In this follow up interview, Peter and I discuss the fact that despite a leadership change with the Trump Presidency the technocratic transhumanist agenda continues. He gives updates on the fact that the geopolitical situation is not what is seems and that there is more collaboration of world powers than meets the eye to continue digital money, digital enslavement, and the rise of AI.
This ebook provides insight into aspects of the global food system, including the micronutrient crisis, contested climate emergency rhetoric and its use in implementing the rollout of controlling technologies, the emergence and influence of digital platforms in shaping agricultural practices and the increasing corporate capture of Indian agriculture.
According to reports from German state media, specifically the ARD and ZDF, the motion to ban the AfD was signed by 112 MPs (Members of Parliament) and has also been handed to Bundestag President Bärbel Bas of the far-left Social Democrats (SPD).
Since the formation of the Alliance of Sahel States (AES) during 2023, the governments of France and the United States along with their surrogates have sought to undermine the political and economic objectives of these developing nations.
Dr. Fayez Abed from Al Awda Hospital in northern Gaza shares a harrowing account of the conditions faced by patients and medical staff under the ongoing threat of bombings. On October 20, 2023, we had spoken with the director of the hospital, Dr. Ahmed Muhanna. Since his abduction on December 17, 2023 by Israeli occupation forces, no information about his fate has been available.
A House committee report revealed the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services’ $900 million “We Can Do This” COVID campaign was flawed and claimed COVID shots prevented transmission despite FDA stating there was no such evidence.
The circumstances in which Russia might resort to using nukes can be better understood after Sputnik published an unofficial translation of this doctrine here (see annex). The document stipulates that their purpose is to deter a wide range of threats and that they’ll only be used as a last resort.
This licence requires that reusers give credit to the creator. It allows reusers to copy and distribute the material in any medium or format in unadapted form and for non-commercial purposes only.
BY: Credit must be given to the creator.
NC: Only non-commercial use is permitted. This means not primarily intended for or directed towards commercial advantage or monetary compensation.
ND: No derivatives or adaptations are permitted.
Cover image: Bags of chilli outside a wholesaler in the George Town area of Chennai in 2024 by the author. Emblematic of Chennai’s role as a major spice trading hub. Spices have been a cornerstone of South Indian commerce for centuries, and Chennai, with its strategic port location, has long been a key player in this trade. The prominence of chilli highlights its significance in South Indian cuisine and culture. While modern supermarkets and online platforms are changing consumer habits, wholesale markets like those in George Town continue to serve an essential function in the supply chain.
About the Author
Colin Todhunter is an independent researcher and writer and has spent many years in India. He is a research associate of the Centre for Research on Globalisation (Montreal) and writes on food, agriculture and development issues. In 2018, in recognition of his writing, he was named a Living Peace and Justice Leader and Model by Engaging Peace Inc.
Aruna Rodrigues, lead petitioner in the GMO mustard Public Interest Litigation in the Supreme Court of India, stated the following about the author’s 2022 e-book Food, Dispossession and Dependency. Resisting the New World Order:
“Colin Todhunter at his best: this is graphic, a detailed horror tale in the making for India, an exposé on what is planned, via the farm laws, to hand over Indian sovereignty and food security to big business. There will come a time pretty soon — (not something out there but imminent, unfolding even now), when we will pay the Cargills, Ambanis, Bill Gates, Walmarts — in the absence of national buffer food stocks (an agri policy change to cash crops, the end to small-scale farmers, pushed aside by contract farming and GM crops) — we will pay them to send us food and finance borrowing from international markets to do it.”
Frederic Mousseau, Policy Director at the Oakland Institute, says the following about the author’s work:
“It takes a book to break down the dynamics that are pushing agro-chemical agriculture to farmers and consumers around the world and to reveal the strength of the diverse movement of people and organizations who stand in the way of these destructive and predatory forces.
“Colin Todhunter takes readers on a world tour that makes a compelling case against the fallacy of the food scarcity and Green Revolution arguments advanced by the mainstream media and international institutions on behalf of powerful financial interests such as Blackrock, Vanguard, or Gates. Todhunter makes it obvious that a key factor of world hunger and of the environmental crisis we are facing is a capitalist system that ‘requires constant growth, expanding markets and sufficient demand.’
“Uplifting rather than depressing, after this lucid diagnosis, he highlights some of the countless people-led initiatives and movements, from Cuba, Ethiopia to India, that fight back against destruction and predation with agroecology and farmers-led practices, respectful of the people and the planet. By debunking the “artificial scarcity” myth that is constantly fed to us, Todhunter demonstrates that it is actually not complicated to change course. Readers will just have to join the movement.”
Table of Contents
Introduction
Chapter I:
Consolidated Power
Chapter II:
Sick to Death
Chapter III:
Commodification of Farmland
Chapter IV:
Digital Panopticon and the Future of Food
Chapter V:
Manifesto for Corporate Control and Technocratic Tyranny
Chapter VI:
From Agrarianism to Transhumanism: Long March to Dystopia
Chapter VII:
Platforms of Control and the Unbreakable Spirit
Chapter VIII:
Ongoing Corporate Capture of Indian Agriculture
Chapter IX:
Amazon Gets Fresh, Bayer Loves Basmati
Chapter X:
From Monsanto to Bayer: Worst of Both Worlds
Chapter XI:
Bayer’s ‘Backward’ Claim: Bid for Control of Indian Agriculture
Chapter XII:
You Are Still the Enemy Within
Chapter XIII:
Reclaim the Future
Chapter XIV:
In 1649…
Introduction
This ebook provides insight into aspects of the global food system, including the micronutrient crisis, contested climate emergency rhetoric and its use in implementing the rollout of controlling technologies, the emergence and influence of digital platforms in shaping agricultural practices and the increasing corporate capture of Indian agriculture.
When read together, the three books provide an overarching critique of contemporary food systems and possible solutions. For instance, the first book presents a more in-depth discussion of agroecology, the role of the Gates Foundation, the impact of pesticides, the state of agriculture in India, including the 2020-21 farmers protest, and the issue of development.
The second book touches on some of those issues but broadens the debate to look at ecomodernism, food-related ill health, the role of big finance in the food system and the post-Covid food crisis.While readers do not have to read the first two books, it might help in providing added context and insights.
This new book draws on and develops many of the themes presented in the first two. In particular, it returns to India to explore what has happened over the last 22 months (since the publication of the first book).
More generally, it looks at the intertwining of political centralisation and corporate consolidation that is undermining democratic processes, economic diversity and local autonomy. This unholy alliance is creating a self-reinforcing, technocratic dystopia that concentrates power in the hands of a super-wealthy elite, which increasingly depicts anyone who challenges it as the ‘enemy within’.
In this respect, the book weds the topic of food to the wider dynamics of power in society, which is becoming increasingly concentrated, resulting in the domination of both resources and populations and seeking to shape the very fabric of our lives and beliefs about who we are and what we could or should be. Such an analysis is integral to gaining a deeper understanding of the food system and the influence of global agribusiness and the tech giants that are increasingly moving into the food and agriculture sector.
The following discussion is driven by a conviction in the transformative power of re-localising food systems, revitalising traditional ecological wisdom and rekindling our connection to the land that nourishes us. At its core, it challenges us to question our understanding of human progress and development.
Chapter I:
Consolidated Power
By focusing on the nature of power and certain challenges and issues that we face, this introductory chapter establishes a foundational framework for what appears in the subsequent chapters.
We live in a world that sees political power becoming increasingly centralised. In turn, this creates an environment ripe for corporate influence. Large corporations, with their vast resources, can more easily focus their lobbying efforts and capture policymaking bodies at national and international levels than at a more fragmented local or regional level, leading to regulations and laws that favour big business over small enterprises and the needs and rights of ordinary people. This results in a landscape dominated by a handful of corporate giants, each wielding enormous economic and political clout.
This consolidation of corporate power further reinforces political centralisation, as wealthy corporations (for example, think big pharma and big agribusiness) can effectively dictate policy through campaign contributions, lobbying efforts and the revolving door between government and industry. The voice of the average citizen is drowned out by the influence of corporate power.
As a result of this corporate monopolisation, local markets and small businesses, once the backbone of communities, are being systematically crushed under the weight of centralised state-corporate power. Unable to compete with the economies of scale and political influence of large corporations, they are forced to close their doors or sell out to larger entities. This not only reduces choice and drives up prices but also strips communities of their unique character and economic self-determination.
The global interests served by this system are at odds with local needs and values. Decisions made in distant boardrooms and government offices fail to account for the nuanced realities of diverse communities. Environmental concerns are brushed aside in favour of short-term profits, while cultural traditions are homogenised to fit corporate needs.
