, we are ready for a political religiosity. Sagan recalled President Jefferson who wanted to give citizens the constitutional right to be educated and to practice scepticism in education as a tool to direct the government rather than the government directing the citizenry. It is from this standing that this article will proceed.

Origins of a Political, Scientific and Social Fraud

The spirit of Kyoto inherited from the Rio Summit made its 21st century debut with a political and social mania on a global scale around the concept of climate change, projecting it into all spheres of life, dance, art, poetry, cinema, literature, journalism, schools, universities, research, agricultures, energy, transport, technology, politics, associative activism, geopolitics, etc., a by-product of decades of total immersion in the subject led by the United Nations. Everything suggested that the interest in the environment of this organization was innate and genuine. Was it?

During the first two decades of its existence, the UN was content to apply the politics of adapting resources to economic development. It was not until the early 1970s when the Board of Directors of the United Nations Environment Program (UNEP) was created and when the United Nations Scientific Conference became aware of the environmental issues that led it to organize the First Earth Summit in Stockholm in 1972. This summit focused on the impact and control of agricultural pollutants, ten years after Rachel Carson published her outstanding book on the subject, Silent Spring.

Curiously, this summit also exposed the impact of human activities on the climate that caused it to change. However, it was not until the 1980s that the United Nations expressed its concern for the ozone layer, acid rain and climate change, making clear the interrelation between industrial development and the environment. In 1988, UNEP and the World Meteorological Organization created the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) to become the world authority on the subject.

In 1990, during the Second World Climate Conference, climate was presented as a global problem that required a global response, laying the foundation for a framework of international agreements aimed at protecting the global environment which would materialize in the Rio Earth Summit Declaration and Agenda 21 in 1992, culminating in the Kyoto Protocol in 1997. The objective of this protocol was to return to the levels of CO2 emissions recorded in 1990, which meant reducing emissions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases of industrialized countries by at least 5% between 2008 and 2012. The Kyoto Protocol entered into force on February 16, 2005 after seven years of negotiation between 160 countries.

From the Dishonour of Climate-gate to the Indignity of the Paris Summit

The catastrophist narrative of global warming/climate change linked to the rights of future generations and to the practice of sustainable development in order to promote wider acceptance of the necessary adjustments suffered a severe setback in 2007 as a consequence of the “Climate Gate” scandal. In fact, after the publication of emails from the scientists of the Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia (UK), conclusions were drawn of a manipulation of data and measurements to justify and maintain the theory of anthropogenic global warming refuted by a large number of relevant scientists.

The subsequent Copenhagen Summit on Climate Change in 2009 would result in total failure due to the impossibility of setting emissions reduction quotas and not achieving the commitment of the different countries to them. This background determined the script for the Climate Summit in Paris 2015, one needing to project the image of total success or else the individual credibility of the participating states and the collective credibility of the United Nations, UNEP, WMO, IPCC, etc., would be undermined.

The Paris Summit concluded as expected, despite having been the first militarized summit in history under the state of emergency which allowed for a brutal repression of the environmental activists. The overwhelming images of victory of the world leaders were shown over and over in the television screens of the world. After the fireworks, however, the storyline clashed head-on with the force or the facts: CO2 emissions not only had not been reduced in all those years of barren negotiations, but they had increased, without registering any rise in global temperatures. In spite of that, geoengineering was the covert story in the Paris Climate Agreements that governments had signed. But media did not write one single line on it.

The Declaration by the United Nations of the Universal Human Rights on 10 December 1948 in Paris was a milestone in its incipient history. Ironically on 12 December 2015 in Paris, 67 years later, the same institution revoked, de facto, its most sacred foundational charter allowing for the eradication of Human Rights from the Agreements of the Paris Climate Treaty to be signed by all governments.[8] This is a revealing fact as to who really runs the United Nations and as to what their real intentions are. The same can be said in regards to our own respective countries. How is it possible, in face of such moral institutional degeneration, that any government pretending to represent its citizens could have even considered signing that Treaty? However they have. So the message to global citizens is clear enough. Whatever is in the globalist agenda, geoengineering included, is not compatible with human rights, much less with the rights of nature. Yet, they will have the courage to sell us with glossy titles that mankind is at the centre of their sinister agendas. The fact of having eradicated the human rights from the Paris Climate Agreement is enough to revoke not only the Paris Treaty but also the legitimacy of the United Nations to represent and defend humanity and the common good. In addition, the legal mandate of all political representatives that have signed the Paris Treaty must also be revoked, being cause of non-eligibility in future elections.

Trump Questions Climate Change and Abandons the Paris Agreements

The failure of more than 30 years of costly international meetings was even more evident when the new president of the United States, Donald Trump, a climate change sceptic, abandoned in late 2017 the agreements signed by President Obama, plunging the movement of global climate change – institutions, governments, agencies and environmental associations – into a deep shock. That movement only seemed to find consolation in the systematic disqualification of the American leader instead of in self-criticism. Standing at these existential crossroads, the question is not who will now pay the share of the United States, or who will occupy the vacant leadership, the question should revolve around the grounds for their reasons. After all, we are responsible for playing this game with the dice loaded against us from the moment we deliberately replaced science for scientific consensus, a fact which has led many renowned scientists to state that global warming/climate change is the greatest scientific fraud in history.

In this situation the European Union is called on to be the new locomotive of climate change. The time for truth in geoengineering issues has come for this institution, accustomed to hiding behind the EU. That is the good news. The bad news is that emulating Trump and as geoengineering is essentially a military science, Europe will develop the military sector in detriment of everything else. A European armed force will be built in short term which will demand investments of 5.5[9] billion per year from member states, pushing forward the public debt which, in exchange, will not be submitted to deficit rules.

Geoengineering, a Kafkian Scheme that Does Not Tackle the CO2 Problem

We will approach this in steps. The apparent impotence of an all-powerful institution such as the United Nations in achieving essential environmental objectives to protect life on the planet, such as the reduction of greenhouse gases resulting from the combustion of fossil fuels, without changing a clearly homicidal development model, is outlined here. The failure of these objectives, attributed to the lack of consensus on the part of the politicians of the world on such a dire issue for humanity as climate change, would oblige this institution to propose measures that would exclusively benefit the energy industries responsible for the damage, given that the proposed technological solution, geoengineering or climate manipulation would allow, by means of Solar Radiation Management technologies, lowering the temperature of the planet without having to put limits on the use of those fossil energies that supposedly generate its warming.

Image below: Francisco José de Goya y Lucientes – The sleep of reason produces monsters (No. 43), from Los Caprichos – Google Art Project (Source: Public Domain)

Francisco José de Goya y Lucientes - The sleep of reason produces monsters (No. 43), from Los Caprichos - Google Art Project.jpg

This scheme can only be described as Kafkian. The image that appears before the eyes of an astonished society seems to be taken from the painting Goya’s Dreams. Can all this be real? Could we even imagine that it was not? Do we live in a parallel reality? Are the United Nations’ efforts to protect the planet genuine? Can such institution, a nation of nations, maintain its credibility and continue as if nothing had happened after such a cluster of failures? Or worse yet, has this organization any moral legitimacy to defend the planet after its covert solution in the Paris Agreement of resorting to geoengineering in order to solve a problem created on demand? Could there possibly be any more irresponsibility and dereliction of duty on the part of the politicians of the world in the face of such a precarious juncture? Who then governs the ship of our states and who dictates the policies under which we suffer? Is there any alternative for society to having to choose between dying of heat, hunger, drowning or poisoning? Where are the responsible scientists of the world, teachers, the media, the activists of life and ecology? Where are our institutions, our armies, prosecutors, judges and doctors standing up undaunted to history’s greatest organized crime against humanity? Where are the religions of the world? Where are we, as human beings, consumers of products of the system, lies included, and voters of the politicians that make up those governments that neither defend us nor represent us? Where has the collective moral conscience of the human race and its instinct for survival gone? Why do we pull away so quickly from the truth to take refuge in the thoughtlessness of technological slavery, yielding at each step of unrecoverable freedoms and rights won with blood through the ages? Answering some of these questions is the purpose of the following pages.

Determinants and Euphemisms for Climate Summit Agreements

Perhaps to understand as a society the folly of a situation that seems implausible to us, like the failure of climate summits after decades of negotiation, or the inability of our politicians to reach agreements on issues apparently as vital as climate change – that they have classified at the level of national security — we should know two fundamental things. The first one is that statutorily the agreements of the summits cannot in any case go against the interest of the parties. And the second one is that agreements are not binding. The interests of the parties are economic, financial and geopolitical. Hence their calculations do not match over the decades, specially since those interests change with each tactical move in the chessboard of globalisation. It is also convenient to clarify the euphemism, “the interests of the parties” which, as one might expect, does not refer to all the parties equally, but to the Parties whose economies are hegemonic in the world, since the other can say little being in the belly of the big fish.

Among those hegemonic economies we find that of the United States whose first industry is war, China, the European Union, Russia, Saudi Arabia or Japan. Little is known too about the Treaty of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) in 1992, prohibiting that any future treaties on climate change affect the international commerce. Needless to say that this prohibition hinders any effective political action to fight climate change. So, the treaties put out by the United Nations in the name of the common good, deliberately drive political leaders to a dead-end road, justifying the need for its Plan B, the application of geoengineering.

Geoengineering: The Keystone of the Military Industrial Complex

In the necessary exercise of separating the wheat from the chaff in this mess of hidden agendas, disguised as “common good”, we highlight the keywords which illustrate the two sides of the same coin: environmental protection, sustainable development, future generations, fossil fuels, global warming, climate change, scientific consensus, interest of the parties, climate emergency, geoengineering, national security, military issue and military spending.

From a bird’s eye view, we perceive a complex architecture which, starting from the general interest, progressively acquires a firm military character with geoengineering as the keystone. It is as if all the failures of reducing CO2 emissions in each negotiation of the different climate summits have been tactical failures to arrive at geoengineering as an ”Arc de Triomphe” through which the military sector enters joyfully.

It is a vicious circle in which the beginning and the end are superimposed. But the thread of civil and military interests in this plot is clear. It is what President Eisenhower called the powerful military industrial complex from whose influence the sovereignty of parliamentary decisions had to be protected. We will therefore focus on analysing this keystone and attempt to connect the dots. 

The ENMOD Convention of the United Nations Opens the Door to Geoengineering

Geoengineering is defined as the deliberate manipulation of climate to alleviate man-made global warming. The same pattern of the atomic bomb is repeated here. The civilian applications of the nuclear weapon with the beautiful name of “Atoms for Peace”, would give birth to a nuclear industry where the waste was used to make bombs. Geoengineering is the civilian application of such a weapon of mass destruction, used in Project Popeye during the Vietnam War from 1965 to 1973, although it was denied in its day by the Secretary of Defence. Consequently, and at the request of the USSR, the United Nations adopted the ENMOD Convention in 1977[10] that bans weapons of environmental manipulation for war or hostile purposes, deliberately leaving the door open to the use of these technologies for civil purposes, i.e. geoengineering.

Such is the case that the Nagoya Convention on Biological Diversity in 2010 states the need for a moratorium on geoengineering, claiming the precautionary principle. This moratorium is basically a dead letter as experiments in a “closed environment” would be justified for scientific purposes. Logic tells us that no country whose first national industry was war would ignore the opportunity to enhance a technology of environmental and climatic warfare that would give it decisive advantages over its enemies on the battlefield. Therefore, in face of a legal ban on the use of such a weapon for military purposes, the tactical solutions of turning the sock inside out was imposed. The answer was to create a global problem that demanded a global political solution and above all a technological one, knowing well which country would take the lead.

The problem would be that of global warming linked to CO2 whose solution, championed by the United Nations and aimed at its reduction, known as Plan A would end in a political failure that would justify the technological solution of Plan B: Geoengineering. In fact, it is bad enough to have a Plan A because that made it presage a Plan B, but the times match. The United States took four years to sign the ENMOD Convention and it seems that the biologists who drafted it went directly to work on issues of global warming, just at a time when scientific vision of an upcoming mini ice age prevailed, as we can read in press articles published at the time. The creation itself of the IPCC in 1988 was not neutral in intent. Its objectives, aimed at consolidating the theory of global warming around a scientific consensus, would leave in evidence a political praxis to the detriment of a scientific one since science is not consensus nor is consensus science. The purging of scientists who were sceptics of global warming, who did not support the conflation of this consensus with science within the IPCC, illustrates the gap within science serving interests that have little to do with the truth.

Climate Scientists, Military Taboo and Geoengineering

How are we to understand this unhealthy distortion in the search for truth, which is what science is all about, made by climate scientists, regardless of whether they were sceptical or believers in global warming? How is it possible that neither camp had taken into consideration, in the framework of their research, the impact on climate of more than 60 years of civil and military programs of manipulation of weather and climate? How can it be that they have not considered in that equation over 2,000 nuclear explosions in the atmosphere? How on earth can they deny ongoing clandestine geoengineering?

It is evident that both the global warming scientists and the detractors preferred to avoid the untouchable military sector and its war activities to ensure the financing of its present and future research. This is inexcusable because if we were to identify a single predator of the planet, either in times of peace or in times of war, which it could never be granted the benefit of the doubt, that is the military sector. One might wonder where then science was but it would be a rhetorical question. Science gave up on its mission to serve light and life since World War I, moving on to the dark side of the massive destruction caused by chemical, biological, radiological, nuclear and environmental weapons in the hands of the military sector and its uncontrollable craving for domination which, not content with having its own death scientists on the payroll, has deeply contaminated civil and university scientific research completely militarizing them with the help of an infallible method: the fragmentation of knowledge that would impede an integrated and global vision.

In this militaristic perspective, we can quote here the statement made in 2012 by the aerospace and defence advisor Matt Andersson, ex-director of Booz Allen Hamilton, one of the Pentagon’s largest military contractors.

Few in the civil sector fully understand that geoengineering is primarily a military science and has nothing to do with either cooling the planet or lowering carbon emissions. While seemingly fantastical, weather has been weaponized. At least four countries – the US, Russia, China and Israel – possess the technology and organization to regularly alter weather and geologic events for various military and black operations, which are tied to secondary objectives, including demographic, energy and agricultural resource management.

Indeed, warfare now includes the technological ability to induce, enhance or direct cyclonic events, earthquakes, drought and flooding, including the use of polymerized aerosol viral agents and radioactive particulates carried through global weather systems (emphasis mine). Various themes in public debate, including global warming, have unfortunately been subsumed into much larger military and commercial objectives that have nothing to do with broad public environmental concerns. These include the gradual warming of polar regions to facilitate naval navigation and resource extraction.[11]

Time gave right to Matt Andersson one year later. China deployed its first freight ship through the Artic in 2013 and opened the Artic Route to Europe in September 2018. In June 2019 the Observer writes: Mike Pompeo, Secretary of State, praises climate change in the Artic as “New Opportunities for Trade”. Presently the US, Russia, Canada, Denmark and Norway are asserting rights to shipping lanes, informs the Wall Street Journal.

In tune with Matt Andersson, Professor Michel Chossudovsky states that:

The Pentagon’s global military design is one of world conquest. The military deployment of US-NATO forces is occurring in several regions of the world simultaneously.[12]

On his part, Jacob Darwin Hamblin in his book, Arming Mother Nature (2013) argues that military planning for World War III created the catastrophic environmentalism: The idea that human activity might cause global natural disasters… searching for ways to harness natural processes to kill millions of people. In this perspective he describes how NATO scientists found prospects for environmental warfare and alteration of world climate since 1962[13]. The historical manifestations of the interest in manipulating the climate for reasons of military dominations have been abundant since President Eisenhower said in 1954 that the first country that controlled the climate would dominate the world. In that year, his Advisory Committee on Climate Control explicitly recognized the military potential of climate modification, warning in its report that it could become a more important weapon than the atomic bomb. President Johnson, obsessed with winning the space race, affirmed:

“From space we will manage to control the Earth’s climate, to cause floods and droughts, to reverse the direction of marine currents and increase sea levels, to change the rotation of the Gulf Stream, and to make the temperate climates frigid”.[14]

Under his orders were carried out Operations Gromet I in Bihar, India, Popeye in Vietnam, and Gromet II in the Philippines between 1965 and 1972. The statement of Gordon MacDonald, associate director of the Institute of Geophysics and Planetary Physics at the University of California, member of President Johnson’s Science Advisory Committee, are of particular interest:

Among future means of obtaining national objectives by force, one possibility hinges on man’s ability to control and manipulate the environment of his planet. When achieved, this power over his environment will provide man with a new force capable of doing great and indiscriminate damage. Our present primitive understanding of deliberate environmental change makes it difficult to imagine a world in which geophysical warfare is practiced. Such a world might be one in which nuclear weapons were effectively banned and the weapons of mass destruction were those of environmental catastrophe. Alternatively, I can envisage a world of nuclear stability resulting from parity in such weapons, rendered unstable by the development by one nation of an advanced technology capable of modifying the Earth’s environment. Or geophysical weapons may be part of each nation’s armory. As I will argue, these weapons are peculiarly suited for covert or secret wars.[15]

However, it is the report elaborated by some military staff for the United States Air Force (USAF) published in 1996 with the title, Weather as a Force Multiplier: Owning the Weather in 2025,[16] that tracks the common thread running through several decades. This report not only makes explicit the objective of controlling the climate for military reasons of dominion but also the technology and the timeline to achieve it. Here are some paragraphs to explain the issue:

In the broadest sense, weather-modification can be divided into two major categories: suppression and intensification of weather patterns. In extreme cases, it might involve the creation of completely new weather patterns, attenuation or control of severe storms, or even alteration of global climate on a far-reaching and/or long-lasting scale.[page 5,6] The number of specific intervention methodologies is limited only by the imagination, but with few exceptions they involve infusing either energy or chemicals into the meteorological process in the right way, at the right place and time. The intervention could be designed to modify the weather in a number of ways, such as influencing clouds and precipitation, storm intensity, climate, space, or fog. [Beginning Chapter IV] Weather-modification technologies might involve techniques that would increase latent heat release in the atmosphere, provide additional water vapor for cloud cell development, and provide additional surface and lower atmospheric heating to increase atmospheric instability (page 19).

One of the most documented sections of this report is that which concerns the modification and control of the ionosphere and the near space environment in order to increase communications, detection and navigation capacity, as this is crucial for the battle space domain.

The second paragraph on page 21 reads:

[A number of methods have been explored or proposed to modify the ionosphere, including injection of chemical vapors and heating or charging via electromagnetic radiation or particle beams (such as ions, neutral particles, x-rays, MeV particles, and energetic electrons).27 It is important to note that many techniques to modify the upper atmosphere have been successfully demonstrated experimentally. Ground based modification techniques employed by the FSU include vertical HF heating, oblique HF heating, microwave heating, and magnetospheric modification.28 Significant military applications of such operations include low frequency (LF) communication production, HF ducted communications, and creation of an artificial ionosphere].

There is not in this report a single reason linked to the use of this technology to mitigate global warming even though that was one of the key issues on the international political agenda. This report also makes explicit that climate control will be part of the foreign policy of the United States and will be imposed on the world through instruments such as bilateral agreements or initiatives within the frame of the United Nations and NATO.

As seen so far, climate is instrumental for military ends of expansion and dominion but is equally instrumental for global corporate power out of the same reasons. The question as to who serves whom is useless here. They are two interlocked corporate worlds pursuing the same goal, the two sides of the same coin. One wouldn’t exist without the other. The armed forces, in theory, are there to defend the nations’ ultimate corporate interests, so we will find them at the same time in the same places. Therefore, it is imperative to spot the articulation of this tandem in the political, civil and military arena at the international level, which is their real agenda and what will be the impact of this tandem’s greed for money and power on the environment and life of human and no human beings.

The Climate Thread and the World Government

The path to search the aforementioned articulation starts at a dark labyrinth with literally thousands of interrelated public and private entities, globalists think tanks, networks, summits, agendas, conventions, programs, projects, forums, conferences, agreements, protocols, etc., that make the individuation task almost impossible. One could think that this mess is made express to impede any understanding of the ongoing insanity. For the purpose of this article, under the assumption that all roads led to Rome, we will follow the omnipresent climate thread. The climate being the key instrument to control world resources and achieve the old globalist dream of a world government; assured, in principle, by the United Nations. A world government with one economic and monetary system, one religion and one military power — thought to be NATO. Among the thousands of globalist think tanks at sight, the Club of Rome created in 1968[17] by David Rockefeller and a well-known Italian industrialist, Aurelio Peccei, deserves special mention because it became an environmental and foreign policy consultant of the first order in the United Nations since its very onset.

The Club of Rome, born with the specific aim of promoting a world government, symbolizes, like none other, the aforementioned articulation – political, civil and military, within the frame of NATO, United Nations, and other significant players. In fact, Aurelio Peccei, greatly influenced by his friend Zbigniew Brzezinski’s prophetic vision for a “Technetronic Era” — a technocratic dictatorship in a world without national sovereignties led by the US, in his book The Chasm Ahead published in 1969[18], affirms that the Atlantic Alliance must rule the policy of the world if chaos is to be avoided. What a daring statement! Was the Club of Rome created by NATO to serve its military goals of full spectrum dominance from the springboard of the United Nations under the guise of “civil defense programs” using key global environmental and foreign policy issues such as the global warming deception and the geoengineering technological answer “to save the world”?

The answer to this question is found in the relevant research by Criton Zoakos and Mark Burdman, published in EIR May 20, 1980. Among the founders of the Club of Rome we find NATO officials, representatives of the National Security Council of the United States and of the Committee of Foreign Relations.

“Aurelio Peccei, had been chairman of the Economic Committee of the Atlantic Institute, the main think tank of NATO; Alexander King, the co-founder, Director General of Scientific Affairs of the OECD; Harlan Cleveland, of the Aspen Institute, Ambassador to NATO; Senator Claiborne Pell, former Ambassador to NATO; S. George McGhee, former Ambassador to NATO; Joseph Slate, the director of the Aspen Institute, member of the U.S. delegation to NATO; William Watts, director of Potomac Associates, a NATO think tank, and a director of the Atlantic Council; Donald Lesh, an associate of Potomac Associates and a staff member of Henry Kissinger’s National Security Council; Walter J. Levy, a director of the Atlantic Council member of the Bilderberg Society, and the Council on Foreign Relations; a theoretical advocate of the doctrine of extending NATO into the Third World; Sol Linowitz, the Xerox magnate with extensive history of involvement in NATO.”[19]

In this document we can also note that the idea of disguising military means through “civil defense programs”, which include large scale psychological manipulation of populations, is not new for NATO. Such strategy was developed in the mid-60s by the Tavistock Institute, the Stanford Research Institute, the Institute for Social Relations and other centers of applied social psychiatry, all of which are in the Board of Directors of the Club of Rome.[19]

Resuming, a one world government incarnated by the United Nations will guarantee, under the “guidance” of NATO, the needed control of world resources to assure corporate expansion and profits. The nature of this world government is one of technological dictatorship which will apparently eliminate de facto all national sovereignties. In this new frame colonialism would not be a criminal tag anymore. What a convenient formula for a falling empire! The famous quote of James Warburg, Rothschild Banking Agent and advisor to Franklin D. Roosevelt, 1950, finds its place here: We shall have a world government, whether or not you like it … by conquest or consent. However it is Machiavelli who marks the choice: “Never attempt to win by force what can be won by deception.” This is when climate, an essential global common, becomes a definite global threat in the hands of a climate cartel through fake science and political consensus blaming man-made CO2 of unprecedented global warming. The official narrative paints a world so much in peril as to declare climate a global national security issue requiring a global solution. This solution in turn requires the use of a military technology and knowhow that transcends national sovereignties.  Geoengineering, a military weapon, is presented under the guise of a “civil defence” program to save the world, entailing large scale psychological manipulation of world populations. In reality, geoengineering will be a key factor in the programmed manipulation providing the population the irrefutable proof of climate chaos due to climate change.

Climate deception is all about full spectrum dominance: space, air, water, soil, and nature, all living things included. It is all about greed for power and money with the end result to enslave mankind forever through mind control technologies. Climate deception is all about mass manipulation and social engineering for consent. With all the communication and marketing means at hand, they will sell us that dominance under glossy wrapping and pleasant branding: Green New Deal, New Climate Economy, Natural Capital, or New Deal for Nature. Climate deception is a clear operation for the final takeover of the UN by the globalist elite with a very well scheduled programing and timeline agenda written from 1884 by the Fabian Society which greatly influenced the thinking of the political class in England and other countries up to the present day.

This article would not be complete if it did not reason in terms of facts the above statements and if it did not expose the main lines of that old sinister agenda which evolves by the day. For a better comprehension of the whole scenario, we will single out the names and deeds of some of the actors that made it advance till now. After all, behind the policies and programs that determine our lives for the better or worse there are always people, and we must know who they are to link the dots.

Linking the Dots

The very notion of a world government implies the involvement of a world elite. And the Club of Rome describes itself as a group of world citizens who share the same feeling for the future of humanity. It is made up of industrialists, ex-heads of state, bureaucrats of the United Nations, senior politicians, scientists, economists, prominent businessmen, academics, globalists, founders of the most important environmental groups, etc., from all over the world. Its members include Al Gore, Javier Solana, Maurice Strong, Mijail Gorbachov, Diego Hidalgo, Anne Ehrlich, David Rockefeller, Henry Kissinger, Bill Clinton, Bill Gates, Jimmy Carter, Ted Turner, Georges Soros, Tony Blair, The Dalai Lama, Timothy Wirth, Gro Harlem Brundtland, Mary Robinson, Sir Crispin Tickell, Kim Campbell, Wangari Maathai, Petre Roman, Richard Lagos, David Suzuki … and numerous other influential figures that shape globalist politics.

Of all these figures Maurice Strong, father of the “sustainable” euphemism, played the essential role of creating the international legal frame in the environmental and foreign policy arena that would lead to the geoengineering proposals agreed to in the Paris Climate Summit by participant countries. In other words, he took the task of piloting the needed global policies towards a world government for global resources control through environmental activism, promoting the global warming scam in the United Nations and its technological fix. Opening thus the main door to NATO’s Civil Defense Programs, with the rescue remedy of geoengineering to “palliate” atmospheric warming.

All those environmental and foreign policies started its way in the mid-70s, but they really gained momentum after the fall of the “Iron Curtain.” The end of the Cold War in 1989 left the United States without clear enemies and NATO without a real purpose. This situation menaced the first ranking industry of war in the US bringing down the American economy, so a quick solution was deemed. But on what grounds will the government allocate new billions of public money to military budget in the face of no enemies to fight against? The creative answer canvased a global enemy that would pose a global national security threat and thus a global high tech answer. Climate warming became a first ranking governmental concern for the Obama Administration well beyond war on terrorism. To set example, before the Paris Summit, at a moment where capitalism was publicly acknowledged to be in a free fall, the US declared global warming a national security threat to justify the geoengineering proposal already planned to be approved in the Paris Summit.  They had long years to prepare the scenario for irrefutable proofs, that of the firefighter arsonist.

NATO and the US had solid war technology with long proven capacity to alter weather and the environment in large scale operations. But as the US had signed the ENMOD Treaty in the early 1980s which banned environmental modification activities for war or hostile purposes, not for civil uses, all they needed was to create the conditions of climate chaos that the climate cartel within the UN, headed by Maurice Strong, would determine to be caused by anthropogenic CO2, in order to present the solution of geoengineering under the guise of a civil defense program to be adopted by most countries through United Nations policies. Finally, the old military dream came true. In the name of a common good, climate, they will get hold of all nations’ sovereignty! This maneuver would allow them to continue their military agenda of racketeering world resources, laundering their bad image by bringing a solution to a problem they had caused in the first place, imposing in the process a technology to control the climatic system, the food markets, the CO2 markets, etc. In order to succeed this complex strategy they needed to co-opt the check and balance instruments of civil society: educational organisms and universities, media, churches, and NGOs through extensive funding. Neutralizing in the process real grassroots movements with the creation of a corporate non-profit industrial complex from the Rio Earth Summit onwards.

It is worth noticing that the Roman Church as one of the most important world’s religions has been in favor of a world government since the Second Vatican Council in 1959. The latest endorsements came from Benedict XVI and Francis I in the speech given to the General Assembly of the United Nations on September 25, 2015. His recent Encyclical “Laudato Si ” published on June 18, 2015, Articles 23 and 24, constitute a faithful copy and paste of the official doctrine on climate change[20]. In addition in the Pontifical Academy of Science, we find sitting pro-geoengineering scientists as Hans Joachim Schellnhuber, Veerabhadran Ramanathan and Paul J. Crutzen.[21]

On his part, the Dalai Lama, representing one of the world’s largest faith, is aware of the fact that for some people the message from religious leaders can be more effective. We find useful to quote the post of a certain Josh Horton who describes the intervention of the Dalai Lama at a conference on ethics and the environment held at MIT on October 12, 2012, where he says the Dalai Lama expressed openness toward geoengineering. “In the course of a panel discussion, a faculty member attacked climate engineering as poorly understood, risky, and potentially ineffective. In response, the Dalai Lama warned against dismissing the technology prematurely, declaring “It is our responsibility to look.”[22] And Mr. Horton adds: one can only hope that such open-mindedness will inspire others to approach geoengineering with a greater degree of receptivity. That post can only be signed by a geoengineer. And the irresponsible answer on the part of the Dalai Lama, after having admitted his ignorance on the subject, gives geoengineers a moral legitimation to proceed with their insanity. In fact after checking his name, Mr. Josh Horton happens to be research director for geoengineering projects in Harvard with David Keith.[23]

This cannot be called co-optation. Something is fundamentally wrong with the ethics and moral of these religious leaders in regards to geoengineering and world government. And if we get this kind of answers from those who derive their moral authority from the genesis of their religious foundations as stewardships of God’s master creation, the Earth, what can we expect from the rest of the social building actors?

The following pages will offer a totally different picture of global warming than the one offered by the modern environmental movement fostered by the Rio Earth Summit, but also by the international institutions, globalist organizations and individuals like Maurice Strong put in place to forward it. If the IPCC had been the first step towards the institutionalization of geoengineering, the Rio Earth Summit represented the spring board for its globalization, legislation and social consent building.

But, Who Was Maurice Strong?

The best biographical sketch of Maurice Strong was written by Elaine Dewar[24] in her excellent book, Cloak of Green, — The Links Between Key Environmental Groups, Government, & Big Business — strong, a school dropout, was promoted from a thread-bare existence during the Depression on the Canadian prairie, to become one of the leaders of the drive for globalized eco-fascism.

In order to understand prior and ulterior reference to Maurice Strong as one of the key makers of the international environmental policies dealing with climate change, it appears necessary to name the most relevant institutions where he held power and see how they continue to follow the agenda marked three decades ago, shaping today’s policies and programs including geoengineering.

Patronized by Edmund Rothschild plus David Rockefeller, and under the intellectual guidance of Gro Harlem Brundtland, ex-Prime Minister of Norway, Maurice Strong came to be known with the successful organization of the United Nations Conference on the Human Environment, Stockholm 1972, as Secretary General where he warned about incipient global warming, the polluted oceans, the devastation of forests, and the population time bomb….. In 1972, E. Rothschild created the United Nations Committee on Environment and Development (UNCED) and Maurice Strong created the United Nations Environment Program (UNEP). From this platform, in collaboration with the World Meteorological Association, he promoted the creation of the IPCC in 1988, a political climate cartel with political aims in order to legitimize through fake science the climate warming/climate change theory and its technological fix. He was Secretary General of the 1992 United Nations Conference on Environment and Development known as the Rio Earth Summit, Undersecretary General of the United Nations in the days of an Oil-for-Food scandal, main architect of the Kyoto Protocol and of the Global Agenda 21 in collaboration with Al Gore, representative of the UN Secretary General in the Kyoto Summit 1997. Among its endless affiliations, Maurice Strong was also Senior Advisor to World Bank Presidentfounding director and President of the World Economic Forum (WEF), Chairman of the World Resources Institute (WRI), director of the World Business Council for Sustainable Development (WCBSD), council member of International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN) and Vice-president of World Wildlife Fund (WWF). All these institutions conform the core of the The Green New Deal, Natural Capital, the New Climate Economy, the New Deal for Nature, etc., all euphemisms to name the fourth industrial revolution which requires the monetization of nature, including the climate, through non-profit industrial complex.

Just for the records, Al Gore and Strong, the two global gurus of the climate warming hoax, are directly involved in the only cap-and-trade market present in the US, with the creation in 2003 of the Chicago Climate Exchange (CCX), which represents a $3 trillion annual market. The World Wildlife Fund (WWF) and the World Resources Institute (WRI)[25] are also members of the CCX. Incidentally, as FOX News story by Ed Barnes told: “While on the board of a Chicago-based charity, Barack Obama helped fund a carbon trading exchange that will likely play a critical role in the cap-and-trade carbon reduction program he is now trying to push through Congress as president.”[26] Business is business.

The First Global Revolution and the Rio Summit

Since its creation up to 2017, the Malthusian Globalist Club of Rome has published 43 reports. From the first one: The Limits to Growth, published in 1972, where they warned about the danger posed by overpopulation, to the last one, Population and the Destruction of the Planet, nothing has changed in their focus. Mankind is guilty of its own existence. In the report published in 1991, “The First Global Revolution”[27] by Alexander King, the Club shows its low moral standards, justifying the ends at any cost. In that report we can read phrases like:

“In searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine and the like would fit the bill,” the book states. “All these dangers are caused by human intervention” and thus the “real enemy, then, is humanity itself.” It does not matter if this common enemy is “a real one or…one invented for the purpose.” In the process of struggling against this implacable enemy, democracy “will be made to seem responsible for the lagging economy, the scarcity and uncertainties. The very concept of democracy could then be brought into question and allow for the seizure of power”.

The long applied rule of capitalism to socialize losses and be rescued by public funds, is applied here by the Club of Rome, to socialize the blame on humanity as means to justify extreme implicit measures and induce compliance out of guilt. It is worth noticing that this Club was defending the scientific consensus of global cooling back in the 1970s.

All in all, the Club of Rome seems not to be oblivious to the corruption of science practiced by some climate scientists, by the IPCC, by the National Academies of Sciences and the national meteorological agencies, to adapt the climatological data to its global agenda. Nor is this organization oblivious to the solution of geoengineering – and of its consequences – proposed by the IPCC to mitigate the supposed global warming in its Fourth and Fifth Reports, although the Swedish meteorologist, Bert Bolin, first chair of the IPCC, warned in 2007:

Geoengineering is not a viable solution because it is illusory to think that all possible secondary impacts can be foreseen. (J. Fleming 2012)[2].

With the publication of the First Global Revolution, the Mankind at the Turning Point and RIO: Reshaping the International Order, the Club of Rome had prepared the advancement of the globalist agenda, setting the final stage for the Rio Earth Summit. As Elaine Dewar writes in her book Cloak of Green: “The Rio Summit would take long steps towards a world in which nation states have withered away in favour of supranational and global institutions…. Advertised as the World’s Greatest Summit, Rio was publicly described as a global negotiation to reconcile the need for environmental protection with the need for economic growth. The cognoscenti understood that there were other deeper goals. These involved the shift of national regulatory powers to vast regional authorities; the opening of all remaining closed national economies to multinational interests; the strengthening of decision making structures far above and far below the grasp of newly minted national democracies; and, above all, the integration of the Soviet and Chinese … into the global market system.” In reference to the interview made to Maurice Strong, she adds: As our interview makes clear, Strong knew that the Rio Summit was aimed to destroy the sovereign nation-state republic. And, he relied heavily on his pal, Al Gore, to convince the United States government to participate at the heads-of-state level.[24]

The Black History of the Rio’s Green Climate Fund for “Sustainable Development”

Yes, the Rio Earth Summit was all about corporate profits under the guise of climate and sustainability. One of the examples is the apparition of a Green Climate Fund that will be managing $100 billion yearly as of 2020, offering “help” (credit) to countries for adapting to climate change, specially to less developed ones. This fund has changed the name twice according to the circumstances, as climate becomes the real issue of the globalist agenda. Its original name was The World Conservation Bank and was created in the frame of the 4th World Wilderness Conference in 1987 by Edmund Rothschild. The following information is offered by a firsthand witness, George Washington Hunt.[28]

We retain important exposing its obscure history because it constitutes an early reference in the monetization of nature and land grabbing which will set the path for the New Deal for Nature three decades later. In fact, this bank that aimed at having the power to make the world’s dollar had no capital. The capital resulted by moving money to the assets coming from the World Wilderness like the Endowment of Wilderness Lands from the inventory put together by the Sierra Club, which amounted to 34% of the land surface.

This bank, under the umbrella of the World Bank, also monetized debt bringing to the asset section the debt of Third World Countries for refinancing: $1.6 trillion. The name was then changed to Global Environmental Facility (GEF), with the purpose to lend money to the poorest countries, taking wilderness areas with natural mineral riches as a security. It worked with the IMF issuing and promoting the Special Drawing Rights (SDR) notes. Finally, indebted countries that could not pay loans to GEF must give up parts of its territory… If land cannot be offered as collateral, the country must starve like Haiti. Brazil’s collaterals as security for loans, for example, is the Amazon.

The Rothschild’s approach to grab 30% of the world’s land, generating food crisis and global land grab with the consent of our governments and central banks is the first carbon copy to the actual New Deal for Nature in which the Sierra Club is now invested. In 1992 the “Facility” became part of the United Nations System, thanks to Maurice Strong, and was branded as Green Climate Fund (GCF). Now over 179 countries seat in the council of the bank and pay for it. As it has been said earlier, other than being the financial mechanism for the United Nations Convention on Biological Diversity (UNCBD) and for the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), this bank constitutes the largest funding tool in the world, working with IMF, World Bank, BIS, all international institutions, NGOs and the Private Sector. The same entities patronizing all COPs, the same actors with the same objectives we will find in the architecture of the New Deal for Nature by the World Resources Institute and the World Wild Found, both members of the Chicago Climate Exchange.

The Rio Earth Summit: A Checkmate to Genuine Environmental Activism

The Rio Earth Summit held the highest expectations for the hundreds of participant environmental activists and NGOs. However much to their disappointment the corporate sector beat them on their own grounds having adopted the Business Charter for Sustainable Development that merged ecology/economy presented by the Business Council for Sustainable Development (BCSD) created in 1990 by Swiss industrialist Stephan Schmidheiny — a major investor in asbestos industry — upon request of Maurice Strong. The Charter, by the way, was non-binding, but the “Green Economy” made its entrance through the main door.  In this context, the famous Rio Earth Summit represents, by design, the destruction of the genuine international environmental movement shown in the Stockholm Summit 1972, in favor of a corporate takeover. The all-time environmental activists were practically left with the bad choice of compliance or extinction. Hooked in the official CO2 schemes they lost perspective and became mere decorative pawns in the hands of the new green industrial non-profit complex created by corporations themselves aiming at fabricating social consent for the horrors to come in the name of nature’s protection.

Group photo of world leaders meeting at the 'Earth Summit'.

Group photo of world leaders meeting at the ‘Earth Summit’ in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, 13 June 1992. UN Photo/Michos Tzovaras

Elaine Dewar, the critical reference with the NGOs’ role in the Rio Earth Summit, underlines in her awarded book — Cloak of Green[24] — the links between key environmental groups, businesses and governments, how these groups called non-governmental and pretended enemies of corporations, end up receiving funding from both, asking all the pertinent questions. Even if those questions focus on Canada, they are valid to this day and can be applied to the rest of us.

Why are some environmental groups using misleading information in their fundraising efforts?

Why are some environmental groups in Canada and the US compromising their independence by accepting funds from government and big business – and putting representatives of their interests on their boards?

Why is the Canadian government channeling funds to foreign charities that play an active role in politics in their home countries?

Why is the Canadian government trying to influence the agendas of foreign environmental groups?

In 1995, the BCSD merged with the World Industry Council for the Environment (WICE) and became the World Business Council for Sustainable Development (WBCSD)[29]. Actually this powerful lobby congregates almost 200 forward-thinking global companies committed to advance the sustainability agenda… However, according to Sander van Bennekom of the Netherlands Committee for International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN), “BCSD is more a philosophy than a work program… as the ambitious goals to move towards zero pollution emissions and redirecting product development to meet social needs, including those of the poor, are not however, translated into concrete activities and responsibilities for the business sector.” The WBCSD also relies strongly on close partnerships with governments, the UN development and environment programs, the World Bank group and regional development banks, the European Commission, and the World Trade Organization (WTO). The world corporate power embodied by the WBCSD and the global conservatism movement personified by IUCN[30] are the two consortiums that control in last instance the non-profit industrial complex in regards to the climate change/climate emergency movements pushing for a Green New Deal, New Climate Economy, Capital Coalition, and New Deal for Nature.

Lexical Engineering and Indoctrination for Social Consent

The Journalist and Political Science Professor in Brooklyn College, Corey Robin, asserts that fear creates certain propensity in human beings towards an involuntarily indoctrination by the prince in detriment of their own freedom.[31] The globalists know that and in order to advance their globalization agenda for the control of global commons with social “consent” to avoid social unrest, they will display the maximum social engineering efforts. These efforts were supported by the creation of literally thousands of projects and youth movements interlocking with one another and sharing highly qualified CEOs specialized in movement building and behavioral change, drafted from most relevant corporations. However social engineering could not take place without a lexical engineering or the perversion of the language. Klaus Töpfer, a former UN high ranking official explained at the opening of the Climate Engineering Conference held in Berlin, August 2014 that: “thousands of millions of dollars are spent each year in the United Nations and other international bodies to design the lexicon, because he who designs the lexicon controls the topic.” The designers of language perversion work with experts in the field of social and communication sciences: philosophy, psychology, philology, neurology, neuro-linguistic programming, marketing, etc. But in the case of geoengineering, the military sciences have also intervened, completing the picture with techniques of tactics, strategy, logistics, propaganda, information, counter-information, fake identity creation, real identity demolition, or denial, among others. From the Rio Earth Summit onwards, society in general has suffered a daily invasion of new twisted terms with new meanings, imposed by dominant mass media. The perversion of the language has reached unprecedented levels in history, only equivalent to the task of global indoctrination and global deception “science based”, starting at the school to be most effective.

In this perspective, following the Rio Earth Summit, then Vice-President Al Gore assumed the role of “shaping” kids and youngsters to the new earthy conditions. In 1994 he created and launched the Globe Program (Global Learning and Observation to Benefit the Environment)[32] aimed at primary and secondary schools to “educate” children on environmental challenges and stewardship. Globe is based in Washington and receives about $13 million yearly from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, the National Science Foundation, and National Aeronautics and Space Administration. Actually 120 countries participate in it. This program became a Global Weather Project by 1998.[33] In this respect NASA has signed contracts with most countries of the world for over 100 years in regards to climate change. Those contracts have nothing to do with truth or science but they explain the will and need for indoctrinating all generations during at least one century.[34]

Manipulating Indoctrinated Kids – Climate and Green New Deal Marches

Two decades later, time had come for Al Gore to capitalize on the Globe Program and on his film “An Inconvenient Truth”. By 2006 he disposed of literally thousands of indoctrinated youngsters in the four corners of the planet to choose from and make out of the best “shaped Climate Reality Leaders” through his new Climate Reality Project.[35] At the council of this new organization sits James Gustave Speth, founder of the World Resources Institute in 1982, advisor to Climate Mobilizations in 2014, and a key reference in the launching of climate emergency movements to conduct people to an emergency mode since 2018.[36][37] Products of The Climate Reality Project are youngster Jamie Margolin, founder of “Zero Hour” working later for Hillary Clinton on climate warming issues, or Ingmar Rentzhog, the Swedish entrepreneur who founded the movement “We Don’t Have Time” (partner of the Club of Rome), known also to have launched the Greta Thunberg movement. We wonder if all these manipulated movements who strive for the implementation of agreements under the Paris Treaty know that Human Rights have been taken out of that Treaty. Because simply put that is an essential point they do not have the right to ignore. It is a fact that geoengineering and human rights do not go together.

Much is being written about the climate marches but hardly no information is found about the organizers. That is why we praise here the extenuating work of Cory Morningstar[38] and her team on the subject, upon which we build this section.

On the eve of the Paris Climate Summit the public opinion was being prepared for success long in advance, as it was expected it would happen after the failure of the Copenhagen Summit and the Climate-gate episode. In 2014 participants of all ages marched globally in a festive mood under banners with sharp slogans specially designed to capture emotional adherence. The initiative was called “People’s Climate March” and the organizers were Global Call for Climate Action (GCCA/TckTckTck), Climate Nexus (Rockefeller), 350.org, Avaaz and Greenpeace among others. That year also created the “We mean business”, the most powerful corporations in the world, with the collaboration of Greenpeace, Avaaz and Christina Figueres, UNFCCC’s executive secretary. Ecologists marching hand in hand with corporations. Who said “if you can’t beat them, join them”?

However by 2017 these plural global marches become an exclusive product for youngsters, and were tagged as global “movements”. These perfectly-coordinated movements exhibited ready to consume pressing agendas, around “science-based targets”[39], wrapped with well-minded aggressive messages. There are hundreds of them but the most media exposed are those quoted above: New Consensus, Climate Nexus (Rockefeller) Data for Progress, New Democrats, 350.org, etc., the newest on the line being “Extinction Rebellion” and “Fridays for Future”. Al Gore’s cloned armies will march in 2018 for a Green New Deal mirroring back to the successful Franklin de Roosevelt’s New Deal in 1930, of infrastructure spending and labor reforms.

This Green New Deal promises a big bold transformation of the economy to tackle the twin crises of inequality and climate change. It would mobilize vast public resources to help us transition from an economy built on exploitation and fossil fuels to one driven by dignified work and clean energy […] all electricity consumed in America must be generated by renewable sources, including solar, wind, hydro, geothermal, sustainable biomass, and renewable natural gas, as well as clean sources such as nuclear and remaining fossil fuel with carbon capture”. However further down in the report describing this new revolution we read that a Green New Deal is more than just renewable energy or job programs. It is a transition to the “21st century economy” whose bottomline is, as usual, development, growth and high yield markets.

Although the term “Global New Deal for Climate, Energy and Development” had been used by the United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs back in 2009 to title a study on how to reboot the global economy after the 2008 economic crisis, it did not catch then any public attention. However this document is at the core not only of the Green New Deal narrative, but also of the New Deal for Nature which constitutes by itself a checkmate to planet Earth as is known today.

As journalist Cory Morningstar says: “The Green New Deal is the Trojan Horse for the financialization of nature”[40]. In fact the key tools to assign monetary value to all nature, global in scale, with the goal of creating new markets that exhibited Natural Capital Coalition since 2018 are found in this document drafted by The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity group (TEEB).

Who Was Behind These Climate Marches for the Green New Deal?

The Sierra Club, one of the oldest associations in the US, was the first to announce the need for a Green New Deal and created to this end and ad-hoc movement led by young people: “the Sunrise Movement”. The executive director of the Sunrise Movement is Michael Dorsey, a member of the Club of Rome that, incidentally, is behind the global climate emergency declaration. Soon after, a myriad of organizations joined this motion but the following were directly involved in the elaboration of the foundational document: The Sunrise Movement, New Consensus, Climate Nexus (Rockefeller) and Data for Progress.[41]

Why Al Gore and Company’s Climate Marches Started in 2014

It was not only to create momentum for the Paris Climate Summit. On July 27, 2014, the Financial Times published an article by Mike Scott entitled Blood and Gore: ‘Capitalism is in danger of falling apart’[42] in which David Blood and Al Gore affirm that investors face a crucial moment and that “The next five to 10 years is the most critical time to accelerate the transition to a low-carbon economy. We think capitalism is in danger of falling apart.”

Just to understand better, David Blood left the asset management direction of Goldman Sachs to set up a new investment business with Al Gore, called Generation Investment Management (GIM), which is the fifth owner of cap-and-trade Chicago Climate Exchange.

On mid-January 2017, founder of World Economic Forum, Klaus Schwab, ratified that “Capitalism is in crisis”. Soon, the global movements for climate adopted in 2018 the emergency gear to “lead the public into emergency mode”[43], casually linking climate to economic growth. This initiative was put forward by the Climate Mobilization movement, created out of the 2014 Climate Marches.

While the Sierra Club maintained the circus in the streets with youngsters claiming for action on climate emergency, on the backstage was busy drawing the path to development and growth with the World Resources Institute (WRI) who set up the New Climate Economy project because Bold action on climate could deliver US$26 trillion in economic benefits between now and 2030.[44] James Gustave Speth, founder of World Resources Institute, the person behind the Climate Mobilization/Climate Emergency is also behind the New Climate Economy Project conveniently bridging the two sides of the river — corporations and non-profit industrial complex.

The New Climate Economy project is all about corporate power and corporate takeover. The fetish term of this new economy to unlock.

But the World Resources Institute had a yet bigger bid. Once the agenda on climate and economic benefits was closed, it endeavoured in the creation of the Natural Capital Coalition project aimed at assuring the monetization of the rest of our natural commons. In fact, they consider nature as stock commodities of which they become self-nominated managers, acting like wholesalers that will make fortunes retailing those commodities as ecosystem services. The business retail packs will be sold to public opinion as the “New Deal for Nature” under the euphemism of “protection”. Those self- appointed managers of nature have attributed an economic value to absolutely every single animate or inanimate thing on Earth. They have even tools to monetize personal values, culture and religious beliefs. It appears that the value of global ecosystem services is estimated at $125 trillion per year.[45] These facts constitute a global bailout given that the cost to revitalize the world economy under the New Fourth Revolution is over $100 trillion to be paid by us.

Geoengineering is the link between the New Climate Economy and the New Deal for Nature, and therefore an essential key to the fourth industrial revolution since this gigantic “House of Cards” rests on the climate warming-climate change deception that needs to constantly fuel proof with the occurrence of ever more weather extreme episodes. On the other hand, since altering atmospheric conditions will alter Earth living conditions, ongoing geoengineering is the perfect excuse to justify the ongoing biotechnology agenda for terraforming the planet as one more business expansion opportunity. Arrived here, among the many questions that need to be answered in this definitely pathological strategy for profit is the following: since every single living and non-living thing, human values, culture and religions on Earth have been attributed an economic value by all these ultra-psychopaths, there is no reason to think that the “human stock”, as Malthusians will say, is not in the covert lot. So, what is the value attributed to us, human beings? Maybe this value differs by nationality, race, sex, age and level of consumption capacity in the cost-benefit chain? These projects on agenda are insane, constitute sheer perversion and need to be stopped. “Because life is not a commodity,” we all need to rally forces with the platform, “No Deal for Nature.”[46]

The Natural Capital Coalition and the New Deal for Nature represent the merger of the massive corporate power conglomerate and the non-profit industrial complex headed by World Wildlife Fund, Nature Conservancy and the World Business Council on Sustainable Development. The New Deal for Nature is expected to be adopted in Beijing in 2020.

For an exhaustive work on the Machiavellian social engineering taking place under the direction of the non-profit industrial complex financed by world’s most powerful corporations, one must read the mastery work done by the independent Canadian journalist, Cory Morningstar, our main reference on the subject.

Geoengineering on the Agenda of the World Economic Forum’s Fourth Industrial Revolution

The course of the agendas developed in the different socioeconomic laboratories of the corporate power merged with the World Economic Forum (WEF) for final compliance and global policy making. The World Economic Forum, based in Geneva, Switzerland, is an NGO founded in 1971, in the frame of a private public partnership, “committed to improving the state of the world by engaging business, political, academic, and other leaders of society to shape global, regional, and industry agendas”. It is a membership-based organization, and membership is made up of the world’s largest corporations.

The World Economic Forum represents the core of the 21st century global economic hegemony, actually leading the global transition to a fourth industrial revolution.[47]

“We are in the early days of a 4th Industrial Revolution, a far-reaching analogue-to-digital shift that will completely transform the $12 trillion global manufacturing industry. It will fundamentally change the way we conceive, design, produce, distribute, and consume nearly everything, with enormous impact to jobs, industries, and economies. It’s a digital industrial revolution spearheaded by the accelerating growth of 3D printing, and its leaders will be defined by their ability to harness the full power of this truly disruptive technology”.

The combined value – to society and industry – of digital transformation across industries could be greater than $100 trillion over the next 10 years. This full potential of “combinatorial” effects of digital technologies will not be achieved without collaboration between business, policy-makers and NGOs. In other words, to save capitalism we need to pour over $100 trillion from tax and pension funds. In addition, businesses and potential high yield markets need that we privatize our natural commons and that on top of it we must pay for ecosystem “protection services” to the very same predators that destroy them. “It’s like putting a fox to guarding a henhouse”. Total insanity!

The question here is how the WEF links this manufacturing Fourth Industrial Revolution with monetizing nature through the New Deal for Nature which is in fact the leitmotif of this Fourth Industrial Revolution given the appealing $125 trillion incentive per year at no cost? It is easy: they add the magic words “Inclusive Bio-Economy” to it and the picture appears to be completed.

The document for the Earth Series published in January 2018 under the title, Harnessing the Fourth Industrial Revolution —  Towards an Inclusive Bio-Economy[48] relates that the stress on the Earth’s natural systems caused by human activity has considerably worsened in the 25 years since the 1992 Rio Earth Summit, in a way that the world is currently undergoing a mass extinction. But there is hope, “the transformative change in data and technology capabilities combined with a merging of digital, physical and biological realms will not only transform social networks, scientific research and whole industries, but it will also radically reshape biological and material science innovations. This includes exploring how to harness the Fourth Industrial Revolution as a positive force for managing and conserving life on land better, while mitigating the risks that its developments in science and technology might create.”

The agenda of this Fourth Industrial Revolution is simply frightening. Other than the classical 3D printing advanced materials, robotics, drones, etc., Artificial Intelligence with decision taking capacities, or the Earth Bank of Codes in partnership with the Earth Bio-Genome Project, as an associated work stream of its Fourth Industrial Revolution for the Earth initiative, are particularly worrisome suggesting the control of all life. As worrisome is the focus on biotechnologies terraforming oriented agenda and neuro-technologies’ mind control oriented agenda “that enable humans to influence consciousness and thought decoding of what they are thinking in fine levels of detail through new chemicals that influence brains for enhanced functionality and enable interaction with the world in new ways”.

Unsurprisingly, fitting with artificial intelligence, bio-genome and the biotechnology agenda, we find the Geo-engineering agenda, defined as large-scale, deliberate interventions in the Earth’s natural systems to, for example, shift rainfall patterns, create artificial sunshine or alter biospheres. Clear enough. As in the military report Weather as a Force Multiplier: Owning the Weather in 2025, geoengineering here is not linked to any climate warming or mitigation issue related to CO2. It is presented as a tool to use on demand for their natural capital management and control to guarantee value expressed by trillions… This would explain their stupid slogan of Climate Justice exhibited by their fake environmental and climate emergency movements.

In order to advance the above agenda, the WEF has created the Centre for the Fourth Industrial Revolution[49]. Funnily enough, the first picture of the video presentation is not subliminal publicity, it expressly reminds the Jet Aerosol Dispersal for Climate Engineering.

The final paragraph of this agenda is not a warning, it is direct extortion.

 “As humanity faces a mass extinction event on a scale not seen in the last 65 million years, time is of the essence. The Fourth Industrial Revolution holds the keys to fundamentally altering the way people understand and interact with their natural environment. Without rapid, coordinated action, the lifeboat that the Fourth Industrial Revolution presents to pull our planet back from the brink may be missed.”

A rapid coordinated action took place a year later. The World Economic Forum performed a stunning coup d’état in the United Nations with the signature of a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) on 13 June 2019.[50] That is to say, a Strategic Partnership Framework for Agenda 2030 with no rules, no public scrutiny and no accountability. This Memorandum announces “new multi-stakeholder partnerships” to deliver public goods in the key fields of education, women, financing, climate change and health. In other words multinational corporations will influence over matters of global governance in at least those six core areas which include geoengineering. So, by way of fait accompli, the WEF became the multinational corporation policy making body within the UN in key sectors. In words of Harris Gleckman, former chief of the NY Office of United Nations Conference on Trade and Development, the United Nations is quietly being turned into a public-private partnership”[51]. In view of the UN Secretary-General, António Guterres, multi-stakeholder groups without any formal intergovernmental oversight are a better governance system than a one-country-one-vote system. Meanwhile the UN global tax cooperation, one old dream of Maurice Strong, to provide for sustainable development goals and services payment, makes its way through. These globalist multi-stakeholders representing a well woven fabric of interrelated corporate and military interests are the ones behind 30 years of UN Climate Summit shows and tactical failures over CO2 emissions reduction to justify geoengineering and all its interrelated globalist agendas.

This closes the circle. A corporate world government for global resource grabbing, from within the United Nations, to convey public authority, legitimacy and consent… without accountability.

Needless to say that the European Union is in the nucleus of these terrifying agendas spying on its citizens[52] and pushing all initiatives US-UN made, European Green Deal included,[53] through its own extensive network of non-profit industrial complex. Few days before the Madrid Climate Summit, to soften its anticipated failure, the EU adopted express resolutions for Climate Emergency through the European Parliament. The political and moral degradation suffered by the European Parliament in the last 20 years is paramount. In fact it has passed from adopting — on January 14, 1999 — a pioneering resolution[54] in regards to the military impact on the environment, through the use not only of nuclear weapons but also of weather weapons and climate manipulation linking NATO, to follow now the globalist tide. On November 29, 2019, in addition to declaring the Climate Emergency[55], voted in favor of nuclear energy as part of the “climate change solution”[56]. The vote in favor of the MEP Green speaker, Ska Keller, was the cherry on the pie. 50 years of militancy to eradicate nuclear power in the world down the drain in the name of fake climate science! The Council on its part admits that nuclear is now eligible for Green-finance.[57] At least, if any doubts, this fact has the merit to show us who really runs the European institutions. Can the EU be credible on environmental issues when it ranks third in the funding of geoengineering “research”?[58] When it keeps feeding the Energy Charter Treaty, by which corporations have the power to halt the energy transition?[59] When is it planning to create its own army?[60]

Resuming, climate and climate warming deception has been instrumental for the takeover of the United Nations by globalist corporate and military interests pursuing a one world government aiming at global control of resources. Under the guise of Civil Defense Programs, the military industrial complex represented by NATO holds the geoengineering key in charge of producing extreme weather episodes worldwide validating the official narrative of climate change and climate emergency linked to CO2. Meanwhile this key will be used to promote the climate business and privatize the world’s commons, material and immaterial — space, atmosphere, water, air, soil, forests, oceans, living and non-living things, religions, values, culture, etc. — protected now in many parts of the planet by national sovereignties, common law and customary laws. With this tool they will get hold of national sovereignties all over the world to convert every single thing into commodities opening the way to the Fourth Industrial Revolution planned to save the capitalist system in detriment, once more, of the global South. The new high yielding markets created by the New Climate Economy and the New Deal for Nature agendas will be pushed by the non-profit industrial complex headed by World Wildlife Fund, Conservation International, The Natural Capital Coalition, TNC, in addition to Sandrine Dixon, actual Co-President of the Club of Rome and Al Gore in tandem with a corrupted UN.[61] The poor will have nothing to say when the rich come to grab their land by force, driving indigenous communities out of their livelihood sources, attempting to phase-out their culture, their values, their freedom, their dignity, their human rights, their life… Such agenda looks very much like organized crime. Yet all these atrocities will be committed under the euphemism of nature’s protection and peoples’ wellbeing!

Such atrocities would have never had place within a morally healthy United Nations. But the long time corruption of this key institution is symptomatic of a generalized corruption at all levels. A finely engineered global corruption by the corporate elite extends to most relevant social institutions in charge of the “check and balance” of our corrupted corporate political systems: the list goes from International Court of Justice, or Supreme Courts’ failures to anticipate the consequences for our society of  patenting life – genetic material, plant patents and utility patents — by corporations, to uncritical educational systems, environmental movements, global faith movements, churches and media, down to individual researchers, experts, consumers and voters, to name some, became object of corruption.

The corruption of the environmental movement will pass to history in parallel to that of the United Nations. It is a fact that the myriad of neo-environmental movements, corporate-owned, rallying to save the planet for over a decade, fails to address the issues that matter most: They not only oppose the agendas oriented to the commodification of nature which will lead to its further exploitation and devastation but join them. They fail to link ecological devastation with our economic system, based on consumerism and programmed obsolescence. They fail to treat nuclear energy, so cherished by the military, as most life threatening dirty energy, ignoring scientific facts. They fail to relate “clean” technologies and technological consumerism in the western world with mining in poor countries where people are practically enslaved and killed for defending their land and water. They fail to acknowledge colonization and imperialism as the source of wars that destroy vast territories and lives of innocent people. They fail to denounce ongoing and future climate manipulation agendas. They fail to admit the impact on climate and on the environment of the US military. As Barry Sanders in his book “The Green Zone”: Environmental Costs of Militarism says:

“Here’s the awful truth: even if every person, every automobile, and every factory suddenly emitted zero emissions, the earth would still be headed, head first and at full speed, toward total disaster for one major reason. The military produces enough greenhouse gases, by itself, to place the entire globe, with all its inhabitants large and small, in the most imminent danger of extinction.”[62]

So it is clear that those which created the destruction of the planet out of greed and power cannot not form part of the solution. The solutions proposed through all these sinister globalist agendas are always the same: capitalist solutions and a runaway from accountability. This is pure insanity. As Albert Einstein put it: “Insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.”

Arrived to this point there are not many options left. It is imperative that the world recuperate the moral standards of all its institutions for which it cannot afford to maintain any longer a corrupted United Nations and its agencies. A better world for mankind demands some basic adjustments: the actual United Nations has to be replaced by one independent body that will truly serve the purpose of the Universal Human Rights. Corporations and their agendas must be outlawed. All institutions and experts working under protocols or conventions of privileges and immunities must have them revoked to become accountable. And the war industry banned.

A deep reform of the economic system, production, consumption, trade, and waste patterns is due, aiming to achieve a stand to reason adapting needs to resources along with the purpose of science and justice, but this is an issue that exceeds the object of this paper.

What can we do in the meantime? Organize our self-defense: STOP ongoing clandestine geoengineering as well as future geoengineering, and the New Deal for Nature agendas, supporting the serious initiatives taken by conscious people; expose the non-profit industrial complex serving corporate interests for rising awareness in general public; establishing international alliances to introduce lawful banning proposals to most nefarious agendas; advancing on the rights of nature by means of an international treaty; constituting a lawful international court to prevent and judge environmental crimes; and promote fair trade and technological transfer to poorer countries to improve their development and life conditions.

No Deal for Nature.

Notes

[1] Marlos Goes et al. (2011) The economics (or lack thereof) of aerosol geoengineering. Climatic Change DOI 10.1007/s10584-010-9961-z https://www.aoml.noaa.gov/phod/docs/Goes_etal_2011.pdf

[2] P J Crutzen (2006) Albedo enhancement by stratospheric sulfur injections: a contribution to resolve a policy dilemma? Climate Change 77:211–219

[3] James Roger Fleming (2010) Fixing the Sky: The Checkered History of Weather and Climate Control New York, NY, Columbia University Press

[4] J. Marvin Herndon, PhD (2017) An Indication of Intentional Efforts to Cause Global Warming and Glacier Melting; Journal of Geography, Environment and Earth Science International, 9 (1), 1-11.

[5] J. Marvin Herndon, PhD and Mark Whiteside, MD, MPH (2017) Further Evidence of Coal Fly Ash Utilization in Tropospheric Geoengineering: Implications on Human and Environmental Health (click Here) Journal of Geography, Environment and Earth Science International, 9 (1), 1-8.

[6] J. Marvin Herndon, PhD (2018) Deadly Ultraviolet UV-C and UV-B Penetration to Earth’s Surface: Human and Environmental Health Implications. Journal of Geography, Environment and Earth Science International14 (2): 1-11.

[7] Carl Sagan (2012) Carl Sagan’s last interview with Charlie Rose https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U8HEwO-2L4w&feature=emb_logo

[8] https://www.theguardian.com/global-development/2015/dec/11/paris-climate-talks-anger-removal-reference-human-rights-from-final-draft

[9] https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/IP_17_1508

[10] ENMOD https://www.unog.ch/enmod

[11] https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2012/feb/09/at-war-over-geoengineering

[12] https://www.globalresearch.ca/the-globalization-of-war-the-military-roadmap-to-world-war-iii/28254

[13] Jacob Darwing Humblin (2013) Arming Mother Nature: The Birth of Catastrophic Environmentalism: Oxford University Press

[14] http://thespacereview.com/article/396/1

[15] Gordon J.F. MacDonald (1968) How to Wreck the Environment, in Unless Peace Comes, Nigel Calder, Viking Adult

[16] https://archive.org/details/WeatherAsAForceMultiplier/mode/2up

[17] Club of Rome https://www.clubofrome.org/

[18] Aurelio Peccei (1969) The Chasm Ahead – Collier Macmillan Ltd

[19] Criton Zoakos & Mark Burdman (1980) NATO and The Club of Rome: The Aquariam command Executive Intelligence Review, May 20

[20] Laudato Si http://www.vatican.va/content/francesco/en/encyclicals/documents/papa-francesco_20150524_enciclica-laudato-si.html

[21] http://www.pas.va/content/accademia/en/academicians/ordinary/crutzen.html

[22] Dalai Lama MIT http://news.mit.edu/2012/dalai-lama-visits-1016

[23] https://keith.seas.harvard.edu/people/joshua-horton

[24] Elaine Dewar (1995) Cloak of Green The Links Between Key Environmental Groups, Government, & Big Business -Toronto: James Lorimer and Company

[25] https://www.discoverthenetworks.org/organizations/chicago-climate-exchange-ccx

[26] https://www.foxnews.com/politics/obama-years-ago-helped-fund-carbon-program-he-is-now-pushing-through-congress.

[27] Alexander King (1991) The First Global Revolution. Club of Rome

https://epdf.pub/club-of-rome-first-global-revolution.html

[28] https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=3195&v=DexLCszj1wM&feature=emb_logo

[29] https://www.wbcsd.org/

[30] https://www.iucn.org/es/node/15405

[31] Robin Corey (2004) Fear: The History of a Political Idea. Oxford University Press

[32] https://www.globe.gov/

[33] https://www.nytimes.com/1998/06/04/technology/global-weather-project-unites-students-on-web.html

[34] https://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/atoms/files/active_international_saas_house_approps_action_as_of_9-30-2018.pdf

[35] https://www.wri.org/profile/james-gustave-speth

[36] https://www.theclimatemobilization.org/advisory-board

[37] https://www.theclimatemobilization.org/emergency-mode

[38] www.wrongkindofgreen.org

[39] https://sciencebasedtargets.org/

https://www.wri.org/our-work/project/science-based-targets-initiative

[40] http://www.wrongkindofgreen.org/?s=Trojan+Horse

[41] https://www.sierraclub.org/trade/what-green-new-deal

[42] https://www.ft.com/content/9fe06a2a-11b7-11e4-8279-00144feabdc0

[43] https://www.theclimatemobilization.org/emergency-mode

[44] https://newclimateeconomy.report/

[45] https://naturalcapitalcoalition.org/the-value-of-ecosystem-services-from-giant-panda-reserves/

[46] https://nodealfornature.org/#home

[47] https://www.weforum.org/

[48] http://www3.weforum.org/docs/WEF_Harnessing_4IR_Life_on_Land.pdf

[49] https://www.weforum.org/centre-for-the-fourth-industrial-revolution

[50] https://www.weforum.org/press/2019/06/world-economic-forum-and-un-sign-strategic-partnership-framework/

[51] https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=195&v=93aEyOUI0vY&feature=emb_logo

[52] http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/6210255/EU-funding-Orwellian-artificial-intelligence-plan-to-monitor-public-for-abnormal-behaviour.html

[53] https://ec.europa.eu/info/strategy/priorities-2019-2024/european-green-deal_en

[54] European Parliament Report on environment, security and foreign policy http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?pubRef=-//EP//TEXT+REPORT+A4-1999-0005+0+DOC+XML+V0//EN

[55] https://www.europarl.europa.eu/news/en/press-room/20191121IPR67110/the-european-parliament-declares-climate-emergency

[56] https://world-nuclear-news.org/Articles/Nuclear-part-of-climate-solution-says-European-Par

[57] https://www.euractiv.com/section/energy-environment/news/council-maintains-nuclear-as-eligible-for-green-finance/

[58] P Oldham et al. (2014) Mapping the Landscape of Climate Engineering Philos Trans A Math Phys Eng Sci. 2014 Dec 28;372(2031). pii: 20140065. doi: 10.1098/rsta.2014.0065. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4240957/

[59] https://www.tni.org/en/energy-charter-dirty-secrets

[60] https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/pl/memo_17_1476

[61] https://truepundit.com/al-gore-un-officials-team-up-to-push-a-new-deal-for-nature/

[62] Barry Sanders (2009) The Green Zone – Environmental Costs of Militarism- AK Press


Chapter VI

Eyes Wide Open in Cyprus

by

Linda Leblanc

 

Cyprus, an island in the Eastern Mediterranean, boasts of its tourist promotions that it enjoys over 300 sunny days per year, a typical Mediterranean climate with clear blue skies. Tourism, financial services and offshore shipping are the backbone of its economy, which has little heavy industry. Due to the mild conditions, more time is spent outdoors by inhabitants enjoying pristine beaches and national parks which attract visitors from all over Europe escaping industrial smog and grey, cold weather. The outdoor cafés and friendly, traditional family way of life are standard components of living the easy-going island life. This environment is so conducive to outdoor living that people usually don’t have to think much about weather conditions because it is almost always pleasant and predictable.

Perhaps this is one reason why it was so noticeable when the white lines began to criss-cross the blue skies of Cyprus, which then slowly but surely spread, dimmed the sun and created a milky, cloudy haze, now common in the wider Mediterranean area. With limited air traffic and only two internationally recognized commercial airports, the lines in the sky were hard to miss by anyone who happened to cast a glance above. The unpolluted environment and good weather conditions make it easy for such a noticeable change to be observed by tens of thousands of residents.

As a result of this apparently unnatural phenomenon, in 2008 the Cyprus Green Party offices across the island received hundreds of telephone calls from residents about this uncommon traffic in the sky. On days with what appears to be an obvious weather manipulation, Green Party offices were inundated with calls demanding action and public debate about this environmental onslaught which regularly occurs in the skies above Cyprus.

Figure 1 NASA satellite image over Cyprus, 4 Feb. 2016

Response to Public Concerns

The Green Party’s then sole Member of Parliament, Mr. George Perdikis, became increasingly engaged in the issue. The Green Party organized many presentations with scientists, writing letters to Parliament and Government Ministers and holding press conferences and public awareness events.[1] In 2010, the Action Committee Against Chemical Spraying was formed by private citizens. In 2012, the Green Party prepared a briefing paper on geoengineering, Weather Modification is Not a Conspiracy Theory – A Call for Action. In 2012, the Cyprus Greens joined the Europe-wide anti-geoengineering movement and officially participated in the 2013 conference held in the European Parliament in Brussels.

The aerial spraying was suspected to be carried out by aircraft from the British sovereign military bases in Cyprus, possibly in conjunction with the experimental operation of the American High-Frequency Active Auroral Research Program (HAARP) in the airspace of Cyprus. Demonstrations were held outside the British military bases, which continue to deny any involvement.

Rumours proliferated concerning activities of the British and American military on the British bases that might affect the rainfall on the island, in particular in the coastal city of Limassol. It is worth noting that Limassol actually ran out of drinking water in 2008, resulting in emergency water supplies being delivered by ship tankers from Greece, at a cost of over €35 million. Although Cyprus regularly experiences cyclical droughts, the recent one in the Eastern Mediterranean and near Middle East is thought by scientists to be one of the worst in 900 years.[2]

According to the Cypriot government’s Department of Meteorology, the climate of Cyprus during the last century had “remarkable variations and trends,” particularly in precipitation and temperature, which were also seen in neighbouring countries in the Middle East. Accompanying an erratic amount of precipitation is an upward trend of average annual temperature in Cyprus, in both urban and rural areas. These trends are described on the government website as “evidence of change in the general circulation of the atmosphere in the area.”[3] For Cyprus, in a 30-year period of the second half of the 20th century, the average precipitation decreased by 17%, as compared to those in the first half of the last century. The downward trend continued from 1990 until the winter hydrometeorological year 2018/2019 (October-January), which saw an extremely high 165% increase compared to “normal” during the period 1961-1990, ranking this as one of the highest recorded precipitation years since 1901. Remarkably, the heavy rainfall continued in February 2019, with nearly twice the monthly average. This trend for exceptional levels of precipitation persisted into the next winter season. December 2019 registered 188% of normal, which led to an all-time record of almost 100% of dams overflowing in January 2020 and continued into February, again with record rain and cold. Less than one year later, however, rainfall shifted back to drought, with approximately 30% lower rainfall and resultant decline in reservoir storage. Extreme precipitation variations cause havoc on especially vulnerable semi-arid countries which depend on winter rainfall for agriculture and water supply in general. I doubt it is a coincidence that recently experienced “whiplash” extremes of drought and record-breaking precipitation are accompanied by weather manipulation in the skies above Cyprus.

Actions in Cyprus Parliament

According to various sources, the British military bases in Cyprus reportedly form part of the ECHELON spy network and HAARP, the aim of the latter is believed to be an attempt to control the planet’s weather. Information has linked US aircraft KC-10 and KC-135 with the HAARP program and aerial chemical spraying. Following a question raised in 2009 from the Greens’ MP about these aircrafts, the Cyprus Foreign Minister requested a response by the British High Commission in Cyprus. The reply was that there were certain types of US aircraft crossing Cyprus but that these aircrafts had not passed through the British bases after the end of 2008.

Discussion of the suspected weather manipulation continued in a Parliamentary Committee in March 2009, with the decision to create an Interdepartmental Technical Committee for the study of the phenomenon. For unknown reasons, this committee ceased its operations in June 2010 after only two meetings.

Green Party MP Perdikis submitted other official questions to the Parliament and arranged for further Parliamentary Environmental Committee meetings in 2010, 2012 and 2016 to investigate the issue and to hear the views of the concerned public.[1]

In 2011, another question was raised by the Greens’ MP about the Cypriot position on the UN Treaty (COP10) Convention on Biological Diversity which approved a moratorium on geoengineering.

The government response was that it supported the moratorium, stating that the precautionary principle should be applied due to lack of effective controls on geoengineering and the possible effect on biodiversity and that climate manipulation should be stopped until there is scientific justification for such actions. With respect to the concerns expressed about the possibility of chemical air spraying in Cyprus, the Minister once again affirmed that it had been decided to have the issue researched by the responsible services.

The Greens and the citizen-led Action Committee continued campaigning about the suspicious chemical clouds and overflights by aircraft leaving behind toxic elements considered to be potentially dangerous to public health. A petition was launched so that residents could contribute to the protest movement against the suspected aerial spraying, demanding an immediate investigation and that the Government abide by its undertaking to citizens to examine the likely consequences for the environment and the health of the population.

Sampling by the Cyprus Government

With continuous pressure from environmentalists, the government proceeded in 2011 with sampling of rainwater and air to be carried out by the Forestry and Meteorology Departments.

In 2015, still awaiting the publication of the results of the analyses, the Environment Commissioner, Ms. Ioanna Panayiotou, and the Greens’ MP Perdikis, wrote separately to the relevant minister and to the heads of related departments requesting the publication of the results of the samples taken in 2011. Finally, the information was released. The government reported that in 2011 the Forestry Department collected five atmosphere samplings with an aircraft at two locations in the south and west coasts at a height of 8,000–10,000 feet. Three out of five samplings took place after information was received from the private Action Committee reporting that lines had been noticed in the sky. For comparison purposes, the other two air samples were taken on days when the atmosphere appeared to be clear.  The Meteorological Service took measurements on days that rain was noted. After each sampling, the filters were sent to the government’s state laboratory, which performed analyses for aluminum, barium, magnesium, nickel, chromium, strontium and cadmium. The results were then sent to the Department of Labor Inspection which, in a letter dated August 5, 2013, informed the Ministry that the analyses were lower than the usual measurements that the Department takes of air particles in different parts of Cyprus.

The responsible Minister of Agriculture, Natural Resources and Environment informed the Parliament in October 2015 that on the basis of the findings of relevant analyses, no conclusion could be drawn that aerial spraying is being carried out in the atmosphere of Cyprus. The Minister, however, also assured the Parliament that the Republic of Cyprus does not support any interference with the atmosphere for the purpose of changing climatic conditions through aerial spraying that might affect the environment and human health.

The Cyprus Green Party nevertheless does not consider that the study conducted by the responsible authorities was comprehensive for a number of reasons, such as that the investigatory team did not include a representative from the grassroots Action Committee as had been promised nor was care taken to examine for nanoparticles.

The Cyprus Green Party does welcome the clear position of the Cypriot government against geoengineering, but the ecologists continue to insist on independent sampling and chemical analysis of the substances contained in the suspected chemical clouds.

In February 2016, again at the request of the Greens’ MP, a hearing was convened by the Parliamentary Environment Committee to discuss possible environmental problems with the implementation of geoengineering. Present at this meeting were politicians and representatives of many government departments to hear the concerns of agricultural associations, including the Cyprus Beekeepers and a researcher from Greece. It was promised at this meeting that a full investigation would be undertaken by the head of the Environment Services, a department of the Ministry of Agriculture, Natural Resources and the Environment, with the full support of the Minister, Mr. Nicolas Kouyiallis.

Some months later, the results of the Environment Services’ investigation appeared in Greek-language newspapers. No written, official report was issued or made public, no air or water samples were taken but it had been decided at a closed meeting of government officials that there was no evidence of geoengineering intervention in Cyprus. The Minister maintained that it cannot be corroborated that experiments and research for the purpose of artificially shaping climatic conditions took place in Cyprus.

In March 2017, Greens’ MP Perdikis stated that the 2016 government investigation did not include any sampling research and that he was still dissatisfied with the government’s failure to address the concerns of the public about suspected geoengineering in Cyprus.

Image on the right: Party logo of Cyprus Greens (Source: European Greens)

Due to the work of the Cyprus Greens, the Cyprus Parliament is possibly the first national Parliament in the world to discuss the issue of geoengineering although there are laws against geoengineering proposed in some American states. Efforts of the Cyprus Greens have been less successful, however, in attempts to engage Green Party colleagues in Europe to research on the issue and its unknown environmental and health consequences. Many politicians and environmentalists refuse to discuss this topic although it affects almost every environmental issue: climate change, air pollution, oceans, biodiversity, forests, public health and safety, quality of life, social justice, informed consent, governance and transparency.

It Has Happened Before

The secret spraying of unsuspecting populations with toxic substances is not without precedent. A few well-documented, covert, unethical operations provide a useful framework to understand better such resistance to accept the possibility of a clandestine, global geoengineering program.

In recent years, shocking instances have come to light of experiments done without consent, in the USA and the UK. As revealed in an independent review[4] of the UK Ministry of Defence, between 1940 and 1979, top secret spraying trials took place in the UK using a chemical concoction of zinc cadmium sulphide. The British military covertly sprayed UK populations over 100 times with similar poisonous compounds, events that successive governments have tried to suppress.

In 1994, the US military confirmed to Congress that it had conducted secret experiments with toxic chemicals sprayed on populations living in low-income housing in several US cities in the 1950s and 60s.[5]

It is due to persistent Freedom of Information requests that these secret spraying operations came to light. These revelations also rarely get much coverage in mainstream media, which further supports the argument that there are concerted efforts to manipulate public knowledge and to deceive the public.

There are mind-boggling implications if similar covert projects are taking place today. This would be in conflict with a carefully constructed façade of a world of responsible governments, accountable to the people who supposedly elected them to protect their safety and well-being. Unable intellectually and emotionally to accept that such programs could be happening and the associated implications, debunkers are simply blind to any evidence whatsoever. Perhaps there is an unacknowledged cognitive burden that some people are just unable to bear.

Willful Blindness

Aside from the Cyprus Green Party, most environmental groups are guilty of a refusal to consider as valid and worthy of investigation the complaints from the public about potential environmental problems created by ongoing geoengineering. A number of conditions provide fertile ground for such a stubborn refusal to accept what to many is the obvious. Successful global environmental organizations are now a part of the Establishment, whether as non-governmental organizations or as political parties. Reliant on funding, they are eager to maintain their credibility and to increase their status as part of the mainstream. Many employees of environmental groups have become office creatures, spending time at their desks indoors all day with rarely a glance at the increasingly grey, cloud-covered and criss-crossed skies. Do they even look up occasionally from their computers and hand-held devices that hold them captive? If they happen to notice the ubiquitous zig-zag patterns, they dismiss them as normal contrails of commercial air traffic. They as easily reject the “crazy conspiracy theories” they hear reported on mainstream media. The script on the controlled news channels ensures that the issue is constantly ridiculed, designed to castigate this environmental and health issue as a baseless “conspiracy theory.”

Over the years, relentless ridicule on mainstream media silenced some of the Cyprus Green Party leadership who came to believe that it was too politically costly to continue to speak publicly about the issue.  The Greek-language media even developed a new label, “the sprayed/Ψεκασμένοι”, applied to those who believe in conspiracies, the “irrationalists”.  The derogatory term is now also used for those who oppose the global experimental coronavirus vaccines/injections. Just one example, in July 2021, Greek Prime Minister Kyriakos Mitsotakis referred to those opposed to the vaccinations as “the sprayed”.

With such a controversial label promoted by the mainstream media, many organizations and individuals react with a reflex programmed scepticism and refuse to consider independent research. This has been an effective tool to ridicule those researchers and the public who do not accept the deceptive propaganda that is dished out to the masses.

Yet it is indeed a conspiracy – not a theory – against the people and it is crafted to conceal the truth. Fortunately, the increasingly discredited mainstream media are being exposed as captives to their corporate and other masters who are an integral part of the conspiracy.

Fake Public Consent

Coinciding with a mass media campaign to discredit claims of ongoing worldwide weather manipulation, there is a public relations campaign aimed at securing acceptance of the need for geoengineering. Numerous well-funded academic conferences have blossomed in recent years.[6] The Institute for Advanced Sustainability Studies (IASS) in Germany organized the first International Climate Engineering Conference in 2014 and holds such gatherings annually. The Universities of Oxford, Cambridge and Harvard are also involved in the climate manipulation issue. Harvard officially established, in spring 2017, a Solar Geoengineering Research Program. These groups all insist that there is no actual geoengineering taking place. Of importance is that these conferences provide a carefully manipulated appearance of “public consultation,” which is then construed to represent public approval. These scientists and academics claim that research on geoengineering is at an early stage, implying that geoengineering and specifically solar radiation management are simply highly theoretical research programs.

Dismissed are credible reports from independent researchers who have meticulously studied this around the world. Their evidence includes soil and water samples with extremely high levels of aluminum and barium in areas subjected to heavy aerial spraying. This indicates that there is already a project of unprecedented magnitude, in full-scale global application, being implemented without legal frameworks, national or international. It violates fundamental human and sovereign rights, the precautionary principle and endangers the planet’s ecosystems and all living organisms.

Europe adopted in 1998 the Aarhus Convention (2003/4 EC, Access to Information, Public Participation in Decision-making and Access to Justice in Environmental Matters) which links environmental and human rights. This and other international protection for the public have been sidelined (e.g., Universal Declaration of Human Rights, UN Environmental Modification Convention ENMOD prohibiting nations from deliberately altering weather, et al., for hostile purposes). A recent example is in 2016 when the European Parliament dismissed a well-researched and credible petition and call for investigation of geoengineering. It was rejected without further investigation, on advice received by the European Commission that the European Parliament has no competence in the area of military initiatives and that EU environmental legislation is without purpose with respect to military activities. Similar stalls happened over 20 years ago with the Theorin report, which included a proposal adopted by the Committee on Foreign Affairs, Security and Defence Policy, but never implemented which called for openness and democratic scrutiny of military research and that civil laws on the environment apply to military activities.[7]

Clearly, exposing the reality of covert global weather manipulation shatters a delusionary world view by which so many people are entranced. This new knowledge can take some too far away from their comfort zone. Maintaining the illusion of an accountable, democratic world becomes paramount resulting in an automatic response of rejectionism.

Why Cyprus May be Different

A simple, careful investigation reveals some basic considerations which are unique to the Republic of Cyprus. There seems to be ready acknowledgement by most residents of the possibility of clandestine weather manipulations above the island. Perhaps this is perceived as just the latest in a long chronicle of suppression and exploitation. Throughout its long tragic history, it has suffered deeply from invasion and occupation, including the current one still dividing the island as a result of the war in 1974, leaving over one-third of the island under occupation by Turkey.

The presence of British sovereign military bases on the island provides opportunities for suspected actions associated with military experiments with weather manipulation. A remnant of the colonial past, the sovereign bases were retained by Britain as a condition of independence granted to the Republic of Cyprus in 1960. These territories, officially part of Britain and not under Cyprus jurisdiction, cover 98 square miles and approximately 3% of the island. There is an air force base, several garrison areas and numerous radar stations, the latter “listening posts” located outside of the official base areas.

Due to the division of the island, there are carefully designated air traffic controls. Some of the suspected geoengineering airplane flights are found outside these official air traffic corridors, criss-crossing the sky in all directions and stretching across the sky in a completely unnatural way. Representatives of the Civil Aviation Department admitted this in parliamentary committees and even wondered who was doing this. There are also reports that these airplanes’ transponders are turned off.

Some Cyprus Green Party members remain unwavering in observations that lead to quite a different conclusion from that of their government. The sightings of chemical aerial spraying and weather manipulation with unnatural lines in the sky continue. In the large coastal town of Limassol, their Green Party office wrote in February 2016:

“We are confident that there is chemical (aerial) spraying. We believe that the Government has a huge responsibility to investigate fully the phenomenon and to take the necessary steps to stop it.”

They have the support of tens of thousands of residents in Cyprus.

For the time being, as more revelations expose the underlying connections of the global cartel with its life-denying projects, the ranks of the “sprayed” continue to grow.

Notes

[1] Cyprus Parliamentary Questions by Green MP George Perdikis, Nicosia.

Question No. 23.06.009.03.279, 29 Dec. 2008 (British Bases in Cyprus and HAARP)
Question No. 23.06.009.03.282, 5 Jan. 2009 (British and US activities on the military bases affecting rainfall)
Question No. 23.06.009.03.286, 7 Jan. 2009 (KC-10 and KC-135 aircraft, HAARP)
Question No. 23.06.009.05.01.724, 7 April 2011 (Geoengineering and UN COP10 Moratorium)
Cyprus Parliamentary Environment Committee Hearings

Oct. 7, 2010: Testimony Dr. Katsaros (chemist scientist, Research Centre Democritos Athens, correct sampling of chemical clouds)

Νοv. 29, 2012, “The impact on the water balance and the health of residents of Cyprusfrom potential aircraft sprays of British bases in the atmosphere,” proposal from MP Perdikis, File Nos. 23.04.028.555-2011 and 23.04.026.049-2009 “Information concerning experimental research of HAARP on the British Bases Akrotiri and serious effects on the environment,” File Nos. 23.04.028.555-2011 and 23.04.025.232-2008

Feb. 17, 2016, MP Perdikis, File No. 23.04.033.014-2016 “Possible environmental problems resulting from intervention in climate conditions with implementation of geoengineering and chemical aerial spraying (chemtrails)”

[2] Journal of Geophysical Research: Atmospheres, 2016, Cook, Benjamin I. et al, Spatiotemporal drought variability in the Mediterranean over the last 900 years

[3] Cyprus Ministry of Agriculture, Department of Meteorology http://www.moa.gov.cy/moa/ms/ms.nsf/DMLcyclimate_en/DMLcyclima       te_en?OpenDocument

[4] Professor Brian G. Spratt FRS, Welcome Trust Centre for the Epidemiology of Infectious Disease, University of Oxford, Independent Review of the Possible Health Hazards of the Large-scale Release of Bacteria During the Forest Defence Trials (2002)

[5] Lisa Martino-Taylor, Ph.D., Global Studies Program Coordinator, Associate Professor of Sociology, St. Louis, University of Missouri-Columbia, author of “Beyond the Fog – How The US Cold War Radiological Weapons Program Exposed Innocent Americans” (2017), based on her University of Missouri- Columbia doctoral dissertation, “The Manhattan-Rochester Coalition, Research on the Health Effects of Radioactive Materials and Tests on Vulnerable Populations without Consent in St. Louis (2012)

[6] Oxford Geoengineering Programme: http://www.geoengineering.ox.ac.uk/oxford-principles/principles/

Cambridge Geoengineering Conference (SRM Science 2015): http://www.srms-cambridge.eng.cam.ac.uk/

Harvard University Centre for the Environment, Spring 2017: Solar Geoengineering Research Program                                                                   http://geoengineering.environment.harvard.edu/ http://harvardmagazine.com/2013/07/buffering-the-sun#article-images

[7] Theorin Resolution, European Parliament, A4-0005/1999, 28/01/1999

Resolution on the environment, security and foreign policy


Chapter VII

Why Don’t People Realize

They Are Being Sprayed Like Insects?

by

Claire Henrion

 

Why don’t they see the incredible quantities of aircraft and their abnormal trails?

Why don’t they understand they are both the victims and the zealous ignorant actors of a monstrous war?

Our civilization conditioned us to be blind.

When I happened to see the first obvious sprayings of toxic products in the sky, aircraft which were obviously flying a lot lower than the required altitude to form condensation trails (that is, 8000m as I had been taught previously as a meteorology student). It was on December 26th, 1999 in Quebec when France suffered the most momentous double storm in its history (but that I didn’t know then). A chill of horror went up and down my spine. They dare do that! They dare go that far in man’s blind race to the destruction and disregard of life! On that same day, I learned from a local woman who lived in the small, charming village called Saint Adolphe where I was staying, that Canada had suffered these trails since 1995. Back to France, I forgot all about it until May 16th, 2002 when I saw from my window, with my own eyes, a lot of aircraft flying about in the sky that produced the same type of trails. Since that date, these sprayings have never stopped. They have even intensified.

I was horrified and appalled, but I soon started to feel a great hope: everyone would quickly be aware of what was going on and it would be the end of the grip of the spirit of destruction, the end of the naive belief that the world leaders work for the public good and that armies protect us; that technology and chemistry will remedy human suffering – whereas they only create and bring more suffering to all creatures. It was just the sign of evil, the necessary signal for human beings to open their eyes and their hearts, to take charge of their common destiny, that of our planet, for future generations and simple respect for Life, for Creation and Nature. The opportunity of turning the page on 5,000 years of imperialism that have produced nothing but human suffering, the wrecking of Nature and of Knowledge.

“There will be fearful events and great signs from heaven”[1]. And yet most of those who proclaim these words do not see these great signs, drawn every day in the sky by unbelievably numerous aircraft squadrons.

What happens in our minds? How can we lose our survival instinct to that extent?

Today we are in 2017. The aerospace assembly lines in our Toulouse region are relentlessly running at full capacity to make aircraft. But who can buy so many aircrafts? Fortunately, more and more people realise every day that there is something wrong in the number of planes, in the altitude they’re flying at, in the trails they leave behind and the consequent effects on the atmosphere, the weather and health. To establish the facts and be convinced that we must put an end to all this has become a vital priority. All our efforts must aim at dismantling the keystone of the whole structure of lying that nowadays totally poisons our health, our minds and our environment: toxic synthetic chemistry which has invaded agriculture and all spheres of everyday life, pharmacopoeia, GMOs, the cacophony in all wavelengths and the whole lot of nuclear, bacteriological, electromagnetic, climate devices used by the sorcerer’s apprentices who are in control of this world.

“The rhinoceros’s shade expands over the skies of our planet” (Overcast)[2].

It Started Because…

In her book, “La Guerre Secrète contre les Peuples[3]”, Claire Séverac has completed a particularly acute analysis of our recent history. In this brilliant work of investigation, she goes back to the legal source and facts of inner dealings that, for many decades, have led industrial, military political groups to carry out the aerial spray programs and electromagnetic interventions that we face today. But why do they do it? – “Because we let them!” Michael Murphy says[4]. And how can we consider a way out of such a dramatic situation?

As I feel particularly concerned and eager to help all of us wake up the conscience of our primal original being, “whose fatal ignorance crowns the reign of darkness[5]”, I dedicated myself to analyse the concepts supporting our present-day society values on one hand, and on the other hand to study the functioning of our brain.

Human beings give almost no attention to the fundamental, first causes of everything. This is what humanity doesn’t want to take care of; we don’t want to think about it[6]. According to Noberto Keppe, this fundamental laziness results from the common inversion that makes us think that energy comes out from matter. Surely enough, we are often misled at our expense, but don’t we have a fundamental laziness to question our beliefs and to let others tidy the hearth of our lives where ashes are piling up so quickly?

Claudia von Werlhof on her side analyses this phenomenon as the “hatred of life”, which is the basic concept of all our imperialist civilizations, a concept that has never been questioned: it is to destroy what exists and rebuild everything according to an “ideal”.

I will, therefore, start tracing back the history of events, then I will briefly develop a few chapters to enlighten this search for the fundamental causes:

  • the decline of the feminine condition, its functions and its values since the beginning of history
  • giving birth and delivery today that illustrate and explain why a diametrically opposed process to physiology is still currently in use
  • the division between astronomy and astrology, both acknowledged as the “Mother of Sciences”
  • the functioning of the human brain

This Started When…

Recent History of Industrial, Chemical and Oil Companies

Today’s scientists who ponder over ethics of science find that research is always sponsored by those who fund it[7]. And those who fund it have possessed ground and underground riches for centuries. More precisely, they are today, and have been since the end of the 19th century, the oil, chemical and pharmaceutical consortiums. They intervene either directly or through official institutions, especially the European ones. As Dr Rath[8] explains, the European Union founders are none other than the Nazis, soon “cleared” after the Second World War, that is, the promoters of the companies (Bayer, IG Farben …), who previously worked to win power in Germany in the 1930s[9].

It Was Amplified By…

The Prohibition of Hemp

I would like to digress for a while and talk about a related topic: the prohibition of hemp and cannabis. It was the most widespread and well-known plant on this planet. Up to the 19th century, each American citizen was required to grow an acre of hemp and had to pay his taxes with hemp[10]. In Europe too, each farmer had his plot of hemp. Hemp offers a lot of benefits for people’s health, it enriches the soil, and has many other uses. It competed so well with oil, chemicals and pharmaceuticals that suddenly it became prohibited. It was prohibited first in France in 1934, then in the USA in 1937, under the pressure of puritan lobbies and chemical industries. Since then, the hemp flower (the so-called “cannabis” or “marijuana”) has been demonized and banned as a dangerous drug – and has become sometimes really dangerous due to the ignorance, the fascination effect, and the product’s alteration it got as a forbidden product.

Though it is connecting the two brain hemispheres and healing the pineal gland, it is difficult to measure to what extent its consumption (which is widespread though forbidden) helps people to keep their health and spirits up, but it is very likely that without hemp, the mortality rate would be still higher. Today in France, disinformation and propaganda against cannabis get stronger and stronger in media and through social authorities.

Governments Lose Their Sovereignty

Meanwhile, the oil, chemical, pharmaceutical and bank consortiums had become very rich, thanks to the toxic products they made and sold to supply the trench warfare during the First World War. In fact, they had become rich enough to buy the US government which in turn had been ruined because of its engagement in the war. Consequently, since the First World War, which is now a century ago, the US government has lost its sovereignty: it is led by that cartel of banks and industrial companies. Al Gore says it explicitly in his last book: “The Future: Six Drivers of Global Change”:

“Our democracy has been hacked. The country is utterly and completely paralyzed. Hog-tied. Why? The influence of money. The average member of the House and Senate, has to spend five hours per day begging rich people for money. Begging rich interests for money! And those rich people and rich interests don’t give you money with no strings attached. No way. In return for their money, they want votes that will benefit them. The piper is paid.” (Gore).

Thanks to the prohibition of hemp, they could easily introduce chemicals for agriculture, synthetic textile material, toxics for medicines and food, which are very active to repair their damages – without hemp.

Then it was the Second World War with the horrendous death camps, a tremendous increase of chemicals and industrial companies getting wealthier.

And “Nazi medical scientists” experimenting on men and women … They introduced fluorine in prisoners’ drinking water to make them more obedient. Contrary to hemp, fluorine stops the two brain hemispheres from communicating. Such a practice is still going on today: may we consider it as an obstacle to our realizing what happens in the sky? The dogmatic medical approach today has a lot to do with the Nazi spirit: more and more medical exams, less and less diagnosis, an increasing use of chemicals regardless of the patient’s health …  Worse than the sound of boots, there is the silence of slippers.” (Max Frisch)

After the Second World War, every Western European country had to join NATO to help the “big brother” and put themselves under its “protection”. Not to mention all the wars that have never ended all around the world, fomented in order to supply the market.

At least two leaders of European nations strongly resisted NATO expansion: De Gaulle and Tito. But in France, the 1968 movement was used to destabilise De Gaulle. Then in 1981 when Tito, the leader of non-aligned countries, died, a lot of Yugoslavian journalists were murdered abroad and discord was roused among the people.

During the 1990s, French authorities probably did not spontaneously accept to collaborate in spraying their airspace. We had a little signal from HAARP with the terrible storms on December 26th and 27th, 1999. Then we got back to normal until France agreed and general and systematic spraying started in 2001 and 2002. And yet, hardly anyone saw anything.

The Introduction of Civil Geoengineering in Europe and the Onset of a New Enemy: CO2 

Since 2008, the Royal Society in London has been organizing public lectures on “geoengineering”. This new term has then been used in other European countries and languages, in different conferences and seminars, establishing the strong belief that CO2 emissions are the main cause of climate warming.

Yet the proportion of CO2 in the Earth atmosphere is ridiculously low (below 0.05%). Within 10 years, CO2 has become the scapegoat, the non-problem to divert our focus and conceal the fact that warming is due to the use of electromagnetic weapons such as HAARP. There is indeed an anthropogenic warming, not because of CO2 emitted by civil activities, but actually resulting from the use of climate weapons which melt the polar icecap, deflect the jet stream, and create climate chaos. These climate weapons are the submerged part of the iceberg, in fact eight ninths of it.

Plants are greedy for CO2. They only need sunlight to synthesize carbon and restore oxygen. But instead, those ignorant “learned” scientists, enacting a false premise, prevent sunrays from reaching the Earth by creating an artificial cloud layer, thus reducing the so-called climate warming which is, according to them, due to the presence of CO2.

From a Civilisation to a System

CO2 is taking today the wretched function endorsed by women for centuries, while women are acquiring male social privileges. But are they not losing at the same time their real feminine value, which is the wisdom they have gained through giving birth and essentially their loving power? Femininity is not really freed. The vile function is no more reserved to a class of persons: that is women, but to a chemical element: CO2. CO2 is for oxygen what the woman is for the man; one without the other is nothing. Without questioning the essential point, that is, why should a gender be noble and the other ignoble if not harming life?

I think we have here the typical signal of the transition from a civilisation to a system. While we reach a global consciousness, the patriarchal rule becoming a system means that when the civilisation is collapsing (people are losing and forgetting their references and values), the hatred of life “hacks” our lives, our spirits and bodies, our cells … Even with the very best intentions, the principle keeps on living as long as it is not identified.

The patriarchal rule has led to the division between the two brain hemispheres: the right hemisphere (feminine) and the left one (masculine), at the individual level as well as the social level. We can see it both in our sciences and our beliefs.

The “Hatred of Life” was first accepted as a rule. It was clearly defined in the Greek civilisation: the masculine was noble, the feminine was wretched. Imperialist civilisations have developed according to this rule, Western civilisations as well as Eastern ones. If we consider the Western one, its empires (Babylon, Rome, and today Washington), its three main monotheistic religions and, if we think of our Greco-Roman references concerning ethics, sciences, and politics, all of them deal with this principle. The Western civilisations, based on the belief of a single inaccessible stranger God whose representative on Earth was the monarch, and building their strength on the armed forces, have spread their power over the world until mutating into a system, while at the same time the whole social structure of the nation states along with their religions are now collapsing.

Moreover, we can notice first that the evolution of women’s social status has been similar in Japan and China, where it has declined simultaneously. Secondly, that all the areas where this change occurred were empires and thirdly, that empires have been born and developed on the most crowded stopping-off places: along the Silk Road in Eurasia, north and south of the isthmus of Panama in America (Mayas and Incas). The same phenomenon of a society getting organized in a superstructure when its habitat is concentrated in an enclosed environment can be observed with animal populations. It seems that there is a universal rule that establishes a certain content ratio in populations that must not be violated.

Human beings were first subjected, submitted, converted, by hook or by crook, in the name of ideals, to the will of the most powerful and they are still today the zealous actors of a system that has never ended to wreck the whole planet. We must not forget that we belong to this planet and totally depend on it to live.

Each one of us is more or less both a victim and an actor, in the most total warfare that was ever fought on Earth, as far as we can remember in human history. But let us remember that, for thousands and thousands of years, history was written according to a dogma dictated by the mighty, and large sections of it have disappeared in fires and stakes. Today, more and more archaeological evidence, whose dating is confirmed by astronomical data, leads us to think that previous civilisations may have destroyed themselves as we do nowadays.

We cling to our beliefs as to the mast of a sinking ship and we blindly repeat the mistakes that we have kept in our collective unconscious: Nature is evil, the Earth is thankless, we must dominate it, we must master it.

Religions are ambivalent. They teach us values of thankfulness, gratitude and love. But at the same time, they convey the assumption that we are to destroy things that live in the name of a mythic ideal pretending to be better than life. It is the patriarchal logic to destroy what IS, in order to achieve an ideal beyond it.

The Greek Myth

The Greek civilisation has been the reference regarding ethics and science for centuries. It is praised as the cradle of the objective and atomist first explanation of the world. From the social point of view, it has led to the devaluation of women’s roles, the sexual preference of men for men and to the fact that rich women downloaded breastfeeding of children onto their female slaves[11].

More than any other, the Greek mythology has filled heaven with deities. Its myths tell the deeds of Zeus and his court, which mainly consists of kidnapping, raping, murdering, then sending his victims into the sky constellations to absolve his crimes, always driven by jealousy. The feminine creature becomes an object to be possessed over which Zeus means to impose his rights. It has permeated our whole culture, expanding to video game.

The exaltation of the noble masculine in the antique Greek society, the fall of the wretched female is well referenced by a well-known French astrophysicist, André Brahic, in his book “Enfants du Soleil” (Children of the Sun):

“Slaves were carrying out everyday life duties while citizens had all the time to focus on intellectual matters. A new way of thinking had been born. Each one could now ponder over the meaning of life, over the organisation of society and ask himself philosophical questions without having to resort to a myth. We had moved from a mythical way of thinking to a new one based on experience and rationality. But in fact, it took a lot more time and it was a lot more difficult to understand this move towards the triumph of reason than this quick explanation seems to demonstrate.” (Brahic, s. note 11)

Each one means no women, no slaves, only “citizens” and a restricted particular circle which had the time to think completely detached from most of the material constraints of everyday life, keeping away from half of the whole reality of life. The triumph of reason would consist of enslaving your fellow men to free yourself from the obligations due to nature.

Does this “marvelous science” not have any defect? It is common yet to praise this reason that has eradicated myths, throwing them up in the skies, but this glorious masculine reason may become an enormous greedy insect that will devour living flesh. Thus, conscience will end up deserting science.

Based on Aristotle’s way of thinking, it boasts about reasoning only on facts and rejecting any immaterial or transcendental cause. In the Middle Ages until Copernicus, Aristotle’s logic of the two spheres had been the only authorized reference:

  • the sphere of the heavens, motionless, unchanging and perfect which bore the nobleness of the masculine,
  • the sphere of the Earth, changing and imperfect, expressing down-to-earth realities and the shame that hangs over the feminine.

The Renaissance threw away a lot of concepts and practises. We forgot about Aristotle’s two spheres, but we didn’t ask ourselves any questions. Basically, the dogma has remained unchanged: reasoning only on facts and finding in facts themselves the causes of their existence.

We could call this thinking tautological.

There is something lacking. There is something wrong.

“In Physics, the focus is on how to extract energy from matter … how to break particles apart so the energy can be released. The approach is the same in biology. Biologists think that the genes are the basic structure of the human being and that if we can control them, then we can control all the aspects of the human being. Some of the ramifications of these inverted ways of thinking are that scientists think that matter is the basis of everything. Geneticists say that everything is 100% genetic and that the environment affects us 100%. The truth is that the environment is an energetic environment, not only a social one. This means that our thinking and our feelings affect the development of our genes. We were born into a society that believes that matter is the basis of everything and is also the source of energy. We need to see that the opposite is true: it is energy that affects matter.”[12]

You Shall Give Birth in Pain

Each human being’s primal physical and mental health is grounded in birth.

The way women have delivered and deliver babies today represents a great physical and mental loss and causes weakness and disease both to the mother and child. The biblical condemnation: “You shall give birth in pain” has led today’s woman to be dispossessed of her dignity in giving birth.

The History of the Loss of the Rights of Mothers Giving Birth

The decline of the feminine functions in Western patriarchal societies appeared with the biblical sentence: “You shall give birth in pain” and the downfall of the feminine values in Greek society. Studying this decline will illustrate how a rule can be embodied in a civilisation to the point of eventually turning it into a system.

At the beginning, as evidenced by 3,000 year old Sumerian tablets, women had the same social status as men. In Greek civilisation and according to biblical texts in the course of the first millennium BC, masculine values were considered as noble while the feminine ones were judged as base. Women themselves ended up thinking their own skills were loathsome, and the rich ones abandoned breastfeeding to their slaves. In the 4th century BC, the union of the Roman Empire with the Church spelled the end of many inspired women like Sainte Foy who died a martyr in 303 BC, because she refused to marry the husband who was imposed on her and because she claimed her faith in Jesus Christ. There was the end of learned women like Hypatia of Alexandria who was tortured and killed in 415 BC, about 100 years later, for the inverse reason, not swearing allegiance to the Church. Then, from the 14th century on, the Church which set itself up as the only holder of knowledge, accused many learned men and women of witchcraft and burned them alive at the stake. Thus, many people disappeared who held a large body of popular science and particularly a great knowledge of herbal contraceptives. As a result, many unwanted babies were abandoned, and during the Hundred Years’ War, famine and epidemics fell on the people.

Then came the time when Louis XIV imposed on women to give birth while lying down.

This “good manner” spread over the world like a powder trail. It meant a lot of suffering and ruin for the health of women and newborns and it is non-physiological as such. Nowadays, chemical and surgery solutions let women think they can avoid the labour pains by anaesthesia and can deliver a baby without having to live its coming into the world. The consequences are born afterwards, not only because of the weakening of overall health but moreover with parents becoming more and more immature and irresponsible.

The way most women give birth today, following the hospital protocol, breaks the essential links with the birth of life. Why?

The Physiology of the Birthing Process

To deliver a baby the easiest way, the mother must be able to relax the neocortical control[13] (the identity of masculine quality), to let the reptile brain work to perpetuate the species (feminine quality). It was confirmed by Michel Odent[14], a French surgeon and obstetrician who dedicated himself to the study of the birthing process physiology.

In other words, during childbirth as well as during our sexual life and eventually in the course of all our hormonal life, two contradictory hormones and their respective families come into play: oxytocin, typically feminine, and adrenaline, typically masculine.

  • Oxytocin[15], or “the love hormone”, has its source in the reptile brain. It is secreted by an old brain structure, the hypothalamus, stored in the back-pituitary gland and released in the bloodstream on certain occasions[16]. By interacting with the opposite force produced in the neocortex, it causes a pulse phenomenon: the labour pains. Its function is to open and bring about a referential change.
  • The final stage of any sexual life event is initiated by adrenaline, “the hormone of fear”, which causes an ejection reflex of semen, foetus, milk, as appropriate. This expelling function protects individual integrity, thus creating the dissociation.

The Separation Between Astronomy and Astrology

On the social level astronomy and astrology, initially united and known as the “Mother of Sciences”, are now divided into two enemy sisters. This split occurred in France, on the winter solstice of 1666 when Colbert founded the Academy of Sciences under the reign of Louis XIV. Let us remember that Rabelais had said previously: “science without conscience is but the ruin of the soul”. Since that time, a “learned ignorance[17]”, resulting from the deliberate abstraction of all cosmology, has developed. “Contemporary thought has stopped following a logical sequence in analysing facts, as if everything came out of nothing and more precisely as if energy originated from matter. If that were the case, then where would matter come from?”[18]… “the prior philosophical influences that scientists are subject to are hidden from view. And what’s more, these philosophical influences on theories are never questioned; in fact, they are actually removed from scientific books”[19]. We notice that cramming has gradually invaded scientific studies and that the number of specializations is constantly increasing – an obvious consequence in a more and more complex organization. Moreover, a break has taken place in the metaphysical foundation of science. Today, the only people considered as the official reference on a subject, are usually those who have no practical knowledge of it. It is particularly true – and often ridiculous – for the borderline subjects we are dealing with here: astrology, childbirth circumstances, climate and … cannabis.

Though this “ideal science” has never stopped chasing astrology, myths and everything which is “irrational”, astrology is still very much alive in our societies.

Does it respond to the basic needs of a human being, to a natural function of life that pops up again as soon as you throw it away? For more than 350 years, science has deliberately developed on the denial of half of our brain.

How Does the Brain Work?

The left hemisphere can differentiate, identify, count, and develop. It means an opening and it produces movement and excitation. In that hemisphere, everything starts out in the neocortex and moves towards complexity. It is the “-nom-ical”: it can decode. The left hemisphere projects outwards into what is our right.

The right hemisphere can unify, imagine, link and reduce to integrate data. It starts from complexity, the specific nature of the reptile brain, to deduce what will be understandable to the neocortex. Thus, it keeps up an individual protection against the external environment, it gives weight, and it maintains the body homeostasis. It is the “-log-ical”: it can encode. It projects outwards into what is our left.

In the word “logic” we find “log”, in “nomic” there is “name”. In mathematical language, astronomy has the “exponential” function, it enumerates, while astrology has the “logarithmic” function, it organizes into a formula that the body can assimilate.

In 1666, the Academy of Sciences was created and became an official new body for the social representation of knowledge. In the following centuries, the Academy took the dogmatic place that the Church had been occupying for the past thousand years. From that time, the astrologers and astronomers who had never been differentiated before found themselves divided into two separate categories, one which received honours in the name of science set as a myth and the other one getting nothing but the human soul misery that even the priests did not care about. Since that split occurred, both the astronomer and the astrologer have been going around in circles, each one in its own hemisphere, as if separated by the zodiac boundary, that centre line of our Sun-Earth matrix, like the two sides of the same coin. It is a dialogue of the deaf in which each partner sends back his own ignored half. The protagonist of one is the shadow of the other and vice versa.

Have We Not Integrated Relativity Yet?

The postulate of heliocentrism confirmed by Galileo 50 years before the 1666 split induces relativity: The Earth is not the centre of the universe. Anybody is a centre. Hence a phenomenon can be considered from different points of view[20]. Therefore, how is it possible to state that a point of view is superior to another or can replace all the others? And yet this is what our psyches always try to do as they have been shaped by the imperialist “Pater Arche” which means that men are seen as the creators of life – not women.

The quantum dimension which physics is discovering for a century hasn’t yet been integrated in everyone’s mind and astrology has been cut off from astronomy at a time when this revolutionary postulate (the Copernican Revolution) fundamentally questioned dogmas that had legitimized the subjection of some by others for many centuries. And this integration is always on the way. It is the purpose of SORI’Astres[21]. 

As the Church nowadays is no longer the ultimate reference and has lost a great part of its spiritual influence, the spiritual power and dogmatic authority have become the issue of the rivalry between the two disciplines. The astronomer does not want to abandon this prerogative to the astrologer and simply treads on the latter’s toes to confirm his dominance, denying the physical reality of the zodiac signs, asserting only the reality of the constellations.

And as the last straw, astronomy secures its leading position, thanks to the Sun King, by making a huge … astronomical mistake! It denies altogether the original rhythm of our Sun-Earth matrix (our star and our planet), that is the alternating lighting of its poles which creates the years and the seasons, our essential natural environment. It is the base of celestial mechanics, their own discipline that they destroy with such an unconscious contempt. In this witch hunt, they thoroughly cut the branch they are sitting on and not least, because it is the branch of the mother of the sciences.

For more than 350 years, official science has moved forward on its own in the split brain of “the mother of science”, losing more and more relation with the right hemisphere and throwing back on itself the individual who observes and experiments. In the meantime, astrology, separated from its astronomical body, has become poorer and poorer; it must be said that it had already been corrupted and submitted for centuries to the wishes of the powerful. As a result, today’s science ethics comes up to knowing how to shut one’s conscience. Is that not the very essence of the Nazi-spirit?

It Was Changed with…

In the end, throwing astrology away that 5,000 years of civilisation had established comes down to throwing the baby out with the bath water.

This natural function that rushes back when you throw it out is the function of the right brain, the brain of knowledge, the feminine half that is absolutely necessary for life to live on, that the irrational “hatred of life” blindly fights.

This feminine quality and knowledge is probably healthier and sturdier than anyone realizes. Think of all the weapons available today and the madness of most contemporary leaders. Without this love for life, the Earth would have been “atomized” long ago. Let us simply accept and recognize the fact. Let us go on with her!

Translation by Monique Fontana

Notes

[1] Gospel of St Luc – 21.11

[2] Matthias Hancke Film “Overcast“, 2015

[3] Claire Séverac « La Guerre Secrète contre les Peuples », 2015, éditions Elie et Mado, Porto Vecchio, France

[4] Michael Murphy and Barry Kolski, Film “Why in the World are They Spraying?“, 2012

[5] Gilles Roy, « Rock Astres » association – 1993

[6] Noberto R. Keppe “The New Physics Derived From a Disinverted Metaphysics” , 2005, Publishing House Editora, Sao Paulo (Brazil)

[7] COMETS-CNRS Conference “Science on a Massive Scale” – Paris January 2014

[8] http://legacy.movement-of-life.org/index.php

[9] Paul Anthony Tailor, Aleksandra Niedzwiecki, Matthias Rath, August Kowalczyk « Les racines nazies de l’Union Européenne de Bruxelles », 2011, Dr Rath Health Foundation, Heerlen (Nederland)

[10] Gabriel Luneau “Ce qui se cache derrière la prohibition du cannabis“, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VTRfViLgKoM

[11] André Brahic “Enfants du Soleil“, 1999, ed. Odile Jacob, Paris, page 25

[12] Claudia Bernhardt de Souza Pacheco and collaborators “The ABCs of the New Physics, a workbook based on the New Physics by Noberto R. Keppe”, 2008, Proton Editora, Sao Paulo (Brazil) page 25

[13] The neocortex is the most complex part of the brain and is particularly developed in man. It is the most recent part from the evolution point of view.

[14] Michel Odent – « L’Amour Scientifié », 2001, Jouvence Publishing, Thonon-France, and other works. He was the Director of the Pithiviers Maternity Hospital from 1962 to 1985. He is known for having introduced there the concept of women delivering babies « as they would at home » in delivery rooms or swimming pools.

[15] Ocytocin and its peers, prolactin and endorphin. Prolactin: an ancient hormone in terms of evolution, is involved in mothering behaviours: building nests, protecting and aggressive behaviours of the breastfeeding female.

[16] Michel Odent – « L’Amour Scientifié » 2001: translation: “This release occurs discontinuously and in a pulsatile manner. It induces a motherly behaviour in the hour following the delivery; it is released during the orgasm, and it plays a direct part in reproduction”

[17] « La docte ignorance », concept developed by Merleau Ponty, a french philosopher (1908-1961)

[18] Noberto R. Keppe “The New Physics Derived From a Disinverted Metaphysics” , 2005, Publishing House Proton

[19] Noberto R. Keppe “The New Physics Derived from a Disinverted Metaphysics”, 2005, Publishing House Proton

[20] In astronomy, we have fundamentally different coordinate systems which describe the topo-centric viewpoint (from where you are), the geocentric viewpoint (from the position of the Earth), and the heliocentric viewpoint (from the position of the Sun); you can also project to another planet or to any point in the Universe.

[21] SORI’Astres, un module logique révolutionnaire http://www.rockastres.org/spip.php?rubrique12


Chapter VIII

 CO2 as a Scapegoat

The Path Towards a “Brave New World”

by

Maria Heibel

 

The substances we normally classify as polluting are usually those which are known to contaminate, corrupt and endanger the environment. Humans produce and spread an astronomical number of different pollutants. According to Green Cross[1], there are six main toxic substances: hexavalent chrome, lead, mercury, cadmium and all radionuclides and pesticides.

In the last few years, however, we heard much talking about just one substance: carbon dioxide (CO2) generated by human emissions.

Is Carbon Dioxide a Pollutant?

Carbon dioxide always existed, even before the rise of mankind.

It is a natural gas, part of the atmosphere: its presence is therefore due to a precise strategy of Mother Nature. The earliest sources of carbon dioxide in the history of Earth were volcanoes. This gas enabled life to thrive.

CO2 is a fundamental substance pertaining to the vital cycles of plants and animals, for it is essential for vegetal life and photosynthesis: plants absorb carbon dioxide during the day, when there’s the right amount of light to complete the process and, in exchange, they provide a fundamental lively gas, without which we wouldn’t be able to survive: Oxygen.

How can then we believe CO2 is a contaminant gas?

CO2 is actually considered to be one of the main greenhouse gases present in the atmosphere. Natural greenhouse gases include water vapor, methane, nitric oxide and ozone.

The phrase “greenhouse effect” has become of very common use: it underlines a problem, but some clarification seems to be in order.

The term comes from the (partially incorrect) analogy with the way hothouses and greenhouses operate. This is a natural and important phenomenon for all forms of life on Earth – much alike the ones involving CO2 – since it has the capability of capturing the necessary amount of heat to create and to support the development of life.

Life as we know it is a direct consequence of greenhouse effect, since the very same process regulates temperatures on our planet. Without it, planet Earth would be nothing but an inhospitable ball of ice.

Man’s action pollutes and poses an impressive threat to the protective gas layer wrapped around the globe. The list of our sins is very long: combustion of natural resources in production and consumption processes, introduction of artificial chemicals in the manufacturing industry, massive deforestation, aggressive soil exploitation and overbuilding, contaminated water, sea and soil (a contamination caused by many reasons, wars and conflicts among them), natural resources converted in toxic non-biodegradable compounds, atomic tests, air traffic, rocket launches (which strongly impact on the higher layers of the atmosphere) and many, many more.

But there’s not much debating involving these things.

All experts and all the authorities we trust point to CO2 as the primary cause of the planet’s compromised balance: CO2 is held responsible for altering the greenhouse effect, generating global warming and climate change and leading to possible large scale catastrophes if not confronted.

Climate change, now seen as a dangerous phenomenon to oppose and to fear, has been and always will be natural. Man, of course, with his presence and actions, contributes in influencing climate, but some changes are already happening as part of a natural life movement.

A misleading use of terminology is also to be examined.

The following data should raise interesting questions.

Try a Google research typing: “CO2 – Greenhouse effect – Climate change” and look at the kind of information and visual content you are presented with.

The message is quite clear.

Over the last few years, we’ve witnessed a cultural and perceptive re-programming related to all environmental issues and their consequences on our lives. On the one hand, we could talk about “green-washing” and, on the other hand, “black-washing”.

One may think a distorted and misguided logic is driving our era.

But let’s get back to CO2.

Nowadays we can observe that everything, every gesture, every field, undergoes a specific exam: if it’s carbon-free (a non-sense), it’s deemed good; otherwise it’s bad. In the name of CO2 everything goes under revision, everything has to be scrapped (think about incandescent lamps replaced by harmful but “eco-friendly” light bulbs) and converted according to scientific, political and industrial (especially hi-tech) authorities’ criteria, aiming to one and one purpose only: a CO2-free or CO2-zero world.

Mass media blasts the news: carbon dioxide is responsible for all of our planet’s illnesses. If there’s no rain, it’s because of CO2. If there’s too much rain, it’s because of CO2. If it’s too cold or too hot, it’s because of CO2. All environmental disasters find a common root-cause in climate change, which is influenced by CO2 (and all of us).

Why is methane not charged with any felony, or nitrous oxide – not to mention CFC (chlorofluorocarbons) which are now used on a large scale and have long-lasting effects on the climate – nor all the other harmful man-made gases which significantly contribute to the greenhouse effect?

Our entire economic system (industry, technology, agriculture, transportation, etc.) is today facing the challenge of becoming a “green economy”, following the lead dictated by industries, local governments and international institutions, such as the EU and the UN, who guide the fight against CO2 as the one and only global menace we must deal with.

This is the main broadcasted idea; any disagreement or skepticism is highly frowned upon. To deny any of the theories regarding climate change (in the sense of “global warming caused by CO2”), results in being immediately accused of “negationism”, the very same negationism of those who deny the Holocaust. This unusual term is used to indicate when someone refuses to accept official theories which are not to be considered theories any more, but hard facts.

From Life’s Cornerstone to Death Bearer

After many, many years of “information”, everyone, or almost everyone, has now forgotten all of CO2‘s merits in terms of sustenance for our planet.

CO2, holding such a crucial role in vital processes, should not be demonized at all.

Common sense should tell us that science itself is not evil: it’s the use you make of it that can be addressed towards good or evil goals. What are we doing about this?

Every living cycle, in order to endure, has to constantly keep opposite poles in balance. These are the fundamental features of life on our planet in every circumstance. The very same bipolar essence can be found in the way we breathe, as we all know. Our breathing process starts with the inhalation of oxygen-rich air and ends with the exhalation of CO2-filled air. Breathing is the mean of transportation for oxygen to get to our internal organs and tissues, while carbon dioxide is removed from them.

Earth is a living, breathing being. It has, however, a longer-lasting breathing cycle, way different from what happens with human breath within a handful of seconds. The signs of this respiratory process can be found in the thriving, withering and decaying cycle of vegetable substances. Inhalation: plants start to sprout. Exhalation: leaves and plants decay and return to the soil and the Earth, just as the air we breathe remains inside our body.

NASA’s OCO2 spaceship observes the breathing process of planet Earth from space and is able to examine and trace what happens to the gases partially absorbed by oceans and plants[2].

Half the oxygen we breathe comes from our oceans and, naturally, from plants.

Plants breathe in a way that is complementary to man’s breathing, inhaling CO2 and exhaling oxygen. Man could not endure without plants. This miraculous balance is threatened by the fast, hectic, aggressive progress of mankind.

Is CO2 Really Dangerous for Man, Flora and Fauna?

Could the “remedies” implemented to “avoid catastrophe” be the real threat instead?

The “Remedies”

Such persistent and alarming scaremongering could eventually justify an intervention on the atmosphere itself, as if some sort of “air chemotherapy” was our only hope.

For example, Solar Radiation Management (SRM), consisting of inputting nanoparticles in the atmosphere through airplanes, is considered to be a low-cost and easy method (v. Teller, Keith, Caldeira, Robock …).  A similar logic applies to Carbon Dioxide Removal (CDR), which implies releasing substances that will reduce the amount of CO2 present in the atmosphere (enhanced weathering).

Phil Williamson from East Anglia University estimates that, in order to comply with the Paris climate agreement, it would be necessary to remove more than 600 billion tons of CO2 before 2100. However, according to Williamson, it would be better if this happened within four years. Though he is aware that this kind of “removal” can be very expensive and has not been tested yet on such a “necessary” scale (but some experiments have been done), he strongly believes we should reduce our emissions as soon as possible. Another possible method involves a certain technology capable of operating on clouds, seeding them with substances in order to generate alkaline rains which could respond to carbon dioxide in the air[3].

Even before mankind could begin to understand life, the environment and its complex auto-sufficient system, we began playing God and remodeling the planet.

Earth itself has responded to the increased quantity of CO2 in the atmosphere by turning a darker shade of green, but even this was deemed to be a negative omen, an act of defense against the oppressor CO2[4].

It is not my place to decide if the official scientists’ reports are truthful or if anthropogenic CO2 is really first and mainly responsible for present and future natural disasters. A serious and open debate should be started among those who possess the knowledge and experience to ascertain the truth, but I don’t see that happening.

And yet, there are many influential scientists (even Nobel Prize winners) who are now opposing the mainstream dogmas (Dyson, Teller, Rubbia, to name a few).

Assuming all the “official” theories are true, which paths could we undertake?

Shouldn’t we first of all stop attacking and harming our Earth? Shouldn’t we clean up instead of further poisoning the planet in an attempt to save it? Let’s go on and see.

Forgotten Felons

To summarize: the term “climate change” is often used as a synonym for global warming caused by CO2 and is now settled in our heads as the most pressing issue our planet is facing. All of the more and more frequent environmental and extreme meteorological phenomena are now attributed to global warming: desertification, sea level rising (there has been much talk about this in the last few years, but it looks as though we are not there yet), epidemic outbreaks, famines, mass migrations, ice caps melting and so on.

In November 2014, after the IPCC issued its climate report, USA Secretary of State John Kerry warned us:

“Those of you who ignore or question all the data clearly illustrated in this report are endangering us, our children and our grandchildren.“

Another time, he defined climate change as a weapon of mass destruction[5].

The whole mass media sounding board has been resonating with alarming messages for years now.  But are all those people shouting out warnings actually worried? Many and diverse worrisome issues have presented themselves as concrete threats for our climate, but they ended up being systematically ignored.

All of the other greenhouse gases have been overlooked, as well as all the efforts made in the last few decades in terms of climate and weather control.

Many years ago, some thought has been given to this matter.

A 750-page governmental report titled, “WEATHER MODIFICATION: PROGRAMS, PROBLEMS, POLICY, AND POTENTIAL. – MAY 1978″[6], addressed the massive amount of information concerning the increased involvement of the USA government in climate modification and weather warfare. This document, moreover, exposed the complicity of many other foreign governments – even countries considered to be “hostile towards USA interests”.

The text also discusses a great number of aspects and consequences of national and international weather modification programs: all the biological, social, environmental and legal implications (among which arose the need to obtain complete immunity from any form of legal accountability).

The military-industrial complex has openly declared its will to “Own the Weather“ (Weather as a Force Multiplier: Owning the Weather in 2025).

Aside from this, many other issues carry a strong influence on climate change. According to Maryland University’s researchers, intensive agriculture on a global scale, is contaminant enough to alter the balance of our atmosphere and at a very quick pace due to the increasing need to expand cultivation to the detriment of forests and to the massive use of chemical fertilizers which release ammonia fumes into the atmosphere. This is, in fact, one of the biggest CO2-producing industries, only second to transportation.

The IPCC’s report asks all governments to forego fossil fuels by 2100 in order to put a stop to global warming. Studying bio-fuels, however, one may find that their environmental impact is no better than gasoline and, as aggravating factors, they require deforestation and land-grabbing. These bio-fuels end up emanating more greenhouse gases and polluting more than fossil fuels. Man is the most ruthless predator in the world: exploiting, oppressing, killing.

There is no doubt that we humans are the main cause of global destruction. We are turning our planet into a giant poisonous junkyard.

We act and live in the name of disposability.

Obsolescence is programmed: the shorter an item’s life, the better. The planet is endlessly ransacked, our oceans, soil and skies manipulated with unprecedented brutality. Land, forests and water end up being poisoned by our food production system.

I could list a long catalogue of horrors.

In this extensive wasteland, is CO2 really the main problem?

Let’s suppose that it is and let’s observe reality through this lens.

Intensive farming is crucially and extensively culpable of CO2 and greenhouse gases emission, a massively calamitous production field under many points of view. Man has become excessively carnivorous. Compared to today’s numbers, meat consumption in the past was ridiculously inferior. The meat industry can be considered the first and most significant cause of biodiversity decline.

Mass media, for their own economic interests, continuously appeals to the masses for them to consume animals. Intensive breeding is an unwanted and unseen issue. All over the world, there are 1.3 billion bovine, 2.7 billion ovine and caprine, 1 billion swine, 12 billion poultry. Our cheap meat comes at a very heavy cost for all animals, farm workers, meat-eaters and for the whole planet.

Meat consumption is the great repressed memory of our time.

Intensive breeding, alongside a carnivore diet, generates more greenhouse gas emissions on a global scale than all of the cars, trains, boats, planes and trucks in the world combined. A sole cow has a yearly impact on the environment equivalent to driving a medium-capacity car for 70,000 km.

Sounds unlikely? This data derives from and has been confirmed by FAO (UN’s Food and Agriculture Organization), by World Watch Institute and by the Institute for Environmental Studies at Amsterdam University[7].

In 2008, the Institute for Environmental Studies at VU University, Amsterdam, led a study to assess how CO2 would decrease by reducing meat consumption, compared to other well known measures – such as eco-friendly light bulbs, limited use of cars, double-glazed windows. Researchers found that simply changing our dietary habits could be much more effective in reducing greenhouse gas emissions on a global scale than all of the other expedients. The case study was sampled in the Netherlands. Results showed that if all citizens were to abstain from meat for just one day a week for a year, 3.2 tons of CO2 would be spared. This is the equivalent of a million cars’ year-long use in the same country. Moreover, if all citizens were to abstain from meat for a whole year, a total of 22.4 tons of CO2 would be speared. This is the equivalent of the year-long domestic consumption of gas in the whole country[8].

There is yet another factor which holds a huge responsibility in polluting the environment and the proof is to be found in our heavily-disfigured sky.

Planes and Ships Are Heavily Pollutant, but We Play Dumb

In the last few years, air traffic has rapidly increased. Contemporaneously, a strong spike in CO2 emissions was registered.

In the future, air traffic will probably intensify even more, as explained in the EU Environmental Report on Aviation and in Eurocontrol. The Single European Sky project, which stands for a centralized regulation of the European airspace, was the one and only response to the growing air traffic flow.

Curiously enough, atmospheric pollution caused by air traffic and both civilian and military ships has always been completely overlooked in all statistical data on emissions and, therefore, has been excluded from all climate conferences and agreements.

Turbojets release a variety of toxic substances: nitrogen oxide (Nox), hydrocarbons (HC), carbon monoxide (CO), sulfur oxide (Sox), particulate matter (PM), carbon dioxide (CO2) and toxic particulates, as recently discovered by atmospheric scientist Ulrike Lohmann.[9]

In 1999 IPCC’s Report of Aviation and Global Atmosphere warned us about the effects of air traffic, but after that the issue went silent, as if a veil was drawn over it.

Did air traffic emissions cease to be seen as a problem?

Yes, and even more so. We can observe a rapid and strong development of air traffic, also thanks to new supporters. In 2002, European military airports opened their runways to low-cost companies such as Ryanair. Such low prices facilitated prodigious air traffic growth, also due to a peculiar advantage: the whole industry benefits from a tax-free policy on all fuels. Furthermore, low-cost air traffic is funded with public money, so it is safe to say someone is paying in order for it to exist and thrive.

But, in the face of these ridiculous prices, no one was seen protesting.

Ryanair recently announced possible free rides in the future. It’s not fake news. It’s a promise made by Michael O’Leary.

Our skies radically changed their appearance in the last 10-12 years, disfigured by contrails: long, short, wide or thin, with a great variety of shapes and colors never seen before, these trails are creating a white veiling and washing out the blue color of the sky.

Questioning this chaos sounds necessary and someone did.

But the answer is always the same: it’s just water vapor, just normal vapor trails – says everyone we deem informed and trustworthy.

This phenomenon has gradually and I mean gradually, spread since 2002/2003 in Europe and a few years earlier in USA/Canada. Today it nearly involves the whole globe.

Low-cost Culture Has Redefined the Skies

Air traffic pollution noticeably increased in the last few years.

Kerosene, a fossil fuel used as airplane fuel, is in itself very poisonous. Air traffic is the cause of greenhouse gases emissions’ rapid growth and therefore represents one of the most relevant threats to our planet’s health. Airplanes generate tons, millions of metric tons of CO2, so it really comes as a surprise that these data were excluded from each and every climate conference to date. These fuels actually release into the troposphere nitrogen oxide, sulfur dioxide and water vapors which can turn into acidic rainfalls.

Aviation is also responsible for the dispersion of tons of toxic particulates into the atmosphere.

If the severe repercussions of air traffic on our environment are so well known, why were they never seriously taken into account when talking about climate change?

A study asserts that aerosols strengthen storm clouds, facilitating extreme weather conditions to arise. Thunderous formations are, as stated in the article, the “primary source of rainfall in the areas surrounding the tropics and medium latitudes and their duration can directly influence the variability of precipitation, especially the extreme ones which can result in floods and overflows“.

Daniel Rosenfield, atmospheric scientist and researcher at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, adds:

“Clouds can reflect solar radiation and release the corresponding thermal radiation into space: this particular phenomenon is very interesting for it could influence the radioactive balance of our atmosphere and the temperatures on Earth.”[10]

Scientists have verified that aerosol, soot, dust and other particles discharged in the atmosphere can influence weather by reducing rainfall in dry regions and increasing the strength and violence of storms, blizzards and monsoons in humid regions.

Zhanqing Li, who further researched this issue, explains that, in the presence of extremely polluted air, convective clouds undergo a series of mutations which raise the probability of intense rainfall. Fully comprehending the link between clouds, aerosol and precipitation is nowadays one of the main challenges climate research has to face[11].

NOAA Confirms: Aircraft Trails Are a Form of Geoengineering

For decades now solar light has been shining on Earth with a weaker and weaker impact. The reason is to be found in aircraft contrails, an involuntary geoengineering operation. We are employing geoengineering right now, but we are unaware of it.

Airplane contrail (Licensed under CC BY-SA 3.0)

Chuck Long, an eminent expert working for a world-class research agency, the Earth System Research Laboratory at NOAA (USA’s federal agency for the study of atmospheric conditions), strongly believes this. Speaking at the American Geophysical Union convention, he underlined the existing connection between aircraft trails and the gradually fading hue of the sky on an almost global scale: contrails unloading particles in the air cause this phenomenon. Therefore, air traffic is responsible for large-scale atmospheric alteration.[12]

Dr. Peter Kalmus, atmospheric scientist at the Jet Propulsion Laboratory, declares that the overall impact of air traffic on climate is two or three times as strong as the one caused by CO2 emissions. The reason is simple: aircraft release nitrogen monoxide in the superior troposphere, creating trails and seeding clouds with aerosols derived from fuel combustion. These three facts combined contribute to increase temperatures on a short-term basis (please note that graphics in this article do not account for these effects).[13] Not only civil and military aircraft emissions but also shuttle launches as well damage and weaken the stratosphere, lacerating the thin ozone layer covering Earth and thereby posing a great threat to life on this planet.

Earth’s Ozone Layer Is Still Depleting

Chlorine chemicals issued directly into the ozone layer by civil aircraft, chemical tanks and military planes flying at an altitude of over 13km above sea level, along with almost daily launches of propellant rockets from Cape Canaveral and Vanderberg, are literally consuming Earth’s ozone layer, already compromised by past nuclear tests, piece by piece. Facing the atrocity of this reality and confronting all the existing data on the subject, one could feel very displeased with the absurd standpoint taken by institutions, scientists and various representatives in front of the situation of our skies.

Going back to CO2, on a final note: the masters of Earth have appointed CO2 with a key role in the transformation of the planet.

Smart World: The Brave New World

In the name of CO2 reduction, the world is going to change. The European Union is planning on spending €270 billion per year on climate safeguards. In the next 40 years, according to Connie Hedegaard, reducing CO2 emissions by 80-90% will be the primary goal.

How? Promoting the foundation of Smart Cities.

The “Smart Grid” concept consists of installing an electronically-controlled widespread network capable of monitoring and coordinating life in society. In the name of “security and sustainability”, monitoring devices will be applied in everyday-use appliances (washing machines, refrigerators, heating systems, light bulbs …). All activities in both public and private spaces will undergo extensive surveillance. Each activity connected to an electronic device will be identified and recorded by sensors.

Big Data

All data regarding our habits and daily activities will be collected and stored in a database. The European Commission launched the Smart Cities & Communities European Innovation Partnership (SCC). Smart Cities and Communities represent a fundamental part of “Horizon 2020” research. European sustainability goals “20-20-20” strongly encourage this evolution, calling for a 20% reduction of greenhouse gas emissions (compared to the data available in 1990), a 20% increase of energy efficiency and reaching a 20% share of electricity provided by renewable sources – all to be achieved by the year 2020.

This expanding revolution involves everyone’s home, assuming that reducing CO2 emissions must become everyone’s main concern. All of our houses must become “smart and green”. We must all act responsibly towards the environment, in our own small way.

What does that entail? That our house must become “smart”.

In order to facilitate this transition, great promises have been made: comfort, welfare, security, consumer goods and cost reduction – everything will be better managed, they say. Tons of articles advocating Smart Homes support these claims.

However, there’s a catch.

We would be observed, followed, and monitored. Our location and our relationships could be exposed at any given moment. Our habits, our preferences, our political ideas, our likes and dislikes would be openly known.

They already know a lot about us.

Thanks to cell phones, tablets and computers we are constantly analyzed, scanned and filtered. Whatever information can be gathered from our habits is a precious asset. Today more than 10 billion computers, smart phones and tablets constantly exchange data worldwide. The gigantic amount of data collected on each individual allows intelligence agencies to predict and to analyze our behaviors – also in order to identify potentially dangerous subjects.

Is a smart and clean world sustainable? No, it is not.

We would be submerged in even more microwaves, day and night.

There is increasing proof and testimonies pointing out that electro-smog and electromagnetic fields created by antennae, cell phones, cordless phones, Wi-Fi have harmful repercussions on human health. A large number of studies show that radio-frequency radiation damages the environment, as well as the fauna that lives in it.

There is no easy way out.

George Orwell in his novel “1984” has not been able to foresee such ruin, whereas Huxley went pretty close in his “Brave New World”: so much so that it almost seems like a possible script for our future.

The Sweet Dictatorship has begun.

In the name of CO2 and Global Warming, are we going to accept it?

Notes

[1] http://www.greencross.ch/wp-content/uploads/uploads/media/pollution_report_2015_top_six_wwpp.pdf

[2] CO2: IL SATELLITE OCO-2 DELLA NASA MONITORA IL RESPIRO DELLA TERRA https://www.greenme.it/informarsi/universo/13735-co2-satellite-nasa ) 

[3] Proposed Intervention Techniques Not Ready for Wide-Scale Deployment

http://www8.nationalacademies.org/onpinews/newsitem.aspx?RecordID=02102015

[4] https://www.greenme.it/informarsi/ambiente/20072-terra-verde-aumento-co2

[5] http://www.reuters.com/article/us-kerry-climate-idUSBREA1F0BP20140216

[6] https://archive.org/details/weatificat00unit

[7] http://blog.universobio.com/prodotti-biologici-una-mucca-come-unautomobile-che-percorre-70-000-km-meat-the-truthvideo/

[8] http://progettoscuolevegan.weebly.com/uploads/2/4/2/8/24281627/impatto_ambientale_dei_prodotti_di_origine_animale..pdf

[9] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ic4dml5oUVk

[10] https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2016/06/160613153420.htm

[11] http://www.ecoblog.it/post/13715/limpatto-dellinquinamento-atmosferico-su-alluvioni-e-siccita

[12] http://www.nogeoingegneria.com/tecnologie/areosol/lo-dice-la-noaa-le-scie-degli-aerei-sono-geoingegneria/

[13] https://www.pri.org/stories/2016-03-16/how-far-can-we-get-without-flying 

Vandana Shiva interviewed by Maria Heibel: “Destroying Planet Earth: Geoengineering is the Ultimate Hubris” Source


Chapter IX

Geoengineering: From Geo-Weaponry to Geo-Warfare

The Destruction of Mother Earth as the Ultimate and Supreme Crime of Patriarchal Civilization

by

Claudia von Werlhof

The Work of Dr. Rosalie Bertell as a Guide

As a scientist dedicated to environmental and health matters, Catholic nun, North American ecofeminist, Dr Rosalie Bertell has worked extensively with the UN as an expert on nuclear and chemical catastrophes. Bertell received the Right Livelihood Award and was granted nine honorary doctorate titles during her life. Her latest book, published in 2000 (Bertell 2000), though difficult to get because the publisher went bankrupt, made me open my eyes and shocked me deeply: Planet Earth: The Latest Weapon of War. It was in 2010 that I got it and we – the participants of a gathering of hundreds of women in Germany – founded the “Planetary Movement for Mother Earth” in order to disseminate Bertell’s work and create a better understanding of the current planetary situation (www.pbme-online.org). We translated the book into German together with new materials elaborated by Bertell until 2011, and published it in five editions (Bertell 2011, 2013, 2016b, 2018, 2020; a Spanish translation which we organized, appeared in Mexico: Planeta Tierra – La Nueva Guerra, Guadalajara 2018, a short Italian one in 2018 in Trieste, Pianeta Terra – Ultima Arme di Guerra, a French translation appeared in Paris in 2018: La Planète Terre, Ultime Arme de Guerre, and in Dublin finally the original version from 2000 as an enhanced edition in 2020).

Rosalie Bertell named me her representative in the German-speaking countries. And I had the opportunity to meet her in person and share a great friendship with her. I think it is because we had a similar approach to the world – loving this Earth and its life and suffering from its ongoing destruction that both of us were aware of very clearly.

As a major result of Bertell’s analyses and the additional research conducted by her before her death in 2012, we now know for sure that the devastation of the Earth is real and ongoing. Her work is unique until today and Planet Earth should be considered of being one of the most important books of the 21st century (Werlhof, 2017). 

What Is the Crime Committed Against the Earth, Who Is Driving It and with What Kind of Ambition? “Military Alchemy” and Its Goals

Rosalie Bertell maintained that our planet, Mother Earth, is in the process of being transformed into a very special giant machine, a machine with a huge impact, namely “the latest weapon of war” (Bertell 2000). The talk is about the military of the East and the West, their scientists, their governments, their military-industrial complexes, including private corporations, which have been active in this transformation for more than the past 70 years, starting during the time of World War II (s. Fleming, 2010; Hamblin, 2013; Freeland, 2014; Kirby, 2017; in German C.O.D.E 1981).