Democratic processes, designed to give voice to the many, are subverted to serve the interests of the few. Real power resides in the hands of those who control the purse strings, and public discourse is shaped by the corporate media (often part of larger conglomerates), limiting the range of ideas and stifling dissent.
At the same time, when decision-making is concentrated in a few hands, the potential for catastrophic errors increases. Over-centralised, corporate-dominated supply chains are vulnerable to disruptions, leading to shortages of essential goods that can ripple across the globe.
The consolidation of corporate power in key sectors like agriculture creates dangerous monopolies that can manipulate markets, exploit farmers and ignore environmental safeguards with impunity.
The struggle against the intertwining of political centralisation and corporate consolidation is a battle for a future where power is distributed equitably, where local voices matter and where the interests of communities and the environment take precedence over corporate profits.
The stakes could not be higher. If we fail to check the runaway consolidation of political and corporate power, we risk sliding into a form of corporate feudalism or techno-feudalism, where the vast majority of people are reduced to serfs in service of a powerful elite.
Food and Agriculture
More specifically, the consolidation of corporate power in food and agriculture has far-reaching and deeply concerning implications for farmers, ordinary people and the environment. This concentration of control in the hands of a few transnational corporations has created a system that prioritises profit over ecological sustainability, health and food sovereignty.
For farmers, the consequences are dire. The consolidation of the agriculture industry has led to a dramatic reduction in the number of small farms. The shift towards large-scale industrial farming has not only pushed many small farmers out of business but also trapped those who remain in a cycle of dependency on a handful of corporations for seeds, chemicals and market access. This loss of autonomy leaves farmers vulnerable to exploitative practices and reduces their ability to make decisions based on local needs and conditions.
The impact on the wider population is equally troubling. While the illusion of choice persists in grocery stores, the reality is that a small number of corporations control the majority of food products. This concentration of power allows these companies to manipulate prices via aggressive discounting to destroy competition or to engage in profiteering through unnecessary price increases. Moreover, the focus on highly profitable, low-cost-ingredient processed foods high in fats, sugars and salt has contributed to a global health crisis, with rising rates of obesity and diet-related chronic diseases.
Environmentally, the consequences of this corporate-controlled system are catastrophic. The industrial agricultural model promoted by these large corporations relies heavily on chemical inputs, monoculture farming and practices that degrade soil health, waterways and biodiversity.
The centralisation of food production and distribution has also created a dangerously fragile system. As the COVID event demonstrated, disruptions in this highly consolidated supply chain can quickly lead to food shortages and price spikes. This lack of resilience poses a serious threat to global food security, particularly in times of crisis.
Perhaps most alarmingly, this consolidated system is eroding food sovereignty — the right of peoples to healthy and culturally appropriate food produced through ecologically sound and sustainable methods and their right to define their own food and agriculture systems. As global corporations increasingly control what is grown and how it is distributed, local communities lose the ability to make decisions about their food systems.
The adverse implications of corporate consolidation in our food and agriculture system are profound and far-reaching. They threaten not only our current food security and public health but also the long-term sustainability of the planet’s food production capacity. Addressing this issue is not just about changing our food system; it’s about reclaiming democratic rights and ensuring a just and sustainable future for all.
In India, as will be shown, the trends outlined above have concerning implications. These trends, driven by neoliberal policies and the growing influence of transnational corporations, are reshaping the landscape of Indian agriculture in ways that threaten traditional farming practices, food security and rural livelihoods.
One of the most significant impacts is on small and marginal farmers, who make up about 85 per cent of India’s farming community (the importance of small farms will be discussed later). As corporate entities gain more control over various stages of the agricultural chain, these farmers face increasing pressure and vulnerability. They often find themselves at a disadvantage when negotiating prices or accessing markets, leading to reduced incomes and increased debt.
The consolidation of power in the hands of a few large corporations also poses a threat to India’s food sovereignty. As these companies gain control over seeds, inputs and distribution channels, we could see a further reduction in crop diversity and a shift towards monoculture (contract) farming.
This may also exacerbate the overuse of money-spinning proprietary chemical inputs, the degradation of soil and human health and the depletion of water resources, which are already major concerns in the country. The environmental costs of this approach are significant and could have long-lasting impacts on India’s agricultural productivity and food security.
Furthermore, the corporatisation of agriculture threatens to erode traditional farming knowledge and practices that have been developed over generations. These practices, often more suited to local ecological conditions and more sustainable in the long term, risk being lost as standardised, corporate-driven farming ends up commodifying knowledge and practices (this will become clear later).
The impact on rural communities extends beyond just the economic sphere. As the corporatisation of agriculture takes hold, there’s a risk of further rural-urban migration, as small farmers are pushed off their land. This can lead to the breakdown of rural social structures and exacerbate urban poverty and unemployment.
The influence of corporate interests on agricultural research and policy is also a matter of concern. When private sector funding becomes more dominant in agricultural research, there is a risk that research priorities become skewed towards corporate interests rather than the needs of small farmers or ecological sustainability.
Across the globe, an insidious corporatisation is reshaping agriculture. The consequences of this shift are far-reaching and deeply troubling, touching every aspect of the food system and, by extension, the very fabric of our societies.
These corporations tell us that such a process goes hand in hand with the modernisation of the sector. The narrative of the need to ‘modernise agriculture’ pushed by corporations like Bayer, Corteva and Syngenta is nothing more than a thinly veiled attempt to secure control of the agricultural sector and ensure corporate dependency.
Their vision of ‘development’ entails decision-making centralised in the hands of government and corporate entities, systematically weakening traditional local governance structures, and pushing top-down policies that favour large-scale industrial farming at the expense of small-scale, diversified agriculture.
Ultimately, the struggle against corporate consolidation in agriculture is not just about changing our food system. It’s about recognising that food is not just a commodity but a fundamental human right and a cornerstone of our cultures and communities.
There is a battle for the soul of our food system, for the future of our rural communities, for the health of our ecosystems and for the very nature of our societies. It’s a fight we cannot afford to lose. We must stand united to reclaim our food sovereignty and build a food system that nourishes not just our bodies but our communities.
A fundamental restructuring of our food and agriculture systems is required. This should include antitrust enforcement to break up corporate monopolies, policies that support small and medium-sized farms and investment in research for agroecological farming methods. We must also work to shorten supply chains, promoting local food systems and territorial markets that are more resilient and responsive to community needs.
The path ahead is challenging, but the alternative of a world where our food system is controlled by a handful of corporations, where biodiversity is decimated, where farmers are reduced to serfs on their own land and where our health is sacrificed for corporate profits is simply unacceptable.
Chapter II:
Sick to Death
The world is experiencing a micronutrient food and health crisis. Micronutrient deficiency now affects billions of people. Micronutrients are key vitamins and minerals and deficiencies can cause severe health conditions. They are important for various functions, including blood clotting, brain development, the immune system, energy production and bone health, and play a critical role in disease prevention.
The root of the crisis is due to an increased reliance on ultra processed foods (‘junk food’) and the way that modern food crops are grown in terms of the seeds used, the plants produced, the synthetic inputs required (fertilisers, pesticides etc.) and the effects on soil.
In 2007, nutritional therapist David Thomas noted a precipitous change in the USA towards convenience and pre-prepared foods often devoid of vital micronutrients yet packed with a cocktail of chemical additives, including colourings, flavourings and preservatives.
He noted that between 1940 and 2002 the character, growing methods, preparation, source and ultimate presentation of basic staples had changed significantly to the extent that trace elements and micronutrient contents have been severely depleted. Thomas added that ongoing research clearly demonstrates a significant relationship between deficiencies in micronutrients and physical and mental ill health.
Prior to the Green Revolution, many of the older crops that were displaced carried dramatically higher counts of nutrients per calorie. For instance, the iron content of millet is four times that of rice, and oats carry four times more zinc than wheat. As a result, between 1961 and 2011, the protein, zinc and iron contents of the world’s directly consumed cereals declined by 4 per cent, 5 per cent and 19 per cent, respectively.
The authors of a 2010 paper in the International Journal of Environmental and Rural Development state that cropping systems promoted by the Green Revolution have resulted in reduced food-crop diversity and decreased availability of micronutrients. They note that micronutrient malnutrition is causing increased rates of cancer, heart disease, stroke, diabetes and osteoporosis in many lower income nations. They add that soils are increasingly affected by micronutrient disorders.
In 2016, India’s Central Soil Water Conservation Research and Training Institute reported that the country was losing 5,334 million tonnes of soil every year due to soil erosion because of indiscreet and excessive use of fertilisers, insecticides and pesticides over the years. On average, 16.4 tonnes of fertile soil is lost every year per hectare. It concluded that the non-judicious use of synthetic fertilisers had led to the deterioration of soil fertility causing loss of micro and macronutrients leading to poor soils and low yields.
The high-input, chemical-intensive Green Revolution with its hybrid seeds and synthetic fertilisers and pesticides helped the drive towards greater monocropping and has resulted in less diverse diets and less nutritious foods. Its long-term impact has led to soil degradation and mineral imbalances, which, in turn, have adversely affected human health.
But micronutrient depletion is not just due to a displacement of nutrient-dense staples in the diet or unhealthy soils. Take wheat, for example. Rothamsted Research in the UK has evaluated the mineral concentration of archived wheat grain and soil samples from the Broadbalk Wheat Experiment. The experiment began in 1843, and the findings show significant decreasing trends in the concentrations of zinc, copper, iron and magnesium in wheat grain since the 1960s.
The researchers say that the concentrations of these four minerals remained stable between 1845 and the mid 1960s but have since decreased significantly by 20-30 per cent. This coincided with the introduction of Green Revolution semi-dwarf, high-yielding cultivars. They noted that the concentrations in soil used in the experiment have either increased or remained stable. So, in this case, soil is not the issue.
A 2021 paper that appeared in the journal of Environmental and Experimental Botany reported that the large increase in the proportion of the global population suffering from zinc and iron deficiency over the last four decades has occurred since the Green Revolution and the introduction of its cultivars.
Reflecting the findings of Rothamsted Research in the UK, a recent study led by Indian Council of Agricultural Research scientists found the grains eaten in India have lost food value. They conclude that many of today’s crops fail to absorb sufficient nutrients even when soil is healthy.
The January 2024 article Indians consuming rice and wheat low in food value, high in toxins on the Down to Earth website reported on a study that found that rice and wheat, which meet over 50 per cent of the daily energy requirements of people in India, have lost up to 45 per cent of their food value in the past 50 years or so.
The concentration of essential nutrients like zinc and iron has decreased by 33 per cent and 27 per cent in rice and by 30 per cent and 19 per cent in wheat, respectively. At the same time, the concentration of arsenic, a toxic element, in rice has increased by 1,493 per cent.
Down to Earth also cites research by the Indian Council of Medical Research that indicates a 25 per cent rise in non-communicable diseases among the Indian population from 1990 to 2016.
India is home to one-third of the two billion global population suffering from micronutrient deficiency. This is partly because modern-bred cultivars of rice and wheat are less efficient in sequestering zinc and iron, regardless of their abundance in soils. Plants have lost their capacity to take up nutrients from the soil.
Increasing prevalence of diabetes, childhood leukaemia, childhood obesity, cardiovascular disorders, infertility, osteoporosis and rheumatoid arthritis, mental illnesses and so on have all been shown to have some direct relationship to diet and specifically micronutrient deficiency.
The large increase in the proportion of the global population suffering from zinc and iron deficiency over the last four decades has coincided with the global expansion of high-yielding, input-responsive cereal cultivars released in the post-Green Revolution era.
Agriculture and policy analyst Devinder Sharma says that high yield is inversely proportionate to plant nutrition: the drop in nutrition levels is so much that the high-yielding new wheat varieties have seen a steep fall in copper content, an essential trace mineral, by as much as 80 per cent, and some nutritionists ascribe this to a rise in cholesterol-related incidences across the world.
India is self-sufficient in various staples, but many of these foodstuffs are high calorie-low nutrient and have led to the displacement of more nutritionally diverse cropping systems and more nutrient-dense crops.
The importance of agronomist William Albrecht should not be overlooked here and his work on healthy soils and healthy people. In his experiments, he found that cows fed on less nutrient-dense crops ate more while cows that ate nutrient-rich grass stopped eating once their nutritional intake was satisfied. This may be one reason why we see rising rates of obesity at a time of micronutrient food insecurity.
It is interesting that, given the above discussion on the Green Revolution’s adverse impacts on nutrition, the paper New Histories of the Green Revolution (2019) by Prof. Glenn Stone debunks the claim that the Green Revolution boosted productivity: it merely put more (nutrient-deficient) wheat into the Indian diet at the expense of other food crops. Stone argues that food productivity per capita showed no increase or even actually decreased.
.
.
With this in mind, the table below makes for interesting reading. The data is provided by the National Productivity Council India (an autonomous body of the Department for Promotion of Industry and Internal Trade, Ministry of Commerce and Industry).
As mentioned earlier with reference to Albrecht, obesity has become a concern worldwide, including in India. This problem is multi-dimensional and, as alluded to, excess calorific intake and nutrient-poor food is a factor, leading to the consumption of sugary, fat-laden ultra processed food in an attempt to fill the nutritional gap. But there is also considerable evidence linking human exposure to agrochemicals with obesity.
The September 2020 paper Agrochemicals and Obesity in the journal Molecular and Cellular Endocrinology summarises human epidemiological evidence and experimental animal studies supporting the association between agrochemical exposure and obesity and outlines possible mechanistic underpinnings for this link.
Numerous other studies have also noted that exposure to pesticides has been associated with obesity and diabetes. For example, a 2022 paper in the journal Endocrine reports that first contact with environmental pesticides occurs during critical phases of life, such as gestation and lactation, which can lead to damage in central and peripheral tissues, subsequently programming disorders early and later in life.
A 2013 paper in the journal Entropy on pathways to modern diseases reported that glyphosate (the active ingredient in Bayer-Monsanto’s Roundup), the most popular herbicide used worldwide, enhances the damaging effects of other food borne chemical residues and environmental toxins. The negative impact is insidious and manifests slowly over time as inflammation damages cellular systems throughout the body, resulting in conditions associated with a Western diet, which include gastrointestinal disorders, obesity, diabetes, heart disease, depression, autism, infertility, cancer and Alzheimer’s disease.
Despite these findings, campaigner Rosemary Mason has drawn attention to how official government and industry narratives try to divert attention from the role of glyphosate in obesity (and other conditions) by urging the public to exercise and cut down on “biscuits”.
In a January 2024 article, Kit Knightly, on the OffGuardian website, notes how big pharma is attempting to individualise obesity and make millions by pushing its ‘medical cures’ and drugs for the condition.
To deal with micronutrient deficiencies, other money-spinning initiatives for industry are being pushed, not least biofortification of foodstuffs and plants and genetic engineering.
Industry narratives have nothing to say about the food system itself in terms of food being regarded as just another commodity to be rinsed for profit regardless of the impacts on human health or the environment. We simply witness more techno-fix ‘solutions’ being rolled out to supposedly address the impacts of previous ‘innovations’ and policy decisions that benefitted the bottom line of Western agribusiness (and big pharma, which profits from the rising rates of disease and conditions).
Quick techno-fixes do not offer genuine solutions to the problems outlined above. Such solutions involve challenging corporate power that shapes narratives and policies to suit its agenda. Healthy food, healthy people and healthy societies are not created at some ever-sprawling life sciences park that specialises in manipulating food and the human body (for corporate gain) under the banner of ‘innovation’ and ‘health’ while leaving intact the power relations that underpin bad food and ill health.
A radical overhaul of the food system is required, from how food is grown to how society should be organised. This involves creating food sovereignty, encouraging localism, local markets and short supply chains, rejecting neoliberal globalisation, supporting smallholder agriculture and land reform while incentivising agroecological practices that build soil fertility, use and develop high-productive landraces and a focus on nutrition per acre rather than increased grain size, ‘yield’ and ‘output’.
That’s how you create healthy food, healthy people and healthy societies.
Chapter III
Commodification of Farmland
The relationship between financial investment and the commodification of farmland is increasingly significant for understanding the dynamics of modern agriculture and its implications for food systems. Financial institutions, including pension funds and investment firms, have turned farmland into a lucrative asset class, helping to fuel a paradigm shift in agricultural practices.
This financialisation of farmland not only affects the economic landscape, opening up fresh investment opportunities, but also perpetuates an industrial agricultural model that prioritises profit over sustainability, sound agricultural practices and public health.
The commodification of farmland involves transforming land into a tradable commodity, which is driven by the interests of big financial entities seeking high returns on their investments. This financial pressure leads to the aggregation of land into larger, industrial-scale farms owned by corporations or investment funds, which tend to employ input-intensive farming practices that degrade soil health and reduce biodiversity.