It is evident that these developments took place mostly in secret, and subsequent debates only dealt with some of the related topics and mostly from a distorted point of view. This seems to have dragged on to the present day since neither the public and politics, nor civil sciences and most social movements or intellectuals have recognized what is occurring to our planet in reality (Chossudovsky, first 2016; Werlhof, 2017). All of them seem to remain unable to understand what is going on to this very day. In other words, the public remains dormant, though the problem of military geoengineering is already more than 70 years old!

In 1999, the European Parliament (EP) voiced criticism regarding the use of new technologies applied against the Earth, but the European Commission intervened from above bringing forward the argument that the criticized technologies were a military matter and should not be judged by parliamentarians (cf. Fosar/Bludorf, 2011, p. 21). Rosalie Bertell, who had supported the petition to the EP in 1999, remarked:

If the military is tampering with our air, water, the soil, or doing anything that questions our living conditions, let alone has the potential to destroy them, that simply must not happen! We would have to discuss this publicly. Beyond all secrecy, we must have a right to that! (cf. Werlhof, 2017, p. 145).

The same happened to a new initiative brought forward to the European Parliament. We, as a group of 50 activists from all over Europe, launched a new petition in 2013 through our organization “Skyguards,” calling it “Civil Society vs. Geoengineering” (Werlhof, 2013b). In 2014, the EP accepted our petition to re-open an official investigation on the issue. Yet the result paralleled the one obtained in 1999. Again, the European Commission rejected the petition in 2016 as it dealt with “military issues” which are regarded outside the competence area of the EP. 19 years ago, Rosalie Bertell had concluded that the military project of taking control of the planet means using the Earth’s forces for war, a completely new war, not only capable of destroying the “enemy,” now defined as humanity itself and its basic living conditions, but indeed the planet Mother Earth herself.

This insight is unique until now. Most people, however, seem not to know about it yet – including Pope Francis with his Encyclica Laudato Si, Noam Chomsky, and Naomi Klein (2015), as well as almost all ecological and alternative movements across the planet. How can it be that they do not see the new reality of our Mother Earth? Or, if they are indeed aware, maybe they do not understand, and/or they prefer not to speak about it?

What nearly all of them are doing, however, is repeating the story of a “global warming” and “climate change,” as defined by Al Gore, the UN, and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), namely: a problem allegedly produced only by growing amounts of industrial CO2 emissions – an alleged greenhouse gas out of many others. As a result, the whole ecological and other political, social and esoteric movements are now demanding a reduction of COemissions and of consumerism as well, so that another lifestyle and less civil industry would solve the problem. They seem not to be aware of any other reason that could have caused the problem and believe in those – including most of their governments – who have defined the problem as being the result of just certain industrial CO2 emissions (critique in Bertell, 2013, pp. 312ff).

According to Bertell (2013, pp. 321-323), phenomena such as “climate change” and “global warming,” which are not – and even cannot be – clearly defined scientifically, hardly bear any relationship with the increase in CO2 emissions. The concrete forms of this change and of notions of a warming and other irregularities have instead to be regarded as the result of seven decades of “geoengineering,” namely military experiments on and with our planet. I have defined this endeavour as “military alchemy,” to be understood as an intent to transform the planet into a “better” or “smart” one, namely a giant war machine that obeys the orders of the military (a definition with which Rosalie fully agreed. She even wanted “Military Alchemy” to be the title for a new English edition of her book).

Nature does, however, not react immediately to its manipulation, but generally seems to need a time lag of 40-60 years to do so. We have, therefore, to expect that the effects of the manipulations, experiments, and secret acts of war with her, and against her as well, are just beginning to show up and will eventually accumulate over decades to come.

So, we need to investigate these experiments carried out in free nature and find out more about this new type of war which is already occurring without having been “declared” and which will go on in the future, as to be expected. We call this trend “weaponization” (cf. ETC Group). This means:

What is planned now are climate and weather wars, wars in which earthquakes and volcanoes, floods and droughts, hurricanes and monsoon rains will play a role (Bertell, 2013, p. 57), and even more as we shall see.

In view of these dangers, it is most important to define which types of technologies have already been and are still being invented, used, and developed capable of producing effects so large as to create an impact on a planetary scale.

Moreover, we need to examine the issue of CO2 and its role. Is it really the reason for the destruction that life and the planet are experiencing already, or is it only a pretext for certain policies and serves creating a myth that is misguiding the public by hiding the real problems and their causes?

So, let us investigate into the new technologies that can be said to have or have already had an impact on a planetary level:

  • in the past
  • at present
  • in the future, and
  • what are the synergies between different technologies and with “the life support systems” of the Earth, as Bertell calls them.

Geoengineering and the Nuclear Age

Military geoengineering starts with nuclear technology. The history of nuclear technologies commences with the development of the atomic bomb in the 1940s. It was the famous Manhattan Project, in which the bombs launched over Hiroshima and Nagasaki in 1945 were invented. This was a scientific experiment under the cover of war in order not to spark off too much protest (Easlea, 1987).

The inventors of nuclear technology at that time believed it to be the new solution for solving nearly any problem. Edward Teller, who invented the even more powerful hydrogen bomb, thought of applying it in various projects. Teller was the first “geoengineer,” i.e., someone like a planetary “alchemist,” who tries to dominate, “tame” and transform the Earth as an entire planet using the new technologies for these means. He even was the first to proclaim global warming and to spray the atmosphere with aluminum-aerosols (Kirby, 2017, p. 21f, 26, 29).

Between 1958 and 1962, Edward Teller launched the atomic bomb, including the hydrogen bomb to explode in the atmosphere. He wanted to see what would happen (Bertell, 2013, pp151ff). The experiment occurred in the typically scientific manner of “trial and error.” It consisted of destroying parts of nature, in this case parts of the atmosphere, in order to learn how it reacts and thus being able to dominate it more properly.

Between 1958 and 1998, approximately 2,200 atomic bombs exploded in the atmosphere, above and underneath the soil (especially in Nevada and Central Asia) and above as well as underneath the water surface of the Southern Pacific Ocean and the South Atlantic (Bertell, 2013, p. 323). Regions of the so-called Van Allen Belts in the atmosphere, being part of the magnetic field of the planet, were severely damaged and destroyed by these explosions.

The magnetosphere of the Earth since then is constantly diminishing and the Van Allen Belts have not recovered from these attacks until today and may never be able to do so (Bertell 2013, pp.151ff). This is important to know as these belts are regulating the balance between the Earth’s mass and movement in relation to the Moon and within the solar system in general (Bertell 2013, pp. 454f)

The Ozone Layer Damage

This way, radioactive radiation destroyed and continues to destroy parts of the atmosphere, the blue of Planet Earth, by producing holes in the ozone layer and a general weakness of it, of which it is not recovering (s. Titze, 2018; PMME, 2018). This is important insofar as the ozone layer protects the Earth from cosmic radiation that is detrimental for life on Earth. The first ozone hole was observed over the South Pole, which was then followed by the ozone hole over the North Pole in the aftermath of the accident at the Fukushima nuclear plant in 2011, which continues to emit radioactivity incessantly and cannot be stopped (cf. Shimatsu, 2014; Snefjella, 2015). Yet to this day, for example, scientists tell us that the holes in the ozone layer are simply due to the CFC emitted from our fridges (Bertell, 2013, p.252; cf. Shimatsu, 2014). Since 2018, however, it is known that the ozone layer is also damaged in general and outside of its holes so that UV-B and -C radiation reach the ground and threaten the life of insects, corals, and plankton, as well as trees and plants in general, influencing the food chain and agriculture (Herndon, 2018 in Werlhof, 2018).

The moment of truth has come because it would need decades to let the ozone layer repair itself assuming that the negative influences on it have been stopped. Something like that is, however, not in sight at all because the ozone layer is also damaged by the application of other military technologies, such as supersonic flights (Bertell, 2016a, p. 115), and NASA’s and other agency’s missiles and rockets for space (Bertell, 2013, pp. 184ff, 253, 267). Chemical and nuclear substances, including chlorine and plutonium, the most toxic of all (spacecraft Cassini, launched in 1997, arriving at Saturn in 2015) were necessary for trespassing the protective layers of the atmosphere towards space leading to its increased destruction (Bertell, 2011a, 2013, pp. 156 ff).

According to Bertell, a growing weakening of the ozone layer could even put an end to agriculture in many parts of the world and possibly even across the planet as it amounts from now nearly 10 to 20% (Bertell, 2011a).

Cosmic electromagnetic radiation is composed of not only ultraviolet but also X-rays and microwaves, etc. (Bertell, 2013, p. 230)  as well. Especially the latter ones are now imposed on Earth always more from space as well as from the ground (5G; s. Freeland in this vol.). And recently, it was found that beneath the waves, even oxygen disappears (Breitburg et.al. 2018), as ozone is a form of oxygen, too (O3). So, life could even suffocate!

The nuclear experiments have taught us something about the atmosphere which we hardly knew anything about. From the hostile to life point of view of science, however, they “had to be made” to obtain these insights. We, therefore, might never get to know the healthy functioning of the ozone layer and the whole of our atmosphere, the Earth’s magnetism and the relationship between both (Bertell, 2013, pp. 454-458).

A greater sun activity is, besides CO2, sometimes thought to cause the effects of something like a warming experienced in many parts of the globe too. Before, however, accusing the sun for being responsible, one should take the weakening of an always more destroyed atmosphere into consideration as well as the results of conscious weather manipulation as will be explained below.

At mountain levels, there has sometimes been a warming of 5-7 degrees centigrade, which – together with other factors like UV and a growing lack of snowfall and humidity (see below) – is leading to the retreat of the glaciers. In the long term, for instance, this will provoke the drying up of the rivers and the areas around the Himalayas, the Rocky Mountains (of the Hoover Dam close to Las Vegas), in the Andes and in the Alps. As a result, fresh water is becoming scarce in many regions of the world. Besides the air we breathe and the soil we need for our food, our feet to put upon and our housing, fresh water is the most precious resource on Earth and most necessary for assuring our survival (Film, 2010).

The “blue” of our planet, an extraordinary and sensitive layer, the presence of which differentiates us from all other planets, being an expression of life on and above our planet, exhaling and breathing and protecting us from cosmic energies that are detrimental for life on Earth, tells us about the horrid crime that is being committed by having started to destroy it. The necessity to protect the ozone layer of the atmosphere was even officially discussed at a UN conference in Vienna in 1985 (Bertell, 2013, p. 308), but had no influence on the debate further on, so it seems.

The CO2 Myth

Humanity, however, does not protest against the destruction in the atmosphere while protesting against COemissions that have no negative relevance for the atmosphere and life on this Earth at all. On the contrary, CO2 is most necessary for all life on the planet (s. Heibel in this vol.). Carbon dioxide only makes up 0.04 % of the air — not to speak of just the industrial part of it — and has until the 1990s never been identified as causing warming but rather as being a result of warming processes (IPCC, 2018).

In sum, CO2 is a gas that descends to the ground whereas the warming effects are coming from above. There is a life-detrimental, “burning” toxic radiation entering the atmosphere, and — as we still shall see — on top of it there are tons of dirty, toxic, and humidity-capturing heavy metal aerosols released into the atmosphere that – among other things – lead to the effect of a fast drying out of many parts of the planet independently from any alleged warming (Wigington, 2014; Werlhof, 2017).

If CO2 was responsible for climate changes, it would have to originate in the troposphere (up to 10 kms altitude), where the climate is generated. A measurable warming, on the contrary, is happening a lot higher up in the ionosphere (80-200 kms). We should, therefore, be looking at a completely different phenomenon (s. post nuclear technologies) which is not about any CO2-induced climate change but atmospheric destruction above the troposphere and the ozone layer.

Bertell claims that CO2 cannot be responsible for what is called “global warming” and “climate change” (Bertell, 2013, pp. 321ff). If you look at these changes, they comprise many more phenomena that cannot be explained this way. Additionally, there is, for instance, also a “wobbling” of the planet around its axis (Bertell, 2013, p. 321 ff), eventually caused by the nuclear tests leading to more insecurity for the sequence of the seasons as well as for the activities of volcanoes, earthquakes, and ocean currents.

There are more changes of the weather and local climates observed that cannot be explained by the official “global warming” theory. Droughts and flooding, be it felt on islands or coasts, be it inland, can be an effect of rising sea levels due to the loss of ice everywhere and the change of ocean temperatures as well as to “freak weather” anomalies which can be “produced” intentionally (s. post nuclear technologies).

These developments, therefore, are not due to CO2 and a “global warming” either. The melting of the ice in the Arctic, for instance, has to do with electromagnetic extreme low frequency, ELF-waves, which have been emitted by the US and the Soviet Union to the Arctic since 1974 (s. Post nuclear technologies; Bertell, 2013, p. 256; Ponte, 1976; cf. C.O.D.E, 1981, p. 8). The new ozone hole over the Arctic, on the other hand, which appeared there for the first time due to the nuclear accident of Fukushima in 2011 (Shimatsu, 2014; Bertell, 2011), may have even contributed to the melting process because of UV and other cosmic rays penetrating the atmosphere since then with greater ease (Snefjella, 2015; 2016).

In sum, there are various forces acting together in a complex way and producing different effects in the atmosphere and down on Earth that have nothing to do with CO2.

For Bertell, finally, industrial activities are not important because of CO2 or any warming, but because of air pollution (Bertell, 2013, pp. 297-307; 3011-317). Dirt destroys the quality of the air we breathe but it is not responsible for the climate which is a macro-system of the planet as such.

Moreover, there are much more important greenhouse gases (such as water vapor) which are stronger than industrial CO2, particularly methane (cf. Bertell’s enumeration, 2013, p. 302), thousand times as strong as CO2, escaping at a massive scale where permafrost soils around the Arctic are melting. We can observe that methane is also a consequence and not a cause of warming in that area. In the CO2 debate, however, one barely speaks of CO2 in the form of methane; albeit once it has been set free, there is little point in focusing still on COreduction. Reducing the debate mainly to blaming industrially produced CO2 — which is only 3% of all CO2 (Kirby, 2017, p. 29) — for climate change and global warming thus appears completely misleading, if not ridiculous.

On top of it, nobody explains why the air traffic does not play a role in the industrial CO2 debate at all, though it is one of its biggest producers (cf. Heibel, 2017).

Since 1988, policies and scientists representing the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) of the UN have been solely focusing on (parts of) industrially produced CO2 (Gore, 2006) and exclude scientists critical of this view from the debate! IPCC scientists disqualify critics as unreliable since most of them have doubts about the role of COand/or so-called climate change, as the IPCC understands it (cf. Curry et.al. 2017; IPCC, 2018; Engdahl, 2018).

There are other groups of “climate sceptics” who doubt that there are any changes at all. They are, for instance, composed of right-wing Republicans and military personnel (s. Hamilton, 2013b). It is precisely the latter group who knows better than others what is really going on because it is they themselves who have produced and are producing many of the observed changes, as we still are going to see.

So, in 1960 already, the CIA proposed “The Need for a Climate Control Study Program,” which was a program for the study and possibilities of induced climate change far beyond any CO2 question:

“The techniques which are and can be used for control of the weather environment vary with the scale of the operation considered and with the specific goals which are to be achieved with such weather control. Large scale climate control requires the modification of the global weather patterns by altering and interfering with the large scale physical processes… polar areas be covered with layers of soot… alter the energy balance of the atmosphere by injecting dust and other particulate matter into the high atmosphere…alteration of the chemistry of atmospheric substances… Achievement of an understanding of the large-scale physical processes of the atmosphere has been a continuing process over many decades… The circulation phenomena of relevance in global climate are not so readily amenable to laboratory simulation… it has now become feasible to… test and study (the) consequences (of human intervention in the atmospheric processes) … Control… will probably require access to energy sources of immense magnitude… In this atomic age, we now have available truly immense potential sources of power… Methods for the control of climate upon all types of human activities… could result in the reclamation of vast territories for … many… types of human activities, desert areas… are known … to require only slight changes in moisture regime to make them suitable for large scale agricultural production… Changes in circulation regimes can also affect the normal paths of destructive storms like hurricanes… and (can) have marked effects upon oceanic circulations… Moderate changes in climatic characteristics will have serious repercussions for all aspects of industrial activity… Militarily, a climatic control capability raises the possibility of a totally new type of warfare. This type of warfare may be termed ‘Geophysical Warfare’ in which our ability to control the weather environment can be used as a weapon” (CIA, 1960, p. 1-7).

At the end of the program, it is announced that “a series of systematical climate control experiments will be performed” (CIA a.a.O., p.14), to be read as “climate change experiments.”

We can consider this paper as a predecessor of Owning the Weather in 2025, from 1996 (cf. SPACECAST, 2020). And, indeed, nuclear power will be used for the application of new “post-nuclear” technologies to follow, including the installations of the production of electromagnetic waves and “plasma weapons,” the “ionospheric heaters”!

As a result, it is vital to promote a third opinion stating that there are indeed new problems the planet is experiencing. These are neither simple nor could they just be blamed on so-called global warming or CO2 at all, but are to be analysed as the results of secret climate manipulation, “weather wars” and the use of “plasma weapons” (Bertell), the “geophysical warfare” in action. What we need to do is to redefine the problem and its root causes. This is what Rosalie Bertell did in her work starting with the nuclear and going beyond it. We do not know, however, how the military today is defining the changes it, itself, is causing since decades. What we know is that after the Manhattan Project that invented the atomic bomb, the “New Manhattan Project” (Kirby, 2017) of geoengineering had developed a global warming perspective already, though at that time independently from industrial greenhouse gas CO2 emissions.

Rosalie Bertell told us that there is so much we do not know yet and a lot of questions she was not able to investigate in her lifetime anymore. The experiments with our planet and its “life support systems” (Bertell) all go on, and it is nearly impossible to know how they are really developing and what their synergies are. Even Rosalie was not able to come to a definite answer on how to explain the existing phenomena that are many, much more dangerous and a lot more diverse than is commonly assumed. Climate change and global warming as concepts are not only wrong in explaining these changes but are a misleading invention by those who want to conceal what is really happening. This is the case even more as we are facing the application of so-called “post-nuclear” technologies which is not considered anywhere in the “official” public discourse yet.

New “Post-Nuclear” Electromagnetic Technologies

The latest technological development after the nuclear one goes back to the Serbian physicist Nikola Tesla (1856-1943), who invented electromagnetic technologies. After his death, Soviet scientists and army personnel applied and developed them further for military use, later joined by US military scientists. Col. Tom Bearden is the next to try to explain Tesla’s inventions and their use (Bearden, 2002). The physicist Bernhard Eastlund later officially patented this knowledge (USA patents) for the functioning of the electromagnetic radar installation HAARP in Alaska (High Frequency Active Auroral Research Program) which is a result of the militarization of Tesla’s inventions, their “weaponization” (cf. CIA, 1978; ETC-group; Begich/Manning, 1995).

Image below: Aerial view of the HAARP site, looking towards Mount Sanford, Alaska (Source: Public Domain)

Aerial view of the HAARP site, looking towards Mount Sanford, Alaska

The public and even civil sciences have practically no understanding of the new military technologies developed by using Tesla’s inventions, since they have been systematically concealed. Mr. Tesla is not considered important, for instance in civil science, despite his inventions being the technological foundation for alternating voltage, electronics, computers, wireless communication, cell phones, electromagnetism, and their military as well as civil use, today’s “digitalization.”

Tesla lived and worked in the age of the inventions of “new physics,” to which also Einstein, Heisenberg, Bohm, v. Neumann and others belonged. Especially his approach to nature was different to the one that is common in modern science, as developed since the 17th century. Instead of perceiving matter merely as dead and solid, as did modern science, Tesla perceived it as somehow alive and moving in waves. One could say that Tesla in a way returned to a vision held in the pre-modern world, which was both material and immaterial, or differently said: he did not reject the idea of the simultaneous existence of matter and spirit, as did modern science by defining matter as “dead” and “spirit” as practically non-existing (cf. Merchant, 1980).

Tesla approached matter through its own inherent energy. He saw this energy in the form of electricity in nature and its relationship to magnetism, resulting in electromagnetic waves or radiation.

Tesla defined space to be filled with electromagnetic “energy” – for example using again the previously abolished concept “ether” (or “5th element”). From there, the world-wide movement in favour of so-called “free energy” developed (cf. O’Leary, 2010). By doing so, Tesla broke with modern classical science which considered space to be void and its notion of being somehow alive as “obscure”. Nowadays, cosmology is debating the same problem, e. g. gravity in relation to “dark matter” and “dark energy”. In indigenous cosmovision, on the other hand, the energy or life contained within space, or being space, equals its spirit, others call it soul and in matriarchal tradition this energy of life is referred to as “gynergy,” female energy (Daly, 1978), the “Goddess” (cf. Saracino/Moser, 2012), or “cosmic love” (Werlhof, 2007b).

Tesla ran many experiments to find out what occurred when the existing energy of the place expanded or shrank and when additional energy was introduced or taken away using an outside source. He produced an ocean of convincing findings, proving that with his method he could attain much greater, if not unlimited effects than when attempting to move solid matter, as is usually done.

Waves and radiation can reach anywhere and can have formerly unimagined effects, depending on the amount of energy that is introduced into the system, especially when done in a pulsed way and in resonance to the local frequencies. By these means, Tesla provoked the first artificial earthquake in 1887 or 1888. He almost destroyed his own house after having increased the electromagnetic energy, creating an effect that later was to be produced by the so-called “Magnifying Transmitter” (cf. Tesla o. D.; Bertell, 2013, p. 239f).

Nikola Tesla was highly conscious of having invented a technology the military could apply creating the greatest harm. He warned the public that used as a weapon and without limiting it, the new technology could theoretically destroy the entire planet and separate it into two parts, throw it out of the magnetic field with the Moon and even with the solar system and catapult it into space or into the Sun (cf. Tesla in Bertell 2013, p. 32, 223ff, 468ff).

Tesla assumed that instead of using electromagnetism for destruction, the world would reject any further war because of its terrible and uncontrollable results. If Tesla were alive nowadays, he would be appalled knowing that shortly after his death in 1943, a system of horrible weapons was developed and is still in the process of further development today, based exactly on his inventions.

Besides macro-effects on the environment that can occur when working with electromagnetic waves, there can also result negative impacts on the micro-level, namely on the human brain (Bearden, 2002), nowadays referred to as “mind control” (first Begich/Manning, 1995; Bertell, 2016). The possibility of controlling the human mind is due to the fact that our brain can be reached by EM-waves like everything else, which means that its own functioning is based on certain EM-waves and can, therefore, be disturbed by other EM-wave emissions similar to or different to it (cf. also CIA, 1978, Bearden, 1986, 2003; Becker, 1990; Bertell, 2010b; Kirby, 2017, p. 31ff on the invention and development of “psychotronic weaponry”).

The installations working with electromagnetic waves across the globe are not all known yet. The Russian “Woodpecker” worked already in the 1970s, its energies stemming from the nuclear plant of Chernobyl (Bertell, 2013, p. 227, 288). There were installations in Plattville/Colorado, Poker Flats and HIPAS in Alaska and, much later, HAARP (High Frequency Active Auroral Research Program) in Alaska from the beginning of the 1990s on (cf. Bertell, 2016a; Kirby, 2017, p.25ff), until recently the largest installation worldwide. Today there are an estimated 40 further installations active, for instance Arecibo/Puerto Rico, EISCAT/Norway, LOIS/Sweden, others in Greenland, the Netherlands, MARLOW/Germany, MUOS/Sicily, spread out across the globe (cf. Radar systems), in most “developed” and several “semi-developed” areas, including the Antarctic, and floating ones in the oceans (X-band radar). This technology introduces us to the largest potential dangers closely following those associated with the atomic bomb.

The installations mentioned vary in size yet the largest among them are built to send out up to a billion kilowatts into the ionosphere, hence called “ionospheric heaters.” These installations can even send this amount of energy to one single spot in the ionosphere to provoke the creation of “lenses” produced through the heat. This means that the atmosphere, which is electromagnetically charged, the ionosphere (at 80/200-1000 kms altitude), starts curving, reacting to the additional energy which is administered in pulses and turns so dense that it can be moved to guide the incoming electromagnetic rays. This way the angle can be determined from which the electromagnetic ray is supposed to return to Earth, to any place, even passing through the Earth’s core. Bertell, therefore, says that the ionosphere is transformed into a sort of giant gun which is directed against the Earth and all its life forms (Bertell, 2103, Part IV. A., C. D., pp. 444 ff). This is why Bertell calls Planet Earth today the “latest weapon of war” which is in use by misusing its own energies!

What is the aim of using the Earth and its energies transformed into weapons? (cf. Bertell, 2010b; 2016a):

Electromagnetic waves, depending on their frequencies, power in form of Kilowatts, and pulse can be and are applied for:

  • Trespassing the interior of our planet, creating tremors and “standing waves” which can lead to earthquakes, volcanic eruptions, and troubles with the Earth’s magnetism, coming from its core, so to say its heart.
  • Using EM-waves for carrying out the so called “deep earth penetrating tomography”, in order to know about the interior of the Earth
  • Hitting specific spots on the planet with huge amounts of EM-energy
  • Causing or influencing the occurrence of tsunamis
  • Interfering with ocean currents (like “El Nino” and “La Nina”)
  • Causing hurricanes or taking influence on their degree and course
  • Moving the “jet stream” wind-currents that hurry around the planet north- and south-ways and move heat and cold, since the heat from the tropics moves north when the jet stream is lifted north, and the cold from the Arctic moves south when the jet stream is downed south
  • Moving the “vapour streams” that carry water from the tropics towards other areas, north and south, causing droughts when the streams have been moved away and flooding when they have been moved near
  • Causing wildfires through sending or intensifying UV, ultraviolet rays, for instance with laser-technologies (as seems to have occurred recently in California, Australia and Portugal, s. Kadia in this vol.)
  • Trapping air or ocean-currents in the same place for a time to multiply their effects
  • Provoking the melting of glaciers through applying Extreme Low Frequency, ELF, EM-waves. This has occurred in the Arctic since 1974, when USSR and USA signed the Vladivostok treaty (Ponte, 1976; C.O.D.E., 1981; Bertell, 2013, p. 256, 445; MacDonald, 1968) – aiming at becoming able to extract raw materials located underneath the icecaps and for ships to cross the Arctic during the summer months without having to travel to the Panama or Suez Canal
  • Causing emotional, health and mental problems, using ELF-waves to influence the brain (which has earth frequency “Schumann” 7-8 Hz) from individuals up to whole populations of a specific area (cf. Bearden, 2003).

According to Bertell, it was in the 1970s when these “energetic” experiments kicked off and were already in use for acts of warfare against the environment as happened during the Vietnam War.

So in 1977, the UN tried to establish a moratorium on the application of these technologies through the “Convention on the Prohibition of Military or Any Other Hostile Use of Environmental Modification Techniques”, ENMOD Convention (UN, 1977). The UN did not, however, ban the scientific and peaceful use of these technologies, so that HAARP, for instance, claims to be a merely scientific research installation. The European Commission, on the other hand, regarded the problem in a different way. It did not allow the European Parliament to draw conclusions from the investigation of the effects of the HAARP-installation, defining it to be a military affair that does not have to be judged by the public. Therefore, if the EC were right, then HAARP would be a case for the UN to be prohibited! This, however, does not happen.

Around 100 countries have signed the ENMOD convention, yet no country has tried to apply it to judge crimes against the environment until today.

As for Bertell, we surely would need an International Environmental Court (for the lack of laws concerning the damage of the environment, see Storr, 2013).

On the occasion of her participation at the 30th anniversary of the Right Livelihood Award, the Alternative Nobel Prize, in Bonn, Germany in 2010, Rosalie Bertell published a petition (Bertell, 2010a). In this petition, she stated that all the enumerated forms as to how these technologies can be used should be defined as

morally unacceptable and a crime against humanity and the Earth, since it affects the regular workings of the planetary system, causing or intensifying hurricanes, tsunamis, long-term rainfall, droughts, flooding, earthquakes, and volcanic eruptions, among other effects.

The von Uexkülls, the founders of the Right Livelihood Award, and 20 of the RLA-Prize-winners who were present at that opportunity signed the petition.

Geoengineering, Geo-weaponry, Geo-warfare

In short, “ionospheric heaters” are capable to do much more than just change the weather in a particular region or promote changes in temperatures. No CO2 would explain their effects. Bertell defines some of them as “weather wars”. She claims the use of artificial electromagnetic waves to be “plasma weapons,” “plasma” being defined as the electrified state of the atmosphere beyond the solid, liquid, or gaseous state. Finally, Bertell calls the resulting military “geoengineering” as geo-weaponry, a possible geo-warfare of new dimensions (Bertell, 2010b; 2016a), and as “destruction of the planet” (Bertell, 2013, p.217).

This new war, unheard of in the history of humankind, is a war that has not necessarily to be officially “declared,” neither in the present nor the future (cf. MacDonald, 1968), as nobody can really prove who has started it and how it occurred. Yet, since the 1970s, Bertell has counted with ten times more seemingly “natural” catastrophes than before (Bertell, 2013, p. 306).

Bertell’s research told her that new wars never fight with the same weaponry as the previous ones. Furthermore, we simply fail to realize the threats the new weapons hold in store for us and our environment since the military is 50 years ahead of us (Bertell, 2010b). We should nevertheless become active before we know everything about the new weapons, otherwise it could be too late (Bertell op. cit.).

Investigating the damage that has already been caused to our Earth, Bertell did not only find out that the atmosphere had been weakened, but also that there was a weakening of the Earth’s magnetic field, at present approximately 10%, which is widely recognized though the reasons are not understood. Additional to the effects of the nuclear detonations, this weakening of the magnetic field can, in the meantime, also have been the consequence of more attacks via the ionosphere as the ionospheric heater installations are operating globally.

The same is true for the slowing down of the speed at which the planet had been spinning. The planet’s axis is even shifting and could indicate the beginning of a pole reversal that would have unknown consequences and eventually trigger the formation of new glaciers and melting of existing ice at the same time. In the Antarctic, both these effects have already been observed. For several years, the peoples who inhabit the Arctic on the other side of the globe have been confirming sighting “another sky” which can only be explained through the shifting axis of the planet.

This again has nothing to do with any CO2 emissions, of course.

There is also concern about the Gulf Stream being reduced in the future due to large amounts of fresh water streaming into the North Atlantic through the melting of Arctic ice. Scientists have measured that the Gulf Stream has now lost 30% of its force already (University of Southampton, 2005). Consequently, Europe could plunge into another Ice Age instead of moving forward to a warmer or even hot one.

Synergies

Possibly effects on one side of the globe trigger parallel synergetic effects on the other side. Nothing happens without causing consequences. If, for instance, the jet stream is partly moved in one direction, this may have the opposite effect on another part of it. When Arctic cold reaches one continent – as is happening in the US and Canada in January 2018 – another one will be affected by an unusual warmth – as happened to Europe during the same time. Such synergies should be noticed and interpreted. The problem is how one experiment influences other ones and vice versa, producing eventually completely unknown effects or accumulating them.

Tesla remarked that technologies based on the use of electromagnetic waves could also be felt beyond the Earth, in the solar system and even further afield, since we are dealing even with “scalar” electromagnetic waves. Scalar waves seem to pass through the entire universe. However, modern technical devices and institutions are applying them in many civil and military fields. “Scalar-weapons” seem to be in secret use already (cf. Bearden, 2002; 2003; Bertell, 2013, pp. 234-239; Wood, 2014).

The so-called “space climate” which has been debated recently, influences the climate on Earth as well (cf. Rusov et al. 2010) and might be influenced by the application of scalar technologies simultaneously.

All this stands as an alternative to the CO2-related explanations for “global warming” and “climate change.”

It seems a lot more likely that many changes we are observing today result from the use of electromagnetic and their special form of scalar waves on Earth and from Earth into space. We then see accumulated and interrelated effects that are falling back on Earth (ESA, 2015; Weizenbaum in 1998 already talked about similar effects referring to computer systems and their fatal synergies in the future).

To nuclear and post-nuclear technologies that are still developed further (see below), we would have to add:

  • “Electrosmog,” which affects us more than we normally know, as a consequence of using the whole spectrum of cosmic radiation in daily life – via cell phones, computers and all wireless devices – as well as in medicine, and as produced by the satellites surrounding the Earth (cf. Heerd, 2012; Fosar/Bludorf, 2011; Rusov et al. 2010; Freeland, 2018),
  • We will have to include aerial sprayings as well which are a form of stratospheric and tropospheric geoengineering related to the use of EM-waves by ionospheric heaters. Civil geoengineers call them SRM, Solar Radiation Management, to be eventually applied in the future (s. Current state of geoengineering) or SAI (Stratospheric Aerosol Injection). We, nevertheless, are observing these sprayings worldwide for decades already, as they clandestinely release millions of tons of nano-particulates, especially of metals like aluminum, barium, and strontium, coal fly ash and other materials as nano-particulates into the strato- and troposphere for decades (Film Murphy, 2012, 2014; Herndon, 2017; Leblanc in this vol.). This scandal is now going to be whitewashed by the coming official allowance of civil geoengineering (s. Current state of geoengineering), or it will be declared part of “national security” and thus outside of public protest and reach (Fraile in this vol.).
  • There are all types of synergies and chemical reactions, creating “free radicals” (Bertell, 2016a, p. 115) in an artificially “ionized,” “heated” atmosphere that are still completely unknown, especially referring to long-term perspectives (s. Freeland, 2018).

In sum: our air is a toxic nightmare! Our sky – nothing of a “heaven” anymore, but a hell that is threatening us during our lifetime already! There is even more to come (s. Relationship between spraying and ionospheric heaters).

Climate Change as Business

All this is never mentioned when climate change, CO2 and a so-called warming of the planet are referred to, as well as extreme weather events, apparently natural, together with seemingly “natural” catastrophes and their increase tenfold since the 1970s (Bertell, 2013, p. 306), which can in no way be explained by any growth in industrial COemissions.

Above all, the actors have diversified. There has been an increase of geoengineering interventions in China, private corporations act on their own behalf and stock markets have entered the scene when “climate derivatives” serve to make profits with food disasters and more or less “natural” catastrophes. Climate change has become a billion $ market (cf. Freeland, 2014, p. 173ff), and its secret technologies are used for the atmospheric transport of huge masses of fresh water for “Desert Greening” in Saudi Arabia, for instance, whereas the surrounding regions down to East Africa often lack water for years and are drying out. The economic and political consequences are to be seen everywhere in the region.

In 2010, the UN re-entered the match with the Nagoya Protocol (s. ETC, 2010) attempting to prohibit the use of non-authorized corporate geoengineering projects as well as the use of generally non-approved geoengineering efforts. In contrast to the ENMOD Convention of 1977, however, the UN does not mention the role of the military anymore and we can doubt the importance of its new moratorium. At this very moment it does not seem as if any of the players are listening to it.

What I have laid down here are the effects of current, mostly military geoengineering which is publicly unknown and beyond any public discussion. On the contrary, there are innumerable efforts to hide the role of the military, of corporations, politics and the new technologies applied. The whole political, public, and “scientific” debate has been concentrated on CO2 and “global warming” as a smokescreen, behind which the ongoing catastrophes are concealed, and social movements guided accordingly in the direction of the so-called “alternative”, a controlled life in new “smart cities” (cf. Heibel in this vol.). This alternative would be nothing else than the necessary adaption to the unfertile, toxic, dangerous, scarce, and hostile desert to which we are moving (s. Henrion in this vol.), not to speak of the ongoing war against us, the environment, and the planet as such which we are supposed to ignore or tolerate. Indeed, we are finally blamed with being responsible for having produced the whole dilemma ourselves!

Current State of the Debate on “Civil” Geoengineering: From the Clandestine Spraying of the Atmosphere to “Solar Radiation Management” (SRM)

Since military geoengineering, as described here, is not considered in any public debate because the “elites” cannot possibly confess what they are doing to us and the Earth at all, the issue and concept of geoengineering is wrongly defined, if at all. Only recently, the term “geoengineering” appeared in public though as “civil” geoengineering alone which is presented to be not so much of a danger but a chance in view of the apparent difficulties to cut COemissions (cf. Fraile, 2018).

For instance, the UN climate conference COP21 in Paris (30.11.-10.12.2015) agreed upon to limit so-called global warming to 1.5-2 degrees centigrade, – presupposing that this amount of global warming as such does exist and can be measured at all. How could this goal ever be reached? (cf. Fraile in this vol.)

One of the first civil scientists to speak out was Prof. David Keith from Harvard University, who talked about “solar radiation management” (SRM). Keith proposed to use nothing less than sulfuric acid that he wanted to be sprayed over the planet to cool it down this way (Keith, 2015). Even Keith, however, declared not being sure if the living world would survive this experiment! Such an assault on life did not yet take place, but how is it possible that he could propose this experiment without any public debate, not to speak consent?

In March 2017, world famous Harvard University where Prof. Keith is working announced the launching of “The biggest Geoengineering Research Programme”:

The “Research programme will send aerosol injections into the Earth’s upper atmosphere to study the risks and benefits of a future solar tech-fix for climate change” (Neslen 2017; Harvard University 2017).

After the COP23 in Bonn, Germany in November 2017, it is obvious that finally Plan B is on the table, the use of geoengineering methods against “climate change” instead of mitigation which means continuing to reduce or “bury” industrial CO2 emissions. Before, Plan B was not discussed as a real programme because its existence was concealed and at Geoengineering Conferences it was only held as something to be tested for the future and regarded as too dangerous to be applied already now (Weiss, 2016; Fraile in this vol.).

In the publicly and politically visible academic circles it is – as always – assumed industrial CO2 to be causing the problems of climate change and warming (cf. Heibel, Fraile, Henrion, Freeland and Leblanc in this vol.). The “elites” and those behind them, therefore, declare the problems allegedly caused by CO2 not to be solvable because of the inflexibility of politics and the difficulty of changing our mode of production and patterns of consumption associated with our modern civilization and lifestyle regarded to be responsible for the CO2 problem.

There have been many UN conferences taking place that have failed to produce results in combating industrial CO2. The Paris COP21 gathering was then regarded an opportunity to start to launch for the first time the project of so-called civil geoengineering as Plan B to help against the “warming” of the planet (cf. Fraile in this vol.) by technically removing its symptoms alone. So-called “civil” geoengineering is now always more openly propagated to be the best way for “saving the planet” from climate change and warming. Recently, this happened again with the Special Report of the IPCC, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, published in October 2018 in Incheon, South Korea. Its aim is to limit global warming to 1.5 degrees above pre-industrial times, as already debated in Paris.

Never Mentioned: Military Geoengineering as a Whole

Nevertheless, no mention is made of military geoengineering and the history of planetary weather, atmospheric, and climate manipulation and destruction by the military (see also Fleming, 2010).

Civil geoengineers present themselves as inventors of methods to be experimented referred to as new and promising. No one cares or better dares, however, to mention Edward Teller, the hydrogen bomb or the ongoing war against the planet by military geoengineering as geo-weaponry and geo-warfare. Why not?

Alleged “civil” geoengineering, as it is defined generally aims at:

  • Removing CO2 from the atmosphere, “storing” it deep in the soil after having it “captured”, (CDS), or burying it in the oceans, after having them “fertilized” with iron, for instance, so that certain algae which “eat” it would prosper and take more of the existing CO2 down to the ocean bed, when dying (cf. Bertell, 2013, pp.252ff). The third method at that level is to capture CO2 from the air and produce new fuel from it, emitting it into the atmosphere again (Prof. D. Keith’s most profitable project)!
  • Methods beyond attacking CO2 directly consist of allegedly blocking the sun radiation from reaching the Earth through SRM (solar radiation management), which implies building a sort of sunshade to protect the planet from excessive sun radiation. This is indeed nothing else than what we know already as the spraying of the atmosphere with nanoparticles. Related methods of producing a so-called “albedo” are to be mentioned as well. Their aim is the whitening of the Earth’s surfaces, removing forests, or painting the roofs of buildings, in order to facilitate the sunrays to be reflected back to the cosmos (cf. Goodell, 2011).
  • “Civil” geoengineers have, however, been flatly denying the real and actual use of military geoengineering methods, especially SRM – for decades already – and its nuclear (cf. Snefjella, 2016; Leblanc in this vol.) and military past. This is more important as the military is not concerned about any “civil” climate change at all (cf. also Freeland, 2014; Freeland in this vol.) and has, therefore, not developed methods against it. On the contrary, it has itself developed the methods to install climate change, as we have seen (CIA, 1960; US Air Force, 1996; Pasin, 2017). But some of these very methods are, paradoxically, now propagated as helping against climate change! What does this mean?

Since geoengineering projects have been carried out in secret and through the military (both in the East and the West), any debate about this fact is deemed “conspiracy-mongering.” Today, however, geoengineering, defined as civil geoengineering – being new, scientific, and useful – emerges from the historical darkness and from the fact that until now its perpetrators have been consciously hiding it from the public because of its military background. Hence, talk about geoengineering is now permitted without risking being accused of making up conspiracy theories, or of simply being crazy, provided military geoengineering as such is left out of the debate.

Methods and projects in the realm of civil geoengineering, as geoengineers are presenting them publicly now, however, have been considered foolish and far too risky by scientists in past decades. But today, on the contrary, geoengineers are launching their projects as future experiments, the risks of which could allegedly in fact be minimized (cf. discussion in “Handelsblatt”, 4.12. 2015). Civil science and society have not massively announced any protests yet, as the constant propaganda makes them believe that such measures would indeed be urgently needed today (Fraile, 2015).

Only recently, a Manifesto, published in 2018 by the NGO “Hands Off Mother Earth,” claims to speak out against military geoengineering. In fact, this relates to SRM alone being now more openly propagated by the IPCC in its special report of the same year (PBME, 2018b). The Manifesto of the “civil society” does, however, not confess that SRM has been used for decades already and that military geoengineering is a very broad set of technologies having been developed since three-quarters of a century already. Additionally, the Manifesto even believes in the CO2-myth.

The Anthropocene and the “Better Planet”?

There is a growing number of geoengineers in the world based at prestigious universities and with always more funds donated (e.g. by Bill Gates). They are celebrating the “Anthropocene” (Crutzen, 2002, 2007), the era of Man dominating Earth!

From the point of view of “Alchemy”, this would mean to have reached the goal of it all, a “higher and better planet,” a “smart planet,” being the “Opus Magnum” of Mankind after having passed through the transitional phase of its transformation through its “mortification” and “taming”. It seems as if we are actually moving through this process. We, nevertheless, have indeed to doubt its being a positive development. What we see instead of a “new Earth” rising – as biblical and esoteric as well as civil geoengineers, the self-proclaimed “saviours” of the planet, want us to believe – is just the opposite, namely the “wreckage” of Mother Earth that is happening while she is being transformed into the latest and biggest “weapon of war” (Bertell, 2016a).

At all the international gatherings of geoengineers, currently growing in number everywhere, we can observe a constant pressure exercised to move to action due to alleged catastrophic global warming and climate change (Weiss, 2014; Fraile, 2015).

What a diabolical undertaking, indeed. People are motivated to agree with continuing to destroy the planet whereas they believe in saving it!

The discussion now centres around the most convenient materials to be applied in SRM measures. Foremost, we encounter metals like aluminum and sulphur in various forms. Yet nobody tells us nor do public institutions officially investigate into the effects those metals cause in the atmosphere (Wigington, 2014) and after having finally reached the ground. There appears to have been no research as of present at all by civil geoengineers about this part of the experiment (Weiß, 2014; Heibel, 2017). They behave as if the aerosols sprayed would remain in the sky.

David Keith, who is planning to sprinkle us with sulfuric acid as previously mentioned, in this way wants to imitate a global volcanic eruption thought to be able to reduce global temperatures as in case of the cooling effect after the eruption of Mount Pinatubo in 1991.

Former experiments using sulphuric dioxide have already at least caused so-called “acid rain,” damaging soils, forests, oceans, and its creatures. Now it is going to be much more threatening.

Various questions arise from these considerations:

  • How is it possible to consider the risk of the effects of such a large scale and dangerous experiment at all (Fraile, 2015)? It is, nevertheless, noteworthy that the UN has recently warned about the consequences of (civil) geoengineering and proposes a moratorium on at least “private” geoengineering experiments (UN, 2018).
  • Who are the masterminds and interests behind “civil” geoengineering? Yet to be clarified: Which materials are really being used in the ongoing actual sprayings which are still officially denied? And why?
  • Who is carrying out the sprayings and how, and who is supposed to do so in the future? The money needed, however, seems to play no role, as it is constantly explained how cheap this method would be compared to the costs which would arise when renouncing it (cf. Fraile, Weiss, op. cit.)

Most importantly, however:

  • Why are the effects of sprayings kept silent and why are they denied as such, though having been carried out for decades already (cf. Murphy, 2012; 2014)?
  • Why has SRM been used as a method of dumping particles as “aerosols” into the skies at all for such a long time now, if it is not just for a “sunshade”?
  • What is the damage done that has already been caused? (s. Resistance)
  • Why did the planet – at least officially – not cool down, if SRM is giving the allegedly necessary “sunshade” for more than 20 years already? Indeed, NASA satellite data of this century show neither a significant warming nor any cooling of the Earth. In a hearing by US Senator Cruz with scientists related to the IPCC, the organization that sustains the warming-up theory based on computer simulation programs, could not answer the questions about how they would defend their warming-up theory in face of the facts (Weiss, 2017)!
  • Finally, what would happen and is already happening to plants and animals on land, in the oceans and in the air, to our health and the possibilities to use solar energies of all kinds worldwide, when there is no sun sufficiently shining anymore, on the one hand, whereas on the other hand, more cosmic radiation is always entering through the weakened ozone layer of the atmosphere? (cf. Herndon, 2018 in PBME, 2018, 2018b). It seems that life in the oceans – like that of corals as well as on land – has already started to die out because of lack of nutrition and too much radiation at the same time (s. already Bertell, 1985, p. 300ff; in general Philipps-Wefferson; Yale Environment ,360, 2018; Werlhof, 2018).

Civil geoengineers even make us believe that when they apply SRM to generate a sunshade there will be no serious risk of death on Earth through heat, anymore. They, nevertheless, say that it would be a mortal threat to switch off the global sunshade after a while because in this case, they say, the heat produced in the meantime would be lethal (cf. Weiss, 2016, p.533). They are constantly threatening the public with theories of catastrophic developments whereas they do not speak about the real threats through the weakened ozone layer and its real origins, not to mention the ongoing wreckage of the planet and its life support systems. Ironically, this may be explicable if one takes into consideration that SRM itself is participating in destroying the ozone layer (Wigington, 2014). So, when propagating this method, its side effects are to be denied?

In sum, what we see is a big propaganda network surrounding us that prevents people from knowing and even wanting to know what is really going on behind their backs since decades already, namely a secret war against us, all life, and the planet itself – a war that is supposed to be even supported by the people believing in it being salvation instead…

Resistance

Meanwhile, an increasing number of social movements have emerged such as our European organisation Skyguards and the Planetary Movement for Mother Earth (Werlhof, 2016a). Especially in the United States we have seen the rise of movements. They have even more experience with the fact that spraying is not something of the future to implement SRM but has already been a reality for decades.

The findings of the various movements on what is dumped on us are the following:

  • Heavy and other metals in the form of nanoparticles, mainly aluminum, barium, strontium, lithium, sulphur, and many more. Additionally, polymer fibres, fungi, viruses, bacteria, radioactive aerosols from uranium, aerosols from genetically modified materials and many other chemicals.
    North American film director Mike Murphy refers to them in his films Why in the World are They Spraying? and What in the World are They Spraying? (Murphy, 2012; 2014). There is so much evidence and there are so many documents internationally already that we can be sure beyond doubt that this is indeed happening (PBME, 2018; 2018b).
  • There are documents from the military about the sprayings referred to by themselves as “chemtrails” (cf. Bertell, 2013, p. 253). Some of us in the movements, however decided not to use this term anymore as it is misused for “conspiracy theorists” and does not reveal what the sprayings are really doing to us, namely “spraying us like insects” (Henrion in this vol.).
  • Meanwhile, life in communities such as Shasta, California (2013), or Long Island, NY, is becoming extinct. The normal rainfall patterns have altered since the spraying has ruined the water cycle (Wigington, 2014). Nothing can grow, animals perish, and people get sick. In 2014, the people of Shasta rose up and publicly denounced the crimes committed as evidenced by peasants, farmers, doctors, pilots, scientists, engineers, and community members (Shasta, 2014).
  • Recently, Dr Marvin Herndon (2015), an independent scientist from San Diego, was able to prove that “coal fly ash” is part of the sprayings – the same coal deemed to be the very culprit of global warming itself! He describes it as “toxic chemical geoengineering” with dire consequences for public health, since apart from other toxic metals, there are “radioactive elements and chemically active aluminum, which can have neurological impacts when inhaled or otherwise absorbed by the human body” (Herndon, 2017a).

Moreover, Herndon found an air-drop material in the form of

“Synthetic cryoconite, or proto-cryoconite, whose purpose is to melt glacial ice. That explanation is consistent with the now near-daily, near-global spraying of a particulate substance, evidenced as coal fly ash, into the troposphere, which has the effect of causing global warming. … Yet, the consequences of this near-global weather- and climate modification geoengineering activity have not been taken into account by any of the climate change models evaluated by the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), a fact that calls into question not only the findings of that organization, but its moral authority as well. …

… Scientists worldwide should call for, and indeed demand, a full and open investigation into these covert geoengineering activities whose potential impacts on Earth’s climate system, the integrity of Earth’s biota, and on human health may prove to be extremely hazardous” (Herndon, 2017b).

As the spraying is even occurring in the atmosphere a lot lower than was assumed namely in the troposphere, this has led to the disappearance of botanical species as well, the reduction in food production and the loss of human lives as Herndon found out. Indeed, the spraying is a new, continued Manhattan Project (Kirby, 2017) against life.

Certain scientific journals, however, would not publish Dr Herndon’s results from his research anymore (Herndon, 2015), which shows the level of corruption reached in the civil sciences as well, not to mention the political sphere (cf. Leblanc in this vol.).

  • There is more research covering illnesses that are expanding across the globe, especially in the USA, where spraying has occurred for more time than elsewhere: autism, dementia, Parkinson’s, respiratory, pulmonary, cardiac and neurological diseases and a general poisoning of the environment.

Aerial spraying is done by Air Force planes and a great number of civil airlines across the globe by tanks located on board of the planes. Information about the way how the sprayings are organized have been provided by pilots, mechanics and even air force staff alike, like Kristen Meghan, who have felt the need to share this truth with the public (Meghan, 2013).

Meanwhile, in 2013 Monsanto invented a seed that is resistant to aluminum. How did Monsanto know for so long about aluminum in the soil and why does – still – no ministry of agriculture seem to believe it?

Relationship Between Spraying and Ionospheric Heaters/EM-Technology: The Coming of a Planetary “Lockdown” and “Full Spectrum Dominance of the Earth”?

How then is SRM related to the technologies we have been describing, for example, nuclear and electromagnetic technologies? (s. Worthington, 2017). How relevant is it that spraying has been occurring for two to three decades already and has been increasing in frequency, intensity, and geographical expansion? Why are the perpetrators spraying substances on us that are so harmful to life?

The only thing we know for sure is that they carry out in the open (admitted by CIA, 1978) countless experiments with us and our life, or as we should say, with our death!

What does it mean after all that already in 1961, the US military wanted to create a “telecommunication shield” in the ionosphere by dumping 350 trillion copper needles into the atmosphere? What does it mean that this experiment failed miserably, even producing turmoil in the magnetic field of the Earth accompanied by a tremendous earthquake of 8.5 magnitude in Chile? (Bertell, 2013, p. 156f).

Yet, there seems to be a continued need for “replacement atmospheres,” as I call them, since EM-waves cannot pass holes in the ozone layer and experience increasing difficulties travelling through the remaining atmosphere as in the meantime it has been badly damaged. Spraying, or SRM respectively, is a solution for those interested in emitting EM-waves since the spraying allows guiding the EM-waves, emitted by ionospheric heaters through ozone holes and weaknesses. This may be a reason for the spraying of heavy and other metals that serve those purposes best: especially aluminum, barium and sulphur – if copper did not work out.

Does this mean that without SRM, i.e., without spraying metals into our skies, the military projects using plasma weapons via their installations of ionospheric heaters could not be carried out everywhere on the globe?

In the meantime, it is obvious that the sprayings have not much to do with cooling the planet. In fact, the sprayings originally have not aimed at producing any cooling effects. Instead, other motives have driven these experiments such as an interest in developing new weapons and the conditions for their use, namely “shields” that are surrounding an area or even the planet as such. These shields would guide the respective “plasma” weaponry using artificial metallic clouds, for instance.

Josefina Fraile of Skyguards, our European activist group, has warned:

“Climate engineering and solar radiation management (SRM) are the direst issues, after the atomic bomb, endangering the planet’s survival. In spite of this, the debate is being taken at the back of the concerned millions of inhabitants of this world by people that are not legitimatized to do it. As a result, for the sake of averting any counter reaction to these programs, civil society is kept ignorant of a serious issue that will affect every living being on Earth” (Fraile, 2015).

At this very moment, however, “civil” geoengineering first of all in the form of SRM is being promoted as the new and most promising technology of the 21st century. The idea of a shield or grid around an area or even the planet is not new. The grid is supposed to recognize hostile rockets and destroy them for instance (Bertell, 2013, p. 248f, 250) and transparent “spheres” or “domes” built of electromagnetic energy are used (Bertell a.a.O., p. 245), as Nikola Tesla had already envisaged them (Bertell a.a.O., p. 243ff).

More recently, however, the “weaponization” of our planet in form of a planetary lockdown (Freeland in this vol,) is occurring “before our eyes,” as Elana Freeland explains in her new book Under an Ionized Sky (Freeland, 2018):

“First, we were seduced by the convenience of a wireless world; then, atmospheric weather experimentation in the guise of carbons ‘climate change’ converted the air we breathe into an antenna. Now, the geoengineering we have been subjected to for two decades is becoming normalized as the ‘Star Wars’ Space Fence rises around and within us. Inside the electromagnetic lockdown of the Space Fence, humanity is to be neurologically herded toward a transhumanist future” (Freeland, 2018).

This way “chemical aerosols whiting our skies and ionospheric heaters around the world work together to assure … military operations of global control (ibid.) and have started to operate from the space around the Earth, using satellites and locking us into a huge prison – our Mother Earth!

Thus, the “full spectrum dominance of the Earth“ (Freeland, 2014), is taking shape consisting of an electromagnetic planetary lockdown, geophysical weaponry like plasma weapons and directed “free“ energy weapons, DEW (Wood, 2014) from space or air (cf. Kadia in this vol.), Electro Magnetic Pulse-weapons (EMP, s. Rötzer, 2018), and psychotronic weapons of mind control, all combined with cellphones, computers, TV, smart homes and smart cities (s. Heibel in this vol.).

Is this the “civilization of alchemists,” the “Brave New World” the “civil” geoengineers are promising to be able to create as a positive future like the one of so-called “smart cities” and we, the people, are thought to help to create it, applaud to it, and agree to even die for it – as we have no idea what it means?

Rosalie Bertell warned us:

“Unfortunately, waiting for these weapons to be employed, in order to then be able to better understand them, will mean the end of our civilization and our life. Our research must be ahead of the threats instead of limping behind. Chemtrails are the attempt of biological and chemical warfare. What they are dumping on us now might only be a pre-taste of what is actually planned” (Bertell, 2011b).

What Is the Outlook for the Planet and Us?

“Few in the civil sector fully understand that geoengineering is primarily a military science and has nothing to do with either cooling the planet or lowering carbon emissions … While seemingly fantastical, weather has been ‘weaponized’. At least four countries – the US, Russia, China, and Israel – possess the technology and organisation to regularly alter weather and geologic events for various military and black operations, which are tied to secondary objectives, including demographic, energy, and agricultural resource management.

Indeed, warfare now includes the technological ability to induce, enhance or direct cyclonic events, earthquakes, droughts, and flooding, including the use of polymerised aerosol viral agents and radioactive particulates carried through global weather systems. Various themes in public debate, including global warming, have unfortunately been subsumed into much larger military and commercial objectives that have nothing to do with broad public environmental concerns. These include the gradual warming of polar regions to facilitate naval navigation and resource extraction” (Andersson, 2012).

The research paper Weather as a Force Multiplier: Owning the Weather in 2025 published in 1996 by the US Air Force (1996) explains when and how the US will take control over everything related to our weather and climate, without needing any CO2 as a reason. We are merely four years away from the suggested 2025. We can assume that the military has done most of the experimentation already, our weather and climatic conditions being the object of constant manipulative interventions everywhere on the globe (cf. Fogg, 2011).

Isn’t it strange to see that the military-industrial-complex today is doing in plain reality what the European “witches” have been falsely accused of four centuries ago, namely, to alter the weather and be responsible for illnesses and death? They were burnt at the stake.

The supposed civil geoengineering is nothing but a continuation of military geoengineering which is now being promoted publicly and officially and even propagated as a way of saving the planet from “warming” through industrial CO2 emissions, a myth invented in the 1990s, mobilizing a large-scale public consent worldwide and occupying the ideas of social movements that believe they act in favour of Mother Earth!

We are instead facing the wreckage of Mother Earth (Bertell, 2016) and her general “weaponization,” paradoxically defined as an improvement through the military “alchemy” of the planet’s transformation into a mega-machine. This is the way that the new Gods show up with their latest “creation,” Mother Earth turned into a monster “born” by the military as her “father”!

In this way, certain human activities are dissolving everything that is important for the existence our planet as a cosmic living being – its cycles, elements, rhythms, matter, life forms, time, space, the relationship between Earth and sky, and between Earth and the surrounding cosmos.

The logic of all these undertakings consists in integrating us as human beings into the transformation of the Planet in order to form part of the expanding “Mega-Machine” the world is planned to become in the future. It is the project of the so-called 4th industrial revolution to realize the respective changes of humanity becoming a “trans”- and “posthuman” race – with unimaginable results and consequences (s. Freeland in this vol.; Introduction). This way the old dream of patriarchal civilization to “create” beyond mothers and Mother Nature would become true – its utopia realized!

Call

Everything I tried to explain in this paper is unbelievable, beyond any imagination, appalling and completely new for all of us – though having become a growing part of our reality already. Recognizing it means to go through hell – the latest man-made hell of modern patriarchy’s “hatred of life” (s. Werlhof in this vol.). Rosalie Bertell, however, who was the first to see this hell, was so full of love for our planet that she was able to bear it and give us strength and hope. So, let us follow her even in times when “the sky may fall down on our heads” (Pasin, 2017, p.8), as the pagans of Saxony prophesied when Bonifacius, the Christian missionary, cut down Yggdrasil, their holy tree which holds the connection between earth and sky.

We are responsible for what happens to Mother Earth and to ourselves. There is, of course, no “right” to destroy her and us. On the contrary, this would be the supreme and ultimate matricide and self-destructive mega-crime possible!

With this “planetary consciousness” we should find out what we are to do now beyond all the fear that the new character and dimensions of this war, unheard of in history, is threatening us with!

We are to become Earth- and life-related human beings again. We belong to the Earth, and we cannot do without her. Women against geoengineering are the first to show this, to be firmly on the side of Mother Earth (s. Almendra in this vol.) and of humanity as her children. We are to defend her and ourselves in new ways which are to be discussed and practiced everywhere (Werlhof, 2021).

In contrast to the belief of patriarchs, the Bible’s apocalypse and many esoteric prophecies of today, there is no “second” Earth. This one is the only one we have. The same is true for our lives and for humanity. 

Translation from Spanish by Nina Suzanne Hall and the author

 

Sources

Andersson, Matt: At War over Geoengineering, The Guardian, London 9.2.2012

Antarctic: https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=414&v=237F1_aLXZ8, Black projects and Climate engineering

Arctic: Why unprecedented ozone loss in the Arctic in 2011? Is it related to climate change? Study finds unprecedented Arctic ozone loss – Phys.org, October. 2011

Bearden, Tom: Fer de Lance. A Briefing on Soviet Scalar Electromagnetic Weapons, Santa Barbara 2002 (1986), Cheniere Press

____, Gravitobiology. A new Biophysics, Santa Barbara 2003, Cheniere Press

Becker, Robert. O.: Cross Currents.The Perils of Electropollution, the Promise of Electromedicine, 1990, J.P. Tarcher

Begich, Nick/ Manning, Jeanne: Angels don´t play this HAARP. Advances in Tesla Technology, Anchorage 1995, Earthpulse Press

Bertell, Rosalie: No Immediate Danger. Prognosis for a Radioactive Earth, Toronto 1985, the Women´s Press

___: Planet Earth. The Latest Weapon of War, London 2000, The Women´s Press; enhanced edition 2020, Dublin, Talma International

—–: Petition, 2010a, in: Bertell 2013, 2016b

—-: Interview: Planet without a Future, 2010b, in: 9th Information Letter, pp. 2-7, www.pbme-online.org

___: Letter to the UN Commission on Biodiversity, Durban 2011a

___: Email to the author, 27.11.2011b

—–: Slowly Wrecking Our Planet, in: Canadian Woman Studies, Vol. 31, No. 1,2, 2016a, pp. 113-117

—–: Kriegswaffe Planet Erde, Birstein 2016b (2011, 2013, 2016, 2018, 2020), 5 ed., J.K.Fischer

—–: Planeta Tierra – La Nueva Guerra, Guadalajara 2018, La casa del mago

___: Pianeta Terra-Ultima Arma di Guerra, Trieste 2018, Asterios

___: La Planète Terre, Ultime Arme de Guerre, 2 tomes, Paris 2018, Talma Studios

Breitburg, Denise et.al.: Declining oxygen in the global oceans and coastal waters, http://science.sciencemag.org/content(359/6371/eaam7240, 31.1.2018

BUMERANG (Boomerang), Journal for the Critique of Patriarchy, Nr. 0, 2015, Nr. 1, 2016, Nr.3, 2017 www.fipaz.at

Caldera, Ken and Govinda, Samy Bala, Long Cao: The Science of Geoengineering, in: Annual Review of Earth and Planetary Sciences, 41, Nr. 1, 30. Mai 2013, S. 231–25

Chossudovsky, Michel: The Ultimate Weapon of Mass Destruction: “Owning the Weather” for Military Use, on: Global Research, 22. May 2016

CIA: The Need for a Climate Control Study Program, Declassified in Part – Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2013/08/06: CIA-RDP78-03425A002100020014-2, 1960

___:(Various documents on Tesla´s methods and their use including Soviet experiences and mind control), Approved for Release 2004/12/22: CIA-RDP81M00980R001100020017-0, 1978

C.O.D.E. (Conföderation Organisch Denkender Europäer): Hintergrundanalyse. Die Verwüstung Amerikas. Der geheime Wetterkrieg der Sowjets oder das verhängnisvolle Erbe Teslas, Frankfurt a. M. 1981, LIBRI

Crutzen, Paul J.: Geology of mankind, in: Nature 415, 23, 2002; Steffen, W., P.J. Crutzen and J.R. McNeill: The Anthropocene: Are Humans Now Overwhelming the Great Forces of Nature? Ambio 36, 2007, pp. 614-621

Curry, Judith et.al. https://science.house.gov/legislation/hearings/full-committee-hearing-climate-science-assumptions-policy-implications-and-the-Scientific-Method, 27 March 2017

Daly, Mary: Gyn/Ecology: The Metaethics of Radical Feminism. Beacon Press, 1978

Easlea, Brian: Fathering the Unthinkable (The Politics of Science and Technology). Masculinity, Scientists and the Nuclear Arms Race, Pluto press, London 1987

Engdahl, William: Climate Change, Panic Scenarios, Killing Scientific Debate. The Dark Story Behind “Global Warming“, on www.globalresearch.ca, 16.10.

ESA, European Space Agency: Weltraumwetter: Gefahren für die Erde, www.esa.int/ger/ESA_in_your_country/Austria. 2015-09-25

ETC Group, http://www.etcgroup.org/content/why-srm-experiments-are-bad-idea. Definition:

“Weaponization: The military origin and implications of geoengineering for warfare are often forgotten or intentionally not mentioned. But the whole idea of controlling the weather comes from military strategies and led even to the signing of the international Environmental Modification Convention (ENMOD). Military leaders in the United States and other countries have pondered the possibilities of weaponized weather manipulation for decades. If the aim of a technology is to “combat climate change,” it doesn’t guarantee its use will be limited only to that application. If anybody can control the Earth’s thermostat, this can and will be used for military purposes…”

___: Geoengineering Moratorium at UN Ministerial in Japan Risky Climate Techno-fixes Blocked, 2010

Federici, Silvia: Caliban and the Witch. Women, the Body, and Primitive Accumulation, Autonomedia, New York 2004

Film, 2010: When the Earth Dried Out, https//:www.youtube.com/watch?v=qznJwdZWYL8

Fleming, J. Rodger: Fixing the Sky. The Checkered History of Weather and Climate Control, New York 2010, Columbia University Press

Fogg, Martyn J.: Planetary Engineering Bibliography, Probability Research Group, London, rev. 2011.

Fosar, Grazyna / Bludorf, Franz: Zaubergesang. Frequenzen zur Wetter- und Gedankenkontrolle, Marktoberdorf 2011, Argo

Fraile, Josefina: Climate Engineers in Berlin – Coup d´Etat against global democracy, in: 11th Information Letter, 2015, pp. 12-20, www.pbme-online.org

____: oral intervention at Conference on Geoengineering, University of Cambridge, 12th of March 2015

Freeland, Elana: Chemtrails, HAARP, and the “Full Spectrum Dominance” of Planet Earth, Port Townsend 2014, Feral House

____: Under an Ionized Sky. From Chemtrails to Space Fence Lockdown, Port Townsend 2018, Feral House

Genth, Renate: Über Maschninisierung und Mimesis, Frankfurt a.M. 2002, Peter Lang

Goodell, Jeff: How to Cool the Planet. Geoengineering and the Audacious Quest to Fix Earth´s Climate, New York 2011, Houghton Mifflin Harcourt Publ.

Gore, Al: An Inconvenient Truth. The Planetary Emergency of Global Warming, and What We Can Do About It. Rodale Books, Emmaus (PA) 2006

Hamblin, Jacob Darwin: Arming Mother Nature. The Birth of Catastrophic Environmentalism, Oxford/New York 2013, Oxford University Press

Hamilton, Clive: Earthmasters: The dawn of the age of climate engineering, New Haven 2013a, Yale University Press, in Australia: Earthmasters: Playing God with the climate, Auckland 2013, Allen & Unwin

___: Die Rückkehr des “Dr. Stangelove”- Die Politik der Klimamanipulation als Antwort auf die globale Erwärmung (Juni 2010), in: Bertell, Rosalie: Kriegswaffe Planet Erde, J.K. Fischer, Birstein 2013b, 2. ed., pp.485-507

Handelsblatt, 4.12.2015: Thomas Trösch: Geoingenieure nach Paris. Riskante Waffe gegen den Klimawandel

Harvard University: Harvard’s Solar Geoengineering Research Program Launches Spring 2017, Washington 24 March 2017

Heerd, Ulrich (Ed.): HAARP Projekt über Mobilfunk zur Strahlenwaffe, Peiting 2012, Michaelsverlag

Heibel, Maria: Konferenz „Geoengineereing & Desinformation“ im Senat, Rom, www.pbme-online.org, 20.3.2017

Herndon, Marvin J.: Aluminum poisoning of humanity and Earth’s biota by clandestine geoengineering activity: Implications for India, in: 11th Information Letter 2015, www.pbme-online.org, cf.www.NuclearPlanet.com

____: An Indication of Intentional Efforts to Cause Global Warming and Glacier Melting, in: Journal of Geography, Environment and Earth Science International, 9(1): 1-11, 2017a

____: Immediate Release, Feb. 2017b

IPCC: Manufacturing consensus: The early history of the IPCC, 2018

https://judithcurry.com/2018/01/03/manufacturing-consensus-the-early-history-of-the-ipcc/

Johnson, Andrew: Uncommon Purpose – Agenda 22, in: BOOMERANG, Journal for the Critique of Patriarchy, Nr.3, 2017, www.fipaz.at

Keith, David: Proyecto SCOPEX, in: Der Spiegel, Junio 2015

—–A Case for Climate Engineering, A Boston Review Book, MIT Press, 2013

Kirby, Peter: Chemtrails Exposed: Truly A New Manhattan Project, 2017 www.activistpost.com/2017/03/chemtrails-exposed-truly-a-new -manhattan-priject.html

Klein, Naomi: Die Entscheidung. Kapitalismus versus Klima, Frankfurt a.M., S. Fischer 2014

Klein, Renate: Stop Surrogacy Now! in: BUMERANG – Journal for the Critique of Patriarchy, Nr. 1, 2015, pp. 187-189, www.fipaz.at

MacDonald, Gordon: How to Wreck the Environment, in: Calder, Nigel: Unless Peace Comes: A Scientific Forecast of New Weapons, London 1968, Pelican

Meghan, Kristen: www.geoengineeringwatch.org/ex-military-bio-environmental-e, 2013

Merchant, Carolyn: The Death of Nature. Women, Ecology, and the Scientific Revolution, Harper & Row, San Francisco 1980

Mumford, Lewis: Mythos der Maschine, Frankfurt a.  M. 1977, Fischer (The Myth of the Machine 1967-1970)

Murphy, Mike: Films “Why in the World are they Spraying?” and “What in the World are they Spraying?” (YouTube, 2012, 2014)

Neslen, Arthur: US scientists launch world’s biggest solar geoengineering study, in: The Guardian, 24.3.2017

O’Leary, Brian: The Turquoise Revolution. Innovation and Sustainable Solutions – an Urgent Appeal to Scientists, Environmentalists and Progressives, http://[email protected], 14 June 2010

Pasin, Patrick: L’ arme climatique. La manipulation du climat par les militaires, Paris 2017, Talma Studios

PBME, Planetary Movement for Mother Earth, www.pbme-online.org, 12th Infobrief 2017

PBME 13. Information Letter 2018

PBME 14. Information Letter 2018b

Philipps-Wefferson, Jeff: On the Brink Radio, [email protected]

Ponte, Lowell: The Cooling. Has the next ice age already begun? London etc. 1976, Prentice Hall Radarsystems: http://www.iarums-r1.org/iarums/radar-2012.pdf.