The influx of capital into farmland has further fuelled an industrial agricultural model characterised by monocultures, heavy reliance on chemical inputs and a focus on maximising yields at the expense of human health, ecological balance and a systems approach (more on this later).
The shift towards large-scale intensive farming operations has also diminished the role of smallholder farmers, who have traditionally played a major role in local food security and rural economies, thereby undermining community resilience and exacerbating food insecurity.
Financial Asset
Between 2008 and 2022, land prices nearly doubled throughout the world and tripled in Central-Eastern Europe. In the UK, an influx of investment from pension funds and private wealth contributed to a doubling of farmland prices from 2010-2015. Land prices in the US agricultural heartlands of Iowa quadrupled between 2002 and 2020.
.
A wheat field in Essex (Licensed under CC BY-SA 3.0)
.
Agricultural investment funds rose ten-fold between 2005 and 2018 and now regularly include farmland as a stand-alone asset class, with US investors having doubled their stakes in farmland since 2020.
Meanwhile, agricultural commodity traders are speculating on farmland through their own private equity subsidiaries, while new financial derivatives are allowing speculators to accrue land parcels and lease them back to struggling farmers, driving steep and sustained land price inflation.
Moreover, top-down ‘green grabs’ now account for 20 per cent of large-scale land deals. Government pledges for land-based carbon removals alone add up to almost 1.2 billion hectares, equivalent to total global cropland. Carbon offset markets are expected to quadruple in the next seven years.
These are some of the findings published in the report ‘Land Squeeze’ (May 2024) by the International Panel of Experts on Sustainable Food Systems (IPES), a non-profit thinktank headquartered in Brussels.
The report says that agricultural land is increasingly being turned into a financial asset at the expense of small- and medium-scale farming, leading to land price inflation. Furthermore, the COVID-19 event and the conflict in Ukraine helped promote the ‘feed the world’ panic narrative, prompting agribusiness and investors to secure land for export commodity production and urging governments to deregulate land markets and adopt pro-investor policies.
However, despite sky-rocketing food prices, there was, according to the IPES in 2022, sufficient food and no risk of global food supply shortages. The increased food prices were due to speculation on food commodities, corporate profiteering and a heavy reliance on food imports. But the self-serving narrative pushed by big agribusiness and land investors prevailed.
At the same time, carbon and biodiversity offset markets are facilitating massive land transactions, bringing major polluters into land markets. The IPES notes that Shell has set aside more than $450 million for carbon offsetting projects. Land is also being appropriated for biofuels and green energy production, including water-intensive ‘green hydrogen’ projects that pose risks to local food cultivation.
In addition, much-needed agricultural land is being repurposed for extractive industries and mega-developments. For example, urbanisation and mega-infrastructure developments in Asia and Africa are claiming prime farmland.
According to the IPES, between 2000 and 2030, up to 3.3 million hectares of the world’s farmland will have been swallowed up by expanding megacities. Some 80 per cent of land loss to urbanisation is occurring in Asia and Africa. In India, 1.5 million hectares are estimated to have been lost to urban growth between 1955 and1985, a further 800,000 hectares lost between 1985 and 2000, with steady ongoing losses to this day.
In a December 2016 paper on urban land expansion, it was projected that by 2030, globally, urban areas will have tripled in size, expanding into cropland. Around 60 per cent of the world’s cropland lies on the outskirts of cities, and this land is, on average, twice as productive as land elsewhere on the globe.
This means that, as cities expand, millions of small-scale farmers are being displaced. These farmers produce the majority of food in lower income countries and are key to global food security. In their place, as their land is concreted over, we are seeing the aggregation of remaining agricultural land into large-scale farms, land buy ups and further land investments and the spread of industrial agriculture and all it brings, including poor food and diets, illness, environmental devastation and the destruction of rural communities.
Investment funds have no real interest in farming or ensuring food security. They tend to invest for between only 10 and 15 years and can leave a trail of long-term environmental and social devastation and serve to undermine local and regional food security. Short- to medium-term returns on investments trump any notions of healthy food or human need.
The IPES notes that, globally, just 1 per cent of the world’s largest farms now control 70 per cent of the world’s farmland. These tend to be input-intensive, industrial-scale farms that are straining resources, rapidly degrading farmland and further squeezing out smallholders. Additionally, agribusiness giants are pursuing monopolistic practices that drive up costs for farmers. These dynamics are creating systematic economic precarity for farmers, effectively forcing them to ‘get big or get out’.
Factor in land degradation, much of which is attributable to modern chemical-intensive farming practices, and we have a recipe for global food insecurity.
In India, more than 70 per cent of its arable land is affected by one or more forms of land degradation.
Also consider that the Indian government has sanctioned 50 solar parks, covering one million hectares in seven states. More than 74 per cent of solar is on land of agricultural (67 per cent) or natural ecosystem value (7 per cent), causing potential food security and biodiversity conflicts. The IPES report notes that since 2017 there have been more than 15 instances of conflict in India linked with these projects.
What is the impact of all this on farming and what might the future hold?
Nettie Wiebe, from the IPES, explains:
“Imagine trying to start a farm when 70 per cent of farmland is already controlled by just 1 per cent of the largest farms — and when land prices have risen for 20 years in a row, like in North America. That’s the stark reality young farmers face today. Farmland is increasingly owned not by farmers but by speculators, pension funds and big agribusinesses looking to cash in. Land prices have skyrocketed so high it’s becoming impossible to make a living from farming. This is reaching a tipping point — small and medium scale farming is simply being squeezed out.”
Susan Chomba, also from the IPES, says that soaring land prices and land grabs are driving an unprecedented ‘land squeeze’, accelerating inequality and threatening food production. Moreover, the rush for dubious carbon projects, tree planting schemes, clean fuels and speculative buying is displacing not only small-scale farmers but also indigenous peoples.
Huge swathes of farmland are being acquired by governments and corporations for these ‘green grabs’, despite little evidence of climate benefits. This issue is particularly affecting Latin America and sub-Saharan Africa. The IPES notes that some 25 million hectares of land have been snapped up for carbon projects by a single ‘environmental asset creation’ firm, UAE-based ‘Blue Carbon’, through agreements with the governments of Kenya, Zimbabwe, Tanzania, Zambia and Liberia.
According to the IPES, the ‘land squeeze’ is leading to farmer revolts, rural exodus, rural poverty and food insecurity. With global farmland prices having doubled in 15 years, farmers, peasants, and indigenous peoples are losing their land (or forced to downsize), while young farmers face significant barriers in accessing land to farm.
The IPES calls for action to halt green grabs and remove speculative investment from land markets and establish integrated governance for land, environment and food systems to ensure a just transition. It also calls for support for collective ownership of farms and innovative financing for farmers to access land and wants a new deal for farmers and rural areas, and that includes a new generation of land and agrarian reforms.
Capitalist Imperative
Capital accumulation based on the financialisation of farmland accelerated after the 2008 financial crisis. However, financialisation of the economy in general goes back to the 1970s and 1980s when we witnessed a deceleration of economic growth based on industrial production. The response was to compensate via financial capitalism and financial intermediation.
Professor John Bellamy Foster, writing in 2010, not long after the 2008 crisis, stated:
“Lacking an outlet in production, capital took refuge in speculation in debt-leveraged finance (a bewildering array of options, futures, derivatives, swaps etc.).”
The neoliberal agenda was the political expression of capital’s response to the stagnation and included the raiding and sacking of public budgets, the expansion of credit to consumers and governments to sustain spending and consumption and frenzied financial speculation.
With the engine of capital accumulation via production no longer firing on all cylinders, the emergency backup of financial expansion took over. We have seen a shift from real capital formation in many Western economies, which increases overall economic output, towards the appreciation of financial assets, which increases wealth claims but not output.
Farmland is being transformed from a resource supporting food production and rural stability to a financial asset and speculative commodity. An asset class where wealthy investors can park their capital to further profit from inflated asset prices.
The net-zero green agenda also has to be seen in this context: when capital struggles to make sufficient profit, productive wealth (capital) over accumulates and depreciates; to avoid crisis, constant growth and, in this case, the creation of fresh ‘green’ investment opportunities is required.
The IPES report notes that nearly 45 per cent of all farmland investments in 2018, worth roughly $15 billion, came from pension funds and insurance companies. Based on workers’ contributions, pension fund investments in farmland are promoting land speculation, industrial agriculture and the interests of big agribusiness at the expense of smallholder farmers. Workers’ futures are tied to pension funds, which are supporting the growth and power of global finance and the degradation of other workers (in this case, cultivators).
Sofía Monsalve Suárez, from the IPES, states:
“It’s time decision-makers stop shirking their responsibility and start to tackle rural decline. The financialisation and liberalisation of land markets is ruining livelihoods and threatening the right to food. Instead of opening the floodgates to speculative capital, governments need to take concrete steps to halt bogus ‘green grabs’ and invest in rural development, sustainable farming and community-led conservation.”
With pensions tied to an increasingly commodified food system, ordinary people have become deeply incorporated into a capitalist economy that requires private profit at the expense of public well-being. The links between big finance, the food system, illness and big pharma were described in Sickening Profits: The Global Food System’s Poisoned Food and Toxic Wealth.
That book highlighted a cyclical relationship where financial institutions like BlackRock benefit from both their investments in the global food system and their investments in pharmaceuticals. At the same time, the relationship between ordinary people’s pensions and investments and the commodification of farmland further illustrates a complex interplay between finance and agriculture.
Addressing these challenges requires a critical examination of how financial interests shape agricultural practices and a concerted effort towards more sustainable food systems that prioritise ecological integrity and community well-being over mere profitability.
Systems Approach
Earlier in this chapter, it was stated that the influx of capital into farmland has further fuelled an industrial agricultural model characterised by monocultures, heavy reliance on chemical inputs and a focus on maximising yields at the expense of ecological balance and a systems approach. But what is a systems approach?
It involves understanding agriculture as part of a broader ecological and social system. It acknowledges that agricultural practices affect and are affected by environmental health, community well-being and economic viability.
However, industrial agriculture often overlooks these interconnections, leading to detrimental outcomes such as soil degradation, polluted waterways, loss of biodiversity, the destruction of rural communities, small-scale farms and local economies and negative health impacts. By contrast, a systems approach promotes agroecological principles that prioritise local food security, sustainable practices and the resilience of farming communities.
Agroecology serves as a primary framework within this systems approach. It integrates scientific research with traditional knowledge and grassroots participation, fostering practices that enhance ecological balance while ensuring farmers’ livelihoods. This method encourages diverse cropping systems, natural pest management and sustainable resource use, which collectively contribute to more resilient agricultural ecosystems. Agroecology not only addresses immediate agricultural challenges but also engages with broader political and economic issues affecting food systems.
Moreover, a systems approach prioritises diverse nutrition production per acre, which contrasts sharply with conventional, reductionist agricultural models that focus predominantly on maximising yields of a single crop. Agroecological methods, which are foundational to this systems perspective, can lead to improved nutritional outcomes: by cultivating a wider variety of crops, farmers can enhance the nutritional quality of food produced on each acre, thereby addressing issues of malnutrition and food insecurity more effectively.
Localised food systems and the primacy of small farms are critical to a systems approach. By reducing dependency on global supply chains dominated by big finance and large agribusiness, localised systems can enhance food sovereignty and empower communities.
This shift not only mitigates vulnerability to global market fluctuations and supply chain crises but also fosters self-sufficiency and resilience against environmental changes. A systems approach thus advocates for policies that support smallholder farmers and promote sustainable practices tailored to local conditions. (For further insight into agroecology and its feasibility, successes and scaling up, there is an entire chapter on agroecology in Food, Dependency and Dispossession: Resisting the New World Order.)
Chapter IV
Digital Panopticon and the Future of Food
Throughout the world, from the Netherlands to India, farmers are protesting. The protests might appear to have little in common. But they do. Farmers are increasingly finding it difficult to make a living, whether, for instance, because of neoliberal trade policies that lead to the import of produce that undermines domestic production and undercuts prices, the withdrawal of state support or the implementation of net-zero emissions policies that set unrealistic targets.
The common thread is that, by one way or another, farming is deliberately being made impossible or financially non-viable. The aim is to drive most farmers off the land and ram through an agenda that by its very nature seems likely to produce shortages and undermine food security.
.
Farmers’ protest in The Hague 1 October 2019. (Licensed under CC BY-SA 2.0)
.
A ‘one world agriculture’ global agenda is being promoted by the likes of the Gates Foundation and the World Economic Forum. It involves a vision of food and farming that sees companies such as Bayer, Corteva, Syngenta and Cargill working with Microsoft, Google and the big-tech giants to facilitate AI-driven farmerless farms, laboratory-engineered ‘food’ and retail dominated by the likes of Amazon and Walmart. A cartel of data owners, proprietary input suppliers and e-commerce platforms at the commanding heights of the economy.
The agenda is the brainchild of a digital-corporate-financial complex that wants to transform and control all aspects of life and human behaviour. This complex forms part of an authoritarian global elite that has the ability to coordinate its agenda globally via the United Nations, the World Economic Forum, the World Trade Organization (WTO), the World Bank, the International Monetary Fund and other supranational organisations, including influential think tanks and foundations (Gates, Rockefeller etc.).
Its agenda for food and farming is euphemistically called a ‘food transition’. Big agribusiness and ‘philanthropic’ foundations position themselves as the saviours of humanity due to their much-promoted plans to ‘feed the world’ with high-tech ‘precision’ farming’, ‘data-driven’ agriculture and ‘green’ (net-zero) production — with a warped notion of ‘sustainability’ being the mantra.
A much talked about ‘food transition’ goes hand in hand with an energy transition, net-zero ideology, programmable central bank digital currencies, the censorship of free speech and clampdowns on protest.
Economic Crisis
To properly understand these processes, we need to first locate what is essentially a social and economic reset within the context of a collapsing financial system.
Writer Ted Reece notes that the general rate of profit has trended downwards from an estimated 43 per cent in the 1870s to 17 per cent in the 2000s. By late 2019, many companies could not generate enough profit. Falling turnover, squeezed margins, limited cashflows and highly leveraged balance sheets were prevalent.
Professor Fabio Vighi of Cardiff University has described how closing down the global economy in early 2020 under the guise of fighting a supposedly new and novel pathogen allowed the US Federal Reserve to flood collapsing financial markets (COVID relief) with freshly printed money without causing hyperinflation. Lockdowns curtailed economic activity, thereby removing demand for the newly printed money (credit) in the physical economy and preventing ‘contagion’.
According to investigative journalist Michael Byrant, €1.5 trillion was needed to deal with the crisis in Europe alone. The financial collapse staring European central bankers in the face came to a head in 2019. The appearance of a ‘novel virus’ provided a convenient cover story.
The European Central Bank agreed to a €1.31 trillion bailout of banks followed by the EU agreeing to a €750 billion recovery fund for European states and corporations. This package of long-term, ultra-cheap credit to hundreds of banks was sold to the public as a necessary programme to cushion the impact of the ‘pandemic’ on businesses and workers.
In response to a collapsing neoliberalism, we are now seeing the rollout of an authoritarian great reset — an agenda that intends to reshape the economy and change how we live.
Shift to Authoritarianism
The new economy is to be dominated by a handful of tech giants, global conglomerates and e-commerce platforms, and new markets will also be created through the financialisation of nature, which is to be colonised, commodified and traded under the notion of protecting the environment.
In recent years, we have witnessed an overaccumulation of capital, and the creation of such markets will provide fresh investment opportunities (including dodgy carbon offsetting Ponzi schemes) for the super-rich to park their wealth and prosper.
This great reset envisages a transformation of Western societies, resulting in permanent restrictions on fundamental liberties and mass surveillance. Being rolled out under the benign term of a ‘Fourth Industrial Revolution’, the World Economic Forum (WEF) says the public will eventually ‘rent’ everything they require (remember the WEF video ‘you will own nothing and be happy’?): stripping the right of ownership under the guise of a ‘green economy’ and underpinned by the rhetoric of ‘sustainable consumption’ and ‘climate emergency’.
.
Klaus Schwab, Bill Gates – World Economic Forum Annual Meeting Davos 2008 (Copyright World Economic Forum by Remy Steinegger)
.
Climate alarmism and the mantra of sustainability are about promoting money-making schemes.
But they also serve another purpose: social control.
Neoliberalism has run its course, resulting in the impoverishment of large sections of the population. But to dampen dissent and lower expectations, the levels of personal freedom we have been used to will not be tolerated. This means that the wider population will be subjected to the discipline of an emerging surveillance state.
To push back against any dissent, ordinary people are being told that they must sacrifice personal liberty in order to protect public health, societal security (those terrible Russians, Islamic extremists or that Sunak-designated bogeyman George Galloway) or the climate; in the case of the climate, this means, for instance, travelling less and eating synthetic ‘meat’.
Unlike in the old normal of neoliberalism, an ideological shift is occurring whereby personal freedoms are increasingly depicted as being dangerous because they run counter to the collective good.