Rötzer, Florian: Wer wird zuerst eine EMP-Waffe einsetzen? Telepolis, 1.1.2018, htpp://www.heise.de/tp/features/Wer-wird-zuerst-eine-EMP-Waffw-einsetzen-3929961.html

Rusov, Vitaliy et. al.: Galactic Cosmic Rays – Clouds Effect and Bifurcation Model of the Earth Global Climate, in: Journal of Atmospheric and Solar-Terrestrial Physics, Vol. 72, 2010, pp. 398-408

Schütt, Hans Werner: Auf der Suche nach dem Stein der Weisen. Die Geschichte der Alchemie, Beck, München 2000

Shasta Community, California 2013: Poisoning the Sky. Geoengineering with Chemtrails. A

community investigates and fights back, en 10. Carta Informativa, www.pbme-online.org, 2014,

Shimatsu, Yoichi, 2014: Arctic Ozone Hole & Polar Melt Triggered by the Fukushima Catastrophe http://www.rense.com/general96/arctic.html

Snefjella, Robert, 2015: Our Nuclear Heritage: The Fukushima Catastrophe, Too Clever by A Half-Life, http://www.countercurrents.org/snefjella140715.htm).

____, 2016: Extremely Cautionary Catastrophes: Fukushima and Chernobyl, 28. of May 2016, in: Countercurrents.org

SPACECAST, 2020, On: Weather as a Force Multiplier. Owning the Weather in 2025, A Research paper by Col. Tamzy J. House, Lt Col James B. Near, Jr., LTC William B. Shields (USA), Maj Ronald J. Celentano, Maj David M. Husband, Maj Ann E. Mercer and Maj James E. Pug, et.al. t

Storr, Dominik, 2013: Eine juristische Betrachtung, in: R. Bertell 2013, pp.525-546

TAZ, Berlin 8.1.2018: Das Sterben der Urwälder im Meer. Zurück bleibt eine Seeigelwüste.

Tesla, Nikola: Das Nikola Tesla-Originalwerk. Tesla Gesamtausgabe, Peiting, Michaelsverlag, o. D.

Titze, Sven: Die Ozonschicht erholt sich nicht wie erwartet, in: Süddeutsche Zeitung, München 6.2.2018

UN: Environmental Modification (ENMOD) Convention, Geneva 1977

UN: Convención de Nagoya (de la geoingenería), Nagoya 2010

UN: Geoingengneria, economicamnte e socialmente inattuable, http://www.nogeoingegneria.com/timeline/brevettileggi-iniziative-parlamentari-e-giudiziarie/geoingegneria-appello-onu-moratiria-su-esperimenti/, 2.2.2018

University of Southampton, The Guardian, London, 1.12.2005; from Quadfasel, Detlef: Oceanography: The Atlantic heat conveyor slows, in: Nature, 1.12.2005, p.565

Venter, Craig in: Posener, Alan: “Wir sind Gott!”, in: Welt am Sonntag, Hamburg 23.5.2010

von Werlhof, Claudia: Losing Faith in Progress? Capitalist Patriarchy as an “Alchemical System”, in: Bennholdt-Thomsen, Veronika/Mies, Maria /von Werlhof, Claudia (Eds.): There is an Alternative. Subsistence and Worldwide Resistance to Corporate Globalization, Zed press, London 2001, pp.15-40

—–: Using, Producing and Replacing Life? Alchemy as Theory and Practice in Capitalism, in: Wallerstein, Immanuel (Ed.): The Modern World System in the Long Durée, Paradigm, Boulder, CA and London 2004, pp. 65-78

___: Capitalist Patriarchy and the Negation of Matriarchy, in: Vaughan, Genevieve: Women and the Gift Economy, a radically different worldview is possible, Toronto 2007a, Inanna, pp.139-153

___: The Interconnectedness of all Being, in: Kumar, Corinne (Ed.): Asking we walk. The south as new political imaginary, 2nd vol, Bangalore 2007b, Streelekha, pp. 379-386

___: The Utopia of a Motherless World. Patriarchy as War-System, in: Göttner-Abendroth, Heide (ed.): Societies of Peace. Matriarchies past present and future, Inanna, Toronto 2009, pp. 29-44

—–: Losing Faith in Progress? In: C. v. Werlhof: The Failure of Modern Civilization and the Struggle for a “Deep” Alternative, Frankfurt a. M. 2011, Peter Lang, pp.153-184

___: Destruction through “Creation” – the “Critical Theory of Patriarchy” and the Collapse of Modern Civilization, in: CNS – Capitalism Nature Socialism, Vol. 24, Nr. 4, 2013a, pp. 69-85

___: Mit Bertell gegen Geoengineering: Debatte im Europaparlament 2013, in Bertell 2013b, pp. 33-41

—–: El secreto inefable de la civilización moderna, man., México 2015a

—–: Madre Tierra o Muerte! Oaxaca 2015b, Cooperativa El Rebozo

—–: A Sojurn into the Critical Theory of Patriarchy, 2015c, in BUMERANG Nr. 0, pp.6-38

___: Geoengineering and the Planetary Movement for Mother Earth, in: CWS, Canadian Woman Studies, Vol. 31, Nr. 1, 2, Toronto 2016a, pp. 118-124

—-: The “Hatred of Life”: The World-System which is Threatening All of Us, on Global Research, 16 August 2016b

___: Earth as Weapon – Geoengineering as War, book presentation and interpretation: ”Planet Earth – the Latest Weapon of War”, in: DEP, Nr.35, University of Venice, Italy, Nov. 2017, pp.130-150

___: The Moment of Truth Has Come! What Now? Threat to Life on Planet Earth: Ozone Dying and the Deadly Ultraviolet Cosmic Radiation, auf www.globalresearch.ca, April 26, 2018

___: A Call for Mother Earth and Humanity, in: Klein, Renate and Hawthorne, Susan (Eds.): Not Dead Yet. Feminism, Passion, and Women´s Liberation, Melbourne 2021. Spinifex., pp. 369-375

Weiss, Mathias: Stimmungsbild zur CEC 2014 – Climate Engineering Conference, in: 10.a Information Letter, 2014, www.pbme-online.org.

___: Zur Geschichte des Geoengineerings, in: Bertell, Rosalie: Kriegswaffe Planet Erde, J. K. Fischer, 3. Auflage, Gelnhausen 2016, pp. 515-546

—-: Daten vs. Dogmen.- Klimaerwärmung, Extremwetter und wissenschaftlicher Konsens. www.pbme-online.org, 2017, in English http://www.pelicanweb.org/solisustv13n02supp3.html#section3

Weizenbaum, Joseph: Kurs auf den Eisberg, München 1998, Piper

Wigington, Dane: Geoengineering is Destroying the Ozone Layer, on GeoEngineeringWatch, 13 May 2014

____: GeoEngineeringWatch, 20 July 2015                    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mRjmzy9XcaY&list=PLwfFtDFZDpwulG0PJ9IID0iypsRXDSa1E&index=3

Wolf, Doris: Was war vor den Pharaonen? Die Entdeckung der Urmütter Ägyptens, Zürich 1994, Kreuz Verlag

Wood, Judy: Where Did the Towers Go? Evidence of Directed Free Energy Technology on 9/11, Port Townsend 2014, Feral House

Worthington, Amy: Chemtrails; Aerosol and Electromagnetic Weapons in the Age of Nuclear War, on Global Research, 26. Dec. 2017 (from 1. June 2004) www.geoarquitecture.blogspot.com

Yale Environment 360, http://e360.yale.edu, in: TAZ, Berlin 5.1.2018 

 


 

Part II

Women in Defense of Mother Earth 

 

 

 

 


Chapter X 

The “Hatred of Life” as Patriarchy’s Core Element

by

Claudia von Werlhof 

 

I only have a few minutes to convince you of the usefulness of a new term; a term that will help us understand the dangerous times we are living in as well as the related struggles on a deeper level, that is, from the roots.

The time for lighthearted jokes and uncertainties is over. The “storm” predicted by the Zapatistas is approaching faster than expected. Our confusion needs to end.

A “Hatred of Life”? 

The world system that is threatening all of us is based on a strange phenomenon I was only recently able to fully grasp, namely a “hatred of life”[2]. This hatred has indeed become a system, society, global civilization. It is embodied in all of the modern civilization’s institutions: in economics as much as in politics, in science as much as in gender relations, and, especially in modern technology. There no longer exists a place where the hatred of life has not literally been poured into concrete as the basic idea and sensation of our existence. The hatred of life is no fleeting emotion or a mere individual or personal experience of a certain situation or moment. It is nothing less than hostility to life itself which – and this is my thesis – has become the main foundation, driving force, and defining criterion for a patriarchal civilization dating back almost 5,000 years.

What Is Patriarchy? 

After a virtual ban of 30 years, the term “patriarchy” is now re-emerging. This term was commonly used by radical feminists whose movement was destined to be destroyed with the arrival of neoliberalism.

The appearance of so-called “gender studies” was a consequence of this. The term “patriarchy” was shunned and the advocates of gender studies soon rallied behind demands for “equality” within the present system. The goal was integration and a share of power – something the Left had been propagating for a long time.

But the challenge lies in moving beyond a system driven by the hatred of life instead of (voluntarily) turning into an even more loyal accomplice in the massacres it is responsible for.

It has been repeatedly suggested that the patriarchal system is a system of death. That is not entirely correct. The patriarchal system is a system of killing, that is of artificial death: ecocide, matricide, homicide in general and finally “omnicide,” the killing of everything.

What Is Geoengineering? 

Omnicide is already appearing on the horizon in the form of so-called “geoengineering.” Geoengineering has begun with the destruction of the planet itself, of Mother Earth and of her living order. Geoengineering intends to turn planet Earth into a gigantic weapon of war[3]. It uses new, “post-nuclear,” technologies of mass destruction intended to take control of the planet and its energies to employ “weather warfare” and “plasma weapons” among others.

The military geoengineering we are facing is – the term being translated – an “art of war against the Earth” that has been developed during more than 70 years of experimentation with the planet. It cloaks itself in “civil” and “scientific” clothing and claims to protect us from “climate change” and “global warming.” However, climate change and global warming are the results of the named experimentation and not of greenhouse gas emissions as we are falsely led to believe in order to hide the crimes of the military[4].

We always knew that the military was no institution expressing a love of life. But until recently we didn’t know that our civilian institutions were poisoned by the same perverse, illogical, and, in the words of Ivan Illich, “counterproductive” hatred of life.

Matriarchy and the Love of Life 

How can you hate life when you are a part of it? How can you hate yourself? And why?

It is this scandalous secret that needs to be revealed. It is self-evident that the “hatred of life” cannot be acknowledged or openly named, supported, or propagated. It is never mentioned. Practically no one would want to partake in a project driven by a hatred of life. The love of life is still ours; it is deeply human. It is still with us from the times of non-patriarchal civilization, so-called “matriarchy.” Matriarchal civilization is based on a love of life. It is a civilization that cooperates with life, that celebrates life, and that cherishes the “good life” of communities without the state and hierarchies, without the police and banks.[5]

Why the Patriarchal Hatred of Life Needs to be Hidden? 

The sinister motive of hating life needs to be hidden. The unspeakable crimes that all patriarchies have committed against life itself, against children, women, and all human beings, against the Earth, animals, and plants must not be revealed. The hatred of life is the reason and the rational justification for the violence against it; a violence that intends to prevent any rebellion or uprising of those not believing in the system it protects; a system that many would see as a grave assault on their dignity if they only recognized it.

We are told that this violence is necessary for development, progress, and a better life for all of us. It is usually only understood and recognized by those who are directly affected by it. Even then, the promise of a better life is supposed to be a consolation, although any chance for a better life has in fact been sacrificed.

Why do we so seldom recognize how flawed this logic is? Why do we so seldom recognize the blatant contradiction of sacrificing life in order to “improve” it?

The reason is patriarchy’s utopian project. This was already laid out in ancient texts during the times of the early patriarchies. The project’s purpose is to turn the natural order upside down and to establish an unnatural and anti-natural order instead[6].

The origins of this can be found in the wars of conquest against the world’s matriarchal civilizations. Establishing control over those conquered required a system able to administer control: the state. It began to control life itself: humans, nature, and matriarchal culture[7]. The system based on a hatred of life was developed in order to prevent any challenge to patriarchal rule. It culminated in the desire to replace the natural order with an artificial one to dispose of the “problem of life” once and for all. All dependency on nature, women, mothers and the Earth was to be overcome. A male, patriarchal system of creation was invented that had no room for nature’s cycles, webs and motions. The Goddess was replaced by “God the Creator” and finally by today’s “worldly gods,” the managers of an artificial life supposedly “post-human” and “trans-human,” a life of cyborgs, robots, artificial uteri, test tubes and global industries of reproduction[8].

Capitalist Patriarchy – The “Monster” of Utopian Transformation and Annihilation

The project of replacing life with non-life could only be realized with the help of modern patriarchal-capitalist civilization and its machine technology. All the earlier “alchemist” attempts to produce better, higher, and more divine forms of life had failed. Only modern technology allowed for the monstrous manifestation of the patriarchal project we are witnessing today. This is why I call modern patriarchy the “Monster”!

The Monster is not only characterized by exploitation, extraction and appropriation. It is, first and foremost, characterized by transforming its possessions into their opposites, that is into everything we call “capital”: value, money, machines, and hierarchical structures (following Marx).

In this civilization, true democracy is impossible. We are up against a totalitarian system that does not care for its subjects, that cannot (or no longer) be stopped, and that is constantly becoming faster and more efficient in its attempt to end life on this planet – while turning even this very process into a tool for further accumulation of profit and power.

Supposedly, everything that exists today derives from so-called fathers; each origin is patriarchal and no longer maternal, deriving from a mother, from Mother Earth, matri-archal. Patriarchy is a new “technological social formation” that produces and transforms everything that exists by violence. It will not stop before everything has been annihilated.

Capitalism is the modern form of materializing this utopian project of total transformation. When “pure” patriarchy arrives and even the tiniest matriarchal remnants have disappeared, we will all be dead.

Mother Earth or Death

I hope that the men among you who before had difficulties with the term “patriarchy” can now see that it concerns you, too. I hope that you will decide to switch sides and join nature and women. Women are (still) closer to life since life emerges from them. They are always the first victims of the hatred of life, but they are also closer to the truth of life and the love of life.

When women rise up, they rise up in the defense of life. It has always been like that. Today, women are rising up again against violence and in favor of life, massively and all over the world. Everyone ought to follow them, embrace them, and love them for it (s. contributions in this vol.). It is not them who are the threat, it is the Monster, the patriarchal “Hydra,” an all-encompassing combination of capitalism, neoliberalism, colonialism, globalization and militarism.

Patriarchy is a historical project that has reached its peak with capitalism. Because of its hatred of all life, it inevitably will collapse. It cannot replace the life it continuously destroys. Capital cannot return anything to life. The process of “patriarchization” is irreversible. It is a religion. And the patriarchs cannot stop believing in it because they would otherwise be forced to return to matriarchy.

What a great idea that would be! What joy it would bring! We could leave the patriarchal deception behind us and revive human dignity by rejecting this monstrous system. Without our participation and co-operation, this system cannot be maintained.

Mother Earth or death! This is the alternative we are confronted with today[9]. From a common house to a common cause: liberating ourselves from the ludicrous hatred of life, a collective disease buried in our collective unconscious.

Life is not here to be geoengineered and killed — it is here to be loved and defended! 

Translation from German by Gabriel Kuhn

Notes

[1] Claudia von Werlhof: El „odio a la vida“ como característica central del patriarcado,speech at the Colloquium „Tejiendo voces por la Casa Común“, Ibero American University, 20.11.2015a, Mexico City; emgl. Version first published by Global Research:http://www.globalresearch.ca/the-hatred-of-life-the-world-system-which-is-threatening-all-of-us/5541269

[2] _____: El secreto inefable de la civilización moderna, man. 2015b

[3] Cf. Rosalie Bertell: Planet Earth: The latest weapon of war. London 2000, The Women’s Press, updated version in German: Kriegswaffe Planet Erde, Gelnhausen 2011, 2013, 2018 4th ed., j. K. Fischer

[4] Cf. Planetary Movement for Mother Earth, www.pbme-online.org; Claudia von Werlhof: La destrucción de la Madre Tierra como último y máximo crimen de la civilización patriarcal, Mex. 2015c, in: DEP, no. 30, Venice, Feb 2016,

[5] Heide Göttner-Abendroth: Das Matriarchat, several volumes, Stuttgart, from 1988, Kohlhammer; ___: Societies of Peace – matriarchies past, present and future, Toronto 2009, Inanna

[6] Cf. BOOMERANG – Journal for the Critique of Patriarchy, no. 0, 2015, www.fipaz.at/bumerang

[7] Cf. for example, Doris Wolf: Was war vor den Pharaonen?, Zurich 1994, Kreuz

[8] Cf. Claudia von Werlhof: The Failure of Modern Civilization and the Struggle for a „Deep“ Alternative. On „Critical Theory of Patriarchy“ as a New Paradigm, Frankfurt a.M./New York 2011, Peter Lang publ.; BUMERANG, no. 1: Mutterschaft im Patriarchat, 2015, www.fipaz.at; BUMERANG, Nr. 3: Patriarchat als Technik, 2017, www.fipaz.at/bumerang

[9] Claudia von Werlhof: Madre Tierra o Muerte! Reflexiones para una Teoría Crítica del Patriarcado, Oaxaca 2015d, El Rebozo


Chapter XI

 Between Our Capture by Patriarchy and Our Liberation with Mother Life

by

Vilma Rocío Almendra Quiguanás

 

Summary

This text is an effort by the author to construct a critical narrative facing patriarchal aggression manifested through the dispossession of land, the assassination of women who defend and nourish Mother Earth, as well as through the institutional feminist interventions exerting their impact over identities and autonomous practices of indigenous women in northern Cauca, southwestern Colombia. Thereafter, some pending challenges and collective actions for the revitalization of the natural tapestry that roots them to Uma Kiwe (Mother Earth) are identified.

From the realization that this millennial patriarchal system feeds itself from capturing and destroying the matriarchal sources of life that remain rooted in Mother Earth, it is necessary for us, birth-givers of life, wherever the struggle finds us, to remain able to name and act critically facing patriarchal forms that are imposing dispossession and death in our territories, while in the same way have the clarity required to point out the moorings and the silences imposed upon us by the institutional feminist interventions on behalf of “gender equality”.[xxi] Furthermore, to recognize some of the challenges and pending actions from the northern Cauca region in southwestern Colombia that feed critical narratives for the debate within and beyond indigenous communities.

I must clarify that in the 2000-2010 decade I took active part in the indigenous movement recognized through the Association of Indigenous Councils of Northern Cauca — ACIN (acronym in Spanish) — as a nasa-misak woman. It is not my intention to speak on behalf of indigenous women[xxi] but from what I was able to observe from other places and also from what I have exchanged with some compañeras[xxi] with regards to the issues at stake. 

Patriarchy Continues to Dispossess Mother Life

Without providing here an in depth analysis or supportive evidence, guided only by what the history of the winners has imposed upon us and by the most recent testimonies and complaints of abuses, which circulate within and beyond popular and indigenous resistance processes of our Abya Yala (name with which indigenous peoples in meso and south America have given to this continent), I affirm that: There is no ecocide or femicide because there is a war; on the contrary, there is a war to increasingly kill all that can be born until Mother Earth is subdued to patriarchy. Yes, just as Héctor Mondragón stated years ago: “In Colombia, there is no forced displacement because there is a war. On the contrary, there is war so that displacement can be forced.”

We might be facing a storm (EZLN, 2015) of a magnitude such that we have never imagined before. One that to date generates such a degree of confusion that most of us either can’t understand or refuse to acknowledge its presence and potentially devastating impact. We can begin, for example, by recognizing that when we are angered by violence and murders against women, we generally make reference only to machismo; or that when we denounce the destruction and damage to nature, we assume it is all a consequence of climate change. But we don’t acknowledge the underlying problem, a critical issue that isn’t new because, as Claudia von Werlhof says, “it is more than 5,000 years old” and within the short history of capitalism it has to do with “the alchemical destruction of an alchemical civilization or something of the sort, which is a war against life” (2015, p.21). So our old and current problem is the backbone of what we are subjected to; that which dominates to draw and dry the blood of all that lives: patriarchy.

Hence, patriarchy is, in the end, an inconceivable, incomprehensible, almost inexpressible vindication, totally abstract and removed from the concrete conditions of earthly existence which goes beyond something as trivial as a kind of “envy for the power to give birth”. Its goal is no less than to transform the female body that gives birth into a thing that produces everything and can be universally re-produced; it is nothing other than the replacement of the body of the mother with something that is no longer corporal or feminine but machinery that can then be declared as the goal and end of human history. Such is what happens to Mother Earth and to the Earth itself” (Werlhof, 2015, p.41).

Hence, in order to arrive at the “destruction or alchemical civilization”, all sources of life must be usurped or destroyed with Death Projects throughout all of Abya Yala, “to explore, exploit, exclude and exterminate all territories, which include bodies, particularly those of women; collective imaginaries; and the territories of Mother Earth” (Rozental, 2015). On the one hand, going as far as genetic interventions and manipulations by which “Planet Earth itself has in the meantime been transformed into a weapon of mass destruction”, or — to state it this way — into “bad nature” which as is said it has always been. And now, a new type of destruction follows through apparent natural catastrophes” (Werlhof, 2015, p.218)[xxi]. A relevant preoccupation and a patent reality which demands more action on our part, based on our ancestral and matriarchal knowledge, on what the scientist and nun Rosalie Bertell[xxi] made known in the 1980s, and on what in the last decade has been denounced through tsunamis, earthquakes…which in the end have assisted the reproduction of capital.

On the other hand, on land grabbing and femicide, let us look at some data regarding these as we believe they are related issues. To begin,

The 2016 dataset documents: 491 large-scale land grabs taking place over the past decade. The deals cover over 30 million hectares of land in 78 countries. This means that the number of land deals is continuing to grow, but the growth has slowed since 2012. In particular, several of the largest “mega” projects have collapsed, resulting in a decline in the total number of hectares. The problem, however, is not going away (Grain, 2016, p.4).

Land grabbing continues to expand intensifying conflicts all over the world. Given this situation, it is not fortuitous that concessions for 5 millon hectares of land have been granted for mining, while another 25 million have been requested for the same purpose in Colombia. Nor is it strange that (extensive) cattle ranchers own 45 million hectares and that “from the total amount of land in Colombia, 0.4% of the owners own 41.1% of the land (according to the last agrarian census)” (Proceso de Liberación de la Madre Tierra, 2016). So, while a global war advances dispossessing territories and grabbing lands for capital’s reproduction, women’s bodies continue to be a favourite prey for the predator. Current figures on femicide in Latin America alarms us. According to the UN: “the highest rates occur in 25 countries of the world, 14 of these in the region. Guatemala, El Salvador and Honduras figure with some of the highest indices in the world while alarming figures are also reported in Argentina and Mexico”.[xxi] Colombia is no exception. Paradoxically, now that a bilateral cease-fire has been signed between the government and the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia – FARC (acronym in Spanish) to initiate a peace process, extractivist dispossession of territories and selective assassinations of leaders (men and women) who defend life and protect their territories have increased.

The UN also “registered that by mid-December 2016, 114 people had been murdered in Colombia and 40 of them were from Cauca”.[xxi] One-half of these assassinations were carried out in northern Cauca and 7 were indigenous women: Rubiela Coicué, Beatriz Noemi Morano Dicue and Nhora Alba Coicué Viquis from Huellas Caloto; Sebastiana Ulcué from Munchique Los Tigres; Ninfa Mosquera from Tacueyó and Cecilia Coicué from Corinto. These crimes are finally becoming an issue for discussion and concern within our indigenous organizations’ agendas[xxi] as a result of a paramilitary re-escalation together with the intensification of threats during the “post-conflict” period.

So, once again, my concern is that there is war so that there can be femicide and ecocide; so that patriarchy can abort and master all birthings including life from the womb of humanity: Uma Kiwe (Mother Earth in nasa-yuwe). Although we cannot deny machista-induced violence and assassinations in the community, it would be interesting to carry out in-depth research on the concrete relationship between femicides and territorial disputes in order to better understand who is benefiting from this new wave of selective death. For example, Caloto and Corinto are the communities most affected by the assassination of women and it is precisely there where two years ago, the process of recovery and liberation of Mother Earth began (Pueblos en Camino, 2015).

In this context, beyond structural adjustment processes, ideological subjugation, the cooptation of struggles (Almendra, 2017) to facilitate capital’s reproduction which has become more evident within the last decade, terror and war by other means and in other modalities persist within indigenous, afro-Colombian and mestizo territories. There is then nothing paradoxical or contradictory in the observation that while the warlords talk “peace”, in the country and cities they continue to kill life.  Unfortunately they are succeeding in confusing and coopting us into aligning ourselves in favor of “development” at the expense of ignoring that war has been “necessary” for the foundation of modern, progressive and capitalist civilizations. As Claudia Von Werlhof (2015, p.22) reiterates: “…war is the normal mode of patriarchy; there is no peace. This explains why men in the middle of a so-called peace attack women”. 

Interventions that Institutionalize Women’s Community Life

“Feminism from above and feminism from below are not the same”. Such is the conclusion arrived at by some women who, while identifying themselves as feminists, are critical to the dogmatic, top-down, vanguardist, illuminated dominant feminist currents. Women who are commited to develop other paths, protecting and promoting diversity while listening respectfully in silence in order to allow themselves to feel and share the pain and joy from our Mother Earth with the women of our territory. It is certain that women of that caliber have walked our mountains leaving historically relevant legacies that nourish our struggles for life. In contrast, most of the “expert advice” (Almendra, 2017) currently provided to women’s programs of the northern Cauca’s indigenous territory follow institutional guidelines from governments and NGOs with emphasis in two themes: women’s political participation and the defense of women’s human rights. To illustrate the first thematic line, I quote from a recent research project of ACIN’s Casa de Pensamiento[xxi] on “Political participation and political culture of Nasa women in northern Cauca”, where by way of results they emphasize two challenges to overcome exclusion and strengthen community-based political action:

The first of these is that the only ways to guarantee ownership or the Nasa community’s own politique is the capacity to potentiate inclusion and the recognition of women’s inputs, demands, expectations, capacities to contribute with the local organizational indigenous process and its projections in the field of political-electoral participationWomen’s participation does not pose a threat to power. It is, rather, the possibility to guarantee equity, harmony and balance. But participation is not enough, what is required is more women’s inclusion and representation. Communities, indigenous authorities and institutions must make sure that women’s demands are included in the Life Plans and in the Development Plans, and that they are granted the degree of importance adequate and satisfactory to the women themselves.

The second challenge consists in that the porous border between community and State associated political activity cannot be weakened by way of equalizing procedures, practices and values. Women were emphatic to recognize that there are differences, and have pointed out the many weaknesses of the Colombian democracy and political system. But, at the same time, they advocated for a clear distinction and differentiation between community political practice and authorities, and State associated political activity, under the understanding that community political activity is for everyone, as women understood it to be (Señas, p.120, 2014 highlighted by author).

Our struggle, however, cannot be reduced and limited to the occupation of positions and access to power pretending to ignore or making use of patriarchy. In order to begin to elucidate the features that define community political understanding and practice required today facing institutional political practice imposed upon us, it is worthwhile listening to Dora Muñoz[xxi], a Nasa community member from the Corinto reserve, who states that the institutional feminist approach, beyond having an impact on women’s activities within the territories, has an impact on our identity:

on the autonomous understanding of issues such as womanhood, family and the relationship between men and women as different and valuable beings. It seems to me that the institutional approach individualizes roles, responsibilities and practices between men and women, fragmenting the idea of unity and collectivity. I believe that the promotion of individual women’s rights, a pretended equality of women with respect to men is stated, fomenting a kind of competition between men and women. By pretending to establish equality between men and women, what is achieved is an image of women as weak beings less than men, so that what is needed, rather than equality, are attitudes and discourses to achieve superiority of some women vis-à-vis men, denying the activities that make us different, but of equal worth. These attitudes reinforce the idea of machismo.

These attitudes and approaches have to do with the impact caused by institutional feminism on our organization, causing mistrust and suspicion from some indigenous authorities, mainly men, who refuse to give up spaces and land to women. For example, Oneira Noscué, Nasa community member of the Miranda indigenous reserve and current coordinator of ACIN’s Women’s Program ACIN-PMA, is troubled because “within the indigenous reserve of Canoas, we used to have Women’s and Family Program, but one of the major difficulties that we face during this period is that we lost it, so that now all that is left is a Family Program. Likely as a consequence of the suspicion from some of the leaders, we lost our space”. Although all this is fed by our machista practices, patriarchy inhabits within us.

With regards to the second theme, it is important to examine how useful it is to enclose ourselves exclusively within the attention to human rights violations while we are sorrounded by a transnational context that exerts different kinds of violence against all territories (bodies, imaginaries, lands). In this regard, Yuranni Mena, indigenous woman at heart who also walked with us, says that during the time she was part of the Tejido de Comunicación ACIN there were a few attempts to come close to ACIN’s Women’s Program –Programa Mujer de ACIN (PMA) — but she recalls that they were invited to participate in the first Women’s Tulpa[xxi]. We felt this was an important gesture given the lack of rapprochement between both spaces. They explained that the purpose of this tulpa was to provide support for women who had been abused within their territories (physical, psychological abuse occurring within the family environment, caused by their partners or relatives). We proposed to them that we could bring along audio-visual educational material to provide some context to these and to other aspects of women’s vulnerability within structural subjugation of women and territories; in other words, to address women beyond the psychosocial aspect[xxi]. Their reply was that their activities were already set and programmed but that they would eventually look for another space for what we proposed.

Obviously, psychosocial attention to heal wounds caused by systematic human rights violations is not the most relevant approach within a militarized territory occupied by different factions who seek to control the economies (legal and illegal) that are destabilizing coexistence within the communities. Nevertheless, Noscué confirms to us that since 2010 they have had the Indigenous Women’s Human Rights Violations Observatory-ACIN with 877 registered cases where the highest percentage of aggression is caused by family violence. “Surely this is related to the rest of the problems of the illicit economy, mining concessions in the territory, but we can’t yet know this because we have just finished the report and have not done any analysis”(Ibid.). She also says that although in the Women’s Tulpa and in other formative, self-care and support spaces for victims, they do talk about what is happening in their territories and in Colombia, it is necessary to decentralize these spaces so that more rural women can participate. From her perspective, Constanza Cuetia[xxi], Nasa community member from the Jambaló reserve points at another concern because

Observing women’s participation in other cultural encounters (more so within the reserves), it is limited to handcraft, knitting and exhibits to sell their produce. The purpose is to obtain some economic assistance for the family but no further analysis develops as to, for example, how the greatest burden on household chores remains on one side and discrimination against women persists simply because they are women, who continue to be expected to remain obedient towards their husbands. Very little of the political is addressed; for example, why is femicide on the rise? Or what needs to be done in this regard? The projects being implemented with women are limited to teach them more about institutions and to become better, more competitive entrepreneurs.

Institutional approaches, in contrast with the concerns expressed by some compañeras with regards to the dispossession of Mother Life, are evidence of a deeper problem which has become more acute since the end of 2010. “Precisely the containment and subordination of autonomous resistance is intended to capture and demobilize more radical struggles that defined our short-term history with greater national and international visibility in the first decade of 2000”[xxi] (Almendra, 2017). This explains why the institutionality arrived with a much more “moderate” approach to occupy our home, taking advantage of the space that terror and war, legislation for dispossession and ideologic subjugation had opened; it made partnerships with the majority of the leaders and is supporting research, funding projects and programs… Consequently, in reality,

Institutional perspectives including those of NGOs seek to align and coopt all processes in every aspect. It is no different with regards to the theme of feminism. Unfortunately, through our own organizations such as cabildos (traditional indigenous authorities) and indigenous associations and through institutional policies for the rights of women, they have implemented within our territories an external perspective, one that systematically denies our own wisdom, knowledge and practice with regards to the recognition of and respect for indigenous women. Institutions promote passive women’s participation in different spaces; an alignment for our subjugation and promotion of external perspectives, which are, almost always, consistently removed from community demands. Feminist leadership is promoted placing certain women in positions of leadership trained to reproduce and maintain a specific ideology that ends up promoting machismo as, generally speaking, these indigenous women leaders end up obeying men’s guidelines. Their participation in political positions follows a representational rather than a real participatory character. To me, those women who do not earn a salary or have not accepted nor been granted political positions are more critical and less submissive, as they do not fear losing some economic or political comfort (Muñoz, 2017).

Pending Issues to Nurture Ourselves as Birth-givers and Defenders of Mother Life

Walking the precise word required in defense of our life in plenitude begins by acknowledging that the death imposed by patriarchy is as much “an artificial and unnatural death as is the life it imposes: an artificial life. An artificial planet…this death is a massacre, which means a sacred mother-sacer, the killing of mother/goddess/Earth…it is a religion” (Werlhof, Virtual exchange, 2016). So we are being denied our death, one through which we transcend as seeds because patriarchy imposes a death for an extractivist, transgenic, mining-energetic, femicide system… committed to the killing of all life, if necessary for the accumulation of profit.

Hence it is necessary to recognize ourselves in Uma Kiwe and to recognize her in us as a birth-giver, of good living, of living plenitudes in the constant search for a balance and harmony that respects and nourishes our natural cycles.

At the same time, we have to be able to see beyond the good intentions of institutional feminism and expose its masks, in order to dis-cover their true faces, but also so that we can recognize ourselves in it, identifying the hidra that inhabits us. Finally, in the mid to long-term, within community rhythms and cycles and facing the context of aggression against us, it is urgent for us to weave one another into matriarchal local and global knowledges and practices that feed life in plenitude.

Consequently, I insist in reiterating that

Uma Kiwe is the birth-giver of life being forced into submission by the patriarch of death. Consequently, these impacts are aggressions not only against women, but also against life as a whole. While defending Uma Kiwe, defending the Mother that allows birthing, one isn’t only defending women, but the birth-giver, the Mother through whom constant and perpetual birthing is made possible whenever necessary. Patriarchy divides men from women, while Uma Kiwe and matriarchy defends life and weaves us together again as diverse, reciprocal, different and indispensable beings” (Almendra, 2016, p.178).

From this perspective, it is certain that defending ourselves while defending Uma Kiwe stems out of conceiving matriarchy not as the power and command of women who replace patriarchs but as the continuous search for maternal knowledge and the root of community transformation processes to nourish resistance and autonomies. It involves to perceive and move together with the flows of Uma Kiwe that are vital in order to avoid being contained and captured by those who insist on our submission to patriarchy, our domestication and our fossilization within the policies of what is allowed. The challenge to realize the spectrum there is between what they say that we can do and the path we have to walk autonomously facing the storm, in other words, to be able to see beyond what is institutionalizing us, remains. To continue nourishing life-facing death, it would suffice for us to listen to compañeras from Chiapas, Cherán, Kobane … but also to join the – indigenous, black peasant — liberators of Uma Kiwe who, from Cauca, are feeling the legacy of their birth-giving ancestors of Abya Yala.

Although we can’t blame it all on outside influences, we must think and act critically with regards to all that arrives to us even if guided from the best of intentions because the impact of “aid”, even though it solves short-term practical problems, is at the expense of an intervention on our cosmovision and feminine practice in the communities.[xxi] Hence, “we must recognize and value our diverse knowledge and capacities, which, obviously, relate to and complement one another. We need to maintain clarity with regards to the principles of our relationship with Mother Earth and to the need to complement ourselves also with men so that we can avoid doubts and confusions arising from uncritically accepting external ideologies which lead to a fragmentation of internal autonomies”, as Dora Muñoz proposes, precisely because as Constanza Cuetia explains: “Women have been and actually remain weavers in every space: within the indigenous guard protecting the territory; in health as caregivers and mid-wives; in the knowledge and use of medicinal plants; in communication-education; in family support… women have been essential for life itself”.

At the same time, we must avoid being identified as victims or heroes. We are women of flesh and blood who cry and laugh through the deployment of the struggle, from the family fireplace to the community assembly, reciprocally interwoven environments for our Life Plans threatened by the Death Project. Our sorrows and joys are also those of Uma Kiwe because, as Oneira Noscué emphasizes, “women and our bodies are as sacred as the territory, which is why, in order to reject them and build our own ways of life, we need to comprehend problems that are looming globally and which we are also experiencing here, including crops for the production of illicit drugs and mining”. In order then to slow down competition, divisions, isolation, as a pending minimum, we need to think with our own minds from the ideology of Mother Earth; to appropriate knowledge and practices that feed into our maternal ways of doing; to walk with dignity beyond the dichotomies imposed on us by the institutions and to understand patriarchy as the dominant visible or invisible social relation, not exclusive of alpha male individuals.

Recognizing the hidra that inhabits us involves addressing our own contradictions. In this regard, Dora Muñoz argues that “on many occasions, whether consciously or not, we have allowed and legitimated machista attitudes when we don’t dare to manifest our inconformity towards certain men or even women’s behaviours”. We are also feeding into patriarchy when we remain impotent and/or submissive, from the community to the organization, when assigned to representative positions by the leaders, because “we obey without questioning when we assume that certain responsibilities, such as home care, are exclusively ours, and also when we don’t venture to take on responsibilities or challenges in areas where we believe we are not as capable to produce outcomes as men are” (Ibíd.). When we become machos (Almendra, 2015) and in the name of the struggle we abuse, gossip, unfairly point fingers at victims and become accomplices of the authoritarian leadership[xxi] that excludes anyone who dares to challenge or to openly criticize our bad attitudes and mistakes. This is why Constanza Cuetia insists on stating that

It is necessary to work on the autonomous organization of women, because we must leave seeds to continue resisting and defending our territories and community life plans. To me this requires from us to continue to communicate critically, walking our Word[xxi] as our elders did without giving up on the recovery of our territory and on the construction of our organization.

We cannot allow ourselves to be confused with regards to our roots in Uma Kiwe. We have to be able to collectively appropriate institutional projects recognizing them at best as one amongst many potential means to life with our Mother Earth; a goal that reaches beyond what arrives and what is instilled on us from outside. The community political stance we need has to go further than any institutional framework through collective actions that “command obeying” our communities, nourished by both our ancestrality and our contemporaneity in the territory. Collective actions – to which I make reference in the end — that are a priority here and now with which we resist in our daily struggles without ever fully trusting institutional support, and which continue to emerge in spite of death-embedded interests infiltrated into our communities to exterminate life. Hence, we must weave ourselves to that minimum required to fulfill our lives, which the defenders and caregivers of our territory are giving rise to within, against and beyond capital.

Woman rebel, woman hope, woman life, woman worker, woman fighter — that must be the role played by women belonging to the Nasa people re-existing against oblivion and invasion for more than 500 years since the arrival of the Europeans to the lands of our America. These millenial fighters are seen walking the streets of Caloto, moving freely at the street market of Corinto where they sell their self-made produce free of GMOs and mono-cultures, thus not causing any harm to Mother Earth; seen as moderators and coordinators of collective life-plan assemblies of the indigenous cabildo of Santander de Quilichao; seen in the beautiful mountains of Jambaló gathering coffee and growing corn; seen also at the tulpa for wisdom in Toribío, guiding armonization rituals with chirrincho, coca and tobacco (Rebeldía Contrainformativa, 2016).

To be with them and to continually become with Uma Kiwe is of vital importance facing the current extractivist wave of aggression (Almendra, 2016), not only for those of us who don’t inhabit the territory but also for those who, living in it, don’t know how to feel with the heart and to see beyond what is institutionally allowed. Hence, as stated by Yuranni Mena, beyond knowing ourselves as Mother Earth and recognizing the hidra that inhabits us, we must realize that:

More so than others, indigenous women are rooted within the notion and practice of what is collective; the logic of sharing that is needed in this world of hierarchies and competition where each one looks after their own. Women have demonstrated a great capacity to construct from a conception of a world organized differently in search for harmony. I don’t fully know the proposals arising from women in Northern Cauca but I am certain that there are many initiatives arising from the base, that must be encouraged and protected to fuel a resurgence of the indigenous movement, before they are hoarded by (local or external) agents whose intention is to make profit for themselves by taking advantage of their work and discourse.

Without salaries or scholarships, without subsidies, without receiving bonuses, without occupying positions and while their homes are surrounded by illicit monocultures, by the grabbing of lands and commons by large or small extractive interests that threaten their sources of living, they rise day by day to defend, care for, liberate and obey Uma Kiwe from and with their diverse territories; mind, body, imagination and land. Those of us who feed ourselves directly or indirectly from the fruits of their efforts, besides weaving ourselves to them, not to give them orders or usurp their word but to strengthen their community tapestry, must acknowledge that:

If patriarchy inhabits us dictating our behaviours, we can also act to change the structures of these ways of thinking in our communities, questioning our lifestyles and detecting situations of domination-submission. In addition, we have to act against the economic model that is privatizing life and fragmenting our organized processes (Tejido de Comunicación ACIN, 2013).

These and many other challenges and actions not mentioned here are pending in the agendas of our struggle that, once again, shows us how after centuries of domination, destruction and manipulation against Mother Life, they have not been able to submit everything to patriarchy. Ancestral principles and common paths – although debilitated — that have guaranteed the survival of entire peoples are standing today against the threat of conquest by rampant capitalism that needs to insist on turning everything into merchandise. It is our responsibility to instill life into these principles and common paths; to recreate, renew and to transform them permanently in the process of weaving resistance and autonomies between popular and social struggles with which we need to walk here and now. We must transform into practice and reaffirm what Avelina Pancho named 30 years ago and still remains a challenge pending within our most visible organized women’s initiative: “I believe we have already been able to overcome the feminist discourse that also once blinded our America. Today, this is not our way of thinking, for our ideal is to strengthen our peoples as peoples rather than as separate groups of men and women” (Londoño, 1999)[xxi].

Translation by Emmanuel Rozental

Sources

Almendra, V. (2017), Regresar del olvido liberándonos con Uma Kiwe. Desafíos de la lucha indígena del norte del Cauca: tejiendo memoria entre la emancipación y la cooptación. Editoriales Autónomas: Editorial Grietas, Pensar Cartoneras y En Cortito que es pa´largo. Guadalajara, Chiapas y Querétaro.

Almendra, V. (2016), “Colombia: entre el patriarcado extractivista y la Madre Vida” en Rivista Telematica di studi sulla memoria femminile. Disponible en: http://www.unive.it/media/allegato/dep/n30-2016/n30-2016-completo.pdf

Almendra, V. (2015), Dignidad ante el espejo de nuestras contradicciones. En Pensamiento crítico frente a la hidra capitalista, Vol. II, México.

Comisión Sexta del EZLN (2015), Pensamiento crítico frente a la hidra capitalista I. Participación de la Comisión Sexta del EZLN. México: s/e.

Grain (2016), “The global farmland grab in 2016: how big, how bad?” Disponible en: file:///D:/Downloads/grain-5492-the-global-farmland-grab-in-2016-how-big-how-bad.pdf

Londoño, L. (1999), La perspectiva de género en la organización indígena del Cauca: aproximación a una retrospectiva histórica.Revista Cuadernos de Desarrollo Rural

Proceso de Liberación de la Madre Tierra (2016), “Libertad y alegría con Uma Kiwe: Palabra del proceso de liberación de la Madre Tierra”. Disponible en: http://liberemoslatierra.blogspot.es/1481948996/libertad-y-alegria-con-uma-kiwe-palabra-del-proceso-de-liberacion-de-la-madre-tierra/

Pueblos en Camino. (2015),“Liberación de la Madre Tierra. ‘Un tema Fundamental para Nosotros y para toda la Humanidad’”. Disponible en: http://pueblosencamino.org/?p=1486

Rebeldía Contrainformativa. (2016), “El rol de mujer dentro de la configuración del proceso de democracia directa y autonomía de las comunidades indígenas del norte del Cauca. Disponible en: https://rebeldiacontrainfo.wordpress.com/2016/12/06/el-rol-de-mujer-dentro-de-la-

Revista Señas. (2014), Participación política y cultura política de las mujeres nasa del norte del Cauca. No.3, Separata No.1, de la Casa de Pensamiento ACIN. Cauca, Colombia.

Rozental, E. (2015), “Desbordando la economía para superar el horror”. Disponible en: http://www.NasaACIN.org/informativo-NasaACIN/3-newsflash/7841-desbordando-la- econom%C3%ADa-para-superar-el-horror

El Tejido Defensa de la Vida y los Derechos Humanos, ACIN. (2016), “Asesinatos de Mujeres, una Nueva Preocupación en Medio de Muchos otros Hechos que Afectan a Comunidades en el Norte del Cauca”. Disponible en http://www.cric-colombia.org/portal/asesinatos-de-mujeres-una-nueva-preocupacion-en-medio-de-muchos-otros-hechos-que-afectan-a-comunidades-en-el-norte-del-cauca/

Tejido de Comunicación, ACIN. (2014), “Cauca: Palabrandar, una tarea de todas y todos los comunicadores”. Disponible en http://www.movimientos.org/es/content/cauca-palabrandar-una-tarea-de-todas-y-todos-los-comunicadores

Tejido de Comunicación, ACIN. (2013), “Comité Zonal de Mujeres: las mujeres indígenas parte y actoras de la historia”. Disponible en http://nasaacin.org/noticias/3-newsflash/5565-comite-zonal-de-mujeres-las-mujeres-indigenas-parte-y-actoras-de-la-historia

von Werlhof, C. (2015), ¡Madre Tierra o Muerte! Reflexiones para una Teoría Crítica del Patriarcado. Cooperativa El Rebozo, Palapa Editorial. Oaxaca, México.

Telesur, Noticias. (2016), “La batalla de Latinoamérica contra el feminicidio”. Disponible: http://www.telesurtv.net/news/La-batalla-de-Latinoamerica-contra-el-feminicidio-20160706-0059.html


 

Appendix I 

Planetary Movement for Mother Earth

Climate, Science and Mother Earth: Second Open Letter to Greta Thunberg

by

Claudia von Werlhof and discussion group of the “Planetary Movement for Mother Earth” – Alexandra Danzl, Wolfgang Fischer, Maria Heibel, Thomas A. Mann, Gudrun Sahlender-Wulf, Dietmar Salamon, Thomas Schramm et al.

 

Dear Greta Thunberg,

You have not answered our first open letter at the beginning of your steep “career”, which has just culminated in the recognition of the Right Livelihood Award. I nevertheless write a second one. I approached you with sympathy for your awakening and activism, looking at you like a kind of grandmother who would like to give you some advice – to a kind of granddaughter.

It was to give you better information about the real state of Mother Earth because I noticed that you did not have this knowledge. This time I would rather address you in my quality as a scientist, which I am as well, as I hear that you seek the advice of science, for you seem to trust in your mind. This is good and it is really necessary. However, there are always two kinds of science: one that is responsible for nothing less than the endangered state of Mother Earth herself, and one that is opposing it. I belong to the latter kind. That’s why I used to be an enthusiastic demonstrator and demonstration speaker and at first I was just happy how the youth everywhere reacted to your protest in masses. Finally, a movement emerged and even for Mother Earth! Something more beautiful could not happen to me, especially because I was the founder of the “Planetary Movement for Mother Earth”.

But in the meantime, as a scientist, I see how many aberrations and confusions you and the “Fridays for Future” still have, and I cannot see that they are being recognized by you or the people in the protest movement you inspired. Yes, the real dangers for us and Mother Earth are being suppressed and covered up, namely the ones that really threaten us. But one needs the knowledge about them if one acts the way you do, and in addition shares a certain responsibility for an increasing number of followers. So, you and the “Fridays for Future” movement care about the state of the Earth and its causes, but you don’t seem to know very much about it!

School Strike for Climate in front of the Parliament House, Helsinki, 15 March 2019 (Licensed under CC BY-SA 4.0)

On the contrary, you have joined the assertion of international organizations, certain scientists of the first kind at the IPCC, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, as well as corporations, financial institutions, and people of the financial sector. They say that CO2 is the main, indeed the only problem of the Planet, and its very low share of 0.04% in the atmosphere (of which only a small part is manmade) is even the reason for a planetary “climate change” as a result. This would ruin the living conditions on Earth and would soon take on life-threatening proportions in the form of global warming. Therefore, as decided at the UN Conference in Paris in 2015, action must be taken against it by massively reducing CO2 emissions. In the name of an allegedly “green” New Deal, a “system change” against this “climate change” and its capitalist causes is now to be initiated. This system change would consist of introducing a “sustainable lifestyle” in society, in which the consumption and use of particularly CO2-intensive products would be sharply reduced or higher taxes would have to be paid. This should allegedly end “climate change” and “save” the Earth.

So much for the “logic” of the arguments from above, which you have adopted seamlessly and in a surprisingly well-behaved manner without any contradiction.

What is wrong with that? Quite a lot:

  1. Paradoxically, the planned system change by reducing energy consumption is undermined today by the plans for a massive development of the most energy-intensive high-tech dimensions in everyday life, which should lead to the digitization of all areas of life, the project of the corresponding “Smart Cities” and the installation of the necessary electromagnetic radiation at 5G level.  This way of dismantling, but at the same time also reconstructing and rebuilding industrial society, has already become a huge business in which trillions of dollars are at stake[1] and certainly not something “green” which is saving the Earth! Indeed, the 5G frequency requires the felling many trees in the cities. So far the 5G frequency has only been used in the military sector as it is a weapon that will even destroy life on Earth to an unknown extent, starting with insects, birds and babies in the womb and then going on with the elderly, where those in the middle will have to expect severe damages to their health[2].

So, the plans for what the “system change” that you want means have been developed for some time already. They have nothing to do with the abolition of capitalism and are already being pushed through with full force from above. Consequently, there are several simple questions that have to be answered: What is “sustainable” about this change? Where should the energy for it come from? For whom should it be reserved? Because this energy level cannot be achieved without fossil fuels and with renewable energies only, whereas the fossil fuels are coming to an end anyway, and the renewable ones can only be increased through the additional conversion of agriculture into an energy sector and of forests into palm oil plantations – in other words through massive destruction and hunger production worldwide – not to mention the damages caused by wind turbines, for example, or even by dams for an “alternative” water supply. Is it then a question of expanding nuclear energy in which the military is particularly interested? So, what kind of system change is this, what does it change about the “climate” which is a huge large-scale planetary system, and who gets pushed out? The 5G victims, large regions of the South, the victims of radioactive contamination and…and and?

Why don’t you say anything about this “system change”, Greta?

But it’s much worse. Because even the CO2 thesis which everything is based on is not correct at all!

  1. It is just NOT true that CO2 threatens the Earth. Yes, the Earth would need at present even more CO2 for its plants and the life in general because CO2 is an invisible plant gas and no dirt, which comes from chimneys, as is constantly suggested[3], about which however one does not talk at all. CO2 is also not a greenhouse gas insofar as the Earth is open to the sky and therefore not a greenhouse. The greenhouse effect cannot occur on a planet. Yes, CO2 ensures that we have oxygen to breathe because plants convert it into oxygen. So, if CO2 disappears as much as possible from the atmosphere, as you advocate, then we would end up going down by suffocating along with all life on the planet! Thus, there is something fundamentally wrong with the whole argumentation. It stands on feet of clay!

If you believe in science, as you always say, then you should not believe in the IPCC, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, because it is not a scientific but a political organization. Thousands of scientists in the world have meanwhile spoken out against it[4], precisely because the IPCC claims that CO2 is to blame for this “climate change”. The scientists who are not committed to the IPCC and its policies defend CO2, as I have just done. Others say that climate change can only result from a change in solar activity. But they cannot determine this for the times in question. The warming of the global average temperature claimed by the IPCC has not even occurred in the last 20 years, says the US space agency NASA. Apart from that, an average temperature for the entire planet is of course an unsuitable, even nonsensical measure, because it depends on the respective measuring stations, which have also been changed, and because it merely levels out huge differences so that in the end it has no significance at all.

Climate Disruption: It’s Not Due to CO2

  1. What most scientists, however, don’t say is how to interpret the noticeable weather changes that we are all observing. These changes are beyond question but should not be confused with the global climate system, which is long term and comprehensive. The deliberate manipulation of the global climate would be a highly complex undertaking, is probably not possible at all, and certainly not through the use or reduction of a single plant gas like CO2. The global climate is simply of another dimension, incomparable to the local weather. So the question is, where do these weather changes come from, be it in the form of droughts, floods, regional heat or cold waves, storms and severe weather systems that remain in place for a long time, the warming of the Arctic that is significantly above all other temperature changes (at least until 2012), the alleged “forest” fires in California, Australia and Portugal, which destroyed houses to their foundations and melted cars, but left the trees around them mostly intact[5], not to mention the catastrophic jungle fires in the Amazon, Africa and South Asia that are clearly caused by human intervention. Also the massive extinction of animals and plants, e.g. insects, birds, corals and trees as well as the otherwise rapidly increasing loss of species can in no way be explained by CO2! That is completely impossible and simply nonsense. The same applies to the pollution of the air, the soil and the water with not only fine dust but a nano fine dust of aluminum, strontium, barium, lithium, polymers, coal ash, genetically modified substances, bacteria and many other substances penetrating all organs up to the brain, which have been proven for two and more decades now, among other things by the application of aerosols in the atmosphere, above all in the northern hemisphere. The method of spraying aerosols has a scientific name, it is called SRM — Solar Radiation Management — and is recommended for allegedly blocking solar radiation in favor of lower temperatures on Earth – but in reality it has long been used for quite different purposes, in any case for those that harm all life on Earth up to its extinction and cause many diseases of epidemic proportions[6]. And finally, contrary to forecasts, in recent years the ozone layer in the atmosphere has been increasingly destroyed which has led to harmful UV radiation now reaching the Earth unfiltered everywhere in the northern hemisphere and threatening microorganisms in particular. The food chain on land and in the oceans has already been attacked and corals are “starving” (7). So if something doesn’t happen soon to strengthen the ozone layer permanently, i.e. over the next decades, which includes knowing and admitting what it really suffers from – and this is certainly not only the civilian CFC that is supposedly responsible for it, and CO2 has nothing to do with it at all – then we could  soon be threatened ourselves because agriculture can suddenly break down by being permanently exposed to toxic UV-B- and C- radiation. However, the ozone layer cannot be strengthened by artificially introducing ozone into the stratosphere but only by ceasing to affect this thin, but absolutely vital layer – as it is, in reality, affected by radioactivity, the heating of the ionosphere, microwaves, air traffic, rocket fuels and supersonic flights, for instance.

The many wars in the world and the irreversible consequences of the widespread use of depleted uranium, a waste material from nuclear plants for example, are not even mentioned here[8].

You see, you have been denied crucial information about the real situation of the planet, its dangers and their causes, explaining everything with CO2, no matter what it was and you have simply believed it. To this day, however, you are on your way claiming to have understood the core of the matter and having to present what seems to follow from it. I also understand that at 16 you can’t know everything. But what you and the others need to know if you really want to be a movement conscious of your responsibility for Mother Earth and not against her, that knowledge exists! So get it if you are serious about your movement. Otherwise your credibility will soon be inevitably gone[9]. Thus, one will also find out relatively soon whether CO2 reductions have any effects on the “climate” and/or the weather, which of course will not be the case at all since it is not the cause of the problems.

  1. The knowledge unknown to you came about above all because Dr. Rosalie Bertell, whom I recommended to you in my first letter already and who also received the RLA, the Right Livelihood Award, 33 years ago. She worked as a biometrician and environmental scientist for the UN on the history of military technologies in the East and the West since the Second World War. These technologies are the key to answering the question of what is happening or can be done today to make it happen. She mentions especially the damage caused by nuclear interventions, for example the explosion of more than two thousand atomic and hydrogen bombs (!) in the atmosphere and on Earth which occurred during half a century. She goes on with explaining postnuclear technologies. These are those used for “weather wars, plasma weapons and military geoengineering” invented during the last 70 years based on the discovery of how to use electromagnetic waves. This technology was developed by the physicist Nikola Tesla and is now increasingly practiced everywhere on the planet, for example by a growing number of installations of the so-called “ionosphere heaters”. However, all this is not publicly admitted! But it is happening, as can be read in the so-called ENMOD Convention of the UN 1977, the Environmental Modification Convention, or in the report “Weather as a Force Multiplier – Owning the Weather in 2025” of the US Air Force published in 1996. These technologies have already been discussed twice in the European Parliament, in 1999 and 2013, until the EU Commission banned the EP from dealing with them further in 2016 because they are military questions (!). The military activities that were and are concealed from the public explain everything we observe in reality and what is generally referred to as “climate change”. This is the result of decades of war against the Earth and its transformation into a literal “weapon of war” of the military in the East and the West.

Rosalie Bertell, who came to Germany from the USA in 2010 not long before her death assisting the 30th anniversary of the Right Livelihood Award, therefore called for a discussion on the topic among her colleagues who were also award-winners, shouting:

“It is not CO2! It is the military!”

And she hung out a petition which was signed by all those present. It reads:

“It is morally reprehensible and a declaration of war on mankind and the Earth to intervene in the normal functioning of the planetary order by causing or intensifying storms, hurricanes, tsunamis, monsoons, landslides, droughts, floods, earthquakes or volcanic eruptions!”

So, if you and your movement want to get out of your confusion about the real problems of our planet and the unreflected adoption of the slogans from above and if you want to approach the truth and do what Mother Earth needs now, namely our solidarity because of what is done to her all the time, then take care that you know what it is all about and fight against it. For that is what determines our future, and not CO2, which belongs to nature and which you instead portray as its enemy!

Why all this is so twisted, why you are denied the true knowledge and what the CO2 propaganda is about, all this you will have to find out for and by yourself. Because there are those interests behind against which you supposedly compete with your movement. These interests are the ones that finance and organize everything worldwide on a large scale: Your weekly Fridays for Future demos, the “doomsday parties” as I call them, together with the “Die-ins”, an anticipated dying practice – don’t you realize what a perversion this is? They are the ones who produce and provide your regional offices worldwide, who organize the big spectacles, for example with famous pianists, the movies, videos, media work, propaganda material and all that – do they do it because they like you so much?

  1. These interests need you and need you to draw the youth and especially the women to their side! For women have always addressed the subject of nature and ecology more than men, simply because they are historically and physically more connected to them. This is now being exploited by you being the ones to represent the new plans and interests of big Capital, to promote them and to ensure the implementation of their goals. It is you who are supposed to propagate a kind of “cultural revolution” so that the current growth- and energy-crisis of capitalism can be overcome, an additional business model can be built up, and the new start of the system can take place profitably and on a technologically more modern, more efficient, but also narrower (!) basis – of course leaving behind a pile of shattered remains in the form of the “old” society which must first be smashed and destroyed! How else could that work, namely without you, and thus without provoking the uprising – and this time one for a truly anti-capitalist society for all? So, your role is to spare them such a true upheaval!

Why are you helping them?

It is wonderful that the young people are enthusiastic about Mother Earth. I have waited a long time for this to occur. But strangely enough, what you are doing now is not a blessing for Mother Earth, but her mockery! What you have done so far is the reverse of what is needed. It is indeed its reversal.

Image on the right: Thunberg in front of the Swedish parliament, holding a “Skolstrejk för klimatet” (transl. School strike for climate) sign, Stockholm, August 2018 (Licensed under CC BY-SA 4.0)

Don’t you notice at all, Greta and the people inspired by you, what you have gotten yourself into?

You will be very disappointed to see which interests you are really serving, namely those who are responsible for the state of the Earth you are complaining about while believing to be a power for the good. Don’t let yourself be incited against the generation that raised you and against the generation that you yourself could raise because they allegedly leave a “carbon footprint” that should be avoided at all costs. This would mean to accuse life itself instead of accusing those who destroy it!

But now you can perhaps also explain to yourselves the discomfort which you may already feel because of these confusions. Your face, Greta, shows it anyway.

So, don’t let yourself be abused any longer for the opposite of what you want to stand up for, by people who have everything but the good of Mother Earth in mind and even work on her destruction! It would have been a gigantic mistake, a futile effort and a loss of time that we all desperately need to really stand up for our planet. The clock is ticking, but not for the reduction of CO2!

Conclusion:

You, Greta and all those who are moving on with you, have missed the point and unwittingly told the world a lie. You want to enforce a policy that benefits neither the Earth nor its weather or climate, but the future and the profits of certain investors and corporations as well as the demolition of social structures and existences that no longer bring any profits. Finally, you have distracted attention from the destructions that have been increasingly perpetrated on the Earth for decades and that are being added to those already known, being the ones committed by the military – on the ground, in the water and in the air, and more recently also from space. This way you are preventing the accompanying, now increasingly massive dangers for life on Earth and the Earth herself from finally being seen, recognized and answered at all.

You’re doing Earth a disservice. But there is still time to turn around and understand and address the real problems instead of the fake ones!

I fear, however, that “they” will not allow it.

Prof. Dr. Claudia von Werlhof and discussion group, Planetary Movement for Mother Earth, Austria

This article was originally published on PBME.

Notes

[1] The money behind “Fridays for Future“ and the „Green New Deal“  https://www.globalresearch.ca/climate-money-trail/5690209

[2] on 5G

https://www.5gspaceappeal.org/the-appeal

Frightening Frequencies: The Dangers of 5G

[3] on CO2

German Office on the Environment, Umweltbundesamt, on the amount of CO2: https://www.umweltbundesamt.de/daten/klima/atmosphaerische-treibhausgas-konzentrationen#textpart-1

Critique of the CO2-thesis: https://needtoknow.news/2019/09/top-level-climate-modeler-spills-the-beans-on-the-nonsense-of-global-warming-crisis/?print=print

https://www.epochtimes.de/assets/uploads/2019/09/Erster-Offener-Brief-an-Klimakabinett_Prof-Doehler1.pdf

The farmer and his climate: https://youtu.be/KbGBcL3x_8s

[4] Scientists against the IPCC

https://www.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/serials/files/regulation/1992/4/v15n2-9.pdf

https://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/political-assault-climate-skeptics

PBME: 14. Info-Letter 2018, www.pbme-online.or

https://www.mmnews.de/vermischtes/130317-stanford-professor-widerlegt-co2-theorie-medien-schweigen

[5] Forest fires

California, October 2017:

https://www.epochtimes.de/politik/welt/offizielle-version-geoengineering-gibt-es-chemtrails-nicht-und-feuer-die-haeuser-pulverisieren-aber-baeume-verschonen-a2257258.html

Portugal June 2017

https://www.epochtimes.de/politik/europa/waldbrand-in-portugal-unerklaerlich-heiss-und-schwer-zu-loeschen-hat-geoingeneering-damit-zu-tun-a2148244.html

[6] SRM – Solar Radiation Management

AndrewJohnson: https://www.checktheevidence.com/wordpress/2017/09/24/book-climate-change-and-global-warming-exposed-hidden-evidence-disguised-plans/

[7] Ozone depletion

https://ethz.ch/en/news-and-events/eth-news/news/2018/02/decline-stratospheric-ozone.html

http://www.atomicarchive.com/Effects/effects22.shtml

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2291128/

https://www.nti.org/gsn/article/limited-nuclear-war-could-deplete-ozone-layer-increasing-radiation/

PBME: 13. Info-Letter, www.pbme-online.org

Claudia von Werlhof: www.NoGeoingegneria.com/news-eng/the-moment-of-truth-has-come/ 16. Aprile 2018; and in NRhZ, Cologne 25.4.2018

https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-01616832/document

[8] Uranium ammunition

Frieder Wagner: Todesstaub Made in USA. Uranmunition verseucht die Welt. Wien, Promedia 2019 https://mediashop.at/buecher/todesstaub-made-in-usa/

[9] The other knowledge

Rosalie Bertell: Planet Earth. The Latest Weapon of War, London, The Womens´ Press 2000/ Toronto, Black Rose 2001 /enhanced ed. Dublin, Talma International 2020

____: Kriegswaffe Planet Erde, Gelnhausne, J.K.Fischer Verlag, 4. Ed. 2018

____: Planeta Tierra – la Nueva Guerra, Guadalajara, Mexiko, La Casa del Mago 2018

____: Pianeta Terra. L´ultina arma di guerra, Triest, Asterios 2018

____: La Planète Terre, ultime arme de guerre, Paris, Talma 2018

Elana Freeland: Under an Ionized Sky, Port Townsend, Feral House 2018

Jacob Darwin Hamblin: Arming Mother Nature. The Birth of Catastrophic Environmentalism, New York 2013, Oxford University Press

Patrick Pasin: L´ Arme Climatique. La Manipulation du Climat par les Militaires, Paris, Talma 2018

Claudia von Werlhof: The Latest Challenge: „Military Alchemy“ as a Dystopia for Planet Earth, in: The Failure of Modern Civilization and the Struggle for a „Deep“ Alternative, Frankfurt a.M./New York, 2011, Peter Lang, pp 269-301

____ https://www.nogeoingegneria.com/news-eng/earth-as-weapon-geo-engineering-as-war/

www.fipaz.at: Bumerang, Journal for the Ciritique of Patriarchy

www.pbme-online.org: Info-Letters


Appendix II

Letter to the Durban UN Conference 2011

by

 Rosalie Bertell

Dear Claudia,

I am submitting this critique to the UN Commission on Biodiversity. I hope they will open up their perspective to include the military!

Rosalie

From: Rosalie Bertell, GNSH [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Tuesday, December 06, 2011 7:01 PM
To: ‘[email protected]
Subject: Comments of the Draft Document

Ahmed Djoghlaf

Executive Secretary

RE: Comments on Impacts of Climate Related Geo-engineering on Biological Diversity – Draft – 1 November 2011

I was grateful for the direct approach of the Executive Summary,  as prepared by the editors and separate from the writers of the document itself. The document had in places the appearance of an apologetic for geo-engineering rather than a serious even-handed evaluation of the proposal.

It feels as if the public is expected to trust the scientists to handle all of the problems of very complex and unpredictable interventions in the earth system, regardless of the dangers, just because scientists think society wishes to continue polluting. There are fewer unknowns and/or dangerous consequences connected with converting our addiction to fossil fuels into developing more benign energy technologies, than there is in manipulation of a delicately balanced earth system with the potentially widespread and irreversible consequences of interruption of the natural interaction between the oceans and the sun, the ionosphere and the magnetosphere!

We already have a wealth of experience, beginning with  attempts at weather control with cloud seeding in 1950, and 50 decades of military experiments designed to assure “full spectrum dominance” by 2020.

The failed attempt of the US military to build a “telecommunication shield” in the ionosphere in 1961, to counteract solar wind interference with radio communication, should serve as a caution. They brought 350 Trillion copper needles, 2-4 cm long, into the ionosphere, attempting to build a belt 10 km (6 miles) thick and 40 km. (25 miles) wide to form a belt. They actually tossed the 350 Trillion needles into orbit – and according to the wife of the physicist Walter Richmond: “we had the 8.5 Alaskan earthquake and Chile lost a good deal of its coast. That band of copper wires interfered with the planetary magnetic field.” [See Keesings Historisch Archief (K.H.A.) 1961 and Nick Begich and Jeane Manning, Angels Don’t Play this HAARP, Earthpulse Press, Anchorage, AK 1995, p.53.]

In 1962, the US lifted the ban on atmospheric nuclear testing in July and began testing nuclear bombs in the ionosphere. These experiments included “a one kiloton device, at a height of 50 km and a one megaton and one multi-megaton, at several hundred kilometers height.” These test seriously disturbed the lower Van Allen belt, practically destroying it, with radioactive particles transported to the lower atmosphere, and with virtually no earth radio communication for several hour over many miles.

“On 19 July . NASA announced that as a consequence of the high altitude nuclear test of July 9, a new radiation belt had been formed, stretching from a height of about 400 km to 1600 km (250 – 1000 mi.); it can be seen as a temporary extension of the lower Van Allen belt.” [K.H.A. 5 August 1962]

Later in 1962, The Soviet Union undertook similar experiments, creating three new radiation belts between 7000 and 13,000 km (4300 and 8100 miles) above the earth.

Since this time the electron fluxes in the Van Allen belts have changed markedly and not returned to their former state. Scientists guess at about a hundred years before they return to ‘normal’ (if they ever do).

In the 1970s we learned that the ozone layer had been depleted by about 4% by the 300 megaton nuclear explosions set off between 1945 and 1963. In none of these cases were the results of these colossal experiments predicted – nor have we been able to restore normalcy to our planet after the fact! [U.S. National Academy of Science, Long term effects of Multiple Nuclear Weapon Detonations, 1975]

In 1983, the Saturn V rocket launch malfunctioned, and the second booster burned unusually high in the atmosphere, at 300 km (186 miles). This disturbance of the ionosphere reduced the total electron content by more than 60% over an area 1000 km in radius that lasted several hours, stopping all radio communication. After this experience, the military began to deliberately experiment with burning holes in the ionosphere, using the booster rocket, and later, the orbit maneuvering system.  These experiments caused artificial ‘air glows’ as radioactive particles struck the gases in earth’s lower atmosphere. During the 1980s there were about 500 to 600 rocket launches per year, culminating in 1500 in 1989. Each flight injected about 187 tons of ozone destroying chlorine and 7 tons of nitrogen into the ozone layer – both known to deplete it. Yet the burden of this destruction was blamed on under arm deodorant and refrigerators! Civilians were forced to cope with higher skin cancer rates, while no concern for flora and fauna effects, farming or stability of climate reached the civilian consciousness!

In 1981, NASA began inducing ionospheric holes to investigate the artificial plasma instabilities and the modification of radio propagation paths. A six second Orbit Maneuvering System discharge in August 1985, caused an air glow covering 400,000 square kilometers over Connecticut.

Between 1978 and 1990, the ozone layer in the Northern Hemisphere decreased by a further 4 – 8 % [beyond the weapon testing 4%], and the Southern Hemisphere’s ozone layer decreased by 5-10%. It is thought that a 20% decrease would wipe out the food web and make life impossible, yet there was no stopping! In fact the U.S. began launching nuclear powered rockets in 1990, as it prepared for wars in space. In 1995 the U.S. first began to operate the giant HAARP ionic heater which could more easily change the ionosphere density.  They set up a series of passive monitoring stations called Dual Radar stations to note all changes at earth level corresponding to ionospheric manipulative activity. HAARP is jointly operated by the U.S. army and navy, in Gacona, Alaska.

These military experiments continue even into the 21st century, especially with the Naval research into building high altitude artificial clouds well above the level of normal clouds. I was astonished that all this research found no space in the lengthy Biodiversity report! Is all this secret for military security? Can we not learn from the serious problems already experienced by Planet earth from the nuclear and space races?

My conclusion and recommendation to the Biodiversity Parties is that the shelve this document until they have had sufficient time and access to documents to take a hard look at the blunders and surprises of the experiments with space for which we are already paying a high price. These past experiments would be consider ‘small’ or ‘local’ experiments compared to what is now being planned both in terms of geographical space and the time extension that they would require! Is this the legacy we want to leave to the next generations! Perpetual life support for a deteriorated and seriously ailing planet is not a good future! I would strongly recommend giving our Planet earth a break and nourishing it back to health before any more ill-thought-out experiments with our life support system, never mind biodiversity. We are all perched on the limb the scientists now want to saw off!

Respectfully submitted,

Rosalie Bertell, Ph.D.

International Physicians for Humanitarian Medicine

Geneva, Switzerland, and Palermo, Italy

P.S. by Claudia von Werlhof

This letter was never answered.