A main reason for this ideological shift is to ensure that the masses get used to lower living standards and accept them. Consider, for instance, the Bank of England’s chief economist Huw Pill saying that people should ‘accept’ being poorer. And then there isRob Kapito of the world’s biggest asset management firm BlackRock, who says that a “very entitled” generation must deal with scarcity for the first time in their lives.
At the same time, to muddy the waters, the message is that lower living standards are the result of the conflict in Ukraine and supply shocks that both the war and ‘the virus’ have caused.
The net-zero carbon emissions agenda will help legitimise lower living standards (reducing your carbon footprint) while reinforcing the notion that our rights must be sacrificed for the greater good. You will own nothing, not because the rich and their neoliberal agenda made you poor but because you will be instructed to stop being irresponsible and must act to protect the planet.
Net-zero Agenda
But what of this shift towards net-zero greenhouse gas emissions and the plan to slash our carbon footprints? Is it even feasible or necessary?
Gordon Hughes, a former World Bank economist and current professor of economics at the University of Edinburgh, says in a 2024 report that current UK and European net-zero policies will likely lead to further economic ruin.
Apparently, the only viable way to raise the cash for sufficient new capital expenditure (on wind and solar infrastructure) would be a two decades-long reduction in private consumption of up to 10 per cent. Such a shock has never occurred in the last century outside war; even then, never for more than a decade.
But this agenda will also cause serious environmental degradation. So says Andrew Nikiforuk in the article The Rising Chorus of Renewable Energy Skeptics, which outlines how the green techno-dream is vastly destructive.
He lists the devastating environmental impacts of an even more mineral-intensive system based on renewables and warns:
“The whole process of replacing a declining system with a more complex mining-based enterprise is now supposed to take place with a fragile banking system, dysfunctional democracies, broken supply chains, critical mineral shortages and hostile geopolitics.”
All of this assumes that global warming is real and anthropogenic. Not everyone agrees. In the article Global warming and the confrontation between the West and the rest of the world, journalist Thierry Meyssan argues that net zero is based on political ideology rather than science. But to state such things has become heresy in the Western countries and shouted down with accusations of ‘climate science denial’.
Regardless of such concerns, the march towards net zero continues, and key to this is the United Nations Agenda 2030 for Sustainable Development Goals.
.
A proposal to visualize the 17 SDGs in a thematic pyramid (Licensed under CC BY-SA 4.0)
.
Today, almost every business or corporate report, website or brochure includes a multitude of references to ‘carbon footprints’, ‘sustainability’, ‘net zero’ or ‘climate neutrality’ and how a company or organisation intends to achieve its sustainability targets. Green profiling, green bonds and green investments go hand in hand with displaying ‘green’ credentials and ambitions wherever and whenever possible.
It seems anyone and everyone in business is planting their corporate flag on the summit of sustainability. Take Sainsbury’s, for instance. It is one of the ‘big six’ food retail supermarkets in the UK and has a vision for the future of food that it published in 2019 that dovetails with the so-called food transition and the interrelated net-zero agenda — you must change your eating habits and eat synthetic food to save the planet!
Here’s a quote from it:
“Personalised Optimisation is a trend that could see people chipped and connected like never before. A significant step on from wearable tech used today, the advent of personal microchips and neural laces has the potential to see all of our genetic, health and situational data recorded, stored and analysed by algorithms which could work out exactly what we need to support us at a particular time in our life. Retailers, such as Sainsbury’s could play a critical role to support this, arranging delivery of the needed food within thirty minutes — perhaps by drone.”
Tracked, traced and chipped — for your own benefit. Corporations accessing all of our personal data, right down to our DNA. The report is littered with references to sustainability and the climate or environment, and it is difficult not to get the impression that it is written so as to leave the reader awestruck by the technological possibilities. We shall return to this report in the next chapter.
The report appears to be part of a paradigm that promotes a brave new world of technological innovation but has nothing to say about power — who determines policies that have led to massive inequalities, poverty, malnutrition, food insecurity and hunger and who is responsible for the degradation of the environment in the first place — is nothing new.
The essence of power is conveniently glossed over, not least because those involved in the prevailing food regime are also shaping the techno-utopian fairytale where everyone lives happily ever after eating synthetic food while living in a digital panopticon.
Fake Green
The type of ‘green’ agenda being pushed is not just about social engineering and behavioural change; it is also a multi-trillion market opportunity for lining the pockets of rich investors and subsidy-sucking green infrastructure firms.
It is, furthermore, a type of green that plans to cover much of the countryside with wind farms and solar panels with most farmers no longer farming. A recipe for food insecurity.
Those investing in the ‘green’ agenda care first and foremost about profit. The supremely influential BlackRock is not only promoting this agenda; it also invests in the current food system and the corporations responsible for polluted waterways, degraded soils, the displacement of smallholder farmers, a spiralling public health crisis, malnutrition and much more.
It also invests in healthcare — an industry that thrives on the illnesses and conditions created by eating the substandard food that the current system produces.
Did Larry Fink, the top man at BlackRock, suddenly develop a conscience and become an environmentalist who cares about the planet and ordinary people? Of course not. He smells ever more profit in ‘climate-friendly’, ‘precision’ agriculture, genetic engineering and facilitating a new technocratic fake-green normal.
Any serious deliberations on the future of food would surely consider issues like food sovereignty, the role of agroecology and the strengthening of family farms — the backbone of current global food production.
The aforementioned article by Andrew Nikiforuk concludes that, if we are really serious about our impacts on the environment, we must scale back our needs and simplify society.
In terms of food, the solution rests on a low-input approach that strengthens rural communities and local markets and prioritises smallholder farms and small independent enterprises and retailers, localised democratic food systems and a concept of food sovereignty based on self-sufficiency, agroecological principles and regenerative agriculture.
It would involve facilitating the right to culturally appropriate food that is nutritionally dense due to diverse cropping patterns and free from toxic chemicals while ensuring local ownership and stewardship of common resources like land, water, soil and seeds.
That’s where genuine environmentalism, ‘sustainability’, social justice and the future of food begins. But there’s no profit or role in that for Fink or the big agribusiness and tech giants that despise such approaches.
Chapter V
Manifesto for Corporate Control and Technocratic Tyranny
Sainsbury’s Future of Food report (2019), mentioned in the previous chapter, is not merely a misguided attempt at forecasting future trends and habits; it reads more like a manifesto for corporate control and technocratic tyranny disguised as ‘progress’. This document epitomises everything wrong with the industrial food system’s vision for our future. It represents a dystopian roadmap to a world where our most fundamental connection to nature and culture — our food — is hijacked by corporate interests and mediated through a maze of unnecessary and potentially harmful technologies.
The wild predictions and technological ‘solutions’ presented in the report reveal a profound disconnection from the lived experiences of ordinary people and the real challenges facing our food systems. Its claim (in 2019) that a quarter of Britons will be vegetarian by 2025 seems way off the mark. But it fits a narrative that seeks to reshape our diets and food culture. Once you convince the reader that things are going to be a certain way in the future, it is easier to pave the way for normalising what appears elsewhere in the report: lab-grown meat, 3D-printed foods and space farming.
Of course, the underlying assumption is that giant corporations — and supermarkets like Sainsbury’s — will be controlling everything and rolling out marvellous ‘innovations’ under the guise of ‘feeding the world’ or ‘saving the planet’. There is no concern expressed in the report about the consolidation of corporate-technocratic control over the food system.
By promoting high-tech solutions, the report seemingly advocates for a future where our food supply is entirely dependent on complex technologies controlled by a handful of corporations.
The report talks of ‘artisan factories’ run by robots. Is this meant to get ordinary people to buy into Sainsbury’s vision of the future? Possibly, if the intention is to further alienate people from their food sources, making them ever more dependent on corporate-controlled, ultra-processed products.
It’s a future where the art of cooking, the joy of growing food and the cultural significance of traditional dishes are replaced by sterile, automated processes devoid of human touch and cultural meaning. This erosion of food culture and skills is not an unintended consequence — it’s a core feature of the corporate food system’s strategy to create a captive market of consumers unable to feed themselves without corporate intervention.
The report’s enthusiasm for personalised nutrition driven by AI and biometric data is akin to an Orwellian scenario that would give corporations unprecedented control over our dietary choices, turning the most fundamental human need into a data-mined, algorithm-driven commodity.
The privacy implications are staggering, as is the potential for new forms of discrimination and social control based on eating habits. Imagine a world where your insurance premiums are tied to your adherence to a corporate-prescribed diet or where your employment prospects are influenced by your ‘Food ID’. The possible dystopian reality lurking behind Sainsbury’s glossy predictions.