Dr. Bertell is the author of: “Planet Earth: the Latest Weapon of War”, The Women’s Press, London, U.K., 2000. Released in an updated German version, “Kriegswaffe Planet Erde” by J-K-Fischer Verlag, Gelnhausen, 2011, 5th edition in 2020. The original version was published in Japanese in 2006. The updated English version appeared in 2020: Planet Earth: the Latest Weapon of War, enhanced edition, Dublin, Talma International.

A French (Talma Studios, Paris), an Italian (Asterios, Triente) and a Spanish version (La Casa del Mago, Guadalajara, Mexico) appeared as well, all of them with the help of the Planetary Movement for Mother Earth, PMME, www.pbme-online.org.


Appendix III 

 

Convention on the Prohibition of Military or Any Other Hostile Use of Environmental Modification Techniques

 

 

Adopted by Resolution 31/72 of the United Nations General Assembly on 10 December 1976. The Convention was opened for signature at Geneva on 18 May 1977.

The States Parties to this Convention, Guided by the interest of consolidating peace, and wishing to contribute to the cause of halting the arms race, and of bringing about general and complete disarmament under strict and effective international control, and of saving mankind from the danger of using new means of warfare,

Determined to continue negotiations with a view to achieving effective progress towards further measures in the field of disarmament,

Recognizing that scientific and technical advances may open new possibilities with respect to modification of the environment,

Recalling the Declaration of the United Nations Conference on the Human Environment, adopted at Stockholm on 16 June 1972,

Realizing that the use of environmental modification techniques for peaceful purposes could improve the interrelationship of man and nature and contribute to the preservation and improvement of the environment for the benefit of present and future generations,

Recognizing, however, that military or any other hostile use of such techniques could have effects extremely harmful to human welfare,

Desiring to prohibit effectively military or any other hostile use of environmental modification techniques in order to eliminate the dangers to mankind from such use, and affirming their willingness to work towards the achievement of this objective,

Desiring also to contribute to the strengthening of trust among nations and to the further improvement of the international situation in accordance with the purposes and principles of the Charter of the United Nations,

Have agreed as follows:

Article I

1. Each State Party to this Convention undertakes not to engage in military or any other hostile use of environmental modification techniques having widespread, long-lasting or severe effects as the means of destruction, damage or injury to any other State Party.

2. Each State Party to this Convention undertakes not to assist, encourage or induce any State, group of States or international organization to engage in activities contrary to the provisions of paragraph 1 of this article.

Article II

As used in article 1, the term “environmental modification techniques” refers to any technique for changing – through the deliberate manipulation of natural processes – the dynamics, composition or structure of the Earth, including its biota, lithosphere, hydrosphere and atmosphere, or of outer space.

Article III

1. The provisions of this Convention shall not hinder the use of environmental modification techniques for peaceful purposes and shall be without prejudice to the generally recognized principles and applicable rules of international law concerning such use.

2. The States Parties to this Convention undertake to facilitate, and have the right to participate in, the fullest possible exchange of scientific and technological information on the use of environmental modification techniques for peaceful purposes. States Parties in a position to do so shall contribute, alone or together with other States or international organizations, to international economic and scientific co-operation in the preservation, improvement and peaceful utilization of the environment, with due consideration for the needs of the developing areas of the world.

Article IV

Each State Party to this Convention undertakes to take any measures it considers necessary in accordance with its constitutional processes to prohibit and prevent any activity in violation of the provisions of the Convention anywhere under its jurisdiction or control.

Article V

1. The States Parties to this Convention undertake to consult one another and to co-operate in solving any problems which may arise in relation to the objectives of, or in the application of the provisions of, the Convention. Consultation and co-operation pursuant to this article may also be undertaken through appropriate international procedures within the framework of the United Nations and in accordance with its Charter. These international procedures may include the services of appropriate international organizations, as well as of a Consultative Committee of Experts as provided for in paragraph 2 of this article.

2. For the purposes set forth in paragraph 1 of this article, the Depositary shall within one month of the receipt of a request from any State Party to this Convention, convene a Consultative Committee of Experts. Any State Party may appoint an expert to the Committee whose functions and rules of procedure are set out in the annex which constitutes an integral part of this Convention. The Committee shall transmit to the Depositary a summary of its findings of fact, incorporating all views and information presented to the Committee during its proceedings. The Depositary shall distribute the summary to all States Parties.

3. Any State Party to this Convention which has reason to believe that any other State Party is acting in breach of obligations deriving from the provisions of the Convention may lodge a complaint with the Security Council of the United Nations. Such a complaint should include all relevant information as well as all possible evidence supporting ItS validity.

4. Each State Party to this Convention undertakes to cooperate in carrying out any investigation which the Security Council may initiate, in accordance with the provisions of the Charter of the United Nations, on the basis of the complaint received by the Council. The Security Council shall inform the States Parties of the results of the investigation.

5. Each State Party to this Convention undertakes to provide or support assistance, in accordance with the provisions of the Charter of the United Nations, to any State Party which so requests, if the Security Council decides that such Party has been harmed or is likely to be harmed as a result of violation of the Convention.

Article VI

1. Any State Party to this Convention may propose amendments to the Convention. The text of any proposed amendment shall be submitted to the Depositary, who shall promptly circulate it to all States Parties.

2. An amendment shall enter into force for all States Parties to this Convention which have accepted it, upon the deposit with the Depositary of instruments of acceptance by a majority of States Parties. Thereafter it shall enter into force for any remaining State Party on the date of deposit of its instrument of acceptance.

Article VII

This Convention shall be of unlimited duration.

Article VIII

1. Five years after the entry into force of this Convention, a conference of the States Parties to the Convention shall be convened by the Depositary at Geneva, Switzerland. The conference shall review the operation of the Convention with a view to ensuring that its purposes and provisions are being realized, and shall in particular examine the effectiveness of the provisions of paragraph 1 of article I in eliminating the dangers of military or any other hostile use of environmental modification techniques.

2. At intervals of not less than five years thereafter, a majority of the States Parties to this Convention may obtain, by submitting a proposal to this effect to the Depositary, the convening of a conference with the same objectives.

3. If no conference has been convened pursuant to paragraph 2 of this article within ten years following the conclusion of a previous conference, the Depositary shall solicit the views of all States Parties to this Convention concerning the convening of such a conference. If one third or ten of the States Parties, whichever number is less, respond affirmatively, the Depositary shall take immediate steps to convene the conference.

Article IX

1. This Convention shall be open to all States for signature. Any State which does not sign the Convention before its entry into force in accordance with paragraph 3 of this article may accede to it at any time.

2. This Convention shall be subject to ratification by signatory States. Instruments of ratification or accession shall be deposited with the Secretary-General of the United Nations.

3. This Convention shall enter into force upon the deposit of instruments of ratification by twenty Governments in accordance with paragraph 2 of this article.

4. For those States whose instruments of ratification or accession are deposited after the entry into force of this Convention, it shall enter into force on the date of the deposit of their instruments of ratification or accession.

5. The Depositary shall promptly inform all signatory and acceding States of the date of each signature, the date of deposit of each instrument of ratification or accession and the date of the entry into force of this Convention and of any amendments thereto, as well as of the receipt of other notices.

6. This Convention shall be registered by the Depositary in accordance with Article 102 of the Charter of the United Nations.

Article X

This Convention, of which the Arabic, Chinese, English, French, Russian and Spanish texts are equally authentic, shall be deposited with the Secretary-General of the United Nations, who shall send duly certified copies thereof to the Governments of the signatory and acceding States.

 

In witness whereof, the undersigned, being duly authorized thereto, have signed this Convention

Done at Geneva, on the 18 day of May 1977.

Annex to the Convention

Consultative Committee of Experts 1. The Consultative Committee of Experts shall undertake to make appropriate findings of fact and provide expert views relevant to any problem raised pursuant to paragraph 1 of article V of this Convention by the State Party requesting the convening of the Committee.

2. The work of the Consultative Committee of Experts shall be organized in such a way as to permit it to perform the functions set forth in paragraph 1 of this annex. The Committee shall decide procedural questions relative to the organization of its work, where possible by consensus, but otherwise by a majority of those present and voting. There shall be no voting on matters of substance.

3. The Depositary or his representative shall serve as the Chairman of the Committee.

4. Each expert may be assisted at meetings by one or more advisers.

5. Each expert shall have the right, through the Chairman, to request from States, and from international organizations, such information and assistance as the expert considers desirable for the accomplishment of the Committee’s work.

Global Planned Financial Tsunami Has Just Begun

June 22nd, 2024 by F. William Engdahl

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.

First published on June 22, 2022

***

Since the creation of the US Federal Reserve over a century ago, every major financial market collapse has been deliberately triggered for political motives by the central bank. The situation is no different today, as clearly the US Fed is acting with its interest rate weapon to crash what is the greatest speculative financial bubble in human history, a bubble it created. Global crash events always begin on the periphery, such as with the 1931 Austrian Creditanstalt or the Lehman Bros. failure in September 2008. The June 15 decision by the Fed to impose the largest single rate hike in almost 30 years as financial markets are already in a meltdown, now guarantees a global depression and worse.

The extent of the “cheap credit” bubble that the Fed, the ECB and Bank of Japan have engineered with buying up of bonds and maintaining unprecedented near-zero or even negative interest rates for now 14 years, is beyond imagination. Financial media cover it over with daily nonsense reporting , while the world economy is being readied, not for so-called “stagflation” or recession. What is coming now in the coming months, barring a dramatic policy reversal, is the worst economic depression in history to date. Thank you, globalization and Davos.

Globalization

The political pressures behind globalization and the creation of the World Trade Organization out of the Bretton Woods GATT trade rules with the 1994 Marrakesh Agreement, ensured that the advanced industrial manufacturing of the West, most especially the USA, could flee offshore, “outsource” to create production in extreme low wage countries. No country offered more benefit in the late 1990s than China. China joined WHO in 2001 and from then on the capital flows into China manufacture from the West have been staggering. So too has been the buildup of China dollar debt. Now that global world financial structure based on record debt is all beginning to come apart.

When Washington deliberately allowed the September 2008 Lehman Bros financial collapse, the Chinese leadership responded with panic and commissioned unprecedented credit to local governments to build infrastructure. Some of it was partly useful, such as a network of high-speed railways. Some of it was plainly wasteful, such as construction of empty “ghost cities.” For the rest of the world, the unprecedented China demand for construction steel, coal, oil, copper and such was welcome, as fears of a global depression receded. But the actions by the US Fed and ECB after 2008, and of their respective governments, did nothing to address the systemic financial abuse of the world’s major private banks on Wall Street and Europe , as well as Hong Kong.

The August 1971 Nixon decision to decouple the US dollar, the world reserve currency, from gold, opened the floodgates to global money flows. Ever more permissive laws favoring uncontrolled financial speculation in the US and abroad were imposed at every turn, from Clinton’s repeal of Glass-Steagall at the behest of Wall Street in November 1999. That allowed creation of mega-banks so large that the government declared them “too big to fail.” That was a hoax, but the population believed it and bailed them out with hundreds of billions in taxpayer money.

Since the crisis of 2008 the Fed and other major global central banks have created unprecedented credit, so-called “helicopter money,” to bailout the major financial institutions. The health of the real economy was not a goal. In the case of the Fed, Bank of Japan, ECB and Bank of England, a combined $25 trillion was injected into the banking system via “quantitative easing” purchase of bonds, as well as dodgy assets like mortgage-backed securities over the past 14 years.

Quantitative madness

Here is where it began to go really bad. The largest Wall Street banks such as JP MorganChase, Wells Fargo, Citigroup or in London HSBC or Barclays, lent billions to their major corporate clients. The borrowers in turn used the liquidity, not to invest in new manufacturing or mining technology, but rather to inflate the value of their company stocks, so-called stock buy-backs, termed “maximizing shareholder value.”

BlackRock, Fidelity, banks and other investors loved the free ride. From the onset of Fed easing in 2008 to July 2020, some $5 trillions had been invested in such stock buybacks, creating the greatest stock market rally in history. Everything became financialized in the process. Corporations paid out $3.8 trillion in dividends in the period from 2010 to 2019. Companies like Tesla which had never earned a profit, became more valuable than Ford and GM combined. Cryptocurrencies such as Bitcoin reached market cap valuation over $1 trillion by late 2021. With Fed money flowing freely, banks and investment funds invested in high-risk, high profit areas like junk bonds or emerging market debt in places like Turkey, Indonesia or, yes, China.

The post-2008 era of Quantitative Easing and zero Fed interest rates led to absurd US Government debt expansion. Since January 2020 the Fed, Bank of England, European Central Bank and Bank of Japan have injected a combined $9 trillion in near zero rate credit into the world banking system. Since a Fed policy change in September 2019, it enabled Washington to increase public debt by a staggering $10 trillion in less than 3 years. Then the Fed again covertly bailed out Wall Street by buying $120 billion per month of US Treasury bonds and Mortgage-Backed Securities creating a huge bond bubble.

A reckless Biden Administration began doling out trillions in so-called stimulus money to combat needless lockdowns of the economy. US Federal debt went from a manageable 35% of GDP in 1980 to more than 129% of GDP today. Only the Fed Quantitative Easing, buying of trillions of US government and mortgage debt and the near zero rates made that possible. Now the Fed has begun to unwind that and withdraw liquidity from the economy with QT or tightening, plus rate hikes. This is deliberate. It is not about a stumbling Fed mis-judging inflation.

Energy drives the collapse

Sadly, the Fed and other central bankers lie. Raising interest rates is not to cure inflation. It is to force a global reset in control over the world’s assets, it’s wealth, whether real estate, farmland, commodity production, industry, even water. The Fed knows very well that Inflation is only beginning to rip across the global economy. What is unique is that now Green Energy mandates across the industrial world are driving this inflation crisis for the first time, something deliberately ignored by Washington or Brussels or Berlin.

The global shortages of fertilizers, soaring prices of natural gas, and grain supply losses from global draught or exploding costs of fertilizers and fuel or the war in Ukraine, guarantee that, at latest this September-October harvest time, we will undergo a global additional food and energy price explosion. Those shortages all are a result of deliberate policies.

Moreover, far worse inflation is certain, due to the pathological insistence of the world’s leading industrial economies led by the Biden Administration’s anti-hydrocarbon agenda. That agenda is typified by the astonishing nonsense of the US Energy Secretary stating, “buy E-autos instead” as the answer to exploding gasoline prices.

Similarly, the European Union has decided to phase out Russian oil and gas with no viable substitute as its leading economy, Germany, moves to shut its last nuclear reactor and close more coal plants. Germany and other EU economies as a result will see power blackouts this winter and natural gas prices will continue to soar. In the second week of June in Germany gas prices rose another 60% alone. Both the Green-controlled German government and the Green Agenda “Fit for 55” by the EU Commission continue to push unreliable and costly wind and solar at the expense of far cheaper and reliable hydrocarbons, insuring an unprecedented energy-led inflation.

Fed has pulled the plug

With the 0.75% Fed rate hike, largest in almost 30 years, and promise of more to come, the US central bank has now guaranteed a collapse of not merely the US debt bubble, but also much of the post-2008 global debt of $303 trillion. Rising interest rates after almost 15 years mean collapsing bond values. Bonds, not stocks, are the heart of the global financial system.

US mortgage rates have now doubled in just 5 months to above 6%, and home sales were already plunging before the latest rate hike. US corporations took on record debt owing to the years of ultra-low rates. Some 70% of that debt is rated just above “junk” status. That corporate non-financial debt totaled $9 trillion in 2006. Today it exceeds $18 trillion. Now a large number of those marginal companies will not be able to rollover the old debt with new, and bankruptcies will follow in coming months. The cosmetics giant Revlon just declared bankruptcy.

The highly-speculative, unregulated Crypto market, led by Bitcoin, is collapsing as investors realize there is no bailout there. Last November the Crypto world had a $3 trillion valuation. Today it is less than half, and with more collapse underway. Even before the latest Fed rate hike the stock value of the US megabanks had lost some $300 billion. Now with stock market further panic selling guaranteed as a global economic collapse grows, those banks are pre-programmed for a new severe bank crisis over the coming months.

As US economist Doug Noland recently noted, “Today, there’s a massive “periphery” loaded with “subprime” junk bonds, leveraged loans, buy-now-pay-later, auto, credit card, housing, and solar securitizations, franchise loans, private Credit, crypto Credit, DeFi, and on and on. A massive infrastructure has evolved over this long cycle to spur consumption for tens of millions, while financing thousands of uneconomic enterprises. The “periphery” has become systemic like never before. And things have started to Break.”

The Federal Government will now find its interest cost of carrying a record $30 trillion in Federal debt far more costly. Unlike the 1930s Great Depression when Federal debt was near nothing, today the Government, especially since the Biden budget measures, is at the limits. The US is becoming a Third World economy. If the Fed no longer buys trillions of US debt, who will? China? Japan? Not likely.

Deleveraging the bubble

With the Fed now imposing a Quantitative Tightening, withdrawing tens of billions in bonds and other assets monthly, as well as raising key interest rates, financial markets have begun a deleveraging. It will likely be jerky, as key players like BlackRock and Fidelity seek to control the meltdown for their purposes. But the direction is clear.

By late last year investors had borrowed almost $1 trillion in margin debt to buy stocks. That was in a rising market. Now the opposite holds, and margin borrowers are forced to give more collateral or sell their stocks to avoid default. That feeds the coming meltdown. With collapse of both stocks and bonds in coming months, go the private retirement savings of tens of millions of Americans in programs like 401-k. Credit card auto loans and other consumer debt in the USA has ballooned in the past decade to a record $4.3 trillion at end of 2021. Now interest rates on that debt, especially credit card, will jump from an already high 16%. Defaults on those credit loans will skyrocket.

Outside the US what we will see now, as the Swiss National Bank, Bank of England and even ECB are forced to follow the Fed raising rates, is the global snowballing of defaults, bankruptcies, amid a soaring inflation which the central bank interest rates have no power to control. About 27% of global nonfinancial corporate debt is held by Chinese companies, estimated at $23 trillion. Another $32 trillion corporate debt is held by US and EU companies. Now China is in the midst of its worst economic crisis since 30 years and little sign of recovery. With the USA, China’s largest customer, going into an economic depression, China’s crisis can only worsen. That will not be good for the world economy.

Italy, with a national debt of $3.2 trillion, has a debt-to-GDP of 150%. Only ECB negative interest rates have kept that from exploding in a new banking crisis. Now that explosion is pre-programmed despite soothing words from Lagarde of the ECB. Japan, with a 260% debt level is the worst of all industrial nations, and is in a trap of zero rates with more than $7.5 trillion public debt. The yen is now falling seriously, and destabilizing all of Asia.

The heart of the world financial system, contrary to popular belief, is not stock markets. It is bond markets—government, corporate and agency bonds. This bond market has been losing value as inflation has soared and interest rates have risen since 2021 in the USA and EU. Globally this comprises some $250 trillion in asset value a sum that, with every fed interest rise , loses more value. The last time we had such a major reverse in bond values was forty years ago in the Paul Volcker era with 20% interest rates to “squeeze out inflation.”

As bond prices fall, the value of bank capital falls. The most exposed to such a loss of value are major French banks along with Deutsche Bank in the EU, along with the largest Japanese banks. US banks like JP MorganChase are believed to be only slightly less exposed to a major bond crash. Much of their risk is hidden in off-balance sheet derivatives and such. However, unlike in 2008, today central banks can’t rerun another decade of zero interest rates and QE. This time, as insiders like ex-Bank of England head Mark Carney noted three years ago, the crisis will be used to force the world to accept a new Central Bank Digital Currency, a world where all money will be centrally issued and controlled. This is also what Davos WEF people mean by their Great Reset. It will not be good. A Global Planned Financial Tsunami Has Just Begun.

*

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.

F. William Engdahl is strategic risk consultant and lecturer, he holds a degree in politics from Princeton University and is a best-selling author on oil and geopolitics.

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

Featured image is from NEO


Seeds of Destruction: Hidden Agenda of Genetic Manipulation

Author Name: F. William Engdahl
ISBN Number: 978-0-9879389-2-3
Year: 2007
Product Type: PDF File

Price: $9.50

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

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

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

With tremendous foresight of what is happening now, this article by the late Professor Tanya Reinart was first published by Global Research in 2002 under the title The Penal Colonies.

Our thoughts are with Tanya Reinart. Her legacy will live. 

The Netanyahu government is no longer contemplating “Separation” or “Apartheid”. There is no longer a “Two State Solution”.

The October 7, 2023 Declaration of War against Palestine consists in invading and annexing Gaza and the West Bank, while excluding Palestinians from their homeland. It’s a crime against humanity. 

Michel Chossudovsky, Global Research. June 22,2024

**

Israel’s Vision of Separation

The Gaza strip is a perfect realization of the Israeli vision of “separation”. Surrounded with electric fences and army posts, completely sealed off the outside world, Gaza has become a huge prison.

About one third of its land was confiscated for the 7,000 Israeli settlers living there (and their defense array), while over a million Palestinians are crowded in the remaining areas of the prison.

With no work or sources of income, about 80% of its residents depend, for their living, on UNRWA, or contributions from Arab states and charity organizations. Now Israel is considering the imprisonment there of families of suicide bombers from the West Bank (1). As a senior Israeli analyst stated, Gaza can now serve as “the penal colony” of Israel its “devils island, Alcatraz”. (Nahum Barnea, Yediot Aharonot June 21, 2002).

This is the future that Sharon and the Israeli army designate for the West Bank as well. While the external fence is presently being built, Israel’s current military operation is set to be the final step in the implementation the IDF plans for reestablishing full military rule (which was abolished in large parts of the West Bank during the Oslo process).

Though Israel describes everything it does as a spontaneous reaction to terror, the plan was fully spelled out in the Israeli media already back in March 2001, soon after Sharon entered office. Alex Fishman, military and strategic analyst of Yediot Aharonot, explained at the time that since Oslo, “the IDF regarded the occupied territories as if they were one territorial cell”, and this placed some constraints on the IDF and enabled a certain amount of freedom for the PA and the Palestinian population. The new plan is a return to the concept of the military administration during the preOslo years: the occupied territories will be divided into tens of isolated “territorial cells”, each of which will be assigned a special military force, “and the local commander will have freedom to use his discretion” as to when and who to shoot. (Yediot Ahronot weekend supplement, March 9.2001).

Operation Defensive Shield

The first stage of this plan the destruction of the institutions of the Palestinian Authority was completed in the previous ‘Operation Defensive Shield’ in April of this year [2002]. In practice, from that time on, the towns and villages of the West Bank have been completely sealed. Even exit by foot, which was possible up to that point, became blocked, and movement between the “territorial cells” now requires formal permits from the Israeli military authorities. Soldiers and snipers prevent any “unauthorized” walking to agricultural fields, to places of work and study, or for medical treatment.

However, unlike the pre Oslo period of Israeli military rule, the army makes it clear that there is no intention to construct any civil administration that will take care of the basic daily needs of the two million Palestinians, such as food supplies, health services, garbage and sewage. For these tasks, some form of a Palestinian Authority will be maintained, though in practice it will not be allowed to function.

As a ‘military source’ told Ha’aretz,

“Internal conclusions of the security echelons, following operation ‘Defensive Shield’, assessed that the functioning of the civil branches of the Palestinian Authority had reached an unprecedented nadir, mainly due to the destruction the IDF operation left behind in Ramallah (including the systematic destruction of computers and databases)… Combined with the severe restrictions on movement, the Palestinian population is becoming, as the military source defined it, ‘poor, dependent, unemployed, rather hungry, and extreme’… The financial reserves of the Palestinian authority are reaching the bottom… In a future not far off, the majority of Palestinians will only be able to maintain a reasonable life through the help of international aid.” (Ha’aretz Hebrew edition, June 23, 2002, Amos Har’el). Thus, the West Bank is being driven to the level of poverty of the Gaza strip.

Nevertheless, at the same time that Israel deprives the Palestinians of their means of income, it also makes a substantial effort to diminish or block international aid, under the pretext that the aid is used to support terrorists or their families. At the outset of its new ‘operation’, Israel “decided to stop the flow of foodaid and medicine from Iran and Iraq to Palestinians in the territories” (Ha’aretz, June 24, 2002, Amos Har’el). Iranian and Iraqi aid is an easy target for Israel, as these countries belong to the “Axis of Evil”. However, Israel started launching a more ambitious campaign: The EU the largest PA donor is under constant pressure from Israel to cut its aid, which is used, inter alia to pay the salaries of teachers and health workers. The tactics are always the same: Israel provides some documents presumably linking the PA to terror. Any aid to the PA is, therefore, aid to terror (2).

UNRWA’s aid is the next target. The U.N. Relief and Works Agency for Palestinians in the Near East (UNRWA) has become a major source of food for Palestinians in the besieged territories. Its food supplies are now delivered not only to the refugee camps, but also in towns and villages. The amount of food UNRWA supplies has increased fourfold in two years (3). Recently,

“Israel has begun a campaign in the United States and the United Nations to urge a reconsideration of the way the UN Relief and Works Agency, which runs the Palestinian refugee camps in the West Bank and Gaza, operates. Israel charges that UNRWA workers simply ignored the fact that Palestinian organizations were turning the camps into terrorist bases and it is demanding the agency start reporting all military or terrorist actions within the camps to the UN…. Meanwhile, Jewish and proIsraeli lobbyists in the U.S. are waging a parallel campaign … American Jewish lobbyists are basing their efforts on the fact that the U.S. currently contributes some 30 percent of UNRWA’s $400 million a year budget, and is therefore in a position to influence the agency: A congressional refusal to approve UNRWA’s funding could seriously disrupt its operations. (Ha’aretz June 29, 2002, Nathan Guttman). The campaign is not yet demanding cutting UNRWA’s aid and presence altogether, but raising the impossible demand that UNRWA should serve as an active force in “the war against terror” (“reporting military or terrorist actions”) is the first step towards such a demand.(4)

Since September 11,[2002] Sharon has been constructing an analogy between the occupied territories and Afghanistan (with the PA as Al Qaeda). He keeps declaring that the solution to Palestinian terror, and the required ‘reforms’, should be along the lines set in Afghanistan. The analogy is frighteningly revealing: As it established the ‘reforms’ in Afghanistan, the US forced starvation upon millions of people. This is how Noam Chomsky described it:

“On Sept. 16, the New York Times reported that ‘Washington has also demanded [from Pakistan] a cutoff of fuel supplies…and the elimination of truck convoys that provide much of the food and other supplies to Afghanistan’s civilian population.’ Astonishingly, that report elicited no detectable reaction in the West, a grim reminder of the nature of the Western civilization that leaders and elite commentators claim to uphold. In the following days, those demands were implemented… ‘The country was on a lifeline,’ one evacuated aid worker reports, ‘and we just cut the line’ (NY times Magazine, September 30). According to the world’s leading newspaper, then, Washington demanded that Pakistan ensures the death of enormous numbers of Afghans, millions of them already on the brink of starvation, by cutting off the limited sustenance that was keeping them alive.” (Interview with Michael Albert, reprinted in Noam Chomsky, 911, Seven Stories, 2002). Arundhati Roy, summarized this at the time: “Witness the infinite justice of the new century. Civilians starving to death while they’re waiting to be killed” (Guardian, Sept. 29).

The new stage of Israel’s ‘separation’ can no longer be compared to the Apartheid of South Africa. As Ronnie Kasrils, South Africa’s Minister of Water Affairs, said in an Interview with Al Ahram Weekly, “the South African apartheid regime never engaged in the sort of repression Israel is inflicting on the Palestinians” (Issue of March 28 April 3, 2002). We are witnessing the daily invisible killing of the sick and wounded being deprived of medical care, the weak who cannot survive in the new poverty conditions, and those who are bound to reach starvation.

Nevertheless, the public debate in Israel revolves around questions of efficiency: Is it possible to stop terror in such methods. Let us suppose even that it is. Is it allowed? Is this what we (Israelis) want to be?

One people stole the ‘Lamb of its poor neighbor'(5): Gaza and the West Bank are 22% of the land of Israel Palestine, where the Palestinians lived in the past. On this small piece of land, three million people live, with hopes, needs and dreams, just like ours.

Since Oslo, they have been lured with promises that we are about to evacuate the settlements and give them back their land, at the very same time that we have been imprisoning them in Gaza, stealing more of their land in the West Bank, and leaving them no hope whatsoever. The Palestinian people are fighting for their freedom. The crimes of Palestinian terror do not remove our culpability for our own crimes.

Before Oslo, as well, there was a wave of horrible terror attacks. But at that time, after each such attack, the call was heard get out of the territories! Then it was still understood that when you leave people no hope, there is no way to stop the madness of suicide bombing. It is not too late to get out of the territories.

Notes

(1) In its meeting on Friday, June 21, 2002, the Israeli cabinet “decided in principle in favor both of the expulsion of families of suicide strikers from the West Bank to the Gaza Strip… The implementation of this expulsion policy depends upon the outcome of a legal review.” (‘IDF set to expel bombers’ families’ By Aluf Benn, Amos Harel and Gideon Alon, Ha’aretz June 23, 2002).

(2) Here is one example of the pressure on the EU: “The documents seized from PA offices in recent months, some of which were included in the document compiled by minister without portfolio 

Dan Naveh following Operation Defensive Shield, were presented last week to the EC delegation in Israel and representatives of the International Monetary Fund at a meeting with IDF intelligence officers. Naveh claims the documents prove European financial aid has been used to finance terrorism and incitement, and has also found its way into the pockets of senior PA officials.

The head of the EC’s delegation to Israel, Giancarlo Chevallard, told Ha’aretz that at the meeting, the delegation saw evidence that Arafat is financing terrorism, but added Israel had not provided evidence that European financial aid which is designated to pay the salaries of PA employees is being used to finance terrorist attacks. Another senior delegation official said he was extremely skeptical Israel had evidence to prove European aid is being used by the PA to finance terrorism…

Meanwhile, in the shadow of the Israeli accusations, the European Parliament’s budgetary committee last week delayed the transfer of 18.7 million euros in financial aid to the PA until the EC reports how the money is to be distributed…” (Ha’aretz, June 6, 2002, Yair Ettinger) This specific frozen amount was released in the meanwhile, however Israel’s pressure continues.

(3) Amos Har’el, ‘The IDF neutralizes the Palestinian Authority, and humanitarian organizations try to replace it’, Ha’aretz Hebrew edition, June 23, 2002. (Quoted before).

(4). The campaign against UNRWA started earlier: “In letters written to Annan in May, Republican U.S. Senator Arlen Specter and Democratic U.S. Representative Tom Lantos accused the U.N. agency of allowing and promoting terrorist activity in the camps. Specter said UNRWA schools promoted antiIsraeli and anti Semitic sentiments and Lantos said the agency allowed terrorists to organize in the camps.”(Inter Press Service, June 24, 2002)

(5) Bible, Samuel II, 12:11: “12:1The LORD sent Natan to David. He came to him, and said to him, “There were two men in one city; the one rich, and the other poor. 12:2The rich man had very many flocks and herds, 12:3but the poor man had nothing, except one little ewe lamb, which he had bought and raised. It grew up together with him, and with his children. It ate of his own food, drank of his own cup, and lay in his bosom, and was to him like a daughter. 12:4A traveler came to the rich man, and he spared to take of his own flock and of his own herd, to dress for the wayfaring man who had come to him, but took the poor man’s lamb, and dressed it for the man who had come to him.” (http://ebible.org/bible/hnv/2Sam.htm)

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on History: The “Penal Colonies” of Palestine. “The Gaza Strip is the Realization of Israel’s Vision of ‘Separation'” Prof. Tanya Reinhart

America’s Perpetual War: Six Questions

June 22nd, 2024 by Prof. Joseph H. Chung

All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the Translate Website button below the author’s name.

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.

First published on June 12, 2023

*** 

Introduction

Former American President Jimmy Carter said in 2018 that in America, there were 226 years of wars since its independence which took place 242 years ago thus leaving only 16 years of peace.

Since WWII, there were 32 American military conflicts involving dozens of countries. Some of these military conflicts have lasted for over twenty years and some others are still continuing.

In other words, the U.S. is a country of perpetual war. War is terribly destructive human activity. Millions of human beings have been sacrificed. Tens of trillions of dollars worth of housing, school, factories, hospitals and other infrastructure facilities have been destroyed in the countries which have been the target of American military attacks.

The perpetual war has destroyed the very foundation of freedom and democracy; it has prevented healthy and equitable economic development of the world; it has led to the violation of human rights; it has ruined traditional values of many countries and, above all, it has caused lasting human suffering.

America’s multi-trillion dollar perpetual war has denied and deprived millions of Americans of decent income, adequate housing, needed foods, necessary health care, safety on the street, reliable infrastructure facilities, essential education and other goods and services needed for descent living.

Before I go any further, I would like to quote the historical statement of President Dwight Eisenhower.

“Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired signifies in the final sense a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and not clothed. This world in arms is not spending money alone, it is spending the sweat of its labourers, the genius of its scientists, the hope of children. (President Dwight Eisenhower address to the North American Society of News editors, April 16, 1953)

In this paper, I am asking the following six questions:

  • How many wars has the U.S. undertaken since WWII?
  • How are the American wars organized?
  • What is the purpose of the American wars?
  • Who are the beneficiaries of the American wars?
  • What are the negative impacts of the American wars?
  • Will the American wars continue?

How many wars has the U.S. undertaken since WWII?

There are undoubtedly several ways of defining war. In this paper, I define war in terms of American military interventions. Defined thus, I have counted 32 wars undertaken by the U.S. since WWII.

I have classified these wars in terms of the following categories:

  • invasion (23 cases),
  • “civil war” (7 cases), and
  • multi-target war (2),

which gives 32 wars that took place since the WWII, in the course of the so-called “post war era”. 

There are reasons to believe that there are still many undeclared military interventions conducted by war contractors and Special Operation Forces units spread in 1,000 bases in 191 countries. The following shows the list of American wars.

Invasions,

  • Korean War (1950-1953),
  • Vietnam War (1955-1975);
  • Cuban,Bay of Pigs (1961),
  • Lebanon (1982-1984), Grenada (1983), Libya bombing (1984),Tanker War-Persian Gulf  (1984-1987),
  • Panama (1989-1990), Gulf War (1989-1991), Iraq War (1991-1993),
  • Bosnia War (1992-1995), Haiti (1994-1999), Kosovo (1998-1999),
  • Afghanistan (2001-2021),Yemen (2002-present), Iraq (2003-2011), Pakistan (2004-2018), Somalia (2007-present)
  • Libya (2011), Niger (2013-present) Iraq (2014-2021), Syria (2014-present), Libya (2015-2019).
  • [Ukraine, yet to be categorized]

Civil Wars:

Indo-China (1959-1975), Indonesia (1958-1961) Lebanon (1958), Dominican Republic (1968-1966), Korea DMZ (1966-1969), Cambodia (1967-1975) Somalia (1991-present).

Multi-target wars:

Operation Ocean Shield: location, Indian- Ocean (2008-2016), Operation Observant Compass: location, Uganda and Central Africa (2011-2017).

How are the American Wars Organized?

To understand the nature and the implication of the perpetual war in the U.S., it is necessary to introduce the concept of American Pro-War Community (APWC).

In literature and media, we use the notion of military-industrial complex (MIC) to describe the vast system of perpetual U.S. wars. But, actually, the system of perpetual war involves many more individuals and organizations than in the MIC.

The APWC is a tightly knit community promoting its interests at the expense of the wellbeing of ordinary Americans and the interests of the people of the target countries. It is so well organized and so well rooted and so powerful that it is quasi impossible to dissolve it.

The AWPC’s core group comprises the war corporations and the federal government led by the Pentagon, the Congress, the Senate and other government agencies.

There are two supporting groups comprising all sorts of institutions and organizations.

There is the group supporting the supply of war goods and services.

Then, there is the group supporting the creation of demand for war goods and services.

The efficiency of the whole system of producing and selling war goods and services depends on how the core group and the supporting groups can work in harmony together to attain the objectives of wars, namely, the maximization of profit and the intra-APWC sharing of the profit.

Supply of War Goods and Services

The supply of war goods and services is assured by war corporations which produce weapons, building contractors which build all sorts of buildings and manage them, catering services companies that provide foods and drinks for the GIs, information firms which offer information needed for wars and even the academics that offers ideas and technologies.

In the U.S. 40 major war corporations have annual sales of almost $ 600 billion.

The following table shows the importance of the five leading war corporations in U.S.

Table 1. Five major War Corporations: Annual Sales ($ billion) 2022 and Growth (recent years: %)

Note: LM (Lockheed Martin), NG (Northrop Grumman); GD (General Dynamics) Source

The combined annual sale of the five leading firms in 2022 was as much as $ 241.8 billion of which $183.3 billon was for the sale of military goods and services, or 75.8% of the total sale.

The supply of war goods and services relies on the extensive production chain involving foreign and domestic providers of raw materials and intermediary products. In addition, the academics and information firms offer information, technology and other services needed for the production of weapons.

The following is a list of the well known universities which are deeply involved in American wars. Each one of these universities produces, for the war industry, a variety of war products and services.

In this paper, for each academic institution, just one typical product or service is mentioned.

No less than 70% of university research projects are funded by the Pentagon:

  • The Boston College helps the Air Force
  • The University of Massachusetts Lowell develops mono-technology for the Army.
  • Tufts University improves of soldiers cognitive and physical performance
  • MIT is producing so many war goods ns services that it is known as a “war corporation.”
  • Columbia University and Brown University develops, for DARPA (Defence Advanced Research Project Agency), the neural engineering system
  • Princeton University produces hardware for design and verification of open-source integrated circuit
  • Dartmouth University sells machine learning
  • Pennsylvania University develops artificial intelligence.
  • Stanford University develops technology for chemical warfare and so many other war goods and service that it is considered to be in partnership with war corporations
  • Harvard University develops educational materials for the war and it is the main source providing human resources to the war industries. By the way, it produced the napalm bomb widely used in the Korean War, Vietnamese War and other wars
  • John Hopkins University makes tools needed for the evaluation of alternative offensive capability needed for battles in air sea, cyberspace

The sad story is that American universities depend on war money so much that they are losing their original mission.

Understanding the War Industry eBook : Christian Sorensen: Kindle Store - Amazon.com

Christian Sorensen (Understanding the War Industry, Clarity Press 2022) has something to say about this problem. He seems to think that universities are neglecting their original mission of producing and diffusing truth.

“But its intricate ties to the War Department show the university’s true colour carrying more about government funding than the nobility of academia.” (Sorenson: p.221)

By the way, I have found many useful information, data and ideas in Sorensen’s book, which is surely a significant addition to the critical literature of perpetual wars.

The information-technology corporations are also actively participating in the American wars. In fact, Amazon, Microsoft, and Google provide, for the military, clout computing which facilitates the reduction of human and material cost of wars.

Demand for War Products and Services

What distinguishes the war economy from the peace economy is the amazing fact that the supply generates the demand.

In the American war economy, the final demand for war goods and services is determined by the Pentagon (the Department of Defence) and some foreign countries.

However, the Pentagon does not have all the information needed to estimate the demand for war so that it relies on the information provided by the war corporations.

Therefore, the war corporations which are supplier of war goods and services have the amazing role of determining the demand.

In this way, in the market of war goods and services, the supply determines the demand.

This is the root of perpetual nature of American wars and the making of profit going to the APWC.

Now, to have war, one has to have enemies. But, the war corporations do not have the research capacity to find real enemies or produce fabricated enemies. The role of finding or fabricating enemies goes to the think tanks which are lavishly funded by the war corporations.

When the think tanks find or manufacture enemies, new wars or the continuation of old wars are justified.

Now, on the other hand, the pressure groups put pressure on law makers and policy makers to recognize the identities of enemies produced by the think tanks; this is done through lobbying (bribes giving).

As for the media, they have the role of preparing the mind and the souls of Americans to accept the monstrous defence budget without being aware of the destructive consequences of the perpetual wars.

It goes without saying that both the pressure groups and the media are funded by the war corporations.

The demand for war goods and services created by these pro-war individuals and organizations is translated into the annual defence budget of the U.S amounting, in 2023, to as much as $886 billion.

Imagine this. Washington’s 2023 defence budget is 50% of South Korea’s 2023 GDP of $1.8 trillion. The American defence budget is 40 % of the global defence budget of $ 2.2 trillion.

The big five: Lockheed Martin, Raytheon Technologies, Boeing, Northrop Grumman, General Dynamics gets as much as $150 billion out of the defence budget.

Think Tanks

The think tanks play major role in perpetuating the American wars. Their function is to produce reports and papers to show the seriousness of crisis and the need for increasing military budget so that the crisis can be tackled by military force.

The following shows how some major think tanks are lavishly funded by war corporations. The data are provided by a Global Research paper (Amanda Yee: Six War Managing Think Tank and the Military Contractors that fund them, March 7, 2023).

The Center for Strategic International Studies (CSIS)

The CSIS received in 2022  $100,000 or more from following war corporations: Northrop Grumman, General Dynamics, Lockheed Martin, SAIC, Bechtel, Cummings, Hitachi, Hanhwa Group, Huntington Ingalls Industries, Mitsubishi Corp., Nippon Telegraph and Telephone, Raytheon, Samsung.

The Center for a New American Security (CNAS)

The CNAS received in 2021, $50,000 or more from the following war corporations: Huntington Ingalls Group, Neal Blue, BAE System, Booz Allen, Hamilton Intel Corp, General Dynamics.

Hudson Institute (HI)

The HI got, in 2021, $50,000 or more from the following war corporations: General Atomics, Linden Blue, Neal Blue, Lockheed Martin, Northrop Grumman, Boeing, Mitsubishi.

The Atlantic Council (AC)

In 2021, the AC received $50,000 or more from the following war corporations: Airbus, Neal Blue, Lockheed Martin, Raytheon, and SAIC.

The International Institute for Strategic Studies (IISS)

The IISS was given, in 2021, $25,000 or more by the following war corporations: BAE System, Boeing, General Atomics, Raytheon, Rolls-Royce, Northrop Grumman.

There was a case where a think tank expressed an “expert opinion” in order to protect the interest of its sponsor (war corporation). It happened on August 12, 2021.

The huge military contractor CACI which had a contract of $907 million for 5 years in Afghanistan was disappointed of the U.S. withdrawal from Afghanistan, which meant its profit loss.

Its think tank was the Institute for the Study of War (ISW). The president of ISW, Kimberly Kagan declared that the U.S. withdrawal would make Afghanistan become a second ground of Jihadism. By the way, retired General Jack Keane is a member of IWS.

Pressure Group

The pressure groups are led by individuals well connected to war corporations, the Pentagon and the congress. The following is the partial list of pressure groups.

  • The Aerospace Industry Association(AIA): Its CEO is the former vice-president of a company producing rockets. AIA represents more than 340 aerospace and defence corporation
  • The National Defence Industry Association (NDIA) has 1,600 members
  • The political Action Committee
  • The Association of United States Army(AUSA): It produces Industry Guide for war corporations
  • Business Executives for National Security (BENS), It is composed of non-profit 450 business executives who discuss security issues
  • The Association of Old Crows (AOC), It is a brotherhood of electronic war veterans and leaders of war. It is supported by war corporations such as AECOM and Raytheon
  • The American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronomics (AIAA)
  • The National Security Resource Board
  • The War Dept Defence Policy Board

Pro-War Media

Most of American media are pro-war.  There are several reasons why the media are not critical of the perpetual war, if not being outright pro-war.

First, Being corporate media, they are mainly concerned with making money rather than being concerned with the collective wellbeing of the American society.

The Corporate Media including CNN, MSMBC, Fox News attach program priority to the rating.

They have no opinion about the awfully destructive consequences of the perpetual war. Even if they have some useful opinions they do not dare to express them. When they express an opinion, they are usually referring to the opinion of the elite class.

Second, it has been the long tradition in the U.S. that the media do not criticize the government.

Third, the government censor the media, especially, the off-line media.

Fourth, the numbers of media are directly related to the war industry. For example, in Defence News, T. Michael Mosely, retired 4-star Air Force general wrote in April 2019 that the Air Force was woefully under equipped.

There is a long list of pro-war media mostly armed forces related media.

Fifth, war corporations openly put pressure on the media not to mention the root of war. For example,

“General Dynamics wants corporate media never to question the root cause of the war.” (Sorensen p: p.72)

Sixth, the Smith Mundt Modernization Act of 2012 allows greater propaganda on corporate media.

To sum up, the demand for war is formed by the coordinated pro-war opinions created by the war corporations, the think tanks, the pressure groups and the media.

These opinions are transmitted to the Pentagon, which determine the size of financial and human resources to be allocated to the war.

The remarkable coordination among these individuals and organizations looks like a well prepared symphony orchestra.

The think tanks play violin to make sweet sound for the war corporations;

The pressure groups play trumpet to make the sound louder;

The media play drums to draw attention of the public to the necessity of wars.

All these players are conducted by the war corporations.

What is the purpose of  American wars?

There can be defensive purposes and offensive purposes of war. The defensive purposes can include the protection of national territory and national values such as religion, democracy and national assets representing the national tradition.

Then, there can be offensive purposes of war which can include the imperial invasion of a foreign country in order to change the political and economic regime, change religion, to appropriate the foreign country’s natural resources and maintain America’s hegemonic domination.

There is one more offensive purpose, namely,

In all probabilities, the defensive purposes are not relevant. No country dares to challenge American territory and its values. On the other hand, all of offensive purposes are relevant.

However none of the offensive “purposes” of American wars seem to have been attained.

  • Christianity had for a long time hidden its presence.
  • American democracy is falling rapidly.
  • Regime-change war has ended up with regime destruction.
  • America’s global hegemony has to overcome several challenges.

As for the expropriation of foreign countries natural resources, American imperialism should have been a success made possible through the worldwide value chain. Its main beneficiaries are American multinational corporations.

Now, with regard to the impact of the Perpetual American war on the American economy, the usual analysis model is  military Keynesianism. A series of economic studies show that it can have a short run positive effect on the national economy, but in the medium term, it will harm the economy’s growth potential. In other words, war is harmful to the national (civilian) economy.

“After initial demand stimulus, the effect of increased defence spending turns negative around six years .After 10 years of higher defence spending, there would be 464,000 jobs less than the base line scenario with lower spending.” (Dean Baker, economist quoted in journals.openedition.org)

In short, American wars are not needed for the realization of defensive objectives.

Nor are they useful means for the materialization of offensive ends with the exception of the expropriation of natural resources of foreign countries.

Then, why does the U.S. continue its wars?

If the war continues despite its dubious results, there must be some people who find in the war some benefits. The inevitable conclusion is that these same people are the members of the American Pro-War Community (APWC).

Who are the Beneficiaries of American wars?

In order that the AWPC receive benefit from wars, the profit of war corporations must be abnormally maximized. In fact, the profit of war corporations must be very high due to these reasons.

First, war corporations receive the Pentagon’s research grants and tax incentives from the federal government.

Second, the use of Artificial Intelligence-based production systems can save greatly the cost of the war corporations’ production of war goods and services.

Third, war corporations enjoy the quasi monopoly status through corporate merging in the sector of highly specialized weapon production. The merging of Lockheed with Martin is a typical example.

Fourth, in a situation of Pentagon-war corporation collusion, the Pentagon’s acceptance of a high contractual price is of significance.

The Privatization of War. The Everlasting Corruption Culture

Once the high corporate profit is assured, the next step of keeping perpetual wars is the intra-AWPC sharing of the corporate profit.

This is done through bribes. Having received bribes, pro-war policy makers and pro-war law makers must go along with war corporations lobbying in favor of “more wars”.

Bribes are given to the policy makers and law makers so that they accept what the war corporations ask for. This is the beginning of an everlasting corruption culture.

The following cases illustrate some of the dimensions of the corruption culture:

In 2012, the war corporations gave $30 million and in 2014 they gave $ 25.5 million to the Senate Armed Service Committee.

Christian Sorensen shows the source of corporate funds given to the 25 members of the Senate Armed Services Committee. The following gives some examples.

  • John McCain (R): General Electric, Raytheon and several other war corporations
  • Jeanne Shaheen (D): Boeing General Electric
  • Lindsey Graham (R): Northrop Grumman, Raytheon
  • Bill Nelson (D): Lockheed Martin, Raytheon

A former CIA lobbyist made a meaningful statement regarding the state of corruption:

“Years of legalized bribery had exposed me to the worst elements of our country’s political working. Not even my half million-a-year salary could weigh my conscience…Today, most lobbyists are engaged in a system of bribery but it is legal kind, the kind that runs rampant in the corridors of Washington.” (Sorensen: p.65)

For the last presidential election, Lockheed Martin donated $ 91 million. Fifty eight members of the House Armed Service Committee received in average $79,588 from the sector (war industry), or three times more than other representatives. Lobbying expenditures by the member of the warmongering community was $247 billion during the last two presidential elections.

The Swinging-Door Relationship

However, in addition to the bribe system, there is the swinging-door relationship between the war industry and the Pentagon.

The swinging-door relations result in the industry’s direct participation in the defence policy making. In fact, the decision makers in the Pentagon and the decision makers in the war industry are  the same people.

The first swinging door allows the two way traffic of corporation leaders and the Pentagon leaders. Here are some cases of swinging door system of decision making.

  • Ryan McCarthy assistant to Robert Gate, War Secretary went back to Lockheed Martin. He is now Under Secretary of Army.
  • General James Mattis is now on the Board of Directors of General Dynamics, then, he became Secretary of War, then back to General Dynamics
  • An Assistant Secretary of War was president of Goldman Sachs focus on oil and gas
  • An administrator of the Defence Technical Information (DTC) has directorship in multiple corporations
  • The Under Secretary of War in charge of the finance of the Pentagon was partner of an accounting firm, Kearney which has strong business with the Pentagon
  • Lester Lyle, director general of General Dynamics was Air Force National Commander
  • Wilbur Ross, US Commerce Secretary had the following members of his advisory group: CEOs of Apple, Visa, Walmart, Home Depot, IBM, US Chamber of Commerce, the Association of Community College.

There are also what we might describe as the “three way traffic swinging-doors”, namely

“The Corporations, Pentagon and  Think Tanks Triad” 

Some of the key members of the Washington war camp work for war corporations, the Pentagon and think tanks. In this dynamics, The Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) is often implicated.

The bribery system and the swinging-door apparatus of policy making is necessarily supportive of the culture of corruption.

“Corporate America as a whole was also corrupting hearts and minds numbing the public with entertainment and deluging with commercialism.” (Sorensen: p.60)

What are the negative impacts of American wars?

There are internal and external negative impacts of American wars. The internal negative impacts of the American wars include human cost and economic cost.

The human cost of American perpetual war is high. Nobody knows how many Americans are killed or wounded. But some estimates say that as many as 50,000 Americas have been wounded in addition to tens of thousands of GIs who have been killed due to the perpetual wars.

“There is no honest accounting of the where how and why we are killing-how United States citizens are being protected and what security benefits are actually accruing to the United States in continuing perpetual war.” (William M. Arkin: Newsweek)

The economic and social costs are high. The destruction of America’s potential economic growth is attributable to insufficient investments in education, health and infrastructure. 

The U.S. invests almost $1.0 trillion a year to sustain its perpetual wars, forcing Americans to contribute $2,200 a year (in taxes) to finance the wars.

The opportunity cost of American wars is high. The opportunity cost means investments which have been avoided due to the wars.

Here are some examples of “opportunity costs”:

  • $70 billion to fight poverty;
  • $42 billion to repair 43, 586 deficient bridges;
  • $10.6 billion for the proposed program for the Center for Disease Control;
  • $11.9 billion for the Environment Protection Agency;
  • $17 billion for children who are starving.

Besides, Washington needs money to save 100,000 Americans who die every year from drug overdoses.

Washington must finds way to eliminate street killings which happen four times every single day.

More than 10 % of Americans are not covered by medical insurance. Even those who do have medical insurance, the insurance cost is beyond the reach of the majority of Americans.

Another serious internal negative impact of the war is increasing public debt.

In 2023, the U.S. public debt is $ 31 trillion as against $ 27 trillion for its GDP. This means that public debt is 14.8% more than GDP.

A good part of this debt is attributable to wars. In fact, the Iraq war produced a U.S. public debt of $3 trillion.

This is a very dangerous situation, because with this kind of public debt, the country’s fiscal policy becomes utterly useless.

Now, as for the external negative impact of American wars, the impacts are beyond description. 

Almost 1.3 million people were killed in Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan alone, not to mention. the flow of millions of refugees.

Over the years, the perpetual American wars have ruined national economies; they have undermined religions and traditional values; they took away the hope for better life of the people of the countries which have been the targets of American wars.

What is really disturbing is this. The American wars are supposed to promote and keep world safer. But, in reality, the American wars have instead worsened global security and safety of civilians.

“After two decades of fighting, in fact, not one country in the Middle East – not a country in the world – can argue that it is safer than it was before 911. Every country that is now a part of the expanding battle field of perpetual war is a greater disaster than it was than decade ago.” (newsweek.com ibid).

So, who are benefitting from American wars? Sorensen offers an answer.

“The only people who ultimately benefit from militarized drugs war are perfidious flag officers, the D.C. regime executives, war corporations and a few native American elites.” (Sorenson: p. 298)

I may go further. I say that the beneficiaries are the members of the APWC.

Will the American wars continue?

Despite its terribly negative impact, these wars will continue, because it is beneficial to the APWC.

The perpetual war requires the following strategies: perpetual existence of enemies on the one hand and, on the other, the adoption of invisible and politics-free war.

If there is no demand for the war, there will be no war.

Hence, in order that the war perpetuates, there must be sustained demand for war.

But, in order that there be demand for war, there must be crisis and there should be crisis making countries or individuals. These countries and individuals become enemies of America.

There have allegedly been several waves of military crises in the eyes of APWC.

The first wave of crisis: the spread of communism, 1950-1989

The second wave of crisis: the threat of terrorism, 1990-present

The third wave of crisis: danger of nuclear proliferation, 1950-present

The fourth wave of crisis: the war on drugs, 1990-present

The fifth wave of crisis: human right violations 2001-present

Thus, there are several ongoing crisis and enemies. Hence, the APWC has little to be concerned with the lack of enemies.

According to William M Arkin, Washington has bombed or is bombing these countries: Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, Pakistan, Somalia, Yemen, Libya, Niger, Mali, Uganda Moreover, there are ten more countries which might be bombed. These are mostly African countries including Cameron, Chad, Kenya and 7 other countries.

Moreover, the APWC is used to invent enemies. The probable next crisis target could be the “Yellow-Peril crisis” involving China and other Asian countries.

President, Joe Biden has decided to intervene in case of “crisis” in foreign countries even without the authorization of the countries involved. This can provide a lot of potential enemies.

Anyway, as far as the existence of enemies is concerned, the AWPC has little to be worried about. There will be plenty of them, if not, the APWC will invent them.

For instance, not-being pro-U.S. could be treated as crisis and crisis-maker, categorized as an enemy of America.

The next hurdle to overcome for APWC is to tackle the anti-war movement in the U.S. and elsewhere in the world.

The solution is to find ways of making wars invisible, saving American lives but profitable. This can be done through the use of unmanned weapons and production cost saving by using AI-based technology, which allows long-distance warfare by virtue of “hub-spoke” war strategy under which one can attack the enemy without being present at the battle ground.

More and more, war is undertaken by a system of hub-spoke.  In the current war against terrorism, hubs are located in several Middle East countries, Kuwait being the Army hub and Bahrain being the Navy hub. The spokes are spread throughout the world, especially in the Middle East and Africa.

William M. Arkin describes the efficiency of the hub-spoke model of war.

“It is so little understood, so invisible, so efficient,, even so as four successive presidents have promised and then tried to stop warfare, the spokes have grown and expanded.”

The reason for developing this type of warfare is the need for being free from anti-war public and anti-war politics.

“The War Brings Money”. The Vicious Circle of Human Greed

But the most important reason for the perpetuity of America wars is the vicious circle of human greed.

  • The war brings money;
  • Money invites wars;
  • Wars bring in more money;
  • More money leads to even more wars and ad infinitum.

This is the vicious circle of human greed.

Since human greed has no boundary, American wars will remain perpetual.

Thus, American wars can go on and on until there will be no more valuable enemies.

In other words, the war will go on until the total destruction of the world.

So, to save the world, the perpetual American wars should be stopped.

*

 

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. Joseph H. Chung is professor of economics at the University of Quebec in Montreal (UQAM), he is member of the Center of Research on Integration and Globalization of (CEIM-UQAM). He is Research Associate of the Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG).

Featured image is from The Unz Review

G7 ITALIA: Un Vertice di Guerra

June 22nd, 2024 by Manlio Dinucci

Il mainstream ha presentato il Vertice G7 in Puglia, sotto presidenza italiana, come una sorta di grande evento mondano, ignorando il Comunicato finale: un documento di circa 40 pagine con cui il G7 – composto dalle 6 maggiori potenze della NATO più il Giappone, principale partner NATO in Asia Orientale – enunciano il loro programma. Denunciano la Russia per “la brutale e ingiustificabile guerra di aggressione contro l’Ucraina, e per la palese violazione da parte del diritto internazionale e dei principi fondamentali che sono alla base dell’ordine internazionale.”

Annunciano quindi che “il G7 lancerà prestiti straordinari, al fine di rendere disponibili circa 50 miliardi di dollari di finanziamenti aggiuntivi per l’Ucraina entro la fine dell’anno, e che tali prestiti saranno rimborsati da entrate derivanti dall’immobilizzazione di beni sovrani russi detenuti nell’Unione Europea.” Il G7 dichiara quindi che “il continuo sostegno della Cina alla base industriale russa della Difesa sta permettendo alla Russia di mantenere la sua guerra illegale in Ucraina” e intima alla Cina di “cessare il trasferimento alla Russia di materiali a duplice uso.”

Allo stesso tempo il G7 accusa la Cina di attuare “politiche e pratiche non di mercato che stanno portando a ricadute globali e dannose sovraccapacità in una gamma crescente di settori, minando i nostri lavoratori, le nostre industrie, la nostra resilienza economica e la nostra sicurezza.” Questi e altri passaggi del Comunicato del Vertice dimostrano chiaramente qual è la posta in gioco delle guerre e dei preparativi di guerra che gli Stati Uniti e le altre maggiori potenze dell’Occidente stanno conducendo dall’Europa al Medioriente e all’Asia Orientale, dall’Africa all’America Latina.

Con tale strategia l’Occidente cerca di conservare il predominio che sta perdendo di fronte all’emergere di un mondo multipolare. Basti ricordare che il debito nazionale degli Stati Uniti ha superato i 34.000 miliardi di dollari e che nei prossimi dieci anni supererà i 56 mila miliardi di dollari. IlBollettino degli Scienziati Atomici Statunitensi avverte, in base a precisi dati, che siamo di fronte a “una massiccia ricostruzione dell’intero arsenale nucleare statunitense, che comprende anche nuovi missili terrestri a lungo raggio, nuovi sottomarini, nuovi bombardieri stealth a lungo raggio che trasporteranno i nuovi missili da crociera stealth e importanti aggiornamenti ai missili trasportati dai sottomarini. Il costo totale di tutto questo, mantenendo gli armamenti esistenti, sarà di oltre 1.200 miliardi di dollari.”

Manlio Dinucci

VIDEO :

Mais um acerto da diplomacia brasileira

June 22nd, 2024 by Eduardo Vasco

A chamada “Cúpula da Paz” ocorrida na Suíça teve um desfecho óbvio. Não levou a lugar nenhum. Pudera, pois desde o início o fracasso das pretensas negociações já era iminente.

Convocada a pedido do presidente ucraniano, Vladimir Zelensky, a reunião de alto nível não teve a participação da Rússia. Como bem argumentou o governo brasileiro, uma reunião que quer discutir os passos para o fim de um conflito não pode ocorrer sem que todos os lados do conflito estejam representados e com os mesmos direitos de voz.

A Rússia não foi convidada. Também já havia adiantado que não participaria de um encontro na Suíça de qualquer maneira, uma vez que o país abandonou o seu tradicional status de neutralidade ao se unir à campanha de Estados Unidos e Europa contra os russos.

Sempre foi uma exigência do governo ucraniano que a Rússia não participasse das negociações de paz. Mas a alta diplomacia não pode funcionar sob os mesmos preceitos de uma campanha de propaganda de guerra. Por mais que se considere o inimigo um demônio, é primordial negociar com ele quando não se consegue vencê-lo no campo de batalha. E a Ucrânia, de fato, está perdendo para a Rússia no campo de batalha.

Nesse sentido, talvez interesse mais ao próprio governo ucraniano do que ao russo estabelecer uma negociação de paz. A Ucrânia não tem qualquer perspectiva de recuperação do terreno perdido – pelo contrário, pode perder ainda mais território para a Rússia.

As negativas de Zelensky são típicas de um menino mimado, que se acostumou com os suntuosos presentes recebidos quase diariamente pelos papais e titios do Ocidente. Mas nenhum desses presentes está fazendo o efeito desejado. A negociação é a única solução para a Ucrânia.

Como um governo que, desde o início, tem se projetado como um ator para a estabilização da paz mundial, o Brasil tem sido coerente com os princípios diplomáticos e pacíficos tanto de sua tradição na política externa como das ideias expressas pelo presidente Lula.

A postura brasileira tem sido pragmática mais do que ideológica. Lula já conversou tanto com Zelensky como com Putin. Já “cutucou” o presidente ucraniano e também o presidente russo, afirmando que os dois têm a mesma dose de culpa pela guerra. Afinal, disse Lula, quem não quer a guerra precisa sentar para conversar. E a conversa não pode ser com a parede, mas sim com o outro lado.

Dessa forma, é absolutamente natural que o Brasil não tenha enviado um alto representante para a Cúpula da Suíça, e tampouco tenha assinado a declaração final. O comportamento do Brasil vai ao encontro do de outros países que, ao contrário da Suíça, têm se posicionado de maneira realmente neutra.

África do Sul, Arábia Saudita, Emirados Árabes Unidos e Índia (todos dos BRICS) também se recusaram a assinar a declaração final do encontro, afinal entendem igualmente que nenhuma negociação séria pode ser feita sem a outra parte no conflito, a Rússia. Não querem aderir à pura e simples propaganda que foi tal declaração, assim como a cúpula como um todo.

O resultado foi que, ao contrário de representar um isolamento da Rússia, a Cúpula da Suíça foi uma enorme vitória para Moscou. O tiro de Zelensky e de seus patrocinadores saiu pela culatra.

A própria presidenta da Suíça, Viola Amherd, teve de admitir que a Rússia precisa ser incluída nas negociações. Uma reunião de cúpula unilateral não tem futuro nenhum.

Ao contrário, um encontro em que os russos estejam representados em condições de igualdade com a parte ucraniana é a única forma de obter algum sucesso diplomático. E uma reunião como essa atrairia a mais alta atenção internacional, pois teria a participação dos países que não foram à Suíça ou não aderiram à declaração final.

E esses países são precisamente os líderes do chamado “Sul Global”, ou seja, da maioria mundial que constituem os países historicamente oprimidos pela minoria americano-europeia. Essa maioria não está interessada na continuidade da guerra para o enfraquecimento da Rússia, ao contrário da minoria.

O governo Zelensky parece ter entendido que o caminho escolhido até agora não levou a lugar nenhum – nem mesmo para os interesses da Ucrânia e de seus aliados. A Rússia só se fortaleceu desde 2022, não o contrário. O suposto isolamento russo diante da “comunidade internacional” não passa de retórica propagandística.

“Nós achamos que será possível convidar um representante da Rússia”, disse Andrey Yermak, chefe do gabinete presidencial ucraniano, referindo-se a uma nova cúpula, “mais representativa”, que tenha como meta “o fim da guerra e a resolução da crise”.

Fica cada vez mais claro que o único caminho viável são negociações do tipo proposto por Brasil e China, que declararam conjuntamente a necessidade de uma reunião em que todas as partes da guerra estejam plenamente representadas em igualdade de condições.

Uma cúpula como essa, mais possível do que nunca, seria uma vitória histórica da diplomacia brasileira e projetaria a influência do Brasil de uma maneira sem precedentes. Todos os países realmente neutros – a maioria global – estão de acordo com uma proposta igual à sino-brasileira. E aos países promotores da guerra (EUA e Europa) já não resta praticamente mais nenhuma alternativa: sentar para negociar com a Rússia ou aprofundar a própria crise com a manutenção da guerra na Ucrânia, que a Rússia está vencendo.

O Brasil está claramente na vanguarda dos países pobres, e neste cenário isso significa que é mais protagonista que os países ricos no âmbito diplomático. Os setores mais dependentes dos Estados Unidos dentro do país sempre atacaram a iniciativa brasileira pela paz na Ucrânia, ressoando os incômodos da Casa Branca e do Pentágono com a postura soberana do Brasil. Essas ideias devem ser rechaçadas de modo contundente, pois são um atraso enorme com relação à política que o presidente Lula está tentando levar adiante, e que está se demonstrando absolutamente exitosa.

Utilizando o vocabulário geopolítico, o Brasil tem todas as condições de se tornar um player global de primeira ordem se mantiver essa postura soberana.

Eduardo Vasco

*

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

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

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

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

New Year Donation Drive: Global Research Is Committed to the “Unspoken Truth”

***

Charles Kovess: All right Your Grace over to you now.

We would be delighted to hear your views of what’s happening in the church, and we’re recording this and the people who see this they will get the benefit of your wisdom on what is happening.

Over to you.

Video: 

Transcript 

Archbishop Vigano: Yes, thank you for giving me this opportunity to address you on this occasion.

And I share with you some matters regarding the present situation in the world and in the church.

For the past four years, we have been witnessing the implementation of a criminal plan of world depopulation, achieved through the creation of a false pandemic and imposition of her false vaccine, which you now know to be a biological weapon of mass destruction, designed with the aim of destroying the immune system of the entire population, causing sterility and the onset of deadly diseases.

Many of our friends and acquaintances have died or been severely damaged by the adverse effects of these experimental gene serums.

Many have discovered too late that they have been the victims of a global plan with a single script and a single direction.

What is even more serious is that this new Malthusian project of mass extermination, to which is added the will to control each of us through graphene oxide nano structures, has been announced to us for some time by those in the World Health Organization and the World Economic Forum who conceived and implemented it.

The rulers of the western states, hostage to Bill Gates and Klaus Schwab, have become accomplices to this crime, demonstrating their malice and premeditation by their behaviour of falsifying data on alleged infection, doctoring statistical data to attribute death and adverse effects to covid-19 but not to the gene serums, prohibiting effective treatments and imposing harmful protocols that have no scientific basis, banning autopsies and preventing accurate reports to authorities.

In this attack, unprecedented in the history of the human race, we have witnessed the complicity of all national and International institutions, the entire medical profession, and the media.

A social engineering operation has been carried out to manipulate consensus through terror threats, blackmail, and the violation of citizens’ most sacrosanct fundamental rights.

The Judiciary has been silent.

The armed forces have looked the other way.

The teachers and priests have zealously cooperated.

We are well aware of the perpetrators of this crime against God and Humanity.

Of course, the multinational pharmaceutical corporations have profited disproportionately from mass vaccination and they are now prepared to accumulate still more billions of dollars from the need for treatments against the turbo cancers that their serums have caused.

Those who peddle the vaccine and profited from administering this poison to pregnant women children and elderly, have funded the self-styled experts, paying them to propagandize false efficacy and safety through the mainstream media.

Multinationals have profited and due to the lockdowns they have taken the place of small businesses, restaurants and local shops.
Energy suppliers have profited and are still profiting out of the crisis created by the system.

They have made huge profits by the costs of electricity and gas that are forcing businesses to increase prices and close.

Those who took advantage of the restrictions to work from home, those who sold mask that were not only useless but actually harmful, those who provided plexiglass barriers and hand sanitizers, and those who manage the measurement of fever in public places also took their cut of profit.

Many of them who understood perfectly well what was happening preferred to remain silent so as not to miss the opportunity to make money off the lives and health of the rest of us.

But it’s not just money that is the motive for this crime.

Behind the motivation of many is the will to power of the subversive Davos elite, which aims to establish the New World Order.

The psycho pandemic has been a dress reaction for the attack they are now making against the economy, the social fabric and indeed the very life of humanity.

15-minute cities, digital identity, returning money and the destruction of agriculture and ranching all serve the same purpose stated in the agenda 2030 and the Rockefeller foundation’s great reset project.

The wars in Ukraine and Palestine have also the same purpose, to destabilise the international order, create permanent crisis, and fuel conflict that will impoverish individual Nations and feed the globalist Leviathan.

Gaza’s oil fields are tempting targets for those who want to appropriate them in order to keep Europe and United States under blackmail, especially when the same people are imposing insane energy policies in the name of a fake climate emergency.

Today the perpetrators of these crimes have a name and a face, their accomplices in governmental institutions are guilty of high treason and very serious crimes.

All come from the World Economic Forum and were students of his program called Young Global Leaders for Tomorrow.

Others like George Soros supported them by means of philanthropic foundations that fuel social strife, Civil War and colour revolutions around the world.

This Global coup d’état must be denounced and those responsible must be tried and judged by an international Court.

But above all it is necessary for all of us to understand that this all-out war against humanity is not motivated only by their lust for wealth and power but mainly by a religious motive, a theological reason.

This reason is Satan’s hatred: hatred of God, hatred of God’s creation and hatred of man who is created in the image and likeness of God.

Bill Gates, Klaus Schwab, George Soros and their hundreds of servants whom they blackmail in government all hate God, and they hate life, which only God can give.

They hate love which comes only from God.

They hate peace, which can reign only where Christ reigns.

As Tucker Carlson said a few days ago, we are facing people who serve Satan and the Demons of hell.

Just as the normal people worship and serve God.

This is a battle in which body and soul, matter and spirit, are made the objects of mortal attack by men and spiritual powers.

But let us not forget that if our enemy avails himself of the help of infernal Spirits we have on our side the Lord God of all armies arrayed, Dominus Deus about and all the hosts of angels and Saints infinitely more powerful.

God is Almighty.

Let us never forget that.

He is father. He does not abandon his children in time of crime.

And therefore, I exhort you dear friends to fight this battle with the spiritual weapons that God places at your disposal: prayer, trust in the Lord and the awareness that this enemy will not be defeated where it is most organized and fearsome but by striking it where it is weak.

This weakness comes from his corruption, from his being subservient to evil from the (toll) of all sins that it has committed and still commits: sins against God’s little children.

Because the men and women who in these four years have submitted to enduring lockdowns, violation of their rights, job deprivation and social segregation are not willing to tolerate the crimes that this cursed network of perverts and paedophiles commits against children.

Therefore, bring to light and courageously denounce the network of complicity and crimes of politicians, bankers, actors, journalists, prelates and famous people who are united by their blood pact.

And the whole castle of lies and deceptions that they have hatched will collapse, dragging with it the entire Globalist plan, woke ideology, gender theory, the fake climate emergency and fraud and digital currency.

“Simul staben, simul caden” says the Latin maxim: “just as they stand together, so also they will collapse together”.