The report’s fixation on exotic ingredients like jellyfish and lichen draws attention away from the real issues affecting our food systems — corporate concentration, environmental degradation and the systematic destruction of local food cultures and economies. It would be better to address the root causes of food insecurity and malnutrition, which are fundamentally issues of poverty and inequality, not a lack of novel food sources.
Nothing is mentioned about the vital role of agroecology, traditional farming knowledge and food sovereignty in creating truly sustainable and just food systems. Instead, what we see is a future where every aspect of our diet is mediated by technology and corporate interests, from gene-edited crops to synthetic biology-derived foods. A direct assault on the principles of food sovereignty, which assert the right of peoples to healthy and culturally appropriate food produced through ecologically sound and sustainable methods.
The report’s emphasis on lab-grown meat and other high-tech protein sources is particularly troubling. These technologies, far from being the environmental saviours they are promoted as, risk increasing energy use and further centralising food production in the hands of a few tech giants.
The massive energy requirements for large-scale cultured meat production are conveniently glossed over, as are the potential health risks of consuming these novel foods without long-term safety studies. This push for synthetic foods is not about sustainability or animal welfare — it’s about creating new, patentable food sources that can be controlled and monetised by corporations.
Moreover, the push for synthetic foods and ‘precision fermentation’ threatens to destroy the livelihoods of millions of small farmers and pastoralists worldwide, replacing them with a handful of high-tech facilities controlled by multinational corporations.
Is this meant to be ‘progress’?
It’s more like a boardroom recipe for increased food insecurity, rural poverty and corporate monopolisation. The destruction of traditional farming communities and practices would not only be an economic disaster but a cultural catastrophe, erasing millennia of accumulated knowledge and wisdom about sustainable food production.
The report’s casual mention of ‘sin taxes’ on meat signals a future where our dietary choices are increasingly policed and penalised by the state, likely at the behest of corporate interests.
The Issue of Meat
However, on the issue of the need to reduce meat consumption and replace meat with laboratory-manufactured items in order to reduce carbon emissions, it must be stated that the dramatic increase in the amount of meat consumed post-1945 was not necessarily the result of consumer preference; it had more to do with political policy, the mechanisation of agriculture and Green Revolution practices.
“Have you ever wondered how ‘meat’ became such a central part of the Western diet? Or how the industrialisation of ‘animal agriculture’ came about? It might seem like the natural outcome of the ‘free market’ meeting demand for more ‘meat’. But from what I have learned from Nibert (2002) and Winders and Nibert (2004), the story of how ‘meat’ consumption increased so much in the post-World War II period is anything but natural. They argue it is largely due to a decision in the 1940s by the US government to deal with the problem of surplus grain by increasing the production of ‘meat’.”
Kassam notes:
“In the second half of the 20th century, global ‘meat’ production increased by nearly 5 times. The amount of ‘meat’ eaten per person doubled. By 2050 ‘meat’ consumption is estimated to increase by 160 percent (The World Counts, 2017). While global per capita ‘meat’ consumption is currently 43 kg/year, it is nearly double in the UK (82 kg/year) and almost triple in the US (118 kg/year).”
Kassam notes that habits and desires are manipulated by elite groups for their own interests. Propaganda, advertising and ‘public relations’ are used to manufacture demand for products. Agribusiness corporations and the state have used these techniques to encourage ‘meat’ consumption, leading to the slaughter and untold misery of billions of creatures, as Kassam makes clear.
People were manipulated to buy into ‘meat culture’. Now they are being manipulated to buy out, again by elite groups. But ‘sin taxes’ and Orwellian-type controls on individual behaviour are not the way to go about reducing meat consumption.
So, what is the answer?
Kassam says that one way to do this is to support grassroots organisations and movements which are working to resist the power of global agribusiness and reclaim our food systems. Movements for food justice and food sovereignty which promote sustainable, agroecological production systems.
At least then people will be free from corporate manipulation and better placed to make their own food choices.
As Kassam says:
“From what I have learned so far, our oppression of other animals is not just a result of individual choices. It is underpinned by a state supported economic system driven by profit.”
Misplaced Priorities
Meanwhile, Sainsbury’s vision of food production in space and on other planets is perhaps the most egregious example of misplaced priorities. While around a billion struggle with hunger and malnutrition and many more with micronutrient deficiencies, corporate futurists are fantasising about growing food on Mars.
Is this supposed to be visionary thinking?
It’s a perfect encapsulation of the technocratic mindset that believes every problem can be solved with more technology, no matter how impractical or divorced from reality.
Moreover, by promoting a future dependent on complex, centralised technologies, we become increasingly vulnerable to system failures and corporate monopolies. A truly resilient food system should be decentralised, diverse and rooted in local knowledge and resources.
The report’s emphasis on nutrient delivery through implants, patches and intravenous methods is particularly disturbing. This represents the ultimate commodification of nutrition, reducing food to mere fuel and stripping away all cultural, social and sensory aspects of eating. It’s a vision that treats the human body as a machine to be optimised, rather than a living being with complex needs and experiences.
The idea of ‘grow-your-own’ ingredients for cultured meat and other synthetic foods at home is another example of how this technocratic vision co-opts and perverts concepts of self-sufficiency and local food production. Instead of encouraging people to grow real, whole foods, it proposes a dystopian parody of home food production that still keeps consumers dependent on corporate-supplied technologies and inputs. A clever marketing ploy to make synthetic foods seem more natural and acceptable.
The report’s predictions about AI-driven personal nutrition advisors and highly customised diets based on individual ‘Food IDs’ raise serious privacy concerns and threaten to further medicalise our relationship with food. While personalised nutrition could offer some benefits, the level of data collection and analysis required for such systems could lead to unprecedented corporate control over our dietary choices.
Furthermore, the emphasis on ‘artisan’ factories run by robots completely misunderstands the nature of artisanal food production. True artisanal foods are the product of human skill, creativity and cultural knowledge passed down through generations. It’s a perfect example of how the technocratic mindset reduces everything to mere processes that can be automated, ignoring the human and cultural elements that give food its true value.
The report’s vision of meat ‘assembled’ on 3D printing belts is another disturbing example of the ultra-processed future being proposed. This approach to food production treats nutrition as a mere assembly of nutrients, ignoring the complex interactions between whole foods and the human body. It’s a continuation of the reductionist thinking that has led to the current epidemic of diet-related diseases.
Sainsbury’s is essentially advocating for a future where our diets are even further removed from natural, whole foods.
The concept of ‘farms’ cultivating plants to make growth serum for cells is yet another step towards the complete artificialisation of the food supply. This approach further distances food production from natural processes. It’s a vision of farming that has more in common with pharmaceutical production than traditional agriculture, and it threatens to complete the transformation of food from a natural resource into an industrial product.
Sainsbury’s apparent enthusiasm for gene-edited and synthetic biology-derived foods is also concerning. These technologies’ rapid adoption without thorough long-term safety studies and public debate could lead to unforeseen health and environmental impacts. The history of agricultural biotechnology is rife with examples of unintended consequences, from the development of herbicide-resistant superweeds to the contamination of non-GM crops.
Is Sainsbury’s uncritically promoting these technologies, disregarding the precautionary principle?
Issues like food insecurity, malnutrition and environmental degradation are not primarily technical problems — they are the result of inequitable distribution of resources, exploitative economic systems and misguided policies. By framing these issues as purely technological challenges, Sainsbury’s is diverting attention from the need for systemic change and social justice in the food system.
The high-tech solutions proposed are likely to be accessible only to the wealthy, at least initially, creating a two-tiered food system where the rich have access to ‘optimized’ nutrition while the poor are left with increasingly degraded and processed options.
But the report’s apparent disregard for the cultural and social aspects of food is perhaps its most fundamental flaw. Food is not merely fuel for our bodies; it’s a central part of our cultural identities, social relationships and connection to the natural world. By reducing food to a series of nutrients to be optimised and delivered in the most efficient manner possible, Sainsbury’s is proposing a future that is not only less healthy but less human.
While Sainsbury’s Future of Food report can be regarded as a roadmap to a better future, it is really a corporate wish list, representing a dangerous consolidation of power in the hands of agribusiness giants and tech companies at the expense of farmers, consumers and the environment.
The report is symptomatic of a wider ideology that seeks to legitimise total corporate control over our food supply. And the result? A homogenised, tech-driven dystopia.
A technocratic nightmare that gives no regard for implementing food systems that are truly democratic, ecologically sound and rooted in the needs and knowledge of local communities.
The real future of food lies not in corporate labs and AI algorithms, but in the fields of agroecological farmers, the kitchens of home cooks and the markets of local food producers.
The path forward is not through more technology and corporate control but through a return to the principles of agroecology, food sovereignty and cultural diversity.
Chapter VI
From Agrarianism to Transhumanism:Long March to Dystopia
“A total demolition of the previous forms of existence is underway: how one comes into the world, biological sex, education, relationships, the family, even the diet that is about to become synthetic.” — Silvia Guerini, radical ecologist, in From the ‘Neutral’ Body to the Posthuman Cyborg (2023)
We are currently seeing an acceleration of the corporate consolidation of the entire global agri-food chain. The 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 billionaire interests behind this try to portray their techno-solutionism as some kind of humanitarian endeavour: saving the planet with ‘climate-friendly solutions’, ‘helping farmers’ or ‘feeding the world’. But what it really amounts to is repackaging and greenwashing the dispossessive strategies of imperialism.
It involves a shift towards a ‘one world agriculture’ under the control of agritech and the data giants, which is to be based on genetically-engineered seeds, laboratory-created products that resemble food, ‘precision’ and ‘data-driven’ agriculture and farming without farmers, with the entire agrifood chain, from field (or lab) to retail, being governed by monopolistic e-commerce platforms determined by artificial intelligence systems and algorithms.
Those who are pushing this agenda have a vision not only for farmers but also for humanity in general.
The elites through their military-digital-financial (Pentagon/Silicon Valley/Big Finance) complex want to use their technologies to reshape the world and redefine what it means to be human. They regard humans, their cultures and their practices, like nature itself, as a problem and deficient.
Farmers are to be displaced and replaced with drones, machines and cloud-based computing. Food is to be redefined, and people are to be fed synthetic, genetically-engineered products. Cultures are to be eradicated, and humanity is to be fully urbanised, subservient and disconnected from the natural world.
What It Means to be Human
What it means to be human is to be radically transformed. But what has it meant to be human until now or at least prior to the (relatively recent) Industrial Revolution and associated mass urbanisation?
To answer this question, we need to discuss our connection to nature and what most of humanity was involved in prior to industrialisation — cultivating food.
Many of the ancient rituals and celebrations of our forebears were built around stories, myths and rituals that helped them come to terms with some of the most fundamental issues of existence, from death to rebirth and fertility. These culturally-embedded beliefs and practices served to sanctify people’s practical relationship with nature and its role in sustaining human life.
As agriculture became key to human survival, the planting and harvesting of crops and other seasonal activities associated with food production were central to these customs.
Humans celebrated nature and the life it gave birth to. Ancient beliefs and rituals were imbued with hope and renewal and people had a necessary and immediate relationship with the sun, seeds, animals, wind, fire, soil and rain and the changing seasons that nourished and brought life. Our cultural and social relationships with agrarian production and associated deities had a sound practical base.
People’s lives have been tied to planting, harvesting, seeds, soil and the seasons for thousands of years.
Silvia Guerini, whose quote introduces this chapter, notes the importance of deep-rooted relationships and the rituals that re-affirm them. She says that through rituals a community recognises itself and its place in the world. They create the spirit of a rooted community by contributing to rooting and making a single existence endure in a time, in a territory, in a community.
Professor Robert W Nicholls explains that the cults of Woden and Thor were superimposed on far older and better-rooted beliefs related to the sun and the earth, the crops and the animals and the rotation of the seasons between the light and warmth of summer and the cold and dark of winter.
Humanity’s relationship with farming and food and our connections to land, nature and community has for millennia defined what it means to be human.
Take India, for example. Environmental scientist Viva Kermani says that Hinduism is the world’s largest nature-based religion that:
“… recognises and seeks the Divine in nature and acknowledges everything as sacred. It views the earth as our Mother and hence advocates that it should not be exploited. A loss of this understanding that earth is our mother, or rather a deliberate ignorance of this, has resulted in the abuse and the exploitation of the earth and its resources.”
Kermani notes that ancient scriptures instructed people that the animals and plants found in India are sacred and, therefore, all aspects of nature are to be revered. She adds that this understanding of and reverence towards the environment is common to all Indic religious and spiritual systems: Hinduism, Buddhism and Jainism.
According to Kermani, the Vedic deities have deep symbolism and many layers of existence. One such association is with ecology. Surya is associated with the sun, the source of heat and light that nourishes everyone; Indra is associated with rain, crops, and abundance; and Agni is the deity of fire and transformation and controls all changes.
She notes that the Vrikshayurveda, an ancient Sanskrit text on the science of plants and trees, contains details about soil conservation, planting, sowing, treatment, propagating, how to deal with pests and diseases and a lot more.
Like Nicholls, Kermani provides insight into some of the profound cultural, philosophical and practical aspects of humanity’s connection to nature and food production.
Agrarianism
This connection resonates with agrarianism, a philosophy based on cooperative labour and fellowship, which stands in stark contrast to the values and impacts of urban life, capitalism and technology that are too often detrimental to independence and dignity. Agrarianism, too, emphasises a spiritual dimension as well as the value of rural society, small farms, widespread property ownership and political decentralisation.
“The revolution which began with machines and chemicals now continues with automation, computers and biotechnology.”
For Berry, agrarianism is not a sentimental longing for a time past. Colonial attitudes, domestic, foreign and now global, have resisted true agrarianism almost from the beginning — there has never been fully sustainable, stable, locally adapted, land-based economies.
However, Berry provides many examples of small (and larger) farms that have similar output as industrial agriculture with one third of the energy.
In his poem ‘A Spiritual Journey’, Berry writes the following:
“And the world cannot be discovered by a journey of miles, no matter how long, but only by a spiritual journey, a journey of one inch, very arduous and humbling and joyful, by which we arrive at the ground at our feet, and learn to be at home.”
Agrarianism, while advocating for a return to small-scale farming and community-oriented living, is often critiqued for its idealisation of rural life and agricultural work. Critics argue that it mistakenly elevates farming above other forms of labour, suggesting that agricultural work inherently fosters moral virtues and a closer relationship with nature.
It might appear to be naive, not least because, it overlooks the complexities and ethical dilemmas present in agrarian communities, which can be just as susceptible to corruption and environmental degradation as urban settings.
This raises the question: are solutions based on agrarianism utopian and disconnected from modern societal needs?
Not really. Agrarianism offers a necessary critique of industrial agriculture and the accelerated urbanisation we see across the world, emphasising the importance of local communities and sustainable practices. It promotes the idea that close relationships with the land can foster not only environmental stewardship but also social cohesion and moral integrity among community members.
By advocating for small-scale farming and local food systems, agrarianism seeks to empower individuals and families, encouraging self-sufficiency and resilience against the negative impacts of globalisation and corporate control in agriculture.
As a philosophy, agrarianism highlights the value of traditional knowledge and practices in addressing contemporary issues such as climate challenges, food security and social inequality. We shall return to Wendell Berry in the final chapter.
But in the cold, centralised, technocratic dystopia that is planned, humanity’s spiritual connection to the countryside, food and agrarian production are to be cast into the dustbin of history. What we are seeing is an agenda based on a different set of values rooted in a lust for power and money and the total subjugation of ordinary people.
Transhumanism
Silvia Guerini says:
“The past becomes something to be erased in order to break the thread that binds us to a history, to a tradition, to a belonging, for the transition towards a new uprooted humanity, without past, without memory… a new humanity dehumanised in its essence, totally in the hands of the manipulators of reality and truth”.
This dehumanised humanity severed from the past is part of the wider agenda of transhumanism. For instance, we are not just seeing a push towards a world without farmers and everything that has connected us to the soil but, according to Guerini, also a world without mothers.
She argues that those behind test-tube babies and surrogate motherhood now have their sights on genetic engineering and artificial wombs, which would cut women out of the reproductive process. Guerini predicts that artificial wombs could eventually be demanded, or rather marketed, as a right for everyone, including transgender people. It is interesting that the language around pregnancy is already contested with the omission of ‘women’ from statements like ‘persons who can get pregnant’.
Of course, there has long been a blurring of lines between biotechnology, eugenics and genetic engineering. Genetically engineered crops, gene drives and gene editing are now a reality, but the ultimate goal is marrying artificial intelligence, bionanotechnology and genetic engineering to produce the one-world transhuman.
This is being pushed by powerful interests, who, according to Guerini, are using a rainbow, transgenic left and LGBTQ+ organisations to promote a new synthetic identity and claim to new rights. She says this is an attack on life, on