Stay strong therefore under the banner of Christ and in the army of God, who is Almighty and who won the cross, has already won the world that is now entering in his final stages.

Gather around the Lord, call His holy name and this will give impetus to your battle.

Remember the words of Saint Paul: “I can do all things through him who strengthens me”.

May God bless you all.

Charles Kovess: Thank you. Thank you, Your grace. That is that is most powerful important and thank you so much for sharing.
Stephen. Please say hello to the Archbishop and we got started because we had him at the start.

Stephen Frost: So Archbishop Vigano I’m so grateful to you for actually seeing my email. I thought you hadn’t seen it. But you had and thank you for coming on and standing with us and speaking to us today. That’s so nice of you.

Archbishop Vigano: Thank you. I will, just had that but I mentioned that several times in my intervention that also the church and in particular the Holy See had been infiltrated in this battle from the side of Satan.

This is the situation for that we need now to to for ourselves this and use this weapon spiritual weapons that I mentioned in my address. May God bless you.

Stephen Frost: 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.

Featured image source


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.

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

The crimes committed by the US against the people of Korea in the course of the Korean War but also in its aftermath are unprecedented in modern history.

“We Killed Off – What – Twenty Percent of the Population. We Burned Down every Town in North Korea…”

The above quotation is from General Curtis Lemay, who coordinated the bombing campaign (1950-53)

Who is a Threat to Global Security? The US or the DPRK?

The public perception of the entire population of  North Korea is that the US is a threat to their national security.

During the Korean War, the DPRK lost more than 25% of its population.

***

Video Documentary

This episode details the UN bombing campaign over North Korea and the results for the people on the ground.

The majority of civilians killed in the Korean War were killed in North Korea by air attack.

(This segment on the bombing of North Korea was censored from the US version of this documentary.)

The truce talks continue with no progress, as the war stalemates at around the 38th Parallel. See my websites detailing Korean bombing ranges:

거첨도 폭격 연습장 (1946-1948)

http://www.dokdo-research.com/page15….

독도 폭격 연습장 (1947-1953) http://www.dokdo-research.com/temp3.html


 


The population of North Korea was of the order of 8-9 million in 1950 prior the Korean War. US sources acknowledge 1.55 million civilian deaths in North Korea, 215,000 combat deaths. MIA/POW 120,000, 300,000 combat troops wounded.

What we are dealing with are crimes of genocide under international law. 

(Article 2 of the “Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide”(1948))

In contrast, during the Second World War, the United Kingdom lost 0.94% of its population, France lost 1.35%, China lost 1.89% and the US lost 0.32%.

Casually ignored by the Western media and the international community, the US has actively deployed nuclear weapons targeted at North Korea for more than half a century in violation of article 13b) of the 1953 Armistice agreement.

 

Video: Michel Chossudovsky’s Presentation to the Japanese Foreign Correspondent’s Club on US Aggression against the People of Korea, Tokyo, August 1, 2013

This is what Pyongyang looked like in 1953: the result of US incendiary and carpet bombing of all major cities without exception.

This is how it looks today.

This urban infrastructure is largely residential ( Compare Pyongyang’s towers to the Trump Towers).

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Video: U.S. Crimes of Genocide against Korea: “We Killed Off – What – 20% of the Population. We Burned Down every Town in North Korea…”

Article first published in April 2023

Introductory Note

NATO now firmly acknowledges that the war started in 2014 which would have required that from the very outset in February  2014 the warring parties abide by the Four Basic Principles of  The Law of Armed Conflict (LOAC) which consists in:

“….respect for and protection of the civilian population and civilian objects, the Parties to the conflict shall at all times distinguish between the civilian population and combatants and between civilian objects and military objectives and accordingly shall direct their operations only against military objectives.” [Additional Protocol 1, Article 48]

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.

Visibly the president of the I.C.C. Piotr Hofmanski in accusing President Putin of “unlawful kidnapping of Ukrainian children” hasn’t the foggiest understanding of Article 48. of the Law of Armed Conflict (LOAC). 

Is this an issue of incompetence?

Or has Piotr Hofmanski been co-opted into endorsing or casually ignoring the extensive crimes against humanity committed by the Neo-Nazi Azov Battalion, which happens to be supported by US-NATO? 

At the Peace Conference in Switzerland (15-16 June, 2024), Russia has been accused of  

“Genocide-like Deportation of Ukrainian Children”. 

See this (first minute) with Trudeau who supports the Neo-Nazi regime:

“Russia kidnapped thousands of Ukrainian kids, its genocide, it’s pure colonialism”

And then see where these children were sent. 

 

Michel Chossudovsky, Global Research, August 8, 2023, June 18, 2024

 

***

The International Criminal Court (ICC) has issued arrest warrants for President Vladimir Putin and his Children’s Rights commissioner, Maria Lvova-Belova, over the alleged “unlawful kidnapping of Ukrainian children’.  According to the I.C.C: 

“there are reasonable grounds to believe that each suspect bears responsibility for the war crime of unlawful deportation of population and that of unlawful transfer of population from occupied areas of Ukraine to the Russian Federation, in prejudice of Ukrainian children.”  (emphasis added)

The I.C.C. accusation directed against Vladimir Putin of “kidnapping” or “deportation” of Ukrainian children borders on ridicule.

The president of the I.C.C. Piotr Hofmanski (see below) refers to the Geneva Convention, without addressing the rights of civilians in a war zone.

The Azov Battalion as well as Ukrainian forces have routinely bombed civilians in Donbass since 2014. The I.C.C. fails to acknowledge that killing children in a war zone is a crime against humanity. 

Swastika, Azov Battalion’s SS Wolfsangel symbol, NATO Flag (Right to Left)

These are the Nazi terrorists who are killing children in Donbass. Their legitimacy is tacitly upheld by the I.C.C. They are generously funded by the “International Community”. 

The Nazi SS Wolfsangel symbol 

The war did not start in February 2022. Since 2014, Donbass residential neighbourhoods, schools, hospitals, ambulances, etc. have been routinely targeted. From the 2014 Euromaidan and the US sponsored Coup d’Etat to February 2022, up to 14,000 Donbass residents have been killed. 

Bombing of schools: It’s terrorism instigated by Kiev against Ukrainian Children.

What is the truth? What is the lie?

Thousands of children were killed by the Neo-Nazi Azov Battalion (which is supported by US-NATO). 

Fleeing the war zone to save your children is tagged by the I.C.C. as “deportation”.

The people of Donbass have been under constant shelling for nearly a decade now and they don’t even duck when hearing incoming shells and rockets.

Children born in the besieged region don’t know what peace is. For them, shells hitting their homes is a “normal”, regular occurrence.

They never got the chance to see anything else. (Drago Bosnic, June 1, 2022, emphasis added)

Starting in 2014, thousands of Donbass families including children were provided safe haven in Russia, as part of a humanitarian initiative under the auspices of  Moscow’s Ministry of Emergency Situations.

Russian families have welcomed them and provided assistance.

Many of the children who were provided safe haven in Russia are orphans whose parents were killed by the Azov Battalion.

And this is categorized by the I.C.C. and the mainstream media as the “kidnapping of children” by the President of the Russian Federation.

What absolute nonsense. It’s not only “nonsense”, it’s the concurrent “criminalization of mainstream media” and of the ICC.

“Genocide-like Deportation of Ukrainian Children” According to PM Trudeau (June 16, 2024)

“Russia kidnapped thousands of Ukrainian kids, its genocide, it’s pure colonialism”

See this (first minute) with Trudeau who supports the Neo-Nazi regime.

And then see where these children were sent. 

 

Russian Youth Camp categorized as War Crimes against Children

 

Video: Inside a Russian YouthCamp Condemned by the ICC

 

Who are The War Criminals

The I.C.C. has carefully turned a blind eye to the endless war crimes committed by US-NATO. Millions of civilians killed, not to mention Tony Blair and GWB’s illegal invasion of Iraq in March 2003, Twenty Years Ago. 

Donbass. Humanitarian Endeavor or “War Crimes”?

Russia’s initiative in support of Donbass civilians has been ongoing since the outset in 2014. Thousands of lives have been saved. 

It started in Rostov on the Don (Ростов на Дону) about 100 km from the border with Ukraine, see map below) which had established facilities starting in 2014 to assist protect the people of Donesk and Luhansk.

 

The following June 12, 2014 report provides details on what is depicted by the I.C.C and the media as the “kidnapping of children”:

One can see how the Rostov region [June 2014] is gradually turning into an area neighboring the combat zone. Thousands of refugees cross the border fleeing the territory of Donetsk People’s Republic. It becomes clear we face a serious disaster with grave consequences to follow. On June 4 [2014], Vassily Golubev, the Rostov region governor, declared emergency in 15 border areas.

According to regional authorities, 995 Ukrainians including 489 children, found refuge in the region as of June 6. 2014.

The flow increased the following days. The recent report [June 2014] says 7335 Ukrainian citizens entered the Rostov region while 4272 left. A local source informed that there were 2102 people, 930 children, given refuge in 15 municipal districts.  About half of the refugees were given accommodation by local people while  many of  them are living in tents.

It was my job to take care of refugees – or potential refugees – from Donbass. The people from Ukrainian Lugansk region also go to the office of unrecognized Donetsk People’s Republic to ask for help. We do our best, but it’s not that easy.  We help the refugees from the Donetsk and Lugansk People’s Republics to cross the border and we temporarily accommodate them but the resources are scarce.

We should admit that the local branches of Russia’s Ministry of Emergency Situations are doing a perfect job. Still the problems are plentiful. The refugee’s legal status is to be defined. Are they foreigners? Immigrants compelled to change the place of residence?  They never know what is in store for them and how long they are going to stay in Russia.  The tragedy is immense. Summer will fly away soon. It’ll become colder. What next?

They tell a lot of things media outlets never report, especially war stories. A former special operations officer saving the children from shells, 17 year old boys on barricades defending the Donbass populated areas from Ukrainian tanks.

The people in Rostov and other Russian cities call and send letters and e-mails offering help.

Time will pass and many things will be obliterated.

But these unobtrusive people ready to act like heroes will always stay in memory.

What is happening on the territory of Donbass declared a combat zone by Kiev where it conducts its “anti-terrorist operation”?  There is a large concentration of Ukrainian troops there.  …

The Azov Battalion’s Nazi Indoctrination Camp for Children and Adolescents 

The Azov battalion is not only involved in killing children in Eastern Ukraine, it has also been running a Summer Camp military training project (starting in 2014-2015) for young children as part of its broader Nazi indoctrination program.

© vk.com/tabir.azovec
 
 
The Nazi Wolfsangel SS symbol on their T-Shirts
 Nazi tatoo insignia on Azov trainer’s arm
© vk.com/tabir.azovec
© vk.com/tabir.azovec

© vk.com/tabir.azovec

 

The Nazi Summer Camps constitute a crime against Ukrainian children, which the I.C.C., Western governments and the media have casually ignored.

Compare the Nazi children’s training camp to the Russian Youth Camp for Alleged Kidnapped Donbass orphans, which is tagged by the I.C.C. as a crime against humanity.

And the media applaud. And this article is the object censorship.

For details See:

Ukraine’s “Neo-Nazi Summer Camp”. Military Training for Young Children, Para-military Recruits

By Prof Michel Chossudovsky, March 02, 2023

*

Note to readers: Please click the share buttons 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 Mystery of Israel. “Reveals Something So Evil”

June 21st, 2024 by David John Sorensen

All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the Translate Website button below the author’s name.

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.

First published on October 18, 2023

 

 

 

GR Note: This is a carefully research video. As of approximately 40’00”, it includes statements of a religious nature which some readers might find inappropriate and/or misleading.

D-Day 2024. Diana Johnstone

June 21st, 2024 by Diana Johnstone

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.

Global Research Wants to Hear From You!

***

Ceremonies were held last week commemorating the 80th anniversary of Operation Overlord, the Anglo-American landing on the beaches of Normandy that took place on June 6, 1944, known as D-Day.  For the very first time, the Russians were ostentatiously not invited to take part in the ceremonies. 

The Russian absence symbolically altered the meaning of the festivities. Certainly the significance of Operation Overlord as the first step in the domination of Western Europe by the English-speaking world was more pertinent than ever. But without Russia, the event was symbolically taken out of the original context of World War II.

Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky was invited to give a video address to the French Parliament in honor of the occasion.  Zelensky pulled out all the rhetorical stops to demonize Vladimir Putin, describing the Russian president as the “common enemy” of Ukraine and Europe. 

Russia, he claimed “is a territory where life no longer has any value… It’s the opposite of Europe, it’s the anti-Europe.”

So after 80 years, D-Day symbolically celebrated a different alliance and a different war — or perhaps, the same old war, but with the attempt to change the ending. 

Here was a shift in alliances which would have pleased a good part of the pre-war, British upper class. From the time he took power, Adolf Hitler had many admirers in Britain’s aristocracy and even in its royal family. Many saw Hitler as the effective antidote to Russian “judeo-bolshevism.”  

At the end of the war, there were those who would have favored “finishing the job” by turning against Russia. It has taken 80 years to make it happen. But the seeds of the reversal were always there.  

D-Day & the Russians

Soviet and Polish Armia Krajowa soldiers in Vilnius, July 1944. (Polish National Archive/Wikimedia Commons/Public domain)

In June 1941, without so much as a pretext or false flag, Nazi Germany massively invaded the Soviet Union. In December, the United States was brought into the war by the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor.  

As the war raged on the Eastern front, Moscow pleaded with its Western allies, the U.S. and Britain, to open a second front in order to divide German forces.  By the time the Western Allies landed in Normandy, the Red Army had already decisively defeated the Nazi invaders in Russia and was on the verge of opening a gigantic front in Soviet Belarus that dwarfed the Normandy battle. 

The Red Army launched Operation Bagration on June 22, 1944, and by Aug. 19 had destroyed 28 of 34 divisions, completely shattering the German front line.  It was the biggest defeat in German military history, with around 450,000 German casualties. After liberating Minsk, the Red Army advanced on to victories in Lithuania, Poland and Romania.

The Red Army offensive in the East undoubtedly ensured the success of the Anglo-American-Canadian Allied forces against much weaker German forces in Normandy. 

D-Day & the French

As decided by the Anglo-Americans, the only role for the French in Operation Overlord was that of civilian casualties. In preparation for the landings, British and American bombers pounded French railway towns and seaports, causing massive destruction and tens of thousands of French civilian casualties. 

In the course of operations in Normandy, numerous villages, the town of St Lô and the city of Caen were destroyed by Anglo-American aviation.

The Free French armed forces under the supreme command of General Charles de Gaulle were deliberately excluded from taking part in Operation Overlord. De Gaulle recalled to his biographer Alain Peyrefitte how he was informed by British Prime Minister Winston Churchill:

“Churchill summoned me to London on June 4, like a squire summoning his butler. And he told me about the landings, without any French unit having been scheduled to take part. I criticized him for taking orders from Roosevelt, instead of imposing a European will on him. He then shouted at me with all the force of his lungs: ‘De Gaulle, you must understand that when I have to choose between you and Roosevelt, I’ll always prefer Roosevelt. When we have to choose between the French and the Americans, we’ll always prefer the Americans.’”

As a result, De Gaulle adamantly refused to take part in D-Day memorial ceremonies

“The June 6th landings were an Anglo-Saxon affair, from which France was excluded. They were determined to set themselves up in France as if it were enemy territory! Just as they had just done in Italy and were about to do in Germany! … . And you want me to go and commemorate their landing, when it was the prelude to a second occupation of the country? No, no, don’t count on me!”

Excluded from the Normandy operation, in August the Free French First Army joined the Allied invasion of Southern France. 

The Americans had made plans to impose a military government on France, through AMGOT (Allied Military Government of Occupied Territories). 

This was avoided by the stubbornness of de Gaulle, who ordered the Resistance to restore independent political structures throughout France, and who succeeded in persuading supreme Allied Commander General Dwight Eisenhower to allow Free French forces and a Resistance uprising to liberate Paris in late August 1944.

De Gaulle and entourage on the Champs Élysées following the city’s liberation on Aug. 26, 1944. (Imperial War Museums, Wikimedia Commons, Public domain)

D-Day in Hollywood

France has always celebrated the Normandy landing as a liberation. Polls show, however, that views of its significance have evolved over the decades.  Soon after the end of the war, public opinion was grateful to the Anglo-Americans but overwhelmingly attributed the final victory in World War II to the Red Army.  

Increasingly, opinion has shifted to the idea that D-Day was the decisive battle and that the war was won primarily by the Americans with help from the British.  This evolution can be largely credited to Hollywood.

The Marshall Plan and French indebtedness provided the context for post-war commercial deals with both financial and political aspects. 

On May 28, 1946, U.S. Secretary of State James Byrnes and French representative Léon Blum signed a deal concerning motion pictures. The Blum-Byrnes agreement stipulated that French movie theaters were required to show French-made films for only four out of every 13 weeks, while the remaining nine weeks were open to foreign competition, in practice mostly filled by American productions. 

Hollywood had a huge backlog, already amortized on the home market and thus cheap. As a result, in the first half of 1947, 340 American films were shown compared to 40 French ones.

France reaped financial benefits from this deal in the form of credits, but the flood of Hollywood productions contributed heavily to a cultural Americanization, influencing both “the way of life” and historic realities.  

The Normandy landing was indeed a dramatic battle suitable to be portrayed in many movies. However, the cinematic focus on D-Day has inevitably fostered the widespread impression that the United States rather than the Soviet Union defeated Nazi Germany.

Alliance Reversal No. 1 – The British

Britain’s King Charles and the queen at a D-Day commemoration in Portsmouth, U.K., on June 5. (No 10 Downing, Flickr, CC BY-NC-ND 2.0)

By June 1944, with the Red Army well on the way to decisively defeating the Wehrmacht, Operation Overlord was hailed by Soviet leaders as a helpful second front. For Anglo-American strategists, it was also a way to block the Soviet Westward advance. 

British leaders, and Churchill in particular, actually contemplated moving Eastward against the Red Army once the Wehrmacht was defeated. 

It must be recalled that in the 19th  century, British imperialists saw Russia as a potential threat to its rule over India and further expansion in Central Asia, and developed strategic planning based on the concept of Russia as its principal enemy on the Eurasian continent.  This attitude persisted. 

At the very moment of Germany’s defeat in May 1945, Churchill ordered the British Armed Forces’ Joint Planning Staff to develop plans for a surprise Anglo-American attack on the forces of their Soviet ally in Germany. 

Top-secret until 1998, the plans even included arming defeated Wehrmacht and SS troops to take part. This fantasy was code-named Operation Unthinkable, which coincides with the judgment of the British chiefs of staff, who rejected it as out of the question.  

At the February Yalta meeting just three months earlier, Churchill had praised Soviet leader Joseph Stalin as “a friend whom we can trust.”  The reverse was certainly not true.  One might assume that Franklin D. Roosevelt would have dismissed any such plans had he not died in April.

Roosevelt seemed confident that the war-exhausted Soviet Union was no threat to the United States, which was indeed true. 

Seated from left: Churchill, Roosevelt and Stalin at the Yalta Conference in 1945. (Wikimedia Commons/Public domain)

In fact, Stalin always scrupulously respected the sphere of influence agreements with the Western allies, refusing to support the communist liberation movement in Greece (which angered Josip Broz Tito, contributing to Moscow’s split with Yugoslavia) and consistently urged the strong Communist Parties in Italy and France to go easy in their political demands. While those parties were treated as dangerous threats by the right, they were fiercely opposed by ultra-leftists for staying within the system rather than pursuing revolution.

Soviet and Russian leaders truly wanted peace with their erstwhile Western allies and never had any ambition to control the entire continent.  They understood the Yalta agreement as authorizing their insistence on imposing a defensive buffer zone on the string of Eastern European States liberated from Nazi control by the Red Army. 

Russia had undergone more than one devastating invasion from the West. It responded with a repressive defensiveness which the Atlantic powers, intent on access everywhere, saw as potentially aggressive.  

The Soviet clampdown on their satellites only hardened in response to the Western challenge eloquently announced by Winston Churchill 10 months after the end of the war. The spark was lit to a dynamic of endless and futile hostility. 

Churchill was voted out of office by a Labour Party landslide in July 1945. But his influence as wartime leader remained overwhelming in the United States. On March 6, 1946, Churchill gave an historic speech at a small college in Missouri, the home state of Roosevelt’s inexperienced and influenceable successor, Harry Truman. 

The speech was meant to renew the wartime Anglo-American alliance – this time against the third great wartime ally, Soviet Russia. 

Churchill titled his speech, “Sinews of Peace.”  In reality, it announced the Cold War in the historic phrase: “From Stettin in the Baltic to Trieste in the Adriatic, an iron curtain has descended across the Continent.”

The Iron Curtain designated the Soviet sphere, essentially defensive and static. The problem for Churchill was the loss of influence in that part of the world. A curtain, even if “iron,” is essentially defensive, but his words, were picked up as warning of a threat.

“Nobody knows what Soviet Russia and its Communist international organisation intends to do in the immediate future, or what are the limits, if any, to their expansive and proselytising tendencies.” (This despite the fact that Stalin had dissolved the Communist International on May 15, 1943.)

In America, this uncertainty was soon transformed into a ubiquitous “communist threat” that needed to be hunted down and eradicated in the State Department, trade unions and Hollywood.

Alliance Reversal No. 2: The Americans

Actor Brad Pitt, center, flanked by employees of the Pentagon’s Defense Media Activity, during the world premiere at the Newseum in Washington D.C. of the 2014 movie Fury, about the U.S. Army in World War II. (Department of Defense, Marvin Lynchard, Public domain)

The alleged need to contain the Soviet threat provided an argument for U.S. government planners, notably Paul Nitze in National Security Council Paper 68, or NSC-68, to renew and expand the U.S. arms industry, which had the political advantage of putting a decisive end to the economic depression of the 1930s. 

Nazi collaborators throughout Eastern Europe could be welcomed in the United States, where intellectuals became leading “Russia experts.”  In this way, Russophobia was institutionalized, as old-school WASP diplomats, editors and scholars who had nothing in particular against Russians made way to newcomers with old grudges.

Among the old grudges, none were more vehement and persistent than that of the Ukrainian nationalists from Galicia, the far west of Ukraine, whose hostility to Russia had been promoted during the time that their territory was ruled by the Habsburg Empire. Fanatically devoted to denying their divided country’s deep historic connection to Russia, Ukrainian ultra-nationalists were nurtured for decades by the C.I.A. in Ukraine itself and in the large North American diaspora. 

We saw the culmination of this process when the talented comedian Volodymy Zelensky, in his greatest role as  tragedian, claimed to be “the heir to the Normandy” invasion and described Russian President Putin as the reincarnation of Adolf Hitler, out to conquer the world — already an exaggeration for Hitler, who mainly wanted to conquer Russia. Which is what the U.S. and Germany apparently want to do today.

Alliance Reversal No. 3: Germany

While the Russians and Anglo-Americans joined in condemning the very top Nazi leaders at the Nuremberg trials, denazification proceeded very differently in the respective zones occupied by the victorious powers. 

In the Federal Republic established in the Western zones, very few officials, officers or judges were actually purged for their Nazi past.  Their official repentance centered on persecution of the Jews, expressed in monetary compensation to individual victims and especially to Israel. 

While immediately after the war, the war itself was considered the major Nazi crime, over the years the impression spread through the West that the worst crime and even the primary purpose of Nazi rule had been the persecution of the Jews.  

The Holocaust, the Shoah were names with religious connotations that set it apart from the rest of history.  The Holocaust was the unpardonable crime, acknowledged by the Federal Republic so emphatically that it tended to erase all others. As for the war itself, Germans could easily consider it their own misfortune, since they lost, and limit their most heartfelt regret to that loss.

It was not Germans but the American occupiers who determined to create a new German army, the Bundeswehr, safely ensconced in an alliance under U.S. control.  Germans themselves had had enough. But the Americans were intent on solidifying their control of Western Europe through the North Atlantic Treaty Organization. 

NATO’s first secretary general, Lord Ismay – who had been Churchill’s chief military assistant during World War II – succinctly defined its mission: “to keep the Americans in, the Russians out, and the Germans down.”

Nato Secretary General Lord Ismay in Chaillot’s Palace, Paris, 1953. (NATO, Flickr, CC BY-NC-ND 2.0)

The United States government wasted no time in selecting qualified Germans for their own alliance reversal. German experts who had gathered intelligence or planned military operations against the Soviet Union on behalf of the Third Reich were welcome to continue their professional activities, henceforth on behalf of Western liberal democracy.

This transformation is personified by Wehrmacht Major General Reinhard Gehlen, who had been head of military intelligence on the Eastern Front. In June 1946, U.S. occupation authorities established a new intelligence agency in Pullach, near Munich, employing former members of the German Army General Staff and headed by Gehlen, to spy on the Soviet bloc.  

The Gehlen Organization recruited agents among anti-communist East European émigré organizations, in close collaboration with the C.I.A. It employed hundreds of former Nazis.  It contributed to the domestic West German political scene by hunting down communists (the German Communist Party was banned).  

The Gehlen Organization’s activities were put under the authority of the Federal Republic government  in 1956 and absorbed into  the  Bundesnachrichtendienst (BND or Federal Intelligence Service), which Gehlen led until 1968. 

Gehlen in undated photo. (US Army, Signal Corps, Wikimedia Commons, Public domain)

In short, for decades, under U.S. occupation, the Federal Republic of Germany has fostered the structures of the Alliance Reversal, directed against Russia.  The old pretext was the threat of communism.  But Russia is no longer communist.  The Soviet Union surprisingly dissolved itself and turned to the West in search of lasting peace.  

In retrospect, it becomes crashingly clear that the “communist threat” was indeed only a pretext for great powers seeking more power. More land, more resources.

The Nazi leader Adolf Hitler, like the Anglo-American liberals, looked at Russia in the way mountain-climbers proverbially look at mountains.  Why must you climb that mountain? Because it’s there. Because it’s too big, it has all that space and all those resources. And oh yes, we must defend “our values”.

It’s nothing new. The dynamic is deeply institutionalized.  It’s just the same old war, based on illusions, lies and manufactured hatred, leading us to greater disaster.  

Is it too late to stop?

*

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.

Diana Johnstone was press secretary of the Green Group in the European Parliament from 1989 to 1996. In her latest book, Circle in the Darkness: Memoirs of a World Watcher (Clarity Press, 2020), she recounts key episodes in the transformation of the German Green Party from a peace to a war party. Her other books include Fools’ Crusade: Yugoslavia, NATO and Western Delusions (Pluto/Monthly Review) and in co-authorship with her father, Paul H. Johnstone, From MAD to Madness: Inside Pentagon Nuclear War Planning (Clarity Press). She can be reached at [email protected]

Diana Johnstone is a Research Associate of the Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG)

Featured image: The British Normandy World War II Memorial in Ver-su-Mer, Normandy, France, June 6, 2024.  (Number 10 Downing, Flickr, CC BY-NC-ND 2.0)

UE acredita que Ucrânia desvia o dinheiro que recebe.

June 20th, 2024 by Lucas Leiroz de Almeida

Apesar de continuar a financiar a guerra contra a Rússia, a UE parece confiar cada vez menos nos ucranianos. A Comissão Europeia anunciou recentemente a criação de um órgão de vigilância especial para monitorizar o dinheiro enviado ao regime de Kiev. O objetivo é impedir a corrupção e evitar que a ajuda financeira seja roubada por criminosos e oligarcas. As suspeitas de desvio de dinheiro europeu na Ucrânia aumentam dia a dia, à medida que o governo ucraniano continua a ser reconhecido como um dos mais corruptos do mundo.

Em 17 de junho, foi criado um gabinete especial em Bruxelas para investigar casos de corrupção, fraude e irregularidades na gestão do dinheiro europeu por funcionários ucranianos. A UE espera obter maior controle sobre o dinheiro atribuído à Ucrânia, evitando que indivíduos corruptos utilizem indevidamente a ajuda. O órgão de vigilância funcionará pelo menos até 2028, fornecendo relatórios regulares à Comissão Europeia e expondo quaisquer preocupações.

Há meses, a UE aprovou o envio de 50 mil milhões de euros em ajuda à Ucrânia. Prevê-se que o dinheiro seja totalmente utilizado até 2027. Destina-se principalmente a financiar a reconstrução das infra-estruturas da Ucrânia e a modernização tecnológica do país, reparando os danos causados ​​pelo conflito. Espera-se também que forneça serviços públicos de qualidade à população, bem como promova as reformas sociais necessárias para a adesão da Ucrânia à UE – embora muitos analistas acreditem que tal adesão nunca acontecerá.

A corrupção na Ucrânia não é novidade. Antes da operação militar especial, até os jornais ocidentais admitiam que Kiev era o Estado mais corrupto da Europa. A política ucraniana é controlada por uma rede de oligarcas corruptos e criminosos de todos os tipos, tanto no governo como no setor privado. No entanto, este aspecto vital do cenário político ucraniano começou a ser irresponsavelmente ignorado pelo Ocidente a partir de 2022, com o fluxo sistemático de dinheiro e armas que muitas vezes acabam nas mãos de criminosos em Kiev.

Existem numerosos relatórios de inteligência e meios de comunicação social que mostram que ucranianos corruptos estão a vender armas da OTAN no mercado negro, sendo fornecedores de grupos terroristas e milícias ilegais em todo o mundo. Muitas destas armas já foram vistas nas mãos de terroristas em África e de criminosos na Europa Ocidental. No entanto, a posição das potências ocidentais tem sido a de simplesmente ignorar a verdade e continuar a “ajudar” a Ucrânia, enviando pacotes militares no valor de milhares de milhões de dólares, mesmo sabendo que isso beneficia os interesses egoístas de indivíduos corruptos e oligarcas.

Curiosamente, as autoridades europeias também mencionaram que um dos objetivos do órgão de vigilância é fortalecer o Estado de direito e as instituições democráticas na Ucrânia. A comissão, neste sentido, não teria apenas o propósito de monitorizar o dinheiro europeu, mas também de “ajudar” Kiev a melhorar a sua situação política e institucional, o que estaria supostamente relacionado com o processo de reforma para o país cumprir os requisitos para a adesão à UE .

Na verdade, parece extremamente irrealista esperar que a Ucrânia cumpra realmente os “requisitos democráticos” da Europa. A corrupção na Ucrânia é endêmica e só pode ser eficazmente combatida através de uma reconfiguração política completa – que os Europeus obviamente não apoiam, uma vez que isso implicaria o fim do regime de Maidan. Na prática, a corrupção e a cultura criminosa do Estado ucraniano favorecem o Ocidente, sendo os oligarcas locais os maiores aliados da OTAN. O golpe de Maidan em si não teria acontecido sem o forte apoio de funcionários e empresários corruptos. Assim, muito provavelmente, o “fortalecimento da democracia ucraniana” nada mais será do que retórica.

Na verdade, os europeus sabem que milhares de milhões dos seus pacotes de ajuda serão desviados e há pouco que possam fazer para evitar isso. O cão de guarda serve como elemento dissuasor contra a corrupção, mas com pouco poder efetivo, uma vez que a UE obviamente não tem autoridade para punir os cidadãos ucranianos por crimes cometidos em território ucraniano. A única coisa que a Comissão poderia fazer para reagir ao desvio de fundos em Kiev seria parar a ajuda, o que certamente não fará, uma vez que o envio sistemático de assistência militar e financeira é fortemente encorajado pelos EUA – que lideram o Ocidente Coletivo.

Toda a política europeia para a Ucrânia foi ditada por Washington. Impor sanções à Rússia e financiar a guerra não é vantajoso para os europeus, que dependem de boas relações com Moscou para a sua estabilidade social. No entanto, a subserviência da UE à OTAN leva o bloco a manter uma política irracional de hostilidade para com a Rússia e de apoio incondicional à Ucrânia. Assim, mesmo sabendo que os seus fundos serão expropriados por indivíduos corruptos, a UE continuará muito provavelmente a enviar milhares de milhões de dólares ao regime neonazista.

Lucas Leiroz de Almeida

 

 

Artigo em inglês : EU believes Ukraine may embezzle aid funds, InfoBrics, 18 de Junho de 2024.

Imagem : InfoBrics

*

Lucas Leiroz, jornalista, pesquisador do Center for Geostrategic Studies, consultor geopolítico.

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

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

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

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

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

***

Context  

On June 12, 2024, the European Commission determined provisionally that subsidies within China’s battery electric vehicle (BEV) value chain are inflicting economic damage on EU manufacturers.[1] According to the official website, the Commission has publicly announced the specific amount of preliminary countervailing duties on imports of battery electric vehicles from China. The obligations for three selected Chinese manufacturers will be 17.4% for BYD, 20% for Geely, and 38.1% for SAIC. Additional Chinese battery electric vehicle manufacturers will face a combined duty rate consisting of a weighted average duty of 21% and a residual duty of 38.1%.

In the official document[2], Brussels conveniently defended its decision based on a piece of unilateral legislation[3] without stating its compatibility with WTO rules. U.S. Secretary of the Treasury Janet L. Yellen’s pressure was largely invisible in the document. However, the pressure did exist. In the remark by Janet Yellen in Germany on May 21, 2024, she made it clear that the export crackdown on Chinese battery electric vehicles will be “a focus at the G7 meetings in Italy.” Protectionist tariffs are thus the homework to do before the meetings.

This likely explains the submission of the homework on June 12, 2024, a day prior to the G7 meetings. There are, however, three obstacles ahead. 

An Unhappy United States

In the eyes of Washington, half-done homework should not be regarded as serious homework. A pre-disclosure of envisaged tariff punishment is “for information purposes only” to reuse the formulation in the EU’s document. It produces, at best, lip service but does not exert the actual effects. The US is not pleased about it.

More seriously, the pre-disclosure placed a bid to the US, asking for rewards from US in return for pushing back China. Results-oriented people in Washington may have reasonable doubts about the sincerity of the EU in this alliance. Months ago, the EU high officials made black-and-white commitments towards the US on October 20, 2023, that “economic resilience requires de-risking and diversifying” with regard to China and that critical dependencies and vulnerabilities in supply chains are to be reduced, also with regard to China.[4] When the US-led world order is in turbulence and the US is making serious commitments on several fronts, the allies benefiting from such a world order are counting gains and losses in their account. This is not gestures of loyalty. 

A Rising China

By taking this legal action, the EU made a bid to China because the pre-disclosure suggests that nothing has been decided yet and everything is subject to negotiation. The legal action does not enhance the negotiating power of the EU. Because EU regulations do not have the force of international law, On the contrary, they are subject to international legal scrutiny. By international law, we refer to the international agreements that the EU has firmly entered into, to which its partners have also given their consent. The rules of the World Trade Organization are particularly relevant to this case. By using unilateral regulations, the EU is simply hiding the fact that its actions lack a legal basis in international law. Every now and then, the EU could have legislated that the sun revolves around the earth, but the legislation cannot change the objectively existent world. The EU’s lawmakers understand it. However, for practical reasons, it is much easier for some in Brussels to just legislate than to promote a competitive industry.

This legal action is just void card-making. The China-EU trade and investment relationship, as an international relationship, should be based on international rules, not on EU rules nor on Chinese rules. Countries around the world adopt the common practice of using industrial subsidies to guide industrial development and adjust industrial structure. China’s industrial subsidy policy is mainly guiding; the relevant subsidy policy has been timely and comprehensively notified to the WTO, and there are no subsidies prohibited under the WTO. China, in its negotiations with the EU, will continue without regard to the prerequisites set up by the EU’s unilateral legal actions. The EU’s lawmakers also understand this.

Void card-making has not enhanced the EU’s reputation. In a long period after the end of the Cold War, the EU was the flagbearer of free trade and a market economy. Then, the so-called enforcement actions taken by the EU against China today are very similar to the to the brutal actions that the EU criticized some decades ago regarding some third-world countries. This has had a significant impact on the EU’s reputation and prestige in the global economic order, as well as dampened the confidence of Chinese investors in the EU. This situation is not beneficial for Europe’s economic development, nor is it beneficial for the stability and health of the global supply chain. Ultimately, “de-risking” will become “de-opportunity,” “de-cooperation,” and “de-development.”

Clocks Are Ticking

There is one clock ticking for industrial development. History suggests that it was just a matter of time for Napoleon’s Continental blockade to fail. It won’t be forever for the EU to use legislative tools to hold on to external competitiveness. It will be even sooner for the EU to lose its international market. More importantly, some allies soon realized that huge gains could be made by not fully implementing the blockade.

The US electoral clock is also ticking for the EU. The US presidential election will take place on November 5, 2024. By a happy coincidence, the EU’s definitive conclusion is set to be delivered on November 2, 2024. Obviously, the spectre of Donald Trump looms over the EU since Donald Trump is never a big fan of transatlantic relations. What the EU is doing now cannot gain scores from Trump. Everything is unpredictable after November 5, 2024.

The Way Forward

November 2nd, 2024, is a self-imposed deadline in which EU investigation comes to a conclusion. If we look further, it is also a deadline imposed by the US. The EU can secure an agreement before the deadline. This agreement-making should be swift, WTO-compatible, mutually beneficial, and forward-looking. A marathon of agreement-making is never easy, given the past experiences of negotiation on similar subjects.

That said, China is much less concerned about the US election. Neither Trump nor Biden will change the course of the Sino-US relationship. China will continue to develop its technological advances, no matter what policy change the US election makes. Moreover, the Chinese battery electric vehicle sector does not depend on the European market or US directives for its development. The Chinese internal market and the markets of One Belt, One Road partners are vast enough to nurture pioneer enterprises. Moreover, China is taking the high ground of low carbon economy and economic liberalization. The frontline is on the European side, not on the Chinese side.

The EU must decide, and it still has 5 months to implement. By adopting a continental blockade, the EU is set to lose its international market in the short term and its internal market in the long run. If US election goes south for the EU as well, it will be a less distinguished guest for the US. There isn’t “four more years”, the author is afraid, for the European policy to turn around. European legal practitioners well informed of geopolitics won’t make such mistakes.

On the contrary, the EU can share the profits from an integrated Eurasia value chain of the electric vehicle industry with China, both domestically and internationally. It can also continue the non-sense investigations as it pleases, knowing that such an investigation has no weight on the negotiation nor on the cooperation later. The negotiation is about candid discussion rather than playing tricks. China is looking for the best partner based on its observation of players’ choice.

*

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.

Simon C. is a PhD researcher on international law in Brussels.  He focuses on public international law and international investment law. He is especially interested in major country relationship, international cooperation and international development.

Notes

[1] https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/ip_24_3231

[2] Notice of initiation of an anti-subsidy proceeding concerning imports of new battery electric vehicles designed for the transport of persons originating in the People’s Republic of China.

[3] Regulation (EU) 2016/1037 of the European Parliament and the Council of 8 June 2016 on protection against subsidized imports from countries not members of the European Union

[4] U.S.-EU Summit Joint Statement, Washington DC, 20 October 2023. 

Featured image is from New Eastern Outlook

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.

***

Hello everyone and welcome to the latest edition of Bird Flu Digest, formerly known as OffGuardian.

The wall-to-wall coverage of Bird Flu is getting wallier-to-wallier with each passing week, to the point it’s almost hard to keep up with the waves of hot takes and chilling insights. But if you’re going to try, the best place to do it is right here, where I spend a good portion of my time reading very similar articles in very similar papers all about the danger of a pandemic they’re about to pretend is happening.

Not a dream of mine growing up, but life’s like that.

Anyway…bird flu.

In our last bird flu update, we pointed out that the “bird flu death” in Mexico was very likely no such thing, and that reporting it as such was right out of the Covid playbook.

Since then the head of Mexico’s Health Ministry has criticized the WHO for calling it a bird flu death at all.

But the big bird flu news is that former head of the US CDC Robert Redfield has gone hysterical, telling NewsNation:

I really do think it’s very likely that we will, at some time, it’s not a question of if, it’s more of a question of when we will have a bird flu pandemic.”

This story was naturally picked up and spread everywhere, but Redfield is hardly alone in this hysterical panic-fueling nonsense.

Last week, The Conversation headlined:

An ounce of prevention: Now is the time to take action on H5N1 avian flu, because the stakes are enormous

USA Today echoes the tone:

Concerns grow as ‘gigantic’ bird flu outbreak runs rampant in US dairy herds

Apparently a new study has found something scary – Americans “have little to no pre-existing immunity to the H5N1 avian flu”. Frightening stuff.

Just a few hours ago the Daily Mail reported on yet another doctor doling out yet another dire warning. This time Dr Rick Bright, who told PBS that:

We’re being blindfolded in this battle right now, and I’m really concerned that the virus is winning the game and getting ahead of us.’

We’re flying blind and the disease is getting ahead of us! It’s running rampantand the stakes are enormous!

Even some channels that supposedly know better are spreading the fear.

CNN is frantic with worry – “We aren’t doing enough about the risk of bird flu – but we can”. Popular Science is relatively calm, asking “Can we prevent a bird flu pandemic in humans?”, before reassuring us that we can…as long as we all do as we’re told.

All of these stories talk about “gathering data”, “flying blind”, and the need for “prevention”. And all of that is really code for “testing”. Almost every article talks up the need to increase testing – both of humans and animals.

But anyone who’s been paying attention since 2020 knows PCR tests don’t gather data, they create data. They are machines for generating “cases”. Far from preventing a pandemic, they can be used to manufacture one.

There are even early signs of mandating tests going forward, such as this Politico article bemoaning the lack of farmers voluntarily signing up for government surveillance programs:

The federal response is largely focusing on voluntary efforts by farmers to help track and contain the outbreak. But many farms still have not signed up for USDA efforts to boost surveillance and testing for the virus.

And the solution to this is more money:

Although federal funds have been allocated, no farms have enrolled in voluntary on-site milk testing, according to the USDA. Fewer than a dozen farms have applied for separate financial aid in exchange for boosting biosecurity measures to help contain the virus.

Paying farmers to test their animals is another recycled Covid strategy. It will generate cases, which will generate culling, which links us up with the other aspect of “bird flu” – not “the next pandemic” but “the war on food”.

As the alleged disease allegedly spreads from poultry farm to dairy farm more and more chickens are being culled and cows slaughtered. This is going to escalate even further soon, when governments start paying farmers to destroy their cattle.

Again, from Politico:

…federal rulemaking is delaying the rollout of compensation for farmers who have lost or had to kill cows because of the disease.

Translation: They want to pay farmers to test their cows, then “financially compensate” them when they have to be destroyed. This is just like the UK’s “Environmental Land Management” schemes or the US “Conservation Reserve Program”, both of which pay farmers not to farm. The goal will be to make it more profitable for farmers to kill their cows than milk them.

Incentivizing testing, rewarding positive results. That’s how you make a pandemic out of nothing, and sabotage the food system in the process.

But there’s good news, after all the the EU is already procuring 40 million doses of vaccines, just in case. And the Moderna stock price keeps going up too. So there’s that.

Honestly, it’s like watching a movie where they signpost the “surprise” twist ending inside the first five minutes, and then you have to sit through two interminable hours of what the writers clearly consider to be subtle foreshadowing.

It’s getting to the point I just want them to do the bloody pandemic and get it over with.

*

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 OffGuardian

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 raises the stakes in the US’ dangerous game of nuclear chicken with Russia in Ukraine, accelerates the US’ “Pivot (back) to Asia”, and could thus trap China and the US in an escalation spiral that moves the New Cold War out of Europe.

Russia and North Korea just clinched a mutual defense pact during President Putin’s trip to Pyongyang, which followed his counterpart Kim Jong Un’s visit to Vladivostok last September that was analyzed here. This agreement is a geopolitical game-changer for three fundamental reasons:

–it raises the stakes in the US’ dangerous game of nuclear chicken with Russia in Ukraine;

–accelerates the US’ “Pivot (back) to Asia”;

–and could thus trap China and the US in an escalation spiral that moves the New Cold War out of Europe.

To explain, the first outcome can be interpreted as one of Russia’s promised asymmetrical responses to the West arming Ukraine.

If Russia achieves a military breakthrough across the front lines that’s exploited by some NATO members as the pretext for commencing a conventional intervention which provokes a Cuban-like brinkmanship crisis in Europe, then North Korea might provoke its own such crisis in Asia in order to remind the US about the principle of “Mutually Assured Destruction” (MAD).  

Valdai Club expert Dmitry Suslov, who’s also a member of the Russian Council on Foreign and Defense Policy and Deputy Director of World Economy and International Politics at Moscow’s Higher School of Economics, published a piece at RT where he observed that the US “lost its fear of the mushroom cloud”. He therefore suggested a “demonstrative” nuclear test in order to scare some sense back into Western warmongers, but Russia’s new mutual defense pact with North Korea could serve the same purpose.

In the Western mindset, North Korea is synonymous with nuclear scares and World War III, so knowing that it could symmetrically escalate in Asia out of solidarity with Russia in response to the US escalating in Europe might make American policymakers think twice about crossing Russia’s red lines there. After all, it would already be difficult enough managing the escalation ladder in one Cuban-like brinksmanship crisis, let alone two at the exact same time on opposite ends of Eurasia.

As regards the second point about accelerating the US’ “Pivot (back) to Asia”, this process is already unfolding as proven by the way in which the US is tightening its containment noose around China in the first island chain through its newly formed “Squad” with Australia, the Philippines, and Japan. Even so, the US is still clinging to its political fantasy of inflicting a strategic defeat on Russia, which is why its post-2022 ramped-up military presence in Europe hasn’t yet been scaled back and redirected towards Asia.

If Russia begins carrying out regular drills with North Korea and transfers high-tech military equipment to that country, then the US might feel coerced into speeding up its “Pivot (back) to Asia” at the possible expense of maintaining its pressure on Russia in Europe. The abrupt rebalancing of the US’ attention could make some of its NATO allies reconsider conventionally intervening in Ukraine since the US might no longer approve of this due to the difficulty of managing newfound North Korean-related tensions.

And finally, any tangible progress on hastening the US’ “Pivot (back) to Asia” would reduce the possibility of it and China normalizing their ties anytime soon since it could catalyze a self-sustaining escalation cycle as China responds to the US’ moves and then the US responds to China’s and so on and so forth. The US couldn’t agree to scale back its military presence in Northeast Asia as part of a speculative grand compromise with China due to the qualitatively enhanced threat posed by Russian-backed North Korea.

Since it’s unlikely that China would ever agree to a lopsided deal with the US in exchange for normalizing their ties or at least reducing American pressure on the People’s Republic, such as that which would retain any predictably bolstered US military presence in Northeast Asia, this scenario can be ruled out. In that event, Sino-US ties could easily become trapped in the self-sustaining cycle of mutual escalation, with the result being that Asia quickly replaces Europe as the top theater of the New Cold War.

To sum it all up, Russia’s mutual defense pact with North Korea is a geopolitical game-changer because of the way in which it’ll likely trap China and the US in an escalation spiral, which works to the Kremlin’s benefit by creating the conditions for relieving American pressure upon it in Europe. It’ll take time to manifest though so the US might escalate in Ukraine and/or open up another front in Eurasia (ex: Central Asia and/or the South Caucasus) before then so everything might still get worse before it gets better.

*

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

This article was originally published on the author’s Substack, Andrew Korybko’s Newsletter.

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

Featured image is from the author

A Father’s Day Message to Rory McIlroy

June 20th, 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.

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

***

 

 

 

I’m easily old enough to be your father, and as I was watching and rooting for you when you missed those putts earlier today at The U.S. Open, I was thinking about my own father, and fathers and sons, winning and losing, and what those terms mean.  I have a son your age, also an excellent athlete in a different sport, as I was in my youth and my father in his turn.

Bitter it no doubt was to miss those putts, and shocking for the fierce competitor that you are.  It no doubt hurts a lot.  When you grimaced in pain, I did too.  But it’s not the end of the world or the end of your great golf career.  You will have other chances and you will win more Majors, but only if you forget today and stay focused on tomorrow and the days that follow.

There’s a profound wisdom in letting it go and dismissing comments such as Nick Faldo’s – “That’s going to haunt Rory for the rest of his life, those two misses.”  He may mean well, but such a statement fails to grasp an essential truth: that those who allow themselves to be haunted by the past, haunt their futures.  To follow such a road is a fool’s game.  It is the old Irishman William Butler Yeats at his pessimistic worst.

Yes, the luck of the Irish wasn’t with you on those holes, as it was earlier in your round with your many made difficult putts.  Like life itself, golf is a very strange game, as you know.  It begins in youth as a lark, pure fun in efforts to hit a small white ball with a long stick down green grass into a small hole.  A game of skill and chance before the play of life opens and so many lose their sense of fun and humor to the dark voices of the old disappointed ones.

Be bred to a harder thing than triumph always, be secret and exult, and remember Yeats in his merrier mood – wise words to Faldo’s words of doom and gloom – when Yeats wrote of the Fiddler of Dooney:

For the good are always the merry
Save by an evil chance
And the merry love the fiddle
And the merry love to dance:

And when the folk there spy me,
They will all come up to me,
With ‘Here is the fiddler of Dooney!’
And dance like a wave of the sea.

Or if you prefer a different poet, another minstrel boy, who sang a song of sage advice at about the same curly-headed age you were when you won your first major, listen to Dylan shock the older folks with Mr. Tambourine Man.

*

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, 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).  

Featured image: Rory McIlroy drives during a practice day for the 2013 BMW PGA Championship at Wentworth Club. (Licensed under CC BY 2.0)

Bill Gates Wants to Block-Off the Sun

June 20th, 2024 by Julian Rose

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.

First published on May 14, 2024

Global Research Wants to Hear From You!

***

From the beginning, scientists, politicians and leading cabal figureheads of fake green persuasion, have spoken about “considering carrying out stratospheric geoengineering programs” to block sunlight and cool the planet.

The irony of such statements is that they are made even while such activities are being carried out on a daily basis – in plain sight – and have been for at least the past 25 years.

Then the decidedly deranged Bill Gates steps in to add a further sun dimming dimension to the geoengineered toxic chemtrails already blocking vital sunshine from getting through to all elements of life that depend on it, not least we humans.

The prestigious Forbes ‘millionaire’s magazine’ reports that billionaire Gates’s intervention involves financing Harvard University scientists to establish what is being called ‘The Stratospheric Controlled Perturbation Experiment’ (SCoPEx) to examine if a sun dimming solution might be achieved by spaying calcium carbonate (CaCo3) dust into the atmosphere.

Forbes simply takes for granted this form of geophysical climate tampering to be a reality of life.

No doubt multi-millionaires don’t want to be unduly disturbed by investigations into the truth.

Calcium carbonate, the leaders of this project believe, will act as a sun reflecting aerosol that could offset the effects of global warming. It all sounds very familiar, doesn’t it?

Initial experiments, Forbes reports, would be done from near Kiruna in Sweden, from a high altitude balloon releasing some Ca Co3 into the atmosphere at the behest of the ‘Swedish Space Corporation’ (note ‘corporation’) the results being measured by scientific instruments carried by the balloon.

Such devilry, practised today by deviants of humankind like Gates, Schwab, Harari and Ceo’s of the United Nations, The World Health Organisation and the World Economic Forum within the domains of Covid, Climate and the biosphere, is dark indeed.

No wonder they are scared of the sunlight!

It is so easy for people to start following such developments as this Ca Co3 experiment, while completely ignoring the fact that global warming itself is a huge and diversionary scam. An invention – having nothing to do with empirical science or common sense based responsible observation.

So one lands up with layer upon layer of deliberate deception and obfuscation being promoted at vast cost by the main stream media, causing ordinary people to run round and round in ever diminishing circles, trying to make sense of what the supposedly all knowing ‘experts’ are pronouncing to be the latest discovery in how best to poison people and planet, reduce world population and establish themselves as immortal Transhumans. 

CO2 is actually an absolutely essential natural gas without which plant life would die; and because plants turn CO2 into our oxygen supply, so would people.

This is what is encoded as ‘Net Zero’ by our mad oppressors. It’s their ‘password’ for global extinction.

But the unawake think it means ‘the end of global warming’ and vote for the Green Fascism regime that specialises in subverting reality and twisting it into its opposite.

So the process of arriving at this very dark dead-end ‘Net Zero’ (zero carbon) is given the precise opposite slant to the reality, by claiming it as the successful culmination point of Green New Deal/Sustainable Development Agenda 2030 ‘saviour program’.

That’s it! The classic double speak of the well trained demon.

Just like Covid, it’s a huge military and pharmaceutical money laundering exercise. Bill Gates does not invest in anything which doesn’t produce very substantial returns.

He will be counting on this SCoPEx calcium carbonate experiment being deemed ‘a success’ and shares in this and related products, rocketing up into space – like Elon Musk’s Star Link global spy satellites.

However, David Keith, a professor of applied physics at Harvard University, who is working on this program, admits that no one knows what will happen until CaCO3 is released and studies the results afterwards, according to Forbes. 

He even speculates that the dust released could help repair the fractured ozone layer by reacting with ozone destroying chemicals.

Don’t hold your breath. There is always a positive spin put on these madcap scientific games. 

The team pushing forward this project claims to have discovered that volcanoes (spewing out millions of tons of unnotated CO2) produce a sulphuric ash cloud that has been recognised as lowering temperatures on earth by up to 1.5% centigrade.

Yes, so if ‘scientists’ could only see things holistically, they might understand that Gaia (earth) is a living, breathing planet – and that when such a sensitive entity experiences overheating, it sets off a few volcanoes in various parts of the world so as to self correct to its desired equilibrium. 

This is far beyond the comprehension of those locked into severe monocultures of the mind considered a requirement for being taken seriously in academic circles.

The ScoPEx trial and error atmospheric experiment is entered into as though the biosphere was a corporate laboratory, sealed off from any side effects or unexpected reactions – with nobody being asked if they agree to being lab rats on the receiving end of whatever may turn out.

Just like something called ‘Covid’, GMO, chemicals in food, genetically modified mosquitoes, mRNA jabs, fluoride in drinking water, electromagnetic radiation from cell phones and so forth.

“Let’s just put it out there, boys. It’s not our concern, we have legal immunity from having to suffer any negative consequences.”

Bill Gates and his Masonic brotherhood – belong to the Madkind camp; and it is this anti-life sect that regards itself as ‘above’ the need to try to understand the implications of what they get up to. 

So tampering with life support systems is all in the course of a good days work, once one subscribes to The Fourth Industrial Revolution/Green New Deal/Great Reset population reduction agenda – and the emergence of the DNA altered digitalised Transhuman race that is envisaged to follow.

But blocking the sun, Mr Gates. Is this really your latest plan for improving the quality of life of the human race?

Of course. It’s the sun that makes life on earth possible, so it must be rendered incapable of properly performing its duty, otherwise the human race might survive. Even Masonic god forbid, thrive!


 

A Bill Gates Venture Aims to Spray Dust Into the Atmosphere

to Block the Sun. What Could Go Wrong?

by  Ariel Cohen 

Forbes,  January 2021

Microsoft’s billionaire founder Bill Gates is financially backing the development of sun-dimming technology that would potentially reflect sunlight out of Earth’s atmosphere, triggering a global cooling effect. The Stratospheric Controlled Perturbation Experiment (SCoPEx), launched by Harvard University scientists, aims to examine this solution by spraying non-toxic calcium carbonate (CaCO3) dust into the atmosphere — a sun-reflecting aerosol that may offset the effects of global warming.  

Widespread research into the efficacy of solar geoengineering has been stalled for years due to controversy. Opponents believe such science comes with unpredictable risks, including extreme shifts in weather patterns not dissimilar to warming trends we are already witnessing. Environmentalists similarly fear that a dramatic shift in mitigation strategy will be treated as a green light to continue emitting greenhouse gases with little to no changes in current consumption and production patterns. 

SCoPEx will take a small step in its early research this June near the town of Kiruna, Sweden, where the Swedish Space Corporation has agreed to help launch a balloon carrying scientific equipment 12 miles (20 km) high. The launch will not release any stratospheric aerosols. Rather, it will serve as a test to maneuver the balloon and examine communications and operational systems. If successful, this could be a step towards a second experimental stage that would release a small amount of CaCO3 dust into the atmosphere.

David Keith, a professor of applied physics and public policy at Harvard University, recognizes the “very many real concerns” of geoengineering. It is true that no one knows what will happen until the CaCO3 is released and then studied afterward. Keith and fellow SCoPEx scientists published a paper in 2017 suggesting that the dust may actually replenish the ozone layer by reacting with ozone-destroying molecules. “Further research on this and similar methods could lead to reductions in risks and improved efficacy of solar geoengineering methods,” write the authors of the paper.

The exact amount of CaCO3 needed to cool the planet is unknown, and SCoPEx scientists similarly cannot confirm whether it is the best stratospheric aerosol for the job. Early research suggests that the substance has “near-ideal optical properties” that would allow it to absorb far less radiation that sulfate aerosols, causing significantly less stratospheric heating. This is the purpose of the experiment: once a safe, experimental amount of CaCO3 is released, the balloon will fly through it, sampling atmospheric reactions and recording resulting dynamics. Frank Keutsch, the project’s principal investigator, does not know what the results might bring. The perfect aerosol would not immediately tamper with stratospheric chemistry at all: “The only thing it would do is scatter maximum sunlight and hence cool down the planet.”

Click here to read the full article on Forbes.

 

*

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.

Julian Rose is an organic farmer, writer, broadcaster and international activist. He is author of four books of which the latest ‘Overcoming the Robotic Mind’ is a clarion call to resist the despotic New World Order takeover of our lives. Do visit his website for further information www.julianrose.info.

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.

Global Research Referral Drive: Our Readers Are Our Lifeline

First published on April 11, 2024

***

We  are  rapidly  waking  up  to the massive scam that promotes global warming/climate change as ‘doomsday scenario par excellence’.

In  this  film  (see below) is a succinct and powerfully presented series  of  exposes  by  scientists  and  climatologists coming clean about the real truth behind the global warming invention.

Highly recommended  viewing  for  all  in need of material that can be shared with others needing to be brought up to speed on this vital issue.

Climate  Change/Global  Warming  is  the  scare  tool  being  used  to completely capsize the world economy, destroy agriculture and act as a supposed critical ‘health hazard’ to the global population.

The  World Health Organisation has the audacity to claim that it is in a position to also rule on climate issues. So its ‘Pandemic Treaty’, if approved by The World Health Assembly this May 2024, looks like being the basis for placing both climate change and world health under its United Nations/World Economic Foundation backed despotic mantle.

Let us be in no doubt that the depopulation agenda is at the forefront of these maneuvers.

Covid, Climate and Health Care are now all weaponised by the elite Big Finance cult that pulls the strings of puppet political chiefs, non governmental  organisations (NGO’s) and all operatives that toe the line of the top down status quo.

I would wish that those speaking on this film had had the courage to raise their voices before their retirement. This is where true whistleblowers really come into their own. It takes courage.

Watch the movie below or click here.

Climate The Movie from Martin Durkin on Vimeo.

*

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.

Julian Rose is an organic farmer, writer, broadcaster and international activist. He is author of four books of which the latest ‘Overcoming the Robotic Mind’ is a clarion call to resist the despotic New World Order takeover of our lives. Do visit his website for further information www.julianrose.info 

He is a regular contributor to Global Research.

Featured image is from EcoWatch

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.

Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

Important article: First published on August 8 2022 pertaining to

“Climate Science” and the Destruction of the Family Farm 

In recent developments, farmers are literally being bought out.

The fake CO2 climate agenda is behind this insidious project”.

A prosperous agricultural economy is being destabilized. It is a deliberate process of engineered destruction of the World’s Second largest  agricultural export economy:

“Farms are being closed down in the Netherlands because of EU requirements and Brussels’ “Green Deal”. 

The government will soon be making “compulsory purchases” of up to 3000 farms. These will then be closed down. The farmers will be made an offer that is “far above” the value of the farm, said Nitrogen Minister Christianne van der Wal.”

Michel Chossudovsky, Global Research   Earth Day, April 22, 2023, June 20, 2024

***

Before we dive into this, it’s important to understand nitrogen and its role on Earth. The air human beings breathe is 78% nitrogen, 22% oxygen and 1% other stuff. Humans have been breathing nitrogen throughout their existence on Earth. Most nitrogen in Earth atmosphere is N2 molecules, which are mostly inert (chemically non-reactive). Nitrogen oxides, such as ammonia (NH3) and nitric oxide (NO) are the “bad” nitrogens that climate change people say will kill us all. But not having food will kill us all much quicker.

Nitrogen oxides are facts of life on Earth. Nitrous oxide (N2O), aka “laughing gas” and “whippets,” is the third-most abundant nitrogen oxide in the air, according to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Natural sources of N2O, including the oceans and ground soil under natural vegetation, account for 62% of all N2O. Nitrogen dioxide (NO2) and nitric oxide (NO) are the two most prevalent nitrogen oxides. Most NO2 comes from tobacco smoke, stoves and heaters. The primary sources of NO are fossil fuel combustion and adding fertilizers to soil.

It’s true that the largest human contribution of nitrogen oxides is agriculture. But a 2017 study by the University of Virginia and The Organic Center found that organic farming (i.e. using manure and compost for fertilizer and no chemical pesticides) reduces new reactive nitrogen emissions by 64% versus “conventional” farming.

Yet less than 1% of U.S. farmland and only 4% of Dutch farmland is certified organic. Meanwhile giant corporations – Monsanto/BASF, DuPont/Dow, and Syngenta/ChemChina – make all those poisonous pesticides and own all seeds planted for foods via patents. These three companies control the entire global farming industry.

If nitrogen oxide emissions were genuinely a global concern, the powers-that-be (TPTB) could simply shut down the foregoing companies and invest in organic farming. But we all know genuine concern for humanity is not, never has been, and never will be a priority for these people.

Dutch farmers fighting against extinction

The World Economic Forum is promoting yet another “bug chef.” Joseph Yoon is the founder of Brooklyn Bugs in New York. He travels the country, cooks bugs, caterpillars, etc., and eats them in front of people. Yoon has been in business since 2017. But Klaus and company recently endorsed him as part of The Great Reset agenda of “you’ll eat bugs and like it.”

In order for the bug agenda to work, people must be desperately hungry and still have a will to live. TPTB not only must condition people into believing bugs are food, but also engineer global famine that will force people to comply for sheer survival.

Bill Gates is one of the chief engineers. He currently owns 242,000 acres of farmland in the United States.

He purchased another 2,100 acres in North Dakota in June. The goal is to buy the land and leave it fallow as part of this planned global famine that we predicted would kill one billion people between now and the end of 2024. People will choose between eating bugs or starving to death. The Netherlands, a small country with only 18 million people, is vital to this genocidal agenda.

Christianne van der Wal is the “Dutch Minister for Nitrogen and Nature Policy” (yes, that’s a real position in government). She and Prime Minister (and World Economic Forum member) Mark Rutte conjured a fake crisis that calls for “cutting nitrogen emissions” by up to 70% by 2030. Granted the European Union reportedly had some sort of nitrogen emission mitigation plans in place since the 1970s. But nothing has really been done to address it since that time.

The current Dutch plan includes killing off 30% of the country’s livestock, which would put 30,000 farmers out of business and dramatically reduce meat supplies in Europe and beyond. The remaining farmers would be forced to cut nitrogen emissions by upwards of 95%, which would put them out of business too.

The Netherlands is the second-largest agricultural exporter in the world after the United States. It is the largest meat exporter in the European Union. Dutch farmers have been protesting almost non-stop since June. But mainstream media are barely covering it. Farmers have blocked highways with their tractors and by spreading cow manure and bales of hay across the roadways. Incredible photos like the following have been circulating online all summer.

The protests are reminiscent of the truckers convoy in Canada earlier this year.

But TPTB are not going to allow protesters to interfere with their goals. Like the Aussies prior to 2020, the Dutch are not accustomed to violent police thugs attacking them, as is modus operandi in the United States. It started during COVID lockdown protests in late 2021 and early 2022…

Click here to watch the video.

…and is getting worse during the farmers protests.

Click here to watch the video.

Cops rarely fire guns in the Netherlands. But they opened fire on a 16-year-old kid who was peacefully sitting in a tractor in early July.

Click here to watch the video.

The goal is to scare the farmers and their supporters into compliance and obedience.

The Bill Gates factor

Christianne van der Wal is married to Piet van der Wal, the son of Okke van der Wal, who passed away in 2019. Okke was one of the richest 500 people in the Netherlands, with most of said wealth coming from Boni supermarkets. The company has 44 stores across the Netherlands and a distribution center in Nijkerk. Bouke van der Wal, Piet’s brother, is technically listed as the owner of Boni now. But it’s the family business.

Picnic is a Dutch online supermarket with 70 delivery hubs and 10 distribution centers in the Netherlands, Germany and France. The company was founded in 2015 by five rich families, including the van der Wal’s. Picnic solely fulfills online orders and delivery.

Customers cannot walk into a store and buy anything. The controversy started in September 2021 when the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation essentially purchased the entire company for  €600 million, which was about $707 million at the time. Further, Picnic buys all of its groceries from Boni supermarkets.

These egregious conflicts of interest apparently matter not. “Nitrogen minister” Christianne created a policy to destroy the agricultural sector in the Netherlands, which exported over €104 billion in goods last year. Once said sector is gone, millions of Europeans will be forced to buy all of their groceries from Picnic/Boni, which substantially benefits the van der Wal family. And with Bill Gates in charge, that means a lot of insect-based and lab-created foods on the menu.

The Dutch know and understand what’s happening. Two Picnic distribution centers have been burned to the ground since December.

Stages of accepting genocide

It’s been a couple days since we’ve published new content because of work on The COVID Blog™ book. Part of the process is going back and reading all of the posts again, and feeling the general mood at the respective times.

In June 2021, most stories on the blog were about individuals dying of various #ABV excuses. TPTB were also still using the term “breakthrough cases,” meaning so-called COVID-19 cases despite being injected. Fourteen months later, we rarely write stories about just one victim because it no longer does justice in articulating the genocide. And the breakthrough narrative has long been eliminated since nearly all so-called COVID-19 cases now are vaxxed people.

A June 21, 2021 story about 12 nursing home patients dying in Belgium was the first and only time this blogger mentioned that Deagel website that’s become somewhat of a cliché. “It is going to be very interesting comparing the world population from 2020 to 2021 to 2022,” the story says. The Deagel archive is then linked. It of course “predicted” in 2013 that the United States would lose 70% of its population by 2025.

The website is never mentioned again on The COVID Blog™ because nobody knows who owns Deagel. There’s literally no information available about who or what the site is. It also removed those predictions from the site sometime in late 2020 or early 2021. It’s only available in archives now. Further, Deagel was mentioned in an email published by Wikileaks in 2012 from a Texas company called Stratfor. It does “global intelligence” for the aforementioned Dow, Lockheed Martin, Raytheon, and other government military contractors.

Deductive reasoning leads to the conclusion that Deagel.com is controlled revelations by TPTB.

That all said, you don’t need anonymous websites to know genocide is happening, particularly when you’ve been covering it from the very beginning. This blogger knew a lot of people were going to die from the vaccine genocide. But it wasn’t until January 2022 when the magnitude of this genocide became crystal clear. Attacks on the global food supply are near-daily occurrences, as is “you’ll eat bugs and like it” propaganda.

The Netherlands is one of the world’s largest producers of food.

This time next year, that will no longer be the case. And whether via post-injection deaths or famine, billions will die by then as well. Now is the time to switch totally to eating nothing but whole foods (grains, vegetables, meat, etc.) for mitigation purposes. All processed foods are now suspect. We have no idea what they are putting in that stuff. And it’s absolutely nauseating not knowing if you may have just swallowed ground up crickets, maggots or grasshoppers.

Stay vigilant and protect your friends and loved ones.

*

Note to readers: Please click the share buttons above or below. 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 WION

First published on November 13, 2023

***

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.

 

New Year Donation Drive: Global Research Is Committed to the “Unspoken Truth”

 

This article originally published on November 11, 2023 was revised on January 14th, 2024 with a focus on the dangers of escalation and the role of “False Flags”.

In recent developments, in response to Israel’s bombing of Iran’s Consulate in Damascus, according to media reports:

Iran has launched more than 300 cruise and ballistic missiles and drones at Israel, IDF officials said, a retaliatory attack weeks after an Israeli strike on the Iranian consular building in Syria killed two of Tehran’s top commanders.

“There were explosions visible in the air over Jerusalem as air sirens rang throughout the country.”

“Iran said that after tonight’s attack, the “matter can be deemed concluded” unless there is more violence.”

The fundamental question is whether this retaliatory attack will lead to escalation, including an Israeli counter-attack on Iran.

Video Interview

 

Video produced in November 2023

 

 

Expanding Middle East War.

Planned US-Israeli Attack on Iran,

The War on Energy, Strategic Waterways

by

Michel Chossudovsky 

1. In Solidarity with Palestine 

.

We stand in Solidarity with Palestine. But we must recognize that the United States Military and Intelligence apparatus is firmly behind Israel’s genocide directed against the People of Palestine.
.

And this must be part of the solidarity campaign, namely to Reveal the Truth regarding Washington’s insidious role, which is part of a carefully planned military agenda directed against Palestine and the broader Middle East. Netanyahu is a proxy, with a criminal record. He has the unbending support of Western Europe’s “Classe politique”. 

The U.S. led War on the People of Palestine and the Middle East is a Criminal Undertaking 

Israel and the Zionist lobby in the U.S. are NOT exerting undue influence AGAINST U.S. Foreign Policy as outlined by numerous analysts.

Quite the opposite. The Zionist lobby is firmly aligned with U.S. foreign policy, and Vice Versa. It targets those who are opposed to war, who call for a cease fire. It exerts influence in favour of the conduct of the U.S. military agenda in support of Israel.
 
The US military-intelligence establishment in coordination with powerful financial interests is calling the shots in regards to Israel’s genocidal intent to “Wipe Palestine off the Map”.
 
.

2. Triggering “False Flags”

Inciting Escalation in The Red Sea and the Eastern Mediterranean

Let us be under no illusions. Remember Pearl Harbor, The Gulf of Tonkin, 9/11. “False Flags” are part of the history of modern warfare. They are sophisticated intelligence operations often requiring infiltration into enemy ranks.

Starting in the immediate wake of the October 7, 2023 Hamas attack, US-NATO war ships –including aircraft carriers, combat planes, naval vessels have been deployed in both the Eastern Mediterranean and the Red Sea.

These deployments have been described in chorus by the mainstream media as a response to “Palestine’s [alleged] Aggression against the Jewish State”.

They are tagged as humanitarian undertakings: Coming to the rescue of Israel. Responsibility to Protect (R2P).

The False Flag concept requires inciting your enemy or an armed jihadist group to confront or “attack America” thereby providing a justification to strike back in self defense: The Houthis in the Red Sea and Hezbollah in the Eastern Mediterranean both of which are allies of Iran.

Trigger one or more incidents with a view to justifying a process of military escalation.

In recent developments, the “False Flag agenda” has evolved towards US-NATO air and naval attacks against Yemen. 

“Sadeh, Zubaydah, Abs, Bani, Sana, Hudaydah, and Taiz have been attacked by American forces, initiating yet another war without Congressional approval, a branch of the US government emptied of power.

The New York Times, of course, blames the expansion of the conflict on the Houthis for interfering with shipping to Israel.” (Paul Craig Roberts)

The endgame is to incite Iran through various means to enter the Middle East battlefield, which would lead eventually to a process of escalation. The media is now using the term: “Iranian Proxies” in an ambivalent report by the NYT: 

There is no direct evidence to show senior Iranian commanders ordered Yemen’s Houthi rebels to launch attacks on ships in the Red Sea, according to a New York Times report citing US intelligence officials.The unnamed sources said they continue to assess that Iran isn’t interested in a wider war, even though it encouraged Houthi operations in the Red Sea.

“The whole purpose of the Iranian proxies, they argue, is to find a way to punch at Israel and the United States without setting off the kind of war that Iran wants to avoid,” the news report said.

“There is no direct evidence that senior Iranian leaders, either the commander of the elite Quds Force or the supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, ordered the recent Houthi attacks on ships in the Red Sea.” (Quoted by Al Jazeera)

 

.

.

3. America’s Military Doctrine: Targeting and Killing Civilians

.
The targeting of civilians and the killing of children in Gaza is modelled on numerous US sponsored massacres of civilians (1945-2023) including the 2004 attack on Fallujah. (More than 30 Million mainly civilian deaths in US-led wars in what is euphemistically called the “post War Era”).
 .
Veteran War correspondent Felicity Arbuthnot reflected on the indescribable barbarity of the 2004  Fallujah massacre, which resulted in countless deaths and destruction. It was a genocide conducted by the U.S military: 
.

The Americans invaded, chillingly: “house to house, room to room”, raining death and destruction on the proud, ancient “City of Mosques.”

Marines killed so many civilians that the municipal soccer stadium had to be turned into a graveyard …

One correspondent wrote: “There has been nothing like the attack on Fallujah since the Nazi invasion and occupation of much of the European continent – the shelling and bombing of Warsaw in September 1939, the terror bombing of Rotterdam in May 1940.”

 

Fallujah, 2004 
.
The U.S. is supportive of the Israeli genocide directed against the people of Palestine. Prime Minister Netanyahu is a criminal. He is Washington’s proxy, unreservedly endorsed and supported by the Biden Administration as well as the U.S. Congress. 
 .
Zionism constitutes the ideological underpinnings of  contemporary U.S. imperialism and its unending war against the people of the Middle East. 
.
The Zionist “Greater Israel” dogma –as in all wars of religion since the dawn of mankind– is there to mislead people Worldwide as to “who is really pulling the strings”
.
Zionism has become a useful instrument which is embodied in U.S. military doctrine. The “Promised Land” broadly coincides with America’s hegemonic agenda in the Middle East, namely what the U.S. military has designated as the “New Middle East”.

Cui Bono: “To Whom Does it Benefit”

There are strategic, geopolitical and economic objectives behind Israel’s genocide directed against the People of Palestine. “Crimes are often committed to benefit their perpetrators”:

Who are the Perpetrators?

Israel’s War against the People of Palestine serves the interests of Big Money, the Military Industrial Complex, Corrupt Politicians…  The Genocide is implemented by Netanyahu on behalf of the United States.

The US military and intelligence apparatus are behind Israel’s criminal bombing and invasion of Gaza. The unfolding Middle East War is largely directed against Iran.
 .

Video Interview: Michel Chossudovsky and Caroline Mailloux

To leave a comment and /or access Rumble click here. Or click the lower right hand corner of the screen

 .

 4. Iran and the Nuclear Issue

Historical Antecedents. Using Israel As a Means to Attacking Iran 

In 2003, the war on Iran project (Operation Theatre Iran Near Term, TIRANNT)) was already Déjà Vu. It had been on the drawing board of the Pentagon for more than 15 years.

Let us recall that at the outset of Bush’s Second Term, Vice President Dick Cheney dropped a bombshell, hinting, in no uncertain terms, that Iran was “right at the top of the list” of the rogue enemies of America. And that Israel would, so to speak, 

“be doing the bombing for us” [paraphrase] , without US military involvement and without us putting pressure on them “to do it”.  For further details see my article below was first published by Global Research in May 2005, as well as PBS Interview with Z. Brzezinski 

This Dick Cheney-style option is currently (November 2023) once more on the drawing board of the Pentagon, namely the possibility that Israel which is already bombing Lebanon and Syria, would be incited to wage an attack on Iran (acting on behalf of the United States).

US Congress Resolution (H. RES. 559) Accuses Iran of Possessing Nuclear Weapons

Careful timing: In June 2023, the US House of Representatives adopted  Resolution (H. RES. 559) which provides a “Green Light” to wage war on Iran.

The US House  passed a resolution that allows the use of force against Iran, intimating without a shred of evidence that Iran has Nuclear Weapons:

Resolved, That the House of Representatives declares it is the policy of the United States—

(1) that a nuclear Islamic Republic of Iran is not acceptable;

(2) that Iran must not be able to obtain a nuclear weapon under any circumstances or conditions;

(3) to use all means necessary to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon; and

(4) to recognize and support the freedom of action of partners and allies, including Israel, to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon.

Click below to access the complete text of H. RES 559

Israel’s Undeclared Nuclear Weapons Arsenal 

Whereas Iran is tagged (without evidence) as a Nuclear Power by the U.S. House of Representatives, Washington fails to acknowledge that Israel is an undeclared nuclear power. 

In recent developments, Israeli Heritage Minister Amichai Eliyahu, “admitted to the world that Israel has nuclear weapons ready to be used against Palestinians”

The Times of Israel reported that: “Amichai Eliyahu said Sunday [November 5, 2023] that one of Israel’s options in the war against Hamas was to drop a nuclear bomb on the Gaza Strip”

Video on Israel’s Nuclear Weapons Facility

English subtitles  
 

 .

5. The War on Energy

.

Unspoken Objective of a US-NATO-Israel War against Iran: Natural Gas 

Reserves of Natural Gas: Iran ranks Second after Russia. Russia, Iran and Qatar possess  54.1 percent of the World’s reserves of natural gas.

-Russia 24.3%, 

-Iran 17.3%, 

-Qatar, 12.5 %  (in partnership with Iran)

versus   

-5.3 % for the US

President Joe Biden ordered to “blow up” (September 2022) the Nordstream Pipeline, which constitutes a U.S. Act of War against the European Union.

In the words of Joe Biden:

“There will be no longer a Nord Stream 2”. Statement at White House Press Conference (February 7, 2022)

America’s strategic objective is, despite its meagre reserves of natural gas: 

To Force the European Union to buy LNG “Made in America”. 

What this implies is that America’s military agenda against Russia and Iran constitutes a means to hike up EU energy prices, which is an Act of Economic Warfare against the People of Europe. 

 
 

The Iran-Qatar Natural Gas Partnership 

The maritime gas reserves of the Persian Gulf are under a (joint ownership) partnership between Qatar and Iran (See diagram below).

 

The Biden Administration is Intent upon Destabilizing the Iran-Qatar Partnership 

This partnership is supportive of the People of Palestine.

In March 2022, “President Joe Biden  following a meeting with Qatar’s Emir Sheik Tamim “designated Qatar as a major non-NATO ally of the United States, fulfilling the promise that he had made to Qatar earlier this year [2022], the White House said” ( Reuters, March 10, 2022 )

“The designation is granted by the United States to close, non-NATO allies that have strategic working relationships with the U.S. military.

Biden promised Qatar’s emir, Sheikh Tamim bin Hamad al-Thani, in January [2022] during a meeting at the White House that he would grant Qatar the special status.” Reuters  See also  Reuters (January 31, 2022) 

What is at stake are cross-cutting coalitions. Qatar is a “Partner” of Iran in relation to the strategic reserves of maritime gas in the Persian Gulf. There is no formaI military cooperation between the two countries.  

Washington’s unspoken agenda is to break and/or destabilize Qatar’s Partnership with Iran, by integrating Qatar into the US-NATO military orbit. 

It is worth noting that a few days prior to the October 7, 2023 Hamas operation, the Emir of Qatar Sheik Tamim bin Hamad Al Thani laid the foundation stone for the Northern Dome expansion project” in Iran’s Pars South Field (See map above).

“the Emir of Qatar said the groundbreaking for the Northern Dome expansion project was laid today, which is in line with Qatar’s strategy to strengthen its position as a global LNG producer …  

This joint gas field, known as “South Pars” in Iran, is the largest natural gas field in the world and contains 50.97 trillion cubic meters of gas and about 7.9 billion cubic meters of natural gas condensate.

At the time of writing, the implications of Sheik Tamin’s October 2023 expansion project in South Pars Fields (which is in Iranian territorial Waters) as well as Qatar’s “Special Status” Military Alliance with the U.S. remain unclear.

America’s Al-Udeid military base in Qatar (left) is the largest US base in the Middle East.

Have the status and functions of Al Udeid changed since the signing of the March 2022 agreement designating Qatar as a “Major Non NATO Ally of the US”

Qatar is both A Partner of Iran as well as a Major Non NATO Ally of the U.S. Reports confirm the development of a close relationship between the commanders of the US Air Force and the Qatari Emiri Air Force. 

Qatar is a “Powder Keg”?

The U.S. foreign policy objective is to ultimately destroy and undermine that “friendship” with Iran which is highly valued and supported by Qatari citizens.

The export of gas from South Pars North Dome transits through Iran, Turkey and Russia.

Qatar, Russia and Iran (the 3 largest holders Worldwide of natural gas reserves) reached an agreement in 2009 to create a ‘Gas Troika’, a trilateral gas cooperation entity including the development of joint projects.

A large number of countries including South Korea, India, Japan, China are importing LNG from Qatar. 

Last year (November 2022), “QatarEnergy signed a 27-year deal to supply China’s Sinopec with liquefied natural gas”. Qatar has also a strategic alliance with China.

Washington’s objective under the disguise of America’s “Major Non-NATO Alliance” with Qatar is to:

  • Break the Qatar-Iran Partnership
  • Exclude Iran from the Joint Maritime Gas Field
  • Exert US Control over the Maritime Gas Field in the Persian Gulf
  • Weaken and Disable the “Gas Troika” (Russia, Iran, Qatar) 
  • Create Chaos in the Global Energy Market, 
  • Undermine the Trade in Liquid Natural Gas (LNG) to Numerous Countries

.

Iran. Third Largest Reserves of Oil Worldwide

Iran is not only second in terms of its gas reserves after Russia, it ranks third Worldwide in relation to its oil reserves (12% of Worldwide oil reserves) versus a meagre 4% for the U.S.
 
 

6. Strategic Waterways: The Ben Gurion Canal Project

 .

U.S. Seeks Dominance over Strategic International Waterways

The Ben Gurion Canal Project was initially a “secret” (classified) U.S. project formulated in 1963 by the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory LLNG, a strategic think tank (focussing on nuclear radiation) on contract with the U.S Department of Energy. The LLNG project was formulated in response to the nationalization of the Suez Canal in July 1956 by President Gamal Abdel Nasser (1956-1970). Its intent was to bypass the Suez Canal.

The Ben Gurion Canal project is currently contemplated as means control the channels of international maritime trade to the detriment of the people of the Middle East.  It also seeks to destabilize China’s maritime commodity trade.

 

 

In the context of the broader US-led Middle East War, the Ben Gurion Canal Project is part of America’s hegemonic military agenda. It is consistent with Netanyahu’s “Plan to Wipe Palestine Off the Map”.

According to Yvonne Ridley:

“The only thing stopping the newly-revised [Ben Gurion Canal] project from being revived and rubber-stamped is the presence of the Palestinians in Gaza. As far as Netanyahu is concerned they are standing in the way of the project” (Yvonne Ridley, November 10, 2023, emphasis added)

The U.S led war is intent upon confiscating all Palestinian territories, which would be appropriated by the State of Israel, acting as a strategic “Anglo-American Hub” in the Middle East:  

The Ben Gurion Canal will give Israel in particular and other friendly nations the freedom from blackmail arising out of access to the Suez Canal.

Arab states have been leveraging the Red Sea to pressure Israel and in response, Israel has decided to gain more control of the Red Sea. These African countries have cultural and economic affinities with the Arab states. One of the main military benefits for Israel is that it gives Israel the strategic options as the Ben Gurion Canal will totally take away the importance of Suez for the US military if needed in the aid for Israel.

Israel aims to push Egypt further into a corner by eliminating Suez in the global trade and energy corridor and becoming a global trade and energy logistics center.

Experts are of the opinion that this situation will shake the strategic-energy balance of China’s Belt and Road Project initiative in the Mediterranean, along with the Strait of Hormuz, which is the transfer point of 30 percent of the world’s energy. The Ben Gurion Canal would have the solid backing of the West. (Eurasia Review, November 7, 2023, emphasis added)

.

7. “Greater Israel”. Strategic “Anglo-American Hub”  

 

The Promised Land of Greater Israel coincides with America’s Colonial Design in the Middle East 

The Greater Israel design is not strictly a Zionist Project for the Middle East, it is an integral part of US foreign policy, its strategic objective is to extend US hegemony as well as fracture and balkanize the Middle East.  

In this regard, Washington’s strategy consists in destabilizing and weakening regional economic powers in the Middle East including Turkey and Iran. This policy –which is consistent with the Greater Israel–  is  accompanied by a process of political fragmentation.

Since the Gulf war (1991), the Pentagon has contemplated the creation of a “Free Kurdistan” which would include the annexation of  parts of Iraq, Syria and Iran as well as Turkey

“The New Middle East”:  Unofficial US Military Academy Map by Lt. Col. Ralph Peters

.

8. “America’s Promised Land”. Global Warfare

 

When viewed in the current context, including the siege on Gaza, the Zionist Plan for the Middle East coincides with America’s long war against the Middle East. As we mentioned earlier the Zionist agenda provides an ideological and religious justification of America’s long war against the Middle East. 

  • The 1979-80. the so-called Soviet Afghan War, engineered by the CIA 
  • The 1980-88 Iraq-Iran War engineered by the U.S. 
  • The 1991 Gulf War against Iraq,
  • The 2001 The US-NATO Invasion of Afghanistan
  • The 2003 Invasion of  Iraq
  • The 2006 War on Lebanon,
  • The Arab Spring,
  • The 2011 war on Libya,
  • The 2015 war on Yemen
  • Obama’s 2014-2017 “Counter-Terrorism” Operation against Iraq and Syria
  • The ongoing wars against Syria, Iraq and Yemen

The “Greater Israel” project consists in weakening and eventually fracturing neighboring Arab states as part of a US-Israeli expansionist project, with the support of NATO.

Needless to day, the ideological and religious underpinnings of the “Greater Israel” project are consistent with America’s imperial design.

While the Zionist agenda is not the driving force, it serves the useful purpose of misleading public opinion concerning America’s long war against the people of the Middle East. 

The Historical Context: A Sequence of Military Plans and Scenarios to Wage War on Iran 

Since the launching of the Theater Iran Near Term (TIRANNT) war games scenario in May 2003 (leaked classified doc), an escalation scenario involving military action directed against Iran and Syria had been envisaged, of which Syria was the first stage.  

TIRANNT was followed by a series of military plans pertaining to Iran. Numerous post 9/11 official statements and US military documents had pointed to an expanded Middle East war, involving the active participation of Israel.

Israel is America’s ally. Military operations are closely coordinated. Israel does not act without Washington’s approval.

U.S.-Israeli Air Defense

Barely acknowledged by the media, the US and Israel have an integrated air defense system, which was set up in early 2009, shortly after the Israel invasion of Gaza under “Operation Cast Led”.

The X-band radar air defense system set up by the US in Israel in 2009 would

“integrate Israel’s missile defenses with the U.S. global missile detection network, which includes satellites, Aegis ships on the Mediterranean, Persian Gulf and Red Sea, and land-based Patriot radars and interceptors.”  (Sen. Joseph Azzolina, Protecting Israel from Iran’s missiles, Bayshore News, December 26, 2008). )

What this means is that Washington calls the shots. Confirmed by the Pentagon, the US military controls Israel’s Air Defense:

”This is and will remain a U.S. radar system,’ Pentagon spokesman Geoff Morrell said.

‘So this is not something we are giving or selling to the Israelis and it is something that will likely require U.S. personnel on-site to operate.’” (Quoted in Israel National News, January 9, 2009, emphasis added).

At the outset of  Obama’s Second Term, the US and Israel initiated discussions pertaining to a “US personnel on site” presence in Israel, namely the establishment of a “permanent” and “official” military base inside Israel.

And on September 17, 2017, a US Air Defense base located in the Negev desert was inaugurated.

According to the Israeli IDF spokesperson, the objective is to send a “message to the region, ” including Iran, Lebanon, Syria and Palestine.

Of utmost relevance:

Israel would not be able to act unilaterally against Iran, without a green light from the Pentagon which controls key components of Israel’s air defense system.

In practice, a war on Iran, would be a joint US-NATO-Israeli endeavor, coordinated by US Strategic Command (STRATCOM) with America’s allies playing a key (subordinate) role.

 

Michel Chossudovsky, November 11, 2023, Updated January 14, 2024

Below is my May 2005 Global Research article which provides a detailed historical perspective on US war plans to attack Iran. 

 

* * *

Part II

 

Planned US-Israeli Attack on Iran

by  

Michel Chossudovsky 

Global Research

May 2005

 

At the outset of Bush’s second term, Vice President Dick Cheney dropped a bombshell. He hinted, in no uncertain terms, that Iran was “right at the top of the list” of the rogue enemies of America, and that Israel would, so to speak, “be doing the bombing for us”, without US military involvement and without us putting pressure on them “to do it”:

“One of the concerns people have is that Israel might do it without being asked… Given the fact that Iran has a stated policy that their objective is the destruction of Israel, the Israelis might well decide to act first, and let the rest of the world worry about cleaning up the diplomatic mess afterwards,” (quoted from an MSNBC Interview Jan 2005)

Israel is a Rottweiler on a leash: The US wants to “set Israel loose” to attack Iran. Commenting the Vice President’s assertion, former National Security adviser Zbigniew Brzezinski in an interview on PBS, confirmed with some apprehension, yes: Cheney wants Prime Minister Ariel Sharon to act on America’s behalf and “do it” for us:

“Iran I think is more ambiguous. And there the issue is certainly not tyranny; it’s nuclear weapons. And the vice president today in a kind of a strange parallel statement to this declaration of freedom hinted that the Israelis may do it and in fact used language which sounds like a justification or even an encouragement for the Israelis to do it.”

The foregoing statements are misleading. The US is not “encouraging Israel”. What we are dealing with is a joint US-Israeli military operation to bomb Iran, which has been in the active planning stage for more than a year. The Neocons in the Defense Department, under Douglas Feith, have been working assiduously with their Israeli military and intelligence counterparts, carefully identifying targets inside Iran (see Seymour Hersh)

Under this working arrangement, Israel will not act unilaterally, without a green light from Washington. In other words, Israel will not implement an attack without the participation of the US.

Covert Intelligence Operations: Stirring Ethnic Tensions in Iran

Meanwhile, for the last two years, Washington has been involved in covert intelligence operations inside Iran. American and British intelligence and special forces (working with their Israeli counterparts) are involved in this operation.

“A British intelligence official said that any campaign against Iran would not be a ground war like the one in Iraq. The Americans will use different tactics, said the intelligence officer. ‘It is getting quite scary.'” (Evening Standard, 17 June 2003)

The expectation is that a US-Israeli bombing raid of Iran’s nuclear facilities will stir up ethnic tensions and trigger “regime change” in favor of the US. (See Arab Monitor).

Bush advisers believe that the “Iranian opposition movement” will unseat the Mullahs. This assessment constitutes a gross misjudgment of social forces inside Iran. What is more likely to occur is that Iranians will consistently rally behind a wartime government against foreign aggression. In fact, the entire Middle East and beyond would rise up against US interventionism.

Retaliation in the Case of a US-Israeli Aerial Attack

Tehran has confirmed that it will retaliate if attacked, in the form of ballistic missile strikes directed against Israel (CNN, 8 Feb 2005). These attacks, could also target US military facilities in the Persian Gulf, which would immediately lead us into a scenario of military escalation and all out war.

In other words, the air strikes against Iran could contribute to unleashing a war in the broader Middle East Central Asian region.

Moreover, the planned attack on Iran should also be understood in relation to the timely withdrawal of Syrian troops from Lebanon, which has opened up a new space, for the deployment of Israeli forces. The participation of Turkey in the US-Israeli military operation is also a factor, following an agreement reached between Ankara and Tel Aviv.

In other words, US and Israeli military planners must carefully weigh the far-reaching implications of their actions.

Israel Builds up its Stockpile of Deadly Military Hardware

A massive buildup in military hardware has occurred in preparation for a possible attack on Iran.

Israel has recently taken delivery from the US of some 5,000 “smart air launched weapons” including some 500 BLU 109 ‘bunker-buster bombs. The (uranium coated) munitions are said to be more than “adequate to address the full range of Iranian targets, with the possible exception of the buried facility at Natanz, which may require the [more powerful] BLU-113 bunker buster“:

“Given Israel’s already substantial holdings of such weapons, this increase in its inventory would allow a sustained assault with or without further US involvement.” (See Richard Bennett)

Gbu 28 Guided Bomb Unit-28 (GBU-28)

The Israeli Air Force would attack Iran’s nuclear facility at Bushehr using US as well Israeli produced bunker buster bombs. The attack would be carried out in three separate waves “with the radar and communications jamming protection being provided by U.S. Air Force AWACS and other U.S. aircraft in the area”. (See W Madsen)

Bear in mind that the bunker buster bombs can also be used to deliver tactical nuclear bombs. The B61-11 is the “nuclear version” of the “conventional” BLU 113. It can be delivered in much same way as the conventional bunker buster bomb. (See Michel Chossudovsky, see also this)

According to the Pentagon, tactical nuclear weapons are “safe for civilians”. Their use has been authorized by the US Senate. (See Michel Chossudovsky)

Moreover, reported in late 2003, Israeli Dolphin-class submarines equipped with US Harpoon missiles armed with nuclear warheads are now aimed at Iran. (See Gordon Thomas)

Even if tactical nuclear weapons are not used by Israel, an attack on Iran’s nuclear facilities not only raises the specter of a broader war, but also of nuclear radiation over a wide area:

“To attack Iran’s nuclear facilities will not only provoke war, but it could also unleash clouds of radiation far beyond the targets and the borders of Iran.” (Statement of Prof Elias Tuma, Arab Internet Network, Federal News Service, 1 March 2005)

Moreover, while most reports have centered on the issue of punitive air strikes on Iran’s nuclear facilities, the strikes would most probably extend to other targets.

While a ground war is contemplated as a possible “scenario” at the level of military planning, the US military would not be able to wage a an effective ground war, given the situation in Iraq. In the words of former National Security Adviser Lawrence Eagelberger:

“We are not going to get in a ground war in Iran, I hope. If we get into that, we are in serious trouble. I don’t think anyone in Washington is seriously considering that.” ( quoted in the National Journal, 4 December 2004).

Iran’s Military Capabilities

Despite its overall weaknesses in relation to Israel and the US, Iran has an advanced air defense system, deployed to protect its nuclear sites; “they are dispersed and underground making potential air strikes difficult and without any guarantees of success.” (Jerusalem Post, 20 April 2005).

It has upgraded its Shahab-3 missile, which can reach targets in Israel. Iran’s armed forces have recently conducted high-profile military exercises in anticipation of a US led attack. Iran also possesses some 12 X-55 strategic cruise missiles, produced by Ukraine. Iran’s air defense systems is said to feature Russian SA-2, SA-5, SA-6 as well as shoulder-launched SA-7 missiles (Jaffa Center for Strategic Studies).

The US “Military Road Map”

The Bush administration has officially identified Iran and Syria as the next stage of “the road map to war”.

Targeting Iran is a bipartisan project, which broadly serves the interests of the Anglo-American oil conglomerates, the Wall Street financial establishment and the military-industrial complex.

The broader Middle East-Central Asian region encompasses more than 70% of the World’s reserves of oil and natural gas. Iran possesses 10% of the world’s oil and ranks third after Saudi Arabia (25 %) and Iraq (11 %) in the size of its reserves. In comparison, the US possesses less than 2.8 % of global oil reserves. (See Eric Waddell, The Battle for Oil)

The announcement to target Iran should come as no surprise. It is part of the battle for oil. Already during the Clinton administration, US Central Command (USCENTCOM) had formulated “in war theater plans” to invade both Iraq and Iran:

“The broad national security interests and objectives expressed in the President’s National Security Strategy (NSS) and the Chairman’s National Military Strategy (NMS) form the foundation of the United States Central Command’s theater strategy. The NSS directs implementation of a strategy of dual containment of the rogue states of Iraq and Iran as long as those states pose a threat to U.S. interests, to other states in the region, and to their own citizens. Dual containment is designed to maintain the balance of power in the region without depending on either Iraq or Iran. USCENTCOM’s theater strategy is interest-based and threat-focused. The purpose of U.S. engagement, as espoused in the NSS, is to protect the United States’ vital interest in the region – uninterrupted, secure U.S./Allied access to Gulf oil. (USCENTCOM, USPolicy , emphasis added)

Main Military Actors

While the US, Israel, as well as Turkey (with borders with both Iran and Syria) are the main actors in this process, a number of other countries, in the region, allies of the US, including several Central Asian former Soviet republics have been enlisted. Britain is closely involved despite its official denials at the diplomatic level. Turkey occupies a central role in the Iran operation. It has an extensive military cooperation agreement with Israel. There are indications that NATO is also formally involved in the context of an Israel-NATO agreement reached in November 2004.

Planning The Aerial Attack on Iran

According to former weapons inspector Scott Ritter, George W. Bush has already signed off on orders for an aerial attack on Iran, scheduled for June.(See this)

The June cut-off date should be understood. It does not signify that the attack will occur in June. What it suggests is that the US and Israel are “in a state of readiness” and are prepared to launch an attack by June or at a later date. In other words, the decision to launch the attack has not been made.

Ritter’s observation concerning an impending military operation should nonetheless be taken seriously. In recent months, there is ample evidence that a major military operation is in preparation:

1) several high profile military exercises have been conducted in recent months, involving military deployment and the testing of weapons systems.

2) military planning meetings have been held between the various parties involved. There has been a shuttle of military and government officials between Washington, Tel Aviv and Ankara.

3) A significant change in the military command structure in Israel has occurred, with the appointment of a new Chief of Staff.

4) Intense diplomatic exchanges have been carried out at the international level with a view to securing areas of military cooperation and/or support for a US-Israeli led military operation directed against Iran.

5) Ongoing intelligence operations inside Iran have been stepped up.

6) Consensus Building: Media propaganda on the need to intervene in Iran has been stepped up, with daily reports on how Iran constitutes a threat to peace and global security.

Timeline of Key Initiatives

In the last few months, various key initiatives have been taken, which are broadly indicative that an aerial bombing of Iran is in the military pipeline:

November 2004 in Brussels: NATO-Israel protocol: Israel’s IDF delegation to the NATO conference to met with military brass of six members of the Mediterranean basin nations, including Egypt, Jordan, Algeria, Tunisia, Morocco, Algeria and Mauritania. NATO seeks to revive the framework, known as the Mediterranean Dialogue program, which would include Israel. The Israeli delegation accepted to participate in military exercises and “anti-terror maneuvers” together with several Arab countries.

January 2005: the US, Israel and Turkey held military exercises in the Eastern Mediterranean, off the coast of Syria. These exercises, which have been held in previous years were described as routine.

February 2005. Following the decision reached in Brussels in November 2004, Israel was involved for the first time in military exercises with NATO, which also included several Arab countries.

February 2005: Assassination of former Lebanese Prime Minister Rafik Hariri. The assassination, which was blamed on Syria, serves Israeli and US interests and was used as a pretext to demand the withdrawal of Syrian troops from Lebanon.

February 2005: Sharon fires his Chief-of-Staff, Moshe Ya’alon and appoints Air Force General Dan Halutz. This is the first time in Israeli history that an Air Force General is appointed Chief of Staff (See Uri Avnery)

The appointment of Major General Dan Halutz as IDF Chief of Staff is considered in Israeli political circles as “the appointment of the right man at the right time.” The central issue is that a major aerial operation against Iran is in the planning stage, and Maj General Halutz is slated to coordinate the aerial bombing raids on Iran. Halutz’s appointment was specifically linked to Israel’s Iran agenda: “As chief of staff, he will in the best position to prepare the military for such a scenario.”

March 2005: NATO’s Secretary General was in Jerusalem for follow-up talks with Ariel Sharon and Israel’s military brass, following the joint NATO-Israel military exercise in February. These military cooperation ties are viewed by the Israeli military as a means to “enhance Israel’s deterrence capability regarding potential enemies threatening it, mainly Iran and Syria.” The premise underlying NATO-Israel military cooperation is that Israel is under attack:

“The more Israel’s image is strengthened as a country facing enemies who attempt to attack it for no justified reason, the greater will be the possibility that aid will be extended to Israel by NATO. Furthermore, Iran and Syria will have to take into account the possibility that the increasing cooperation between Israel and NATO will strengthen Israel’s links with Turkey, also a member of NATO. Given Turkey’s impressive military potential and its geographic proximity to both Iran and Syria, Israel’s operational options against them, if and when it sees the need, could gain considerable strength. ” (Jaffa Center for Strategic Studies, http://www.tau.ac.il/jcss/sa/v7n4p4Shalom.html )

The Israel-NATO protocol is all the more important because it obligates NATO to align itself with the US-Israeli plan to bomb Iran, as an act of self defense on the part of Israel. It also means that NATO is also involved in the process of military consultations relating to the planned aerial bombing of Iran. It is of course related to the bilateral military cooperation agreement between Israel and Turkey and the likelihood that part of the military operation will be launched from Turkey, which is a member of NATO.

Late March 2005: News leaks in Israel indicated an “initial authorization” by Prime Minster Ariel Sharon of an Israeli attack on Iran’s Natanz uranium enrichment plant “if diplomacy failed to stop Iran’s nuclear program”. (The Hindu, 28 March 2005)

March-April 2005: The Holding in Israel of Joint US-Israeli military exercises specifically pertaining to the launching of Patriot missiles.

US Patriot missile crews stationed in Germany were sent to Israel to participate in the joint Juniper Cobra exercise with the Israeli military. The exercise was described as routine and “unconnected to events in the Middle East”: “As always, we are interested in implementing lessons learned from training exercises.” (UPI, 9 March 2005).

April 2005: Donald Rumsfeld  (right) was on an official visits to Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Kyrgyzstan and Azerbaijan. His diplomatic endeavors were described by the Russian media as “literally circling Iran in an attempt to find the best bridgehead for a possible military operation against that country.”

In Baku, Azerbaijan Rumsfeld was busy discussing the date for deployment of US troops in Azerbaijan on Iran’s North-Western border. US military bases described as “mobile groups” in Azerbaijan are slated to play a role in a military operation directed against Iran.

Azerbaijan is a member of GUUAM, a military cooperation agreement with the US and NATO, which allows for the stationing of US troops in several of the member countries, including Georgia, Uzbekistan and Azerbaijan. The stated short term objective is to “neutralize Iran”. The longer term objective under the Pentagon’s “Caspian Plan” is to exert military and economic control over the entire Caspian sea basin, with a view to ensuring US authority over oil reserves and pipeline corridors.

During his visit in April, Rumsfeld was pushing the US initiative of establishing “American special task forces and military bases to secure US influence in the Caspian region:

“Called Caspian Watch, the project stipulates a network of special task forces and police units in the countries of the regions to be used in emergencies including threats to objects of the oil complex and pipelines. Project Caspian Watch will be financed by the United States ($100 million). It will become an advance guard of the US European Command whose zone of responsibility includes the Caspian region. Command center of the project with a powerful radar is to be located in Baku.” ( Defense and Security Russia, April 27, 2005)

Rumsfeld’s visit followed shortly after that of Iranian President Mohammad Khatami’s to Baku.

April 2005: Iran signs a military cooperation with Tajikistan, which occupies a strategic position bordering Afghanistan’s Northern frontier. Tajikistan is a member of “The Shanghai Five” military cooperation group, which also includes Kazakhstan, China, Kyrgyzstan, and Russia. Iran also has economic cooperation agreements with Turkmenistan.

Mid April 2005: Israel Prime Minister Ariel Sharon meets George W Bush at his Texas Ranch. Iran is on the agenda of bilateral talks. More significantly, the visit of Ariel Sharon was used to carry out high level talks between US and Israeli military planners pertaining to Iran.

Late April 2005. President Vladmir Putin is in Israel on an official visit. He announces Russia’s decision to sell short-range anti-aircraft missiles to Syria and to continue supporting Iran’s nuclear industry. Beneath the gilded surface of international diplomacy, Putin’s timely visit to Israel must be interpreted as “a signal to Israel” regarding its planned aerial attack on Iran.

Late April 2005: US pressure in the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) has been exerted with a view to blocking the re-appointment of Mohammed Al Baradei, who according to US officials “is not being tough enough on Iran…” Following US pressures, the vote on the appointment of a new IAEA chief was put off until June. These developments suggest that Washington wants to put forth their own hand-picked nominee prior to launching US-Israeli aerial attacks on Iran’s nuclear facilities. (See VOA). (In February 2003, Al Baradei along with UN chief weapons inspector Hans Blix challenged the (phony) intelligence on WMD presented by the US to the UN Security Council, with a view to justifying the war on Iraq.)

Late April 2005. Sale of deadly military hardware to Israel. GBU-28 Buster Bunker Bombs: Coinciding with Putin’s visit to Israel, the US Defence Security Cooperation Agency (Department of Defense) announced the sale of an additional 100 bunker-buster bombs produced by Lockheed Martin to Israel. This decision was viewed by the US media as “a warning to Iran about its nuclear ambitions.”

The sale pertains to the larger and more sophisticated “Guided Bomb Unit-28 (GBU-28) BLU-113 Penetrator” (including the WGU-36A/B guidance control unit and support equipment). The GBU-28 is described as “a special weapon for penetrating hardened command centers located deep underground. The fact of the matter is that the GBU-28 is among the World’s most deadly “conventional” weapons used in the 2003 invasion of Iraq, capable of causing thousands of civilian deaths through massive explosions.

The Israeli Air Force are slated to use the GBU-28s on their F-15 aircraft. (See text of DSCA news release)

Late April 2005- early May: Turkey’s Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan (right) in Israel for follow-up talks with Ariel Sharon. He was accompanied by his Defense Minister Vecdi Gonul, who met with senior Israeli military officials. On the official agenda of these talks: joint defense projects, including the joint production of Arrow II Theater Missile Defense and Popeye II missiles. The latter also known as the Have Lite, are advanced small missiles, designed for deployment on fighter planes. Tel Aviv and Ankara decide to establish a hotline to share intelligence.

May 2005: Syrian troops scheduled to withdraw from Lebanon, leading to a major shift in the Middle East security situation, in favor of Israel and the US.

Iran Surrounded? 

The US has troops and military bases in Turkey, Pakistan, Azerbaijan, Afghanistan, and of course Iraq.

In other words, Iran is virtually surrounded by US military bases. (see Map below). These countries as well as Turkmenistan, are members of NATO`s partnership for Peace Program and have military cooperation agreements with NATO.

Copyright Eric Waddell, Global Research, 2003

In other words, we are dealing with a potentially explosive scenario in which a number of countries, including several former Soviet republics, could be brought into a US led war with Iran. IranAtom.ru, a Russian based news and military analysis group has suggested, in this regard:

“since Iranian nuclear objects are scattered all over the country, Israel will need a mass strike with different fly-in and fly-out approaches – Jordan, Iraq, Turkey, Azerbaijan, and other countries… Azerbaijan seriously fears Tehran’s reaction should Baku issue a permit to Israeli aircraft to overfly its territory.” (Defense and Security Russia, 12 April 2005).

Concluding remarks

The World is at an important crossroads.

The Bush Administration has embarked upon a military adventure which threatens the future of humanity.

Iran is the next military target. The planned military operation, which is by no means limited to punitive strikes against Iran’s nuclear facilities, is part of a project of World domination, a military roadmap, launched at the end of the Cold War.

Military action against Iran would directly involve Israel’s participation, which in turn is likely to trigger a broader war throughout the Middle East, not to mention an implosion in the Palestinian occupied territories. Turkey is closely associated with the proposed aerial attacks.

Israel is a nuclear power with a sophisticated nuclear arsenal. (See text box below). The use of nuclear weapons by Israel or the US cannot be excluded, particularly in view of the fact that tactical nuclear weapons have now been reclassified as a variant of the conventional bunker buster bombs and are authorized by the US Senate for use in conventional war theaters. (“they are harmless to civilians because the explosion is underground”)

In this regard, Israel and the US rather than Iran constitute a nuclear threat.

The planned attack on Iran must be understood in relation to the existing active war theaters in the Middle East, namely Afghanistan, Iraq and Palestine.

The conflict could easily spread from the Middle East to the Caspian sea basin. It could also involve the participation of Azerbaijan and Georgia, where US troops are stationed.

An attack on Iran would have a direct impact on the resistance movement inside Iraq. It would also put pressure on America’s overstretched military capabilities and resources in both the Iraqi and Afghan war theaters. (The 150,000 US troops in Iraq are already fully engaged and could not be redeployed in the case of a war with Iran.)

In other words, the shaky geopolitics of the Central Asia- Middle East region, the three existing war theaters in which America is currently, involved, the direct participation of Israel and Turkey, the structure of US sponsored military alliances, etc. raises the specter of a broader conflict.

Moreover, US military action on Iran not only threatens Russian and Chinese interests, which have geopolitical interests in the Caspian sea basin and which have bilateral agreements with Iran. It also backlashes on European oil interests in Iran and is likely to produce major divisions between Western allies, between the US and its European partners as well as within the European Union.

Through its participation in NATO, Europe, despite its reluctance, would be brought into the Iran operation. The participation of NATO largely hinges on a military cooperation agreement reached between NATO and Israel. This agreement would bind NATO to defend Israel against Syria and Iran. NATO would therefore support a preemptive attack on Iran’s nuclear facilities, and could take on a more active role if Iran were to retaliate following US-Israeli air strikes.

Needless to say, the war against Iran is part of a longer term US military agenda which seeks to militarize the entire Caspian sea basin, eventually leading to the destabilization and conquest of the Russian Federation.

The Antiwar Movement

The antiwar movement must act, consistently, to prevent the next phase of this war from happening.

This is no easy matter. The holding of large antiwar rallies will not in itself reverse the tide of war.

High ranking officials of the Bush administration, members of the military and the US Congress have been granted the authority to uphold an illegal war agenda.

What is required is a grass roots network, a mass movement at national and international levels, which challenges the legitimacy of the military and political actors, and which is ultimately instrumental in unseating those who rule in our name.

War criminals occupy positions of authority. The citizenry is galvanized into supporting the rulers, who are “committed to their safety and well-being”. Through media disinformation, war is given a humanitarian mandate.

To reverse the tide of war, military bases must be closed down, the war machine (namely the production of advanced weapons systems) must be stopped and the burgeoning police state must be dismantled.

The corporate backers and sponsors of war and war crimes must also be targeted including the oil companies, the defense contractors, the financial institutions and the corporate media, which has become an integral part of the war propaganda machine.

Antiwar sentiment does not dismantle a war agenda. The war criminals in the US, Israel and Britain must be removed from high office.

What is needed is to reveal the true face of the American Empire and the underlying criminalization of US foreign policy, which uses the “war on terrorism” and the threat of Al Qaeda to galvanize public opinion in support of a global war agenda.


Israel’s Nuclear Capabilities 

John Steinbach,  

March 2002

( This article describes Israel’s Nuclear Arsenal. Several of the statements are no longer valid or relevant in 2023

It is understood that in the course of the last 21 years, Israel’s nuclear capabilities have significantly evolved). 

 

With between 200 and 500 thermonuclear weapons and a sophisticated delivery system, Israel has quietly supplanted Britain as the World’s 5th Largest nuclear power, and may currently rival France and China in the size and sophistication of its nuclear arsenal. Although dwarfed by the nuclear arsenals of the U.S. and Russia, each possessing over 10,000 nuclear weapons, Israel nonetheless is a major nuclear power, and should be publicly recognized as such.

Today, estimates of the Israeli nuclear arsenal range from a minimum of 200 to a maximum of about 500. Whatever the number, there is little doubt that Israeli nukes are among the world’s most sophisticated, largely designed for “war fighting” in the Middle East. A staple of the Israeli nuclear arsenal are “neutron bombs,” miniaturized thermonuclear bombs designed to maximize deadly gamma radiation while minimizing blast effects and long term radiation- in essence designed to kill people while leaving property intact.(16) Weapons include ballistic missiles and bombers capable of reaching Moscow…

The bombs themselves range in size from “city busters” larger than the Hiroshima Bomb to tactical mini nukes.

The Israeli arsenal of weapons of mass destruction clearly dwarfs the actual or potential arsenals of all other Middle Eastern states combined, and is vastly greater than any conceivable need for “deterrence.”

Many Middle East Peace activists have been reluctant to discuss, let alone challenge, the Israeli monopoly on nuclear weapons in the region, often leading to incomplete and uninformed analyses and flawed action strategies.

Placing the issue of Israeli weapons of mass destruction directly and honestly on the table and action agenda would have several salutary effects.

First, it would expose a primary destabilizing dynamic driving the Middle East arms race and compelling the region’s states to each seek their own “deterrent.”

Second, it would expose the grotesque double standard which sees the U.S. and Europe on the one hand condemning Iraq, Iran and Syria for developing weapons of mass destruction, while simultaneously protecting and enabling the principal culprit.

Third, exposing Israel’s nuclear strategy would focus international public attention, resulting in increased pressure to dismantle its weapons of mass destruction and negotiate a just peace in good faith.

Finally, a nuclear free Israel would make a Nuclear Free Middle East and a comprehensive regional peace agreement much more likely. Unless and until the world community confronts Israel over its covert nuclear program it is unlikely that there will be any meaningful resolution of the Israeli/Arab conflict, a fact that Israel may be counting on as the Sharon era dawns.

From John Steinbach, Israel’s Nuclear Arsenal, Global Research

  • Posted in English, Mobile, NO READ MORE LINK
  • Comments Off on Expanding Middle East War. Planned US-Israeli Attack on Iran, The War on Energy, Strategic Waterways

First published on September 15, 2014

World War II demonstrated an enormous shift in the technological capability of the United States to bring death and destruction to the civilian populations of its enemies through aerial attack. The American air forces undertook strategic bombing campaigns that pulverized and burned numerous German and Japanese cities, culminating in the nuclear devastation of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. This bombing killed hundreds of thousands of civilians.

Although the massive killing of noncombatants did not provoke widespread protests or recriminations among Americans at the time, the aftermath was not a simple story of acceptance of the practice as a common and legitimate method of warfare in a new technological age of air power. The experience of the Korean War demonstrated that American moral scruples against targeting civilians did not disappear with the bombing in World War II, as some historians have argued.1 Instead, American norms about bombing civilians followed a more complicated evolution.

Only five years later, the Korean War followed the pattern set by World War II of massive civilian destruction inflicted by bombing. Nevertheless, American leaders continued to claim throughout the war that U.S. air power was being used in a discriminate manner and was avoiding harm to civilians, as they had asserted even during the height of the bombing in World War II. The elasticity of the definition of a “military target” helped make these claims of discrimination more plausible.

The new bombing capabilities contributed to stretching the definitions of military targets because they brought new portions of civilian societies, such as transportation networks, arms factories, and their workers, within reach and under consideration for targeting. However, the American experience during the Korean War suggests that a dynamic of escalation stretched definitions of “military targets” even more. As military crises threatened and the war dragged on, American commanders vastly expanded the portion of the enemy’s society deemed to be a “military target.” While the loose semantics of military targets made it easier to claim publicly that prohibitions on targeting civilians remained, the prohibition found active reinforcement in the United States’ prominent role in the post-World War II war crimes trials of Germans and Japanese. Having held their former enemies accountable for harming civilians, Americans worked to distance themselves from similar practices, and the international competition of the Cold War only increased the stakes for American identity and political interests. In short, the broadly accepted moral prohibition against targeting civilians did not disappear with the bombing in World War II and Korea.

Although the norm against targeting civilians remained robust in the face of the technological transformations surrounding air power, the new bombing capabilities did foster several related changes in thinking about war’s harm to civilians and in international humanitarian law. One of the most significant was the increased importance of intention in rationalizing harm to noncombatants. For Americans, the crucial dividing line between justifiable and unjustifiable violence increasingly became whether their armed forces intentionally harmed civilians. With this reasoning, unintended harm—what later would be called “collateral damage”—became a tragic but acceptable cost of war.

The difficulties of controlling the violence of air power made common and widespread unintended harm plausible. American weapons might inflict massive casualties on civilians, as they had in World War II and Korea, but only intentionally targeting civilians remained a crime. International humanitarian law lagged behind the development of public norms on bombing but did eventually formally incorporate restrictions on bombing and in particular reflected this growing emphasis on intention. While other changes in thinking about bombing civilians are more difficult to assess because of the changing nature of American wars after Korea, and limited access to sources related to more recent conflicts, Americans did come to accept that certain portions of civilian society that directly supported the fighting capabilities of armed forces, such as arms factories and their workers, were justifiable targets for attack although destroying cities as such remained controversial.

THE WORLD WAR II BACKGROUND

On the eve of World War II, American leaders strongly condemned the bombing of civilians. Following Japanese air strikes in China and fascist bombing in Spain, the U.S. Senate issued its own “unqualified condemnation of the inhuman bombing of civilian populations” in 1938. When Germany invaded Poland in 1939, President Franklin D. Roosevelt urgently appealed to all sides in the hostilities to affirm publicly that their armed forces “shall in no event, and under no circumstances, undertake the bombardment from the air of civilian populations or of unfortified cities.” Alluding to earlier air attacks, he said “ruthless bombing” had killed and maimed thousands of defenseless men, women, and children and had “profoundly shocked the conscience of humanity.” Roosevelt feared that hundreds of thousands of “innocent human beings” would be harmed if the belligerent nations sunk to “this form of inhuman barbarism.”2 As the fighting in Europe escalated, the American press contained regular discussion of the bombing of civilians by both the Germans and the British.3 These public expressions of concern suggested that Americans supported a transnational norm against attacks on civilians, from bombing or otherwise, or that, at least, American leaders and journalists thought this norm had widespread support. World War II offered further evidence of this norm’s existence.

Indeed, judged from the perspective of what American leaders said about the bombing of civilians, little changed during World War II, even at the height of the air campaigns against Germany and Japan. They continued to talk as if they were trying to uphold the prohibition against targeting civilians, even though the reality of civilian deaths strained the credibility of their claims. U.S. armed forces described their strategic bombing methods as precision bombing throughout the war.4 When American planes joined the British Royal Air Force in burning Dresden in February 1945, Secretary of War Henry L. Stimson assured the public: “We will continue to bomb military targets and . . . there has been no change in the policy against conducting ‘terror bombings’ against civilian populations.” When asked off the record about the burning of Tokyo at a press conference, an Air Force spokesman General Lauris Norstad denied that there had been any change in the Air Force’s basic policy of “pin-point” precision bombing.5 President Harry S. Truman in his initial public statements even described the attack on Hiroshima as a strike against “a Japanese Army base” and said that “we wished in this first attack to avoid, insofar as possible, the killing of civilians.”6

So even in the face of these gross violations of the custom of actually sparing civilians, American leaders persisted in publicly deferring to a norm against targeting civilians by justifying the bombing as attacks on military targets and rarely claiming that attacking civilians directly was legitimate. There is still much work to be done to answer the question of whether these statements by American leaders reflected wider public sentiments, or political calculation. A better assessment of the breadth and depth of the American public’s attachment to the norm against attacking civilians during World War II is also needed. After all, American reactions to the bombing of civilians seem to have been quite muted during the war, and little protest against the bombing occurred.7 However, several factors could help explain why this apparent quiescence was not proof of Americans abandoning the norm against targeting civilians in war. One was the relative novelty of the extensive killing of civilians through bombing, and the limited information that Americans had about the attacks during the war, especially when official sources were continuing to claim that air power was being used precisely. Another could have been beliefs that the violence in World War II was exceptional even for war, justified as retribution for German or Japanese aggression and atrocities, or because such tactics were a lesser evil than the feared consequences of defeat by the Axis powers.

Although Americans were quiet about the harm to civilians resulting from U.S. bombing, they spoke out loudly against German and Japanese atrocities. Condemnation and prosecution of Axis atrocities after World War II provided the strongest reinforcement of the norm against attacking civilians. The Nuremberg tribunals in Germany and a similar set of war crimes trials of the Japanese focused international attention on the harm that Axis leaders and soldiers had inflicted on civilians and held them criminally accountable for it. This assertive application of international law and the leading role that the United States played in these prosecutions reinforced the impression that Americans remained committed to the norm against attacking civilians. However, conscious of the snares of hypocrisy, none of the tribunals prosecuted any of the defendants for promiscuous bombing of civilians. As U.S. relations with the Soviet Union deteriorated, Americans increasingly sought to distinguish clearly American killing of civilians in the past war and their strategies for fighting future wars in an atomic age from the crimes of Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan. In clashes with the United States, the Soviet Union enthusiastically condemned the American armed forces for relying on barbarous methods of bombing civilians to fight imperialistic wars.8

While the war crimes trials and the Cold War helped to reaffirm the norm against targeting civilians, American postwar discussion of air power did not clearly reflect this at first. Enthusiastic embrace of the American atomic monopoly and awe over the power of nuclear weapons combined with the popularity of the U.S. Air Force to produce much loose talk about bombing cities and civilians in future wars. For four years after World War II, it was difficult to tell from what Americans said publicly that they had not abandoned the custom of sparing civilians in war.9 However, a strand of criticism of strategic bombing was growing as well, and it emerged as a national issue in 1949 when U.S. Navy admirals attacked their Air Force colleagues in a dramatic set of Congressional hearings. During this “Revolt of the Admirals” as the media came to call it, a string of admirals deployed arguments that appealed to the norm against targeting civilians in raising their concerns over military policy and the defense budget. At the hearings, Rear Admiral Ralph A. Ofstie contended that “strategic air warfare, as practiced in the past and as proposed for the future, is militarily unsound and of limited effect, is morally wrong, and is decidedly harmful to the stability of a postwar world.” These charges prompted the Air Force to clarify its stance on bombing civilians. The Secretary of the Air Force W. Stuart Symington said bluntly: “It has been stated that the Air Force favors mass bombing of civilians. That is not true. It is inevitable that attacks on industrial targets will kill civilians. That is not an exclusive characteristic of the atomic bomb, but is an unavoidable result of modern total warfare.” 10 Symington distinguished between targeting industry which unavoidably killed civilians, and targeting civilians generally and directly. When confronted starkly with the idea of accepting the targeting of civilians as a legitimate method of war, the Air Force and almost every participate in the 1949 hearings avoided such a course.

THE KOREAN WAR

General MacArthur discusses the military situation with Ambassador John J. Muccio at ROK Army headquarters, 29 June 1950.
(National Archives”)

When the United States intervened in the war on the Korean peninsula in 1950, Americans continued to proclaim a norm against targeting civilians, even though, like World War II, the Korean War would become massively destructive of civilian lives and property. However, the devastation did not come immediately. American leaders explicitly rejected the fire-bombing of North Korean cities in the early days of the war. The Korean War would not begin as World War II had ended. The experiences of 1945 had not made the obliteration of cities and their populations the standard tactic for U.S. air power, only one of a range of options. Firebombing and the widespread harm to Korean civilians would only come after a process of escalation and dramatic setbacks for United Nations forces in the fall of 1950.

Only days after the outbreak of heavy fighting in Korea on June 25, 1950, President Truman ordered U.S. air attacks against North Korea in support of the American led intervention by the United Nations. The instructions from Washington for the U.N. commander General Douglas A. MacArthur specified a narrow range of targets for attack. The message from the Joint Chiefs of Staff read: “You are authorized to extend your operations into Northern Korea against air bases, depots, tank farms, troop columns and other such purely military targets, if and when, in your judgment, this becomes essential for the performance of your missions…or to avoid unnecessary casualties to our forces.” The orders also directed operations in North Korea to “stay well clear of the frontiers of Manchuria or the Soviet Union.”11 MacArthur’s instructions urged discrimination and limitations. Clearly, the new capacity to destroy entire cities from the air had not obliterated the distinction between military and non-military targets from the thinking of American military leaders.

The restraint in the use of U.S. air power appears to have been primarily motivated by a desire to avoid provoking the Soviet Union into a general war, and not out of explicit desires of American leaders to avoid civilian casualties. However, violation of the international norm against attacking civilians seems to have been one of the provocations that Washington wanted to avoid. In the meeting of the National Security Council that had agreed on the wording of MacArthur’s instructions, both President Truman and Secretary of State Dean Acheson expressed their concerns about provoking the Soviet Union. The president insisted that some restrictions were necessary in the instructions. Truman said he only wanted to destroy air bases, gasoline supplies, ammunition dumps, and such places north of the 38th parallel. He was concerned with restoring order below the 38th parallel and did not want to do anything north of the line except that which would “keep the North Koreans from killing the people we are trying to save.” Agreeing with the president, Secretary Acheson said he had no objections to attacks on North Korean airfields and army units but believed no action should be taken outside of North Korea. Acheson had already received an indication of Soviet opposition to a liberal use of American force. The Soviet representative to the United Nations Yakov A. Malik had expressed Soviet displeasure over American planes bombing Korean cities.12 Protests against “the mass annihilation of the peaceful civilian population” of Korea became a regular feature of propaganda from the Soviet Union and its communist allies.13 Apparently Truman and Acheson believed that attacks on targets other than “purely military” ones, in addition to strikes against targets outside of Korea, held a greater risk of provoking the Soviet Union.

MacArthur’s bomber commander General Emmett “Rosy” O’Donnell had no such concerns. O’Donnell led the two groups of B-29 bombers dispatched from U.S. Strategic Air Command to Korea. When O’Donnell first met with MacArthur in Tokyo in early July, he told the U.N. commander that he would like to incinerate the five North Korean cities which contained much of the country’s industries. O’Donnell argued that proper use of his bombers required heavy blows at the “sources of substance” for enemy frontline soldiers. His B-29s were “heavy-handed, clumsy, but powerful,” and they were no good at “playing with tanks, bridges, and Koreans on bicycles.” O’Donnell proposed that MacArthur announce to the world that as U.N. commander he was going to employ, against his wishes, the means which “brought Japan to its knees.” The announcement could ease concerns over harming civilians by serving as a warning, as O’Donnell put it, “to get women and children and other noncombatants the hell out.”

According to O’Donnell, MacArthur listened to the entire proposal and then said, “No, Rosy, I’m not prepared to go that far yet. My instructions are very explicit; however, I want you to know that I have no compunction whatever to your bombing bona fide military objectives, with high explosives, in those five industrial centers. If you miss your target and kill people or destroy other parts of the city, I accept that as a part of war.” MacArthur was not yet ready to destroy entire enemy-held cities, but was willing to accept the risk of unintended harm to civilians.14

After rejecting O’Donnell’s recommendation for incendiary attacks, MacArthur had his commander of the Far East Air Forces (FEAF) General George E. Stratemeyer issue a directive on bombing. It forbade O’Donnell from attacking “urban areas” as targets but authorized strikes against “specific military targets” within urban areas. Two days earlier, Stratemeyer’s director of operations had written a memorandum, approved by the FEAF commander, which said that “reasonable care” should be exercised in air operations “to avoid providing a basis for claims of ‘illegal’ attack against population centers.”15

Accompanying their measures to limit bombing damage to cities, American leaders strongly proclaimed their commitment to avoiding harm to civilians. “The problem of avoiding the killing of innocent civilians and damages to the civilian economy is continually present and given my personal attention,” General MacArthur asserted in his public reports to the U.N.16 In response to a flood of accusations from communists,17 Secretary Acheson denied that U.N. forces were “bombing and killing defenseless civilians.” Acheson said that U.N. air strikes in Korea had been “directed solely at military targets of the invader” and that these targets were “enemy troop concentrations, supply dumps, war plants, and communication lines.” Any harm to civilians, Acheson suggested was the fault of the North Koreans. The Secretary accused the North Koreans of compelling civilians to labor at military sites, using peaceful villages to hide tanks, and disguising their soldiers in civilian clothes.18

As the early months of the fighting demonstrated, the Korean War began as World War II had, with efforts to distinguish between military targets and civilians and public condemnation of attacks against noncombatants. The devastating aerial campaigns of 1945 had not annihilated the norm against targeting civilians nor made indiscriminate destruction inevitable. However, the Korean War, like World War II, would demonstrate a dynamic of escalation that rendered the persisting norm against targeting civilians largely impotent to actually save civilians from harm.19

In early November 1950, when U.N. soldiers first fought with Chinese units, the U.N. Command adopted a policy of the purposeful destruction of cities in enemy hands. The Far East Air Force began incendiary raids against urban areas reminiscent of those of World War II, and MacArthur spoke privately of making the remaining territory held by the North Koreans a “desert.”20 Yet, as they had during World War II, American leaders persisted in describing their escalated aerial attacks as discriminating strikes against military targets. However, as Chinese intervention threatened U.N. forces, U.S. commanders stretched the definition of “military target” far beyond its usual meaning.

This elasticity tied to a dynamic of escalation was visible from the opening of the U.N. fire-bombing campaign. As one of its first objectives, the U.N. command selected for destruction the city of Sinuiju, a provincial capital with an estimated population of over 60,000, that was across the Yalu River from the Manchurian city of Antung. In October, General MacArthur had restrained his FEAF commander General Stratemeyer in bombing the city. Stratemeyer had asked for the authorization of an attack “over the widest area of the city, without warning, by burning and high explosive,” but he was willing to settle for an attack only against “military targets in the city, with high explosive, with warning.” Here Stratemeyer was still distinguishing between specific military targets within a city and attacks on the city as a whole.

Stratemeyer offered no direct military justification for the attack but instead argued that Sinuiju could be used as the capital of North Korea once Pyongyang was evacuated, which would provide more legitimacy to the communist government than if it were a refugee government on foreign soil. He also believed the psychological effect of a “mass attack” would be “salutary” to the Chinese across the Yalu. The closest Stratemeyer came to a military justification for the attack was his observations that the city served as a rail exchange point between Korea and Manchuria and that the city had considerable industrial capacity that could provide “some means” of supporting a North Korean government, but he did not tie either of these points to the fighting then occurring. MacArthur’s headquarters returned a reply to Stratemeyer’s suggestion the next day that read: “The general policy enunciated from Washington negates such an attack unless the military situation clearly requires it. Under present circumstances this is not the case.” MacArthur was still refusing his air commanders’ pleas for incendiary attacks, but this would not last long.21

On November 3, Stratemeyer again asked MacArthur for permission to destroy Sinuiju. That day Stratemeyer forwarded the request of General Earle E. Partridge, commander of the Fifth Air Force, for clearance to “burn Sinuiju” because of heavy antiaircraft fire from the city and from Antung. Later in the afternoon, Stratemeyer met with MacArthur to discuss the request. Their conversation demonstrated the subjectivity of a “military target” for the U.N. commanders, especially when they had motivations for escalating attacks. General MacArthur told Stratemeyer that he did not want to burn Sinuiju because he planned to use the town’s facilities once the 24th Division seized it. MacArthur did grant permission to send fighters to attack the antiaircraft positions in Sinuiju with any weapon desired, including napalm. Stratemeyer then raised the subject of the marshalling yards near the bridge between Sinuiju and Antung, and MacArthur told him to bomb the yards if Stratemeyer considered them a military target.

At the meeting, Sinuiju was spared from burning, but another North Korean city was not so lucky. MacArthur desired an increase in the use of the B-29s which had run short of targets to bomb, and so he was sympathetic to Stratemeyer’s further recommendation to attack the town of Kanggye. The Air Force commander suggested the FEAF could burn several towns in North Korea as a lesson and indicated that Kanggye was a communications center for both rail and road and was occupied, he believed, by enemy troops. MacArthur answered: “Burn it if you so desire. Not only that, Strat, but burn and destroy as a lesson any other of those towns that you consider of military value to the enemy.” MacArthur left the decision to his air commander. Apparently, MacArthur did not feel the towns to be so vitally important to the enemy’s war effort that it was obvious to him that they had to be destroyed, but Stratemeyer’s idea about teaching the communists a lesson appealed to him. After the meeting, Stratemeyer informed Partridge of MacArthur’s decision not to burn Sinuiju but instead only to authorize strikes against the antiaircraft batteries in and around the city.22

MacArthur’s prohibition on burning Sinuiju lasted only a few hours this time. The general may have changed his mind because of the intelligence he was then receiving that more than 850,000 Chinese soldiers had gathered in Manchuria. By the evening, MacArthur’s chief of staff told Stratemeyer that the burning of Sinuiju had been approved. On November 5, MacArthur conveyed his new instructions to his air commander. Stratemeyer wrote in his diary that the “gist” of these instructions was: “Every installation, facility, and village in North Korea now becomes a military and tactical target.” The only exceptions were to be hydroelectric power plants, the destruction of which might provoke further Chinese intervention, and the city of Rashin, which was close to the Soviet border.

Stratemeyer demonstrated a single-mindedness in carrying out MacArthur’s wishes even at the risk of unwanted destruction. Stratemeyer’s staff pointed out to him how reported sites of POW camps, hospitals, and prisons would be vulnerable to incendiary attack. The Air Force commander later wrote in his diary about the danger to these sites, “Whether vulnerable or not, our target was to take out lines of communication and towns.” Stratemeyer sent orders to the Fifth Air Force and Bomber Command “to destroy every means of communications and every installation, factory, city, and village.” In reviewing Stratemeyer’s orders, MacArthur had him add a sentence that explained the rationale for the escalation. Inserted immediately after the phrase about destroying all communications and settlements, the sentence read, “Under present circumstances all such have marked military potential and can only be regarded as military installations.”23

Stratemeyer also evidenced some concern over justifying the new attacks. He was troubled to learn that ten media correspondents would accompany the B-29 raid on Kanggye. After consulting with his vice commanders and his public information officer, he decided on a general statement on the bombing if asked: “That wherever we find hostile troops and equipment that are being utilized to kill U.N. troops, we intend to use every means and weapon at our disposal to destroy them, that facility, or town. This will be the answer to the use of the incendiary-cluster type of bombs.” Stratemeyer included a similar rationale in his cable to the Air Force chief of staff on the attack: “Entire city of Kanggye was virtual arsenal and tremendously important communications center, hence decision to employ incendiaries for first time in Korea.”24

Several points are worth stressing about these remarkable exchanges between MacArthur and his air commander. Before MacArthur decided to escalate, the U.N. commander and Stratemeyer were distinguishing the targeting of specific structures defined as military targets from the targeting of urban areas as such. The anti-aircraft batteries in Sinuiju were the clear example of a “military” target, but even before the decision to escalate, some targets were more ambiguous such as the city’s marshalling yards. The commanders were also tempted to initiate area attacks because of their beliefs in the potential political and psychological effects the strikes might have on the enemy, even though those effects were at best indirectly related to the actual fighting then occurring.

 

However, it is crucial to note that the generals never explicitly defined civilians as legitimate targets, even though Stratemeyer readily risked the destruction of hospitals, POW camps, and prisons.

Bombs Away regardless of the type of enemy target lying in this rugged, mountainous terrain of Korea, very little would remain after the falling bombs have done their work. This striking photograph (above) of the lead bomber was made from a B-29 “Superfort” of the Far East Air Forces 19th Bomber Group on the 150th combat mission the 19th Bomber Group had flown since the start of the Korean war, ca. 02/1951

The generals escalated the war by targeting the physical infrastructure of cities and sought political and psychological benefits from this destruction, but there is no evidence that they talked, even privately among themselves, about aiming to kill enemy civilians or about gaining benefits from those civilian deaths. It is conceivable that killing civilians could have been their underlying intention and motivation, but it is exceedingly difficult to demonstrate convincingly an individual’s state of mind at a given time, and the historical evidence that has yet come to light does not suggest that the U.N. commanders were thinking specifically about killing civilians.

The episode did demonstrate the instability of the definition of a military target which slid within hours from preventing the burning of Sinuiju to justifying it. Instead of defining anti-aircraft batteries and railroad yards as the only military targets in Sinuiju, MacArthur redefined the entire physical infrastructure of the city as a military target, and showed how quickly structures usually considered civilian became open for attack. With the potential for media attention to the new incendiary raids, Stratemeyer employed new, and possibly disingenuous or muddled, attempts to obscure or justify the escalation. The attack on Kanggye, which he had justified to MacArthur for its potential as a “lesson” and for its transportation capacity and its possible housing of enemy troops, suddenly became necessary because the city was a “virtual arsenal” and a “tremendously important communications center.” While some of these points may sound like the second-guessing of difficult military decisions based on the limited information of historical hindsight, even if one agrees with every decision MacArthur and Stratemeyer made, their conversations suggested that pressures to escalate stretched the definition of military targets well beyond its common usage.

The “fire job,” which General O’Donnell had advocated in July but Washington had forbidden as too provocative, commenced in early November. Unlike the summer retreat of 1950, Washington did not restrain MacArthur, likely because the wider war feared earlier had already broken out, with the Chinese instead of the Soviets. On November 8, the FEAF showered 500 tons of incendiary bombs on more than one square mile of Sinuiju’s built-up area, destroying 60 percent of the city.

In O’Donnell’s report on the work of his bombers, he declared that “the town was gone.” Other towns were to follow. By November 28, Bomber Command reported that 95 percent of the town of Manpojin’s built up area was destroyed, for Hoeryong 90 percent, Namsi 90 percent, Chosan 85 percent, Sakchu 75 percent, Huichon 75 percent, Koindong 90 percent, and Uiju 20 percent. The destruction continued into the winter as Chinese forces compelled the U.N. soldiers to retreat south. As U.N. units withdrew from the major North Korean cities, those cities too became targets. On December 30, the FEAF commander informed his subordinates that they had the authority to “destroy” Pyongyang, Wonsan, Hamhung, and Hungnam, four of North Korea’s largest cities. The FEAF conducted the attacks without warning to the civilian population, and purposefully avoided publicizing the strikes. By the end of the war, eighteen of twenty-two major cities in North Korea had been at least half obliterated according to damage assessments by the U.S. Air Force. The fire-bombing of North Korean communities that commenced in November made meaningless the earlier claims of the FEAF that their bombing operations avoided the destruction of residential areas.25

However, just as during World War II, Americans’ depiction of their fighting as employing discriminating means changed little. Military officers and the press proceeded to discuss the violence in Korea as if its application remained discriminate and as if risks to noncombatants had not increased. The objects of attack were still “military targets” but the implicit definition of the term “military target” had grown to include virtually every human-made structure in enemy-occupied territory. The norm against targeting civilians survived within this definition, in the sense that Americans never came to the point of arguing that the civilian population itself was a “military target” and therefore a legitimate object of attack, but the expanded definition of the term and the acceptance of the destruction it entailed offered meager protection for Korean civilians.

While avoiding direct acknowledgment that U.N. forces were systematically burning North Korean cities, the U.N. Command did admit that it had escalated the air war. U.N. commanders offered new justifications for the expanded destruction that clung to the notion that its airplanes were attacking military targets. The justifications were far distant from the Air Force’s primary vision of how a strategic air offensive should be conducted. As Air Force leaders had been claiming from before World War II and had reiterated during the “Revolt of the Admirals” in 1949, the purpose of strategic air power was to destroy war-supporting industries in order to deprive the enemy’s forces in the field of weapons, ammunition, and supplies. Shortly before he left his post as head of Bomber Command, General Emmett O’Donnell said in an interview that his bombers had been prevented from destroying the enemy’s true sources of supply in China and the Soviet Union and therefore had been prevented from doing the job that they were made to do.26

Instead, the Air Force viewed its escalated bombing in Korea as part of a campaign to interdict the flow of weapons, supplies, and additional men to the communist army in Korea, and explained it to the public as such. But the campaign went beyond precise attacks against transportation and communication systems in North Korea in which bridges, railroad yards, docks, and vehicles were targets. U.N. forces undertook the destruction of entire towns, particularly those along major transportation routes from Manchuria and the Soviet Union, in order to deprive the communists of shelter in which to conceal their supplies and soldiers from the U.N. airplanes. The destruction also stripped the enemy soldiers of protection from the elements during the winter campaign

Nevertheless, the U.N. forces rarely acknowledged that this escalation was destroying entire communities and placing Korean civilians at risk. Public communiques from the U.N. Command avoided discussing or justifying the destruction of Korean towns and villages directly.

Instead, the press releases named “buildings,” often identified as enemy-occupied or as structures for storing, as the usual target of U.N. airplanes, disaggregating the communities into their constituent structures. Besides being regularly mentioned as the object of attack in the daily releases on air operations, buildings destroyed became part of the public and internal measure of progress of the air campaign. A January 2, 1951 release, labeled the six-month “box score,” placed the Navy total for buildings destroyed at 3,905. These buildings were presumably not ammo dumps, command posts, fuel dumps, observation positions, radio stations, roundhouses, power plants, or factories because the tallies listed those categories separately. The Air Force introduced the category of “enemy-held buildings” into their press release target tallies in the fall of 1951 and by that time they were advertising the destruction of more than 4,000 buildings a month and over 145,000 since the beginning of the war. Within the Air Force, the square footage of buildings destroyed eventually became a semi-official measure of progress in the air campaign. Towns and villages divided up into their constituent “buildings” by official press releases proved a much less controversial target for demolition than the blatant admission that American air power was leveling much of the Korean peninsula.27

The tank of napalm dropped by Fifth Air Force B-26 Invader light bombers of the 452nd Bomb Wing (light) on this Red marshalling yard at Masen-ni, North Korea, has blended with a stockpile of supplies on a loading platform to from a fiery inferno, ca. 07/11/1951

The press releases of the U.N. Command also avoided directly acknowledging attacks on entire villages and towns by the use of the term “supply center” and similar phrases such as “communications center,” “military area,” and “build-up area.” MacArthur’s public report to the United Nations on military operations during the first half of November described the escalation in the air war this way: “Command, communication and supply centers of North Korea will be obliterated in order to offset tactically the handicap we have imposed upon ourselves strategically by refraining from attack of Manchurian bases.”28 With the fall escalation, the daily press releases began to make vague references to strikes against supply centers. Sometimes the wording of the releases would use a Korean town name interchangeably with the phrase supply center implying that they were one and the same. More often the releases would report attacks against supply centers “at,” “in,” or “of,” a Korean town or city: “the supply center of Hamhung,” for example. These prepositional phrases could imply either that the entire town was considered by the U.N. forces a supply center or that the town contained within it a supply center. Only rarely would the releases explicitly identify the Korean place names referred to as villages, towns, or cities. With “supply center” identified as a military target, use of the term and similar phrases helped to maintain the perception that U.S. forces were only attacking military targets.29

However, the reliance of the press releases on describing operations as attacks on “buildings” and “supply centers” was not always enough to quiet the U.N. Command’s fears about the American image in Korea. In August 1951, the U.N. Command’s Office of the Chief of Information wrote a memorandum for the Public Information Office of the Far East Air Force. The memo said that General Matthew B. Ridgway, MacArthur’s replacement, had suggested that in news releases of targets destroyed by air attacks, the Air Force publicists might “specify more definite military targets” such as tanks, anti-aircraft guns, or armored vehicles. This would prevent anyone from pointing to the releases as evidence that American forces were “wantonly attacking mass objectives such as cities and towns” in North Korea. The U.N. Command, despite its expanded air attacks, continued to present the war it was waging as a discriminate use of force directed solely against military targets.30

These press relations efforts met with considerable success in the United States. Press coverage of the escalated air assault did not challenge the comforting picture the U.N. Command presented. Newspapers did note the U.N. forces had initiated some of the largest air strikes of the war in November and occasionally acknowledged the burning of entire cities. Nevertheless, the reporting indicated the military usefulness of destroying the physical infrastructure and avoided discussing the impact of the destruction on civilians.31 This picture of a discriminate use of air power in Korea has survived in many of the historical treatments of the war including the official Air Force history32 and a number of popular military histories and cursory scholarly accounts of the air war in Korea.33 Only recently have Americans begun to acknowledge the full extent of the fire bombing campaigns in histories of the Korean War.34

As in World War II, U.S. air power inflicted massive harm on civilians during the Korea War, and diverged from the customary practice of sparing civilians from the violence of war. However, this violence came through a process of escalation during the war. Area bombing did not supplant precision bombing as the standard method of employing air power against an enemy, but it remained an option when the fighting escalated. Even with the undeniable widespread harm Korean civilians suffered from U.S. weapons, Americans clung to the normative value of avoiding direct attacks against noncombatants, a norm buttressed by international humanitarian law and the precedents of Nuremberg. They almost never advocated publicly or privately, within the armed forces or outside them, the purposeful targeting of civilian populations as such. The stunning contradictions between lethal consequences and proclaimed scrupulousness were eased by the elastic definitions of military targets, but other changes in thinking about harming civilians assisted in this tortured reconciliation as well.

One of the most significant changes was the emerging emphasis on intention as the crucial distinction between justifiable and unjustifiable harm to civilians in war. Americans and a broader transnational consensus, which was eventually reflected in international humanitarian law, placed less importance on whether civilians were killed than on whether they were killed intentionally. It was not that intentional killing was identified as a new wrong after World War II, the norm against attacking civilians had all along implied prohibition of intentional attacks. It was rather that the massive expansion of firepower that was difficult to control, as exemplified by American air power, created a novel cultural space for plausible unintentional destruction on a tremendous scale. When wars were fought with spears, or even with cannon or rifles, the relative ease with which these weapons could be directed against a specific target left little room for questions of intent. In face-to-face warfare, warriors attacked individuals that they could identify as combatants or as bystanders. Mistakes could be made, but these occurred under unusual circumstances such as in combat at night or in fog. In most close fighting, intention was manifest in action. Either warriors killed noncombatants purposefully or they spared them. With the introduction of weapons that killed over long distances and devastated great areas, intent no longer clearly followed from action. Common and widespread unintended destruction became plausible. The great acceleration of this trend toward uncontrollable firepower in the twentieth century contributed to making intention crucial to Americans’ thinking about attacking civilians. Americans rationalized harm to noncombatants from violence that they could not control as a tragedy of war but not a crime.

The Korean War clearly illustrated this preoccupation with intention. Americans’ public insistence throughout the war that they discriminated between military targets and civilians sought to demonstrate that Americans did not intend to kill civilians. In addition to their extensive talk about intentions, Americans pointed to their military’s efforts to warn civilians of air attacks and evacuate them from combat areas. U.N. forces regularly broadcast warnings to civilians by radio and loudspeaker, and conducted a number of operations where warning leaflets were dropped on communities.35 These warnings, while of dubious value in actually protecting civilians, were well covered by the American media.36 U.N. forces also tried to assist civilians by conducting several large operations to evacuate them out of harm’s way during the winter retreat. In December 1950 as the Navy was evacuating X Corps from Hungnam, the Americans made room on their ships for 91,000 refugees. The U.N. Command also relocated thousands of refugees, including an airlift of 989 orphans, to the islands off South Korea’s coast during the winter.37 Even though these evacuations assisted only a small fraction of the Koreans who were threatened by the war’s violence, the U.S. press lauded these operations as well as other well-intentioned deeds by American soldiers on behalf of civilians.38

After the war, the U.S. Army’s revised field manual on the law of land warfare introduced a new statement that expressed as doctrine the growing importance of intention. The revised 1956 manual said, “It is a generally recognized rule of international law that civilians must not be made the object of attack directed exclusively against them.”39 Previous army manuals had left this rule unexpressed. As a subculture, military professionals may have placed even more emphasis on their intentions not to harm noncombatants even in the face of widespread civilian deaths. While the sources make it difficult to assess the personal sentiments of officers and soldiers about civilian casualties during the Korean War, it is not hard to believe that many in private did not want to think of themselves as waging war against defenseless civilians.40

This focus on intentions assisted in leaving the vital core of a norm against attacking civilians intact. Americans did not come to accept the targeting of civilians as a legitimate method in the Korean War. Nevertheless, the focus on intentions encouraged by new air power capabilities created a tendency in American thinking that was extremely dangerous to civilians in war. Americans came to condone unintended civilian casualties as an acceptable human cost of war, what would later be called “collateral damage.”41

How many unintended deaths could be justified in pursuing military objectives was a calculation usually absent from the Korean War era discussions of U.S. commanders and from the wider media attention to the suffering of Korean civilians. However, the beginning of a revival in just war thought started to raise these questions of proportionality, at least among theologians and scholars. In the first half of the twentieth century, only a few Catholic theologians had published studies in the United States which considered in any depth the problem of morality and warfare. In the early 1950s, just war reasoning reemerged in the hypothetical discussions of a feared nuclear war,42 and by the late 1950s, the just war tradition was undergoing a scholarly rebirth.43 One obscure principle from just war thought, the principle of double effect, had great relevance to the dilemmas of justifying unintended harm to civilians and gauging proportional harm. Derived from the teachings of Thomas Aquinas, the principle of double effect acknowledged that a given action could have multiple consequences, some of them good and some of them bad. As theologians and moral philosophers formulated the principle in the twentieth century, it held that as long as only the good consequences of an action were intended, the evil results were not a means to the good outcome, and the positive benefits outweighed the negative, such an action was morally justified.44 For example, the Catholic University theologian Father Francis J. Connell argued along these lines in debates during the Korean War over the morality of using nuclear weapons. He argued that a limited killing of noncombatants might be justified by the military advantage gained through the destruction of a crucial military target.45 Others like the British theologian F. H. Drinkwater criticized the use of the principle to rationalize unintended harm. Drinkwater argued that use of an atomic bomb against a city without a warning to the population was certain to kill tens of thousands of civilians. Since this evil was certain, he asserted it was hypocrisy to claim that it was not intended.46 While it is difficult to demonstrate that the dilemmas over justifying unintended harm which the new bombing capabilities raised was a direct spur to the revival of just war thinking, the principle of double effect has since served as a common justification for unintended harm.

International humanitarian law evolved slowly to reflect the changing norms about bombing and attacking civilians and the increased importance of intention, but the laws have lagged far behind broader attitudes. When the 1949 Geneva Conventions were revised following the experiences of World War II, they were almost completely silent on the threat to civilians from bombing. Although negotiators composed an entirely new convention for the protection of civilians in wartime, the protections concerned almost exclusively civilians in occupied territory and not civilians still behind their side’s frontlines who were the people who were most vulnerable to strategic bombing. At the 1949 Geneva conference, the Americans and the British opposed both the inclusion of restrictions on bombing and the Soviet Union’s attempts to use the treaty to outlaw atomic weapons. Two of the American negotiators later wrote, “It is to be emphasized that these ‘grave breaches’ do not constitute restrictions upon the use of modern combat weapons. For example, modern warfare unfortunately and often may involve the killing of civilians in proximity to military objectives, as well as immense destruction of property.”47 The 1949 agreements shielded only hospitals from all forms of attack, including bombing, and otherwise proposed voluntary establishment of safety zones where noncombatants could be sheltered from the effects of war. Although the United States and the U.N. forces agreed to abide by the Geneva Conventions in Korea, the laws provided few impediments to the use of American air power. When the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) and the United Nations raised the idea of the creation of safety zones in Korea to protect women, children, and the elderly from the ravages of war, the United States rejected the proposal out of concern that neutral observers could not be found to ensure that the safety zones in North Korea were not contributing to the war effort.48

LEGACIES

After the Korean War, the ICRC began to circulate draft rules for the protection of civilian populations from the dangers of indiscriminate warfare, but it took years for protections against targeting civilians to be written into international law. In 1968, the U.N. General Assembly affirmed a Red Cross resolution that banned attacks against civilian populations as such. In 1977, an international conference completed the drafting of two additional protocols to the Geneva Conventions of 1949. The first and second protocols, which related to the protection of victims of international and non-international armed conflicts respectively, each included the provision: “The civilian population as such, as well as individual civilians, shall not be the object of attack. Acts or threats of violence the primary purpose of which is to spread terror among the civilian population are prohibited.”49 Only slowly did international law come to embody the increased importance of intention that the norm against targeting civilians had acquired.

Beyond the growing importance of intention in defining legitimate uses of force in war, it is much more challenging to assess the legacy of the rise of bombing after World War II on norms because of the changing nature of conflicts the United States fought after Korea, and the unavailability of crucial sources. Despite these challenges, one normative belief appears to have been firmly established among American military leaders, and to have become noncontroversial among a wider public: that the weapons of war and military supplies before they found their way to soldiers’ hands were a worthy target. Bombing behind the frontlines of battle opened up the possibility of destroying arms and supplies before they could be used by enemy forces, either through attacks on factories or the transportation networks through which this matérial flowed. This disarming strategy was the favorite justification of bombing by commanders and civilian advocates of air power as was clearly shown during the Korean War.50 The U.S. Army’s 1956 field manual on the law of land warfare also incorporated this new understanding into the revisions of the previous manual from 1940. In narrowing the Hague Convention prohibition on the bombardment of undefended places, the manual clarified that this did not preclude strikes against military supply. The new manual said, “Factories producing munitions and military supplies, military camps, warehouses storing munitions and military supplies, ports and railroads being used for the transportation of military supplies, and other places devoted to the support of military operations or the accommodation of troops may also be attacked and bombarded even though they are not defended.”51 These parts of civilian society behind the frontline were deemed a vital component of a war effort, and few during the Korean War or since have challenged the legitimacy of these sources of supply as targets. The distinctions between civilian and military and defended and undefended became less important than the difference between noncombatant and combatant and an individual’s or resource’s relationship to the actual violence of war. Just as a civilian factory could produce supplies for the military, a soldier could become a noncombatant once wounded and incapacitated. An individual’s or resource’s relationship to the actual violence of war became the most important determinant of whether they were legitimate targets for attack.

While Americans embraced the targeting of clearer sources of military supply, bombing entire cities and urban areas has stayed consistently controversial, both on grounds of moral principle and effectiveness, even though a literal distinction could be made between the physical structures of an urban area and the civilian populace, as was often done in the Korean fighting. Military leaders in World War II, Korea, and afterwards have gone to great lengths to avoid openly acknowledging the destruction of cities as such. Although preparations for nuclear war often clearly envisioned targeting cities, this open acknowledgement was a major factor in making nuclear war repugnant.52

Other changes in thinking about bombing civilians are much more difficult to assess. For example, the subjectivity in choosing “military” targets has not necessarily decreased in the wars since Korea. Given the elaborate expressions of official American concern over civilian casualties, it might be tempting to argue that the wars in the Persian Gulf, Iraq, and Afghanistan have encouraged more precise and rigid definitions of military targets. Nevertheless, these definitions have not been tested, as they were in the Korean War. These later wars have been severely asymmetrical conflicts and American forces and commanders were not strained in the ways they were in Korea, let along during World War II. Definitions of military targets may still be elastic but recent wars may not have necessitated the type of escalation that encouraged this flexible thinking.

In other areas where changes in thinking about bombing civilians might seem apparent, a closer examination may reveal their superficiality. Indisputably, the United States has conducted less area bombing in its wars since Korea, but this could simply be because it has fought fewer evenly matched wars and has faced fewer desperate decisions to escalate. It might also be tempting to believe that American commanders in recent wars have resisted the temptations to which MacArthur and his air commanders succumbed of justifying bombing attacks for their political and psychological effects instead of for their directly military impact. However, limited current access to sources and records about these highly classified internal discussions hampers a full assessment.

Finally, more active efforts to avoid civilian casualties in recent American wars such as the expanded role of operational law and military lawyers in targeting may be more a result of the rise of counterinsurgency thinking than evidence of a growing belief among Americans that killing civilians is wrong. Counterinsurgency doctrine has emphasized the importance of winning the support of civilian populations in civil wars as a means to military victory. From Vietnam to Afghanistan, American commanders have tried to limit civilian casualties in order to avoid alienating civilians.53 The rise in counterinsurgency doctrine is an important change in military thought, but one tied more to the changing nature of American wars than to norms about bombing civilians.

In assessing changing norms about bombing after World War II, it is crucial to distinguish among the changes in values, ideas, laws, and behavior that the term “norm” can encompass. These distinctions make it easier to summarize how norms about bombing changed after World War II. The transnational normative value that prohibited attacks on civilians persisted. However, the actual protections it offered to civilians were undermined by the new bombing capabilities. Because of the difficulties with controlling the violence of modern weaponry, the focus on intention gained great significance in moral justification, and this focus helped rationalize, along with the obscure moral principle of double effect, unintended harm and contributed to a complacent stance toward the terrible human cost of collateral damage. On the other hand, normative behavior or customary practice did change, at least temporarily, during both World War II and Korea. As the wars escalated, U.S. armed forces conducted unprecedented fire-bombing and other area attacks against cities and towns that proved deadly to civilians, and the flexibility of the definition of “military targets” facilitated these area attacks. International humanitarian law also evolved to catch up with the growing significance of intentional attacks, but at a relatively slow rate. Finally, while normative beliefs about bombing civilians are the hardest to assess, Americans have come to accept the idea that bombing behind the frontlines with the goal of disarming was an effective and acceptable method of fighting even while they remained hotly divided over attacks on urban areas.

The decade after World War II and the experience of the Korean War laid a foundation for the sensitivity to civilian casualties that became evident in the American wars of the late twentieth and early twenty-first centuries. This foundation was not built through a recovery of the norm against targeting civilians spurred by the trauma of the Vietnam War after a period when the norm had been abandoned. The role of the Vietnam War in changing American attitudes toward civilian casualties was not so crucial because many of these changes, such as the growing significance of intention, began earlier, and because much about these attitudes has remained relatively constant from the 1930s to the 1970s and has remained so into the twenty-first century. Instead, the Korean War experience demonstrated the durability of the norm against targeting civilians even in the face of mass killing from bombing or otherwise. Adherence to the norm persisted even though the norm provided severely limited protections to civilians when bombing was employed and conventional wars escalated. In avoiding massive killing of civilians in their wars since Vietnam, Americans may not have become more virtuous, but only more fortunate in not having to fight more evenly matched wars.

This article is an expanded and adapted version of the chapter “Bombing Civilians After World War II: The Persistence of Norms Against Targeting Civilians in the Korean War” from Matthew Evangelista and Henry Shue (eds.), The American Way of Bombing: How Ethical and Legal Norms Change, from Flying Fortresses to Drones (Cornell University Press, 2014).

Sahr Conway-Lanz is Senior Archivist for American Diplomacy at the Yale University Library. He is the author of Collateral Damage: Americans, Noncombatant Immunity, and Atrocity After World War II (Routledge, 2006). His article “Beyond No Gun Ri: Refugees and the United States Military in the Korean War” that appeared in Diplomatic History won the Bernath Article Prize in 2006. He has a Ph.D. in history from Harvard University and is currently working on a book project about how Americans have held their own soldiers accountable for harming civilians in war.

Notes

1 For such arguments, see George E. Hopkins, “Bombing and the American Conscience during World War II,” Historian 28, no. 3 (1966): 451–73; Richard Shelly Hartigan, The Forgotten Victim: A History of the Civilian (Chicago: Precedent, 1982), 1–10; Ronald Schaffer, Wings of Judgment: American Bombing in World War II (New York: Oxford University Press, 1985), 3, 217–18; H. Bruce Franklin, War Stars: The Superweapon and the American Imagination (New York: Oxford University Press, 1988), 105; Paul Boyer, Fallout: A Historian Reflects on Americas Half-Century Encounter with Nuclear Weapons (Columbus: Ohio State University Press, 1998), 12; John W. Dower, Cultures of War: Pearl Harbor/Hiroshima/9–11/Iraq (New York: W.W. Norton and New Press, 2010), 161, 166–70, 192–96. For a contrary view, see Biddle in Matthew Evangelista and Henry Shue (eds.), The American Way of Bombing: Changing Ethical and Legal Norms, from Flying Fortresses to Drones (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 2014).

2 Congressional Record, 75th Cong., 3rd sess., vol. 83, pt. 8: 9524-9526, 9545; Public Papers and Addresses of Franklin D. Roosevelt, vol. 8 (New York: Macmillan, 1941), 454.

3 See, for example, New York Times, April 29, May 10, 1940.

4 Schaffer, Wings of Judgment, 70; Conrad C. Crane, Bombs, Cities, and Civilians: American Airpower Strategy in World War II (Lawrence, KA: University of Kansas Press, 1993), 31.

5 New York Times, February 25, 1945; Michael S. Sherry, The Rise of American Air Power: The Creation of Armageddon (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1987), 289.

6 Public Papers of the Presidents of the United States: Harry S. Truman, 1945 (Washington: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1961), 197, 212.

7 Crane, Bombs, Cities, and Civilians, 29-30.

8 For an early example of this, see Conference minutes, July 7, 1949, box 2389, 514.2, Central Decimal Files 1945-1949, Record Group (hereafter RG) 59, U.S. National Archives and Records Administration, College Park, MD (hereafter NA).

9 Sahr Conway-Lanz, Collateral Damage: Americans, Noncombatant Immunity, and Atrocity after World War II (New York: Routledge, 2006), 23-26.

10 U.S. House Committee on Armed Services, The National Defense Program—Unification and Strategy: Hearings, 81st Cong., 1st sess., 1949, 183-189, 402-403.

11 Message, Joint Chiefs of Staff to MacArthur, June 29, 1950, FRUS 1950, vol. 7, 240-241.

12 Draft notes on June 29, 1950 White House defense meeting, box 71, Elsey Papers, HSTL; memorandum of conversation, Philip C. Jessup, June 29, 1950, box 4263, 795.00, Central Decimal Files 1950-1954, RG 59, NA; message, Warren R. Austin to Acheson, June 27, 1950, FRUS 1950, vol. 7, 208-209.

13 United Nations Security Council Official Records, August 8, 1950, 5th year, 484th mtg., S/PV.484, 20.

14 O’Donnell to LeMay, July 11, 1950, box 65, series B, Curtis E. LeMay Papers, Library of Congress (LC).

15 Stratemeyer to O’Donnell, July 11, 1950, box 103, Series B, LeMay Papers, LC; HQ USAF, An Evaluation of the Effectiveness of the United States Air Force in the Korean Campaign (Barcus Report), vol. 5, 2, box 906, Project Decimal Files 1942-1954, Directorate of Plans, Office of the Deputy Chief of Staff for Operations, RG 341, NA.

16 New York Times, September 3, 1950. See also “Report of the United Nations Command Operations in Korea,” U.S. Department of State Bulletin, October 2, 1950, 534-540; “Fifth Report of the U.N. Command Operations in Korea,” U.S. Department of State Bulletin, October 16, 1950, 603-606.

17 Message, London Embassy to Secretary of State, July 1, 1950, box 4264, 795.00, Central Decimal Files 1950-1954, RG 59, NA.; New York Times, July 4, 11, 12, 14, 18, 26, 1950; message, Moscow Embassy to Secretary of State, July 14, 1950, box 4265, 795.00, Central Decimal Files 1950-1954, RG 59, NA; message, Moscow Embassy to Secretary of State, July 17, 1950, box 4265, 795.00, Central Decimal Files 1950-1954, RG 59, NA; Daily Worker, July 4-6, 10, 12, 14, 17, 18, 20, 24-28, 31, 1950; United Nations Security Council Official Records, August 8, 1950, 5th year, 484th mtg., S/PV.484, 20. The Soviet Union also led a campaign among communist countries to raise relief funds for the Korean victims of American “terror bombing.” “From Korea Bulletin 1 August 1950,” box 1, Korean War Communiques and Press Releases 1950-1951, Office of the Chief of Information, RG 319, NA; New York Times, August 3, 1950. Seoul City Sue, the English-speaking commentator for North Korean radio broadcasts to U.N. forces, excoriated the U.S. Air Force for promiscuous bombing of schools and the strafing of farmers. Message, CINCFE to UEPC/Department of the Army, August 8, 1950, box 199, 311.5, Classified Decimal File 1950, Office of the Chief of Information, RG 319, NA.

18 “North Korea Slanders U.N. Forces to Hide Guilt of Aggression,” U.S. Department of State Bulletin, September 18, 1950, 454.

19 I want to thank Alexander B. Downes and his work Targeting Civilians in War (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 2008) for helping me to understand the larger significance of this dynamic of escalation.

20 Memorandum of conversation, Muccio, November 17, 1950, Foreign Relations of the United States (hereafter FRUS) 1950, vol. 7, 1175.

21 William T. Y’Blood (ed.), The Three Wars of Lt. Gen. George E. Stratemeyer: His Korean War Diary (Washington, DC: Air Force History and Museums Program, 1999), 236-237.

22 Ibid., 253-255.

23 Douglas MacArthur, Reminiscences (New York: McGraw-Hill, 1964), 366; Conrad C. Crane, American Airpower Strategy in Korea, 1950-1953 (Lawrence, KA: University of Kansas Press, 2000), 46; Stratemeyer Diary, 258-261.

24 Stratemeyer Diary, 256-257; message, Stratemeyer to Vandenberg, November 5, 1950, box 86, Vandenberg Papers, LC.

25 Robert Futrell, The United States Air Force in Korea, 1950-1953, rev. ed. (Washington: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1983), 221-23, 226; New York Times, November 9, 1950; Stratemeyer Diary, 269, 371-72; interview transcript from 98th Bomb Group, November 30, 1950, box 905, Project Decimal File 1942-1954, Directorate of Plans, Office of the Deputy Chief of Staff for Operations, RG 341, NA; Crane, American Airpower Strategy in Korea, 63, 168.

26 New York Times, January 16, 1951.

27 “Korean Release, No. 778,” January 2, 1951, box 3, Korean War Communiques and Press Releases 1950-1951, Office of the Chief of Information, RG 319, NA; “Korean Release Unnumbered,” December 2, 1951, box 5, Korean War Communiques and Press Releases 1950-1951, Office of the Chief of Information, RG 319, NA; memorandum to Schmelz, October 31, 1951, box 15, Formerly Classified General Correspondence, Public Information Division, Office of Information Services, RG 340, NA; Wiley D. Ganey to LeMay, September 7, 1952, series B, box 65, LeMay Papers, LC.

28 “Ninth Report: For the Period November 1-15, 1950,” U.S. Department of State Bulletin, January 8, 1951, 47-50.

29 See the press releases printed daily in the New York Times starting with “Korean Release, No. 627,” November 9, 1950. By spring 1951, references to supply centers or areas as the targets for U.N. air attacks were frequent in the releases. Releases December 1950-December 1951 are also in boxes 2-3, Korean War Communiques and Press Releases 1950-1951, Office of the Chief of Information, RG 319, NA. The terms like supply center were not only used by the military for public consumption. Similar terms were used in internal documents by American officers. Message, G-2, Department of the Army to USCINCEUR et al., November 24, 1952, box 756, Chronological File 1949-June 1954, Office of Security Review, Office of the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Legislative and Public Affairs, RG 330, NA.

30 Memorandum, Office of the Chief of Information, HQ FEC to Public Information Office, FEAF, August 1, 1951, box 36, Office of the Chief of Information, Office of the Chief of Staff, Supreme Commander for the Allied Powers, RG 331, NA.

31 Chicago Tribune, November 8, 1950; St. Louis Post-Dispatch, November 8, 1950; Detroit News, November 8, 1950; Philadelphia Bulletin, November 8, 9, 1950; Los Angeles Times, November 8, 9, 1950; San Francisco Examiner, November 8, 9, 1950; Houston Chronicle, November 8, 9, 1950; Washington Post, November 8-10, 1950; Baltimore Sun, November 8-10, 1950; Boston Post, November 8-11, 1950; New York Times, November 9, 1950; Cleveland Press, November 9, 1950. Of the twelve daily newspapers surveyed, only the Detroit News and Cleveland Press did not label Sinuiju a supply base or similar term. For additional evidence of the wider public embrace of this persisting vision of a war fought with discrimination, see Conway-Lanz, Collateral Damage, 114-119.

32 Futrell, United States Air Force in Korea.

33 For example, Max Hastings, The Korean War (New York: Simon and Schuster, 1987); Crane, Bombs, Cities, and Civilians, 147-150.

34 Bruce Cumings, The Roaring of the Cataract, 1947-1950, vol. 2 of The Origins of the Korean War (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1990); Crane, American Airpower Strategy in Korea; Steven Hugh Lee, The Korean War (New York: Longman, 2001).

35 First Radio Broadcast and Leaflet Group, “Plan for Psychological Warfare Operations Designed to Support the United Nations Air Force,” June 12, 1952, box 20, General Correspondence 1952, Psychological Warfare Section, General Headquarters, Far East Command, RG 338, NA; “Plan for Psychological Warfare Operations in Support of Air Attack Program,” July 7, 1952, box 7, General Correspondence 1952, Psychological Warfare Section, General Headquarters, Far East Command, RG 338, NA; “Monthly Report for August 1952,” box 14, General Correspondence 1952, Psychological Warfare Section, General Headquarters, Far East Command, RG 338, NA; “Report of the U.N. Command Operations in Korea,” U.S. Department of State Bulletin, January 26, 1951, 155-159; “Psychological Warfare Weekly Bulletin,” n.d., box 20, General Correspondence 1952, Psychological Warfare Section, General Headquarters, Far East Command, RG 338, NA; Crane, American Airpower Strategy in Korea, 122-125; message, CINCFE to PsyWar, October 9, 1952, box 759, Chronological File 1949-June 1954, Office of Security Review, Office of the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Legislative and Public Affairs, RG 330, NA; “Reports of U.N. Command Operations in Korea: Sixty-Fifth Report for the Period March 1-15, 1953,” U.S. Department of State Bulletin, July 13, 1953, 52-53.

36 “The Right Track,” Time, July 21, 1952, 32; “Will Bombing End Korean War?” U.S. News and World Report, September 12, 1952, 13-15; “Truth About the Air War,” U.S. News and World Report, November 7, 1952, 20-21; Carl Spaatz, “Stepped-Up Bombing in Korea,” Newsweek, August 18, 1952, 27; New York Times, August 5, 6, 8-10, 19, 21, 29, 30, September 14, 20, October 3, 5, 1952.

37 “Korean Release, No. 761,” December 29, 1950, box 2, Korean War Communiques and Press Releases, 1950-1951, Office of the Chief of Information, RG 319, NA; Ashley Halsey, Jr., “Miracle Voyage Off Korea,” Saturday Evening Post, April 14, 1951, 17; message, X Corps to CINCFE, December 22, 1950, box 729, Security-Classified Correspondence 1950, Adjutant General Section, RG 500, NA; James A. Field, The History of United States Naval Operations: Korea (Washington: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1962), 304; Robert Futrell, The United States Air Force in Korea 1950-1953, Rev. ed. (Washington: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1983), 269.

38 New York Times, December 25, 1950, January 19, February 11, June 16, 1951, July 30, 1951, November 4, 1952, January 14, May 25, 1953; San Francisco Examiner, December 1, 1950; Nora Waln, “Our Softhearted Warriors in Korea,” Saturday Evening Post, December 23, 1950, 28-29, 66-67; “Waifs of War,” Time, January 1, 1951, 16; “The Greatest Tragedy,” Time, January 15, 1951, 23-24; “Helping the Hopeless,” Time, January 29, 1951, 31; Bill Stapleton, “Little Orphan Island,” Collier’s, July 14, 1951, 51; Michael Rougier, “The Little Boy Who Wouldn’t Smile,” Life, July 23, 1951, 91-98; James Finan, “Voyage from Hungnam,” Reader’s Digest, November 1951, 111-112; “Christian Soldiers,” Time, June 15, 1953, 75-76.

39 FM 27-10 Department of the Army Field Manual: The Law of Land Warfare (Washington: Department of the Army, 1956), 16.

40 For an example of the challenge in assessing individual officers’ principled commitments to protecting civilians, see Conway-Lanz, Collateral Damage, 52-55.

41 For a more extensive examination of this argument, see Conway-Lanz, Collateral Damage.

42 For examples, see St. Louis Post-Dispatch, February 1, 1950; Edward A. Conway, “A Moralist, a Scientist, and the H-Bomb,” America, April 8, 1950, 9-11.

43 For examples, see Ralph Luther Moellering, Modern War and the American Churches: A Factual Study of the Christian Conscience on Trial from 1939 to the Cold War Crisis of Today (New York: American, 1956); John Courtney Murray, Morality and Modern War (New York: Church Peace Union, 1959); Roland H. Bainton, Christian Attitudes Toward War and Peace: A Historical Survey and Critical Re-Evaluation (New York: Abingdon, 1960); William J. Nagle, Morality and Modern Warfare: The State of the Question (Baltimore: Helicon, 1960); Joseph C. McKenna, “Ethics and War,” American Political Science Review 54 (September 1960), 647-658; Robert W. Tucker, The Just War: A Study in Contemporary American Doctrine (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins, 1960); G. E. M. Anscombe and Walter Stein, Nuclear Weapons: A Catholic Response (New York: Sheed and Ward, 1961); Paul Ramsey, War and the Christian Conscience: How Should Modern War Be Conducted Justly? (Durham, NC: Duke University Press), 1961).

44 Joseph T. Mangan, “An Historical Analysis of the Principle of Double Effect,” Theological Studies 10 (1949), 41-61; John C. Ford, “The Morality of Obliteration Bombing,” Theological Studies 5, no. 3 (September 1944), 289; Robert L. Holmes, On War and Morality (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1989), 193-196.

45 Francis J. Connell, “A Reply,” Commonweal, September 26, 1950, 607-608.

46 F. H. Drinkwater, “War and Conscience,” Commonweal, March 2, 1951, 511-514. See also Michael De La Bedoyere, “Pacifism and the Christian Conscience,” Commonweal, December 21, 1951, 271-273; “War and Conscience,”Commonweal, January 18, 1952, 375-378.

47 Geoffrey Best, War and Law Since 1945 (New York: Clarendon), 115-6, 204-5; conference minutes, July 7, 1949, 514.2, Central Decimal Files 1945-1949, RG 59, NA; Raymund T. Yingling and Robert W. Ginnane, “The Geneva Conventions of 1949,” American Journal of International Law 46, no. 3, (July 1951), 427.

48 Paul Ruegger, “Press Conference Statement,” April 9, 1951, box 4380, 800.571, Central Decimal Files 1950-1954, RG 59, NA; New York Times, July 23, September 27, 1952; K. R. Kreps to Secretary of State, April 20, 1951, box 879, 014, Project Decimal File 1942-1954, Directorate of Plans, Office of Deputy Chief of Staff for Operations, RG 341, NA.

49 U.N. General Assembly, “Respect for Human Rights in Armed Conflicts,” Resolution 2444, December 19, 1968; Adam Roberts and Richard Guelff (eds.), Documents on the Laws of War, (Clarendon: Oxford, 1989) 415, 455.

50 For an additional example from a prominent air power booster, see Alexander De Seversky, Air Power: Key to Survival (New York: Simon and Schuster, 1950), 184-185.

51 FM 27-10, 19.

52 Conway-Lanz, Collateral Damage; Nina Tannenwald, The Nuclear Taboo: The United States and the Non-Use of Nuclear Weapons since 1945 (New York: Cambridge University Press, 2007).

53 For examples from the Vietnam War, see Westmoreland to Commander, All Subordinate Units, July 7, 1965, History Files, microfilm collection, The War in Vietnam: Papers of William C. Westmoreland (Bethesda, MD: University Publications of America, 1993); “Combat Operations Minimizing Non-Combatant Battle Casualties,” MACV Directive 525-3, September 7, 1965, History Files, Papers of William Westmoreland; memorandum, George M. Gallagher, September 15, 1965, History Files, Papers of William Westmoreland; “Tactics and Techniques for Employment of U.S. Forces in the Republic of Vietnam,” MACV Directive 525-4, September 17, 1965, History Files, Papers of William Westmoreland; “Synopsis of Tactical Air Firepower Study,” n.d., History Files, Papers of William Westmoreland; “Combat Operations Control, Disposition, and Safeguarding of Vietnamese Property, Captured Materiel and Food Supplies,” MACV Directive 525-9, April 10, 1967, 2021 (MACJ4-Logistics), MACV Historical Office, microfilm collection, Records of the Military Assistance Command Vietnam (Bethesda, MD: University Publications of America, 1988); Division Order 003330.2, August 9, 1967, attachment to August 1967 Command History of the 1st Marine Division, microfilm collection, Records of the U.S. Marine Corps in the Vietnam War (Bethesda, Md.: University Publications of America, 1990); Appendix 10 to Annex A to 9th Infantry Division Field SOP, attachment to Major General George G. O’Connor, U.S. Army Senior Officer Debriefing Report, February 23, 1968, microfilm collection,U.S. Armed Forces in Vietnam 1954-1975 (Frederick, MD: University Publications of America, 1983).

  • Posted in English, NO READ MORE LINK
  • Comments Off on America’s “Ethics” of Bombing Civilians After World War II: Massive Casualties and the Targeting of Civilians in the Korean War

Relevant article selected from the GR archive, first published on Washington Blog and Global Research in October 2012.

***

Atomic Weapons Were Not Needed to End the War or Save Lives

Like all Americans, I was taught that the U.S. dropped nuclear bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki in order to end WWII and save both American and Japanese lives.

But most of the top American military officials at the time said otherwise.

The U.S. Strategic Bombing Survey group, assigned by President Truman to study the air attacks on Japan, produced a report in July of 1946 that concluded (52-56):

Based on a detailed investigation of all the facts and supported by the testimony of the surviving Japanese leaders involved, it is the Survey’s opinion that certainly prior to 31 December 1945 and in all probability prior to 1 November 1945, Japan would have surrendered even if the atomic bombs had not been dropped, even if Russia had not entered the war, and even if no invasion had been planned or contemplated.

General (and later president) Dwight Eisenhower – then Supreme Commander of all Allied Forces, and the officer who created most of America’s WWII military plans for Europe and Japan – said:

The Japanese were ready to surrender and it wasn’t necessary to hit them with that awful thing.

Newsweek, 11/11/63, Ike on Ike

Eisenhower also noted (pg. 380):

In [July] 1945… Secretary of War Stimson, visiting my headquarters in Germany, informed me that our government was preparing to drop an atomic bomb on Japan. I was one of those who felt that there were a number of cogent reasons to question the wisdom of such an act. …the Secretary, upon giving me the news of the successful bomb test in New Mexico, and of the plan for using it, asked for my reaction, apparently expecting a vigorous assent.

During his recitation of the relevant facts, I had been conscious of a feeling of depression and so I voiced to him my grave misgivings, first on the basis of my belief that Japan was already defeated and that dropping the bomb was completely unnecessary, and secondly because I thought that our country should avoid shocking world opinion by the use of a weapon whose employment was, I thought, no longer mandatory as a measure to save American lives. It was my belief that Japan was, at that very moment, seeking some way to surrender with a minimum loss of ‘face’. The Secretary was deeply perturbed by my attitude….

Admiral William Leahy – the highest ranking member of the U.S. military from 1942 until retiring in 1949, who was the first de facto Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and who was at the center of all major American military decisions in World War II – wrote (pg. 441):

It is my opinion that the use of this barbarous weapon at Hiroshima and Nagasaki was of no material assistance in our war against Japan. The Japanese were already defeated and ready to surrender because of the effective sea blockade and the successful bombing with conventional weapons.

The lethal possibilities of atomic warfare in the future are frightening. My own feeling was that in being the first to use it, we had adopted an ethical standard common to the barbarians of the Dark Ages. I was not taught to make war in that fashion, and wars cannot be won by destroying women and children.

General Douglas MacArthur agreed (pg. 65, 70-71):

MacArthur’s views about the decision to drop the atomic bomb on Hiroshima and Nagasaki were starkly different from what the general public supposed …. When I asked General MacArthur about the decision to drop the bomb, I was surprised to learn he had not even been consulted. What, I asked, would his advice have been? He replied that he saw no military justification for the dropping of the bomb. The war might have ended weeks earlier, he said, if the United States had agreed, as it later did anyway, to the retention of the institution of the emperor.

Moreover (pg. 512):

The Potsdam declaration in July, demand[ed] that Japan surrender unconditionally or face ‘prompt and utter destruction.’ MacArthur was appalled. He knew that the Japanese would never renounce their emperor, and that without him an orderly transition to peace would be impossible anyhow, because his people would never submit to Allied occupation unless he ordered it. Ironically, when the surrender did come, it was conditional, and the condition was a continuation of the imperial reign. Had the General’s advice been followed, the resort to atomic weapons at Hiroshima and Nagasaki might have been unnecessary.

Similarly, Assistant Secretary of War John McLoy noted (pg. 500):

I have always felt that if, in our ultimatum to the Japanese government issued from Potsdam [in July 1945], we had referred to the retention of the emperor as a constitutional monarch and had made some reference to the reasonable accessibility of raw materials to the future Japanese government, it would have been accepted. Indeed, I believe that even in the form it was delivered, there was some disposition on the part of the Japanese to give it favorable consideration. When the war was over I arrived at this conclusion after talking with a number of Japanese officials who had been closely associated with the decision of the then Japanese government, to reject the ultimatum, as it was presented. I believe we missed the opportunity of effecting a Japanese surrender, completely satisfactory to us, without the necessity of dropping the bombs.

Under Secretary of the Navy Ralph Bird said:

I think that the Japanese were ready for peace, and they already had approached the Russians and, I think, the Swiss. And that suggestion of [giving] a warning [of the atomic bomb] was a face-saving proposition for them, and one that they could have readily accepted.

***

In my opinion, the Japanese war was really won before we ever used the atom bomb. Thus, it wouldn’t have been necessary for us to disclose our nuclear position and stimulate the Russians to develop the same thing much more rapidly than they would have if we had not dropped the bomb.

War Was Really Won Before We Used A-Bomb, U.S. News and World Report, 8/15/60, pg. 73-75.

He also noted (pg. 144-145, 324):

It definitely seemed to me that the Japanese were becoming weaker and weaker. They were surrounded by the Navy. They couldn’t get any imports and they couldn’t export anything. Naturally, as time went on and the war developed in our favor it was quite logical to hope and expect that with the proper kind of a warning the Japanese would then be in a position to make peace, which would have made it unnecessary for us to drop the bomb and have had to bring Russia in.

General Curtis LeMay, the tough cigar-smoking Army Air Force “hawk,” stated publicly shortly before the nuclear bombs were dropped on Japan:

The war would have been over in two weeks. . . . The atomic bomb had nothing to do with the end of the war at all.

The Vice Chairman of the U.S. Bombing Survey Paul Nitze wrote (pg. 36-37, 44-45):

[I] concluded that even without the atomic bomb, Japan was likely to surrender in a matter of months. My own view was that Japan would capitulate by November 1945.

***

Even without the attacks on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, it seemed highly unlikely, given what we found to have been the mood of the Japanese government, that a U.S. invasion of the islands [scheduled for November 1, 1945] would have been necessary.

Deputy Director of the Office of Naval Intelligence Ellis Zacharias wrote:

Just when the Japanese were ready to capitulate, we went ahead and introduced to the world the most devastating weapon it had ever seen and, in effect, gave the go-ahead to Russia to swarm over Eastern Asia.

Washington decided that Japan had been given its chance and now it was time to use the A-bomb.

I submit that it was the wrong decision. It was wrong on strategic grounds. And it was wrong on humanitarian grounds.

Ellis Zacharias, How We Bungled the Japanese Surrender, Look, 6/6/50, pg. 19-21.

Brigadier General Carter Clarke – the military intelligence officer in charge of preparing summaries of intercepted Japanese cables for President Truman and his advisors – said (pg. 359):

When we didn’t need to do it, and we knew we didn’t need to do it, and they knew that we knew we didn’t need to do it, we used them as an experiment for two atomic bombs.

Many other high-level military officers concurred. For example:

The commander in chief of the U.S. Fleet and Chief of Naval Operations, Ernest J. King, stated that the naval blockade and prior bombing of Japan in March of 1945, had rendered the Japanese helpless and that the use of the atomic bomb was both unnecessary and immoral. Also, the opinion of Fleet Admiral Chester W. Nimitz was reported to have said in a press conference on September 22, 1945, that “The Admiral took the opportunity of adding his voice to those insisting that Japan had been defeated before the atomic bombing and Russia’s entry into the war.” In a subsequent speech at the Washington Monument on October 5, 1945, Admiral Nimitz stated “The Japanese had, in fact, already sued for peace before the atomic age was announced to the world with the destruction of Hiroshima and before the Russian entry into the war.” It was learned also that on or about July 20, 1945, General Eisenhower had urged Truman, in a personal visit, not to use the atomic bomb. Eisenhower’s assessment was “It wasn’t necessary to hit them with that awful thing . . . to use the atomic bomb, to kill and terrorize civilians, without even attempting [negotiations], was a double crime.” Eisenhower also stated that it wasn’t necessary for Truman to “succumb” to [the tiny handful of people putting pressure on the president to drop atom bombs on Japan.]

British officers were of the same mind. For example, General Sir Hastings Ismay, Chief of Staff to the British Minister of Defence, said to Prime Minister Churchill that “when Russia came into the war against Japan, the Japanese would probably wish to get out on almost any terms short of the dethronement of the Emperor.”

On hearing that the atomic test was successful, Ismay’s private reaction was one of “revulsion.”

Why Were Bombs Dropped on Populated Cities Without Military Value?

Even military officers who favored use of nuclear weapons mainly favored using them on unpopulated areas or Japanese military targets … not cities.

For example, Special Assistant to the Secretary of the Navy Lewis Strauss proposed to Secretary of the Navy James Forrestal that a non-lethal demonstration of atomic weapons would be enough to convince the Japanese to surrender … and the Navy Secretary agreed (pg. 145, 325):

I proposed to Secretary Forrestal that the weapon should be demonstrated before it was used. Primarily it was because it was clear to a number of people, myself among them, that the war was very nearly over. The Japanese were nearly ready to capitulate… My proposal to the Secretary was that the weapon should be demonstrated over some area accessible to Japanese observers and where its effects would be dramatic. I remember suggesting that a satisfactory place for such a demonstration would be a large forest of cryptomeria trees not far from Tokyo. The cryptomeria tree is the Japanese version of our redwood… I anticipated that a bomb detonated at a suitable height above such a forest… would lay the trees out in windrows from the center of the explosion in all directions as though they were matchsticks, and, of course, set them afire in the center. It seemed to me that a demonstration of this sort would prove to the Japanese that we could destroy any of their cities at will… Secretary Forrestal agreed wholeheartedly with the recommendation

It seemed to me that such a weapon was not necessary to bring the war to a successful conclusion, that once used it would find its way into the armaments of the world…

General George Marshall agreed:

Contemporary documents show that Marshall felt “these weapons might first be used against straight military objectives such as a large naval installation and then if no complete result was derived from the effect of that, he thought we ought to designate a number of large manufacturing areas from which the people would be warned to leave–telling the Japanese that we intend to destroy such centers….”

As the document concerning Marshall’s views suggests, the question of whether the use of the atomic bomb was justified turns … on whether the bombs had to be used against a largely civilian target rather than a strictly military target—which, in fact, was the explicit choice since although there were Japanese troops in the cities, neither Hiroshima nor Nagasaki was deemed militarily vital by U.S. planners. (This is one of the reasons neither had been heavily bombed up to this point in the war.) Moreover, targeting [at Hiroshima and Nagasaki] was aimed explicitly on non-military facilities surrounded by workers’ homes.

Historians Agree that the Bomb Wasn’t Needed

Historians agree that nuclear weapons did not need to be used to stop the war or save lives.

As historian Doug Long notes:

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission historian J. Samuel Walker has studied the history of research on the decision to use nuclear weapons on Japan. In his conclusion he writes, “The consensus among scholars is that the bomb was not needed to avoid an invasion of Japan and to end the war within a relatively short time. It is clear that alternatives to the bomb existed and that Truman and his advisors knew it.” (J. Samuel Walker, The Decision to Use the Bomb: A Historiographical Update, Diplomatic History, Winter 1990, pg. 110).

Politicians Agreed

Many high-level politicians agreed. For example, Herbert Hoover said (pg. 142):

The Japanese were prepared to negotiate all the way from February 1945…up to and before the time the atomic bombs were dropped; …if such leads had been followed up, there would have been no occasion to drop the [atomic] bombs.

Under Secretary of State Joseph Grew noted (pg. 29-32):

In the light of available evidence I myself and others felt that if such a categorical statement about the [retention of the] dynasty had been issued in May, 1945, the surrender-minded elements in the [Japanese] Government might well have been afforded by such a statement a valid reason and the necessary strength to come to an early clearcut decision.

If surrender could have been brought about in May, 1945, or even in June or July, before the entrance of Soviet Russia into the [Pacific] war and the use of the atomic bomb, the world would have been the gainer.

Why Then Were Atom Bombs Dropped on Japan?

If dropping nuclear bombs was unnecessary to end the war or to save lives, why was the decision to drop them made? Especially over the objections of so many top military and political figures?

One theory is that scientists like to play with their toys:

On September 9, 1945, Admiral William F. Halsey, commander of the Third Fleet, was publicly quoted extensively as stating that the atomic bomb was used because the scientists had a “toy and they wanted to try it out . . . .” He further stated, “The first atomic bomb was an unnecessary experiment . . . . It was a mistake to ever drop it.”

However, most of the Manhattan Project scientists who developed the atom bomb were opposed to using it on Japan.

Albert Einstein – an important catalyst for the development of the atom bomb (but not directly connected with the Manhattan Project) – said differently:

“A great majority of scientists were opposed to the sudden employment of the atom bomb.” In Einstein’s judgment, the dropping of the bomb was a political – diplomatic decision rather than a military or scientific decision.

Indeed, some of the Manhattan Project scientists wrote directly to the secretary of defense in 1945 to try to dissuade him from dropping the bomb:

We believe that these considerations make the use of nuclear bombs for an early, unannounced attack against Japan inadvisable. If the United States would be the first to release this new means of indiscriminate destruction upon mankind, she would sacrifice public support throughout the world, precipitate the race of armaments, and prejudice the possibility of reaching an international agreement on the future control of such weapons.

Political and Social Problems, Manhattan Engineer District Records, Harrison-Bundy files, folder # 76, National Archives (also contained in: Martin Sherwin, A World Destroyed, 1987 edition, pg. 323-333).

The scientists questioned the ability of destroying Japanese cities with atomic bombs to bring surrender when destroying Japanese cities with conventional bombs had not done so, and – like some of the military officers quoted above – recommended a demonstration of the atomic bomb for Japan in an unpopulated area.

The Real Explanation?

History.com notes:

In the years since the two atomic bombs were dropped on Japan, a number of historians have suggested that the weapons had a two-pronged objective …. It has been suggested that the second objective was to demonstrate the new weapon of mass destruction to the Soviet Union. By August 1945, relations between the Soviet Union and the United States had deteriorated badly.

The Potsdam Conference between U.S. President Harry S. Truman, Russian leader Joseph Stalin, and Winston Churchill (before being replaced by Clement Attlee) ended just four days before the bombing of Hiroshima. The meeting was marked by recriminations and suspicion between the Americans and Soviets. Russian armies were occupying most of Eastern Europe. Truman and many of his advisers hoped that the U.S. atomic monopoly might offer diplomatic leverage with the Soviets. In this fashion, the dropping of the atomic bomb on Japan can be seen as the first shot of the Cold War.

New Scientist reported in 2005:

The US decision to drop atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki in 1945 was meant to kick-start the Cold War rather than end the Second World War, according to two nuclear historians who say they have new evidence backing the controversial theory.

Causing a fission reaction in several kilograms of uranium and plutonium and killing over 200,000 people 60 years ago was done more to impress the Soviet Union than to cow Japan, they say. And the US President who took the decision, Harry Truman, was culpable, they add.

“He knew he was beginning the process of annihilation of the species,” says Peter Kuznick, director of the Nuclear Studies Institute at American University in Washington DC, US. “It was not just a war crime; it was a crime against humanity.”

***

[The conventional explanation of using the bombs to end the war and save lives] is disputed by Kuznick and Mark Selden, a historian from Cornell University in Ithaca, New York, US.

***

New studies of the US, Japanese and Soviet diplomatic archives suggest that Truman’s main motive was to limit Soviet expansion in Asia, Kuznick claims. Japan surrendered because the Soviet Union began an invasion a few days after the Hiroshima bombing, not because of the atomic bombs themselves, he says.

According to an account by Walter Brown, assistant to then-US secretary of state James Byrnes, Truman agreed at a meeting three days before the bomb was dropped on Hiroshima that Japan was “looking for peace”. Truman was told by his army generals, Douglas Macarthur and Dwight Eisenhower, and his naval chief of staff, William Leahy, that there was no military need to use the bomb.

“Impressing Russia was more important than ending the war in Japan,” says Selden.

John Pilger points out:

The US secretary of war, Henry Stimson, told President Truman he was “fearful” that the US air force would have Japan so “bombed out” that the new weapon would not be able “to show its strength”. He later admitted that “no effort was made, and none was seriously considered, to achieve surrender merely in order not to have to use the bomb”. His foreign policy colleagues were eager “to browbeat the Russians with the bomb held rather ostentatiously on our hip”. General Leslie Groves, director of the Manhattan Project that made the bomb, testified: “There was never any illusion on my part that Russia was our enemy, and that the project was conducted on that basis.” The day after Hiroshima was obliterated, President Truman voiced his satisfaction with the “overwhelming success” of “the experiment”.

We’ll give the last word to University of Maryland professor of political economy – and former Legislative Director in the U.S. House of Representatives and the U.S. Senate, and Special Assistant in the Department of State – Gar Alperovitz:

Though most Americans are unaware of the fact, increasing numbers of historians now recognize the United States did not need to use the atomic bomb to end the war against Japan in 1945. Moreover, this essential judgment was expressed by the vast majority of top American military leaders in all three services in the years after the war ended: Army, Navy and Army Air Force. Nor was this the judgment of “liberals,” as is sometimes thought today. In fact, leading conservatives were far more outspoken in challenging the decision as unjustified and immoral than American liberals in the years following World War II.

***

Instead [of allowing other options to end the war, such as letting the Soviets attack Japan with ground forces], the United States rushed to use two atomic bombs at almost exactly the time that an August 8 Soviet attack had originally been scheduled: Hiroshima on August 6 and Nagasaki on August 9. The timing itself has obviously raised questions among many historians. The available evidence, though not conclusive, strongly suggests that the atomic bombs may well have been used in part because American leaders “preferred”—as Pulitzer Prize–winning historian Martin Sherwin has put it—to end the war with the bombs rather than the Soviet attack. Impressing the Soviets during the early diplomatic sparring that ultimately became the Cold War also appears likely to have been a significant factor.

***

The most illuminating perspective, however, comes from top World War II American military leaders. The conventional wisdom that the atomic bomb saved a million lives is so widespread that … most Americans haven’t paused to ponder something rather striking to anyone seriously concerned with the issue: Not only did most top U.S. military leaders think the bombings were unnecessary and unjustified, many were morally offended by what they regarded as the unnecessary destruction of Japanese cities and what were essentially noncombat populations. Moreover, they spoke about it quite openly and publicly.

***

Shortly before his death General George C. Marshall quietly defended the decision, but for the most part he is on record as repeatedly saying that it was not a military decision, but rather a political one.

  • Posted in Archives, English
  • Comments Off on The Real Reason America Used Nuclear Weapons Against Japan. It Was Not To End the War Or Save Lives.

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.

Big Tech’s Effort to Silence Truth-tellers: Global Research Online Referral Campaign

***

[First published on October 3, 2019]

Introduction

There are several dimensions to the mosquito crisis.

The release of gene-edited male mosquitoes, coupled with the development of a dengue and malaria vaccine.

But that is but the tip of the iceberg.

According to F. William Engdahl in 2018, the weaponization of insects is on the drawing board of the Pentagon:

There is strong evidence that the Pentagon, through its research and development agency, DARPA, is developing genetically modified insects that would be capable of destroying agriculture crops of a potential enemy. The claim has been denied by DARPA, but leading biologists have sounded the alarm on what is taking place using new “gene-editing” CRISPR technology to in effect weaponize insects. It’s like a 21st Century update of the Biblical plague of locusts, only potentially far worse.

Under the DARPA project, Genetic Alteration Agents or viruses will be introduced into the insect population to directly influence the genetic makeup of crops.

DARPA plans to use leaf hoppers, white flies, and aphids to introduce select viruses into crops. Among other dubious claims they say it will help farmers combat “climate change.” What no one can answer, especially as neither the Pentagon nor the US FDA are asking, is how will the genetically engineered viruses in the insects interact with other microorganisms in the environment?

If crops are constantly being inundated by genetically modified viruses, how could this could alter the genetics and immune systems of humans who depend on the crops?

See F. William Engdahl, Why Is the Pentagon “Weaponizing Insects”? October 30, 2018

The Release of 5 Billion Gene-edited Mosquitoes in Brazil. Will It Save Lives? 

“It may sound like the premise for a horror movie, or a biblical plague”:

The World Mosquito Program plans to release five billion mosquitoes into Brazil.

“And the hope is they will help save lives.

“[Once] you see the reductions in disease transmission, it doesn’t seem like a horror movie any more,” Scott O’Neill, director of the World Mosquito Program” (CBC, April 2023)

Implemented concurrently with the influx of 5 billion friendly mosquitoes, Brazil approved in March 2023 a vaccine against dengue.

In turn, the Brazilian government has confirmed its support for the creation of a Mosquito Factory which is slated to produce 5 billion mosquitoes a year starting in 2024.

I should mention that the British Company Oxitec has been actively involved in the development of genetically modified mosquitoes in the course of the last eight years:

“They will mate with the females of the ordinary mosquitoes, spawning babies with a genetically inbuilt flaw that causes them to die quickly.

Oxitec says its factory in the town of Piracicaba, northwest of Sao Paulo, can produce 60 million mutant mosquitoes a week.” (Phys.org, 2016)

 

Source: Nature

 

Coordination of “Mosquito Production” and Vaccine Against Dengue

There is a coordination of Brazil’s factory production of gene-edited mosquitoes with that of the vaccine to halt dengue by the non-profit World Mosquito Program (WMP) funded by Big Pharma’s Wellcome Trust and the Bill and Melinda Gates foundation.

According to Bill Gates:

These mosquitoes are allies in the fight against dengue and other deadly viruses.”

“The demand for these lifesaving mosquitoes continues to grow and that means the World Mosquito Program needs to produce hundreds of millions of Wolbachia mosquitoes.

This might sound the beginnings of a Hollywood writer’s horror film plot.

But it’s not.

This factory is real.

And the mosquitoes being released don’t terrorize the local population. Far from it. They’re actually helping to save and improve millions of lives.

That brings us back to the factory in Medellín, which is currently the world’s largest mosquito breeding facility in the world, producing more than 30 million mosquitoes per week. [1.5 billion per annum]

With regard to the Vaccine against Dengue, more than 3 million people are slated to receive the jab against Dengue in 2024” (CBC Report, April 2023, That report was published almost a year ago).

The 2024 Brazil “Mosquito Horror Story” 

Today Brazil is experiencing something beyond the “The Premise for A Horror Movie”.

The release of 5 billion male gene-edited mosquitoes in 2023 was intended to REDUCE the number of mosquitoes in Brazil.

The underlying logic was that the male gene-edited mosquitoes would be mating with normal female mosquitoes with a view to undermining the reproductive process and significantly reducing the number of normal mosquitoes.

That did not happen.

What is now happening is exactly the opposite. Early 2024: There is a tendency for the number mosquitoes to increase. WHY?

Brazil’s Health Minister casually blames it on the hot weather and “above-average rainfall.”

According to a Yale University research project quoted by Engdahl,

“some of the [gene edited] mosquitoes likely have “hybrid vigor,” resulting from “a hybrid of the natural mosquito with the gene-edited mosquito.”

What has occurred is the creation of “a more robust population than the pre-release population [of mosquitoes] which may be more resistant to insecticides, in short, resistant “super mosquitoes.””

What’s the OUTCOME?

According to Engdahl:

After an initial period in which the target mosquito population markedly declined, after about 18 months the mosquito population recovered to pre-release levels.

 

 

August 2023

Here is the official media narrative, which blatantly contradicts what is actually happening:

“The firm has developed a version of the male Aedes aegypti mosquito which carries a gene that kills female offspring before they reach maturity, suppressing the population. Only female mosquitoes bite and transmit diseases.

Eggs for the mosquitoes are placed inside a box and water is added to activate them.

“They complete the cycle inside these boxes in about ten days and the adult insects come out to do their work,” said Oxitec’s general manager in Brazil, Natalia Ferreira.

As the modified mosquitoes are released in a given region, they proliferate and the total population of the insect decreases. (Reuters, 28, February, 2024, emphasis added)

See video below.

According to F. William Engdahl:

“This once more highlights the dangers of uncontrolled gene-editing of species”, generously funded by the Gates Foundation.

The Gates Foundation’s Dengue and Malaria Vaccine 

According to The Guardian,

“in the first five weeks of this year [2024], 364,855 cases of infection have been reported, the health ministry [Brazil] said, four times more than dengue cases in the same period of 2023.”

Below are the figures of Brazil’s Ministry of Health, comparing 2023 and 2024.

 

 

Is this surge in dengue infection the result of hot weather and “above-average rainfall” as outlined by Ministry of Health?

Or is it the result of the release of the 5 billion gene-edited “modified mosquitoes” in 2023?

The impacts of the release of gene-edited mosquitoes have over the years been the object of extensive laboratory research.

Was there foreknowledge in terms of prior scientific research as to what was going to happen, namely the surge in the number of hybrid “Super Mosquitoes” as well as the reproduction (through the mating process) of the hybrid variety of mosquitoes?

Brazil had committed itself to supporting the factory production of gene-edited mosquitoes, with a commitment to release another 5 billion gene-edited mosquitoes in 2024. Will that project be carried out?

SEATTLE — To accelerate the development of a vaccine to prevent dengue and dengue hemorrhagic fever, debilitating diseases affecting children in the developing world, the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation today announced a $55 million grant to the International Vaccine Institute (IVI) to support the Pediatric Dengue Vaccine Initiative (PDVI).

This posting includes excerpts from Jordan Shachtel, Amie Wek and Jamie White followed by the article of F. William Engdahl.

—Michel Chossudovsky, March 2, 2024; revised on March 3, 2024


By Jordan Schachtel

The World Health Organization and its partner organization, the Bill Gates-controlled GAVI, announced Wednesday [July 2023] that they will be flooding Africa with 18 million doses of malaria vaccines.

During a Wednesday press conference, [July 2023] WHO director Tedros Adhanom declared that 12 African countries will be receiving 18 million doses of malaria vaccine in the coming months, declaring that climate change is largely responsible for the continuing disease burden in the continent.

Now, Gates Inc and its middleman partners have released a white paper detailing their roadmap for the deployment of these shots. They are seeking to establish a system in which 80-100 million shots are injected into the arms of sub Saharan African children on an annual basis by 2030. This would create a malaria vaccine industry in Africa that is poised to rake in close to $1 billion annually.

 

There is no evidence that these shots work to prevent malaria, but that hasn’t stopped Big Pharma and global “Public Health” institutions from executing its designs upon the African continent.

(Jordan Schachtel, The Weaponization of Mosquitoes: WHO and Gates Inc Announce Plans to Flood Africa with Ultra Dangerous Malaria “Vaccines”, Global Research, July 2023)

By Amy Wek

Inside a two-story brick building in Medellín, Colombia, scientists work in muggy labs breeding 30 million genetically modified mosquitoes weekly in labs.

They tend to the insects’ every need as they grow from larvae to pupae to adults, keeping the temperature just right and feeding them generous helpings of fishmeal, sugar, and, of course, blood. They are then released into the wild in 11 countries.

Billionaire Bill Gates, who is funding the project, assures us it’s not a scene from a horror movie.

“The factory is real. And the mosquitoes that are released do not terrorize the locals. They help save and improve millions of lives.”

Just as his ‘covid vaccines’ have ‘saved’ millions of lives or his’ previous vaccination projects have left thousands of women sterile in India and Kenya. Or even his Polio vaccines have caused paralysis, seizure, and febrile convulsions in Sub-Saharan Africa, Afghanistan, Congo, and the Philippines.

(Amy Mek, Warning: Gates-Funded Factory Breeds 30 Million Mosquitoes a Week for Release in 11 Countries, Global Research, March 2, 2024)

By Jamie White 

Money and Weaponized Mosquitoes: Dengue Fever Surges by 400% in Brazil After Bill Gates-Backed Gene-Edited Mosquitoes Released

Dengue fever has spiked fourfold in Brazil in 2024 following the release of millions of gene-edited mosquitoes by the United Nations’ World Mosquito Program.”

In the first five weeks of 2024, over 364,000 cases of dengue infection have been reported, according to the country’s health ministry, which is 4x greater than previous cases in the same period of 2023.

The dramatic spike in dengue cases has prompted Brazil to purchase millions of doses of the dengue vaccine.

Warning: Gates-Funded Factory Breeds 30 Million Mosquitoes a Week for Release in 11 Countries

The Dengue Vaccine 

“Brazil has bought 5.2m doses of the dengue vaccine Qdenga, developed by Japanese drugmaker Takeda, with another 1.32m doses provided at no cost to the government, a ministry statement said.

Three Brazilian states have declared emergencies, including the second most populous state, Minas Gerais, and the Federal District, where the capital, Brasília, is located and is facing an unprecedented rise in infections.

Brasília will start vaccinating children aged 10-14 on Friday with Qdenga, the local government said on Wednesday.

Cases of dengue in Brasília since the start of the year have exceeded the total for the whole of 2023, with a rate of infection of 1,625 cases per 100,000 inhabitants, compared with the national average of just 170.

The UN’s World Mosquito Program announced in 2023 a plan to release billions of gene-edited mosquitoes in Brazil over a 10-year period in a bid to eradicate dengue fever in the country.

“Brazilian health officials in five cities have been releasing clouds of lab-grown Aedes aegypti mosquitoes infected with Wolbachia bacteria, which prevents dengue virus transmission to humans,” Harvard Public Health reported in August 2023.

“The country will be the first to launch a nationwide program to release Wolbachia-modified mosquito And it’s building a factory to scale up mosquito production: Beginning 2024, the factory will mass-produce five billion mosquitoes a year.”

Now a year after the mosquito initiative began, dengue cases have risen sharply rather than fallen.

Notably, the World Mosquito Program received a $50 million grant from the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation.

The Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation is also bankrolling research into the dengue fever vaccine.

The Brazilian government purchased over 5 million doses of the Qdenga dengue fever vaccine, manufactured by Japanese drugmaker Takeda, which also received millions of dollars in grants from the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation.

 

In other words, Bill Gates Foundation money is involved in all sides of the situation, from the gene-edited mosquitoes — which has apparently exacerbated the dengue crisis — to bankrolling companies who are providing the in-demand dengue fever vaccine to Brazil.

To what end?

(Jamie White, Money and Weaponized Mosquitoes: Dengue Fever Surges by 400% in Brazil After Bill Gates-Backed Gene-Edited Mosquitoes Released , March 01, 2024)


Will It Save Lives? 

Read the incisive analysis of William Engdahl below.

See also Enghahl’s earlier article entitled

Why Did Gates and the Pentagon Release “Gene Edited” (GMO) Mosquitoes in Florida Keys?

By F. William Engdahl, November 18, 2023


Gene-Edited Mosquitoes: Catastrophe in Brazil,

a Gates Foundation Project. Will It Save Lives? 

by 

F. William Engdahl

A British-American gene-editing company has released millions of genetically modified mosquitoes containing a dominant lethal gene, each week for 27 months in the Bahia, Brazil region in a test to see if the gene-edited mosquitoes would mate with local mosquitoes carrying Zika, malaria or other mosquito-borne diseases.

A new study documents the alarming fact that following an initial reduction of the target population of mosquitoes, after some months the “population which had been greatly suppressed rebounded to nearly pre-release levels.” Scientists to date have no idea what dangers are presented by the new mutations. This once more highlights the dangers of uncontrolled gene-editing of species.

According to a new published study in Nature Reports journal, genetically engineered mosquitoes produced by the biotech company, Oxitec, now part of the US company Intrexon, have escaped human control after trials in Brazil and are now spreading in the environment.

On paper the theory was brilliant. Strains of “yellow fever” male mosquitoes taken from Cuba and Mexico were altered using gene-editing to make it impossible for their offspring to survive. Oxitec then began a systematic release of tens of millions of the manipulated mosquitoes over more than two years in the the city of Jacobina in the region of Bahia in Brazil. The Oxitec theory was the altered mosquitoes would mate with normal females of the same type which carry infectious diseases like dengue fever, and kill them off in the process.

‘Unanticipated Outcome…’ Breeding “Super Mosquitoes”

A team of scientists from Yale University and several scientific institutes in Brazil monitored the progress of the experiment. What they found is alarming in the extreme.

After an initial period in which the target mosquito population markedly declined, after about 18 months the mosquito population recovered to pre-release levels.

Not only that, the paper notes that some of the mosquitoes likely have “hybrid vigor,” in which a hybrid of the natural with the gene-edited has created “a more robust population than the pre-release population” which may be more resistant to insecticides, in short, resistant “super mosquitoes.”

The scientists note that,

“Genetic sampling from the target population six, 12, and 27–30 months after releases commenced provides clear evidence that portions of the transgenic strain genome have been incorporated into the target population. Evidently, rare viable hybrid offspring between the release strain and the Jacobina population are sufficiently robust to be able to reproduce in nature…” They continue, “Thus, Jacobina Ae. aegypti are now a mix of three populations. It is unclear how this may affect disease transmission or affect other efforts to control these dangerous vectors.”

They estimate that between 10% and 60% of the Bahia natural Ae. Aegypti mosquitoes now had some gene-edited OX513A genome. They conclude that “The three populations forming the tri-hybrid population now in Jacobina (Cuba/Mexico/Brazil) are genetically quite distinct, very likely resulting in a more robust population than the pre-release population due to hybrid vigor.”

This was not supposed to happen. Professor of ecology and evolutionary biology, Jeffrey Powell, senior author of the study, remarked on the findings:

“The claim was that genes from the release strain would not get into the general population because offspring would die. That obviously was not what happened.” Powell went on to note, “But it is the unanticipated outcome that is concerning.”

A Gates Foundation Project

The Brazil study deals a major alarm signal on the uncontrolled release of gene-edited species into nature. It calls to mind the horror plot of Michael Crichton’s 1969 science fiction novel, Andromeda Strain. Only it is no novel.

The Oxitec mosquitoes were developed using a highly controversial form of gene-editing known as gene drive. Gene Drive, which is also being heavily funded by the Pentagon’s DARPA, combined with CRISPR gene-editing, aims to force a genetic modification to spread through an entire population, whether of mosquitoes or potentially humans, in just a few generations.

The scientist who first suggested developing gene drives in gene-editing, Harvard biologist Kevin Esvelt, has publicly warned that development of gene editing in conjunction with gene drive technologies has alarming potential to go awry. He notes how often CRISPR messes up and the likelihood of protective mutations arising, making even benign gene drives aggressive. He stresses,

“Just a few engineered organisms could irrevocably alter an ecosystem.”

Esvelt’s computer gene drive simulations calculated that a resulting edited gene “can spread to 99 percent of a population in as few as 10 generations, and persist for more than 200 generations.” This is very much what has now been demonstrated in the mosquito experiment in Brazil.

Notable is the fact that the Oxitec Brazil mosquito experiment was funded by the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation. In June, 2018 Oxitec announced a joint venture with the Gates Foundation, “to develop a new strain of Oxitec’s self-limiting Friendly™ Mosquitoes to combat a mosquito species that spreads malaria in the Western Hemisphere.” The Brazil results show the experiment is a catastrophic failure as the new strain is anything but self-limiting.

The Gates Foundation and Bill Gates have been backing development of the radical gene-editing technology and gene drive technology for more than a decade. Gates, a long-time advocate of eugenics, population control and of GMO, is a strong gene-editing promoter.

In an article in the May/June 2018 magazine of the New York Council on Foreign Relations, Foreign Affairs, Gates hails gene editing technologies, explicitly CRISPR. In the article Gates argues that CRISPR and other gene-editing techniques should be used globally to meet growing demand for food and to improve disease prevention, particularly for malaria. In his article he adds,

“there is reason to be optimistic that creating gene drives in malaria-spreading mosquitoes will not do much, if any, harm to the environment.

Every bit as alarming as the failure of the Brazil gene-editing mosquito experiment is the fact that this technology is being spread with virtually no prior health or safety testing by truly independent government institutions. To date the US Government relies only on industry safety assurances. The EU, while formally responsible to treat gene-edited species similarly to GMO plants, is reportedly trying to loosen the regulations. China, a major research center for gene-editing, has extremely lax controls. Recently a Chinese scientist announced an experiment in human gene-editing allegedly to make newborn twins resistant to HIV. Other experiments are proliferating around the world with gene-edited animals and even salmon. The precautionary principle has been thrown to the winds when it comes to the new gene-editing revolution, not a reassuring situation.

Currently Oxitec, which denies that the Brazil results show failure, is now trying to get regulatory approval from the US Environmental Protection Agency to conduct a similar experiment with the same gene-edited species in Texas and Florida. One of the people involved in the attempt, Texan Roy Bailey, is a Washington lobbyist and close friend of Randal Kirk, the billionaire CEO of Intrexon, owner of Oxitec. Bailey is also a major Trump fundraiser. Let’s hope that regulatory prudence and not politics decide the outcome.

see also:

Why Did Gates and the Pentagon Release “Gene Edited” (GMO) Mosquitoes in Florida Keys?

By F. William Engdahl, November 18, 2023

*

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


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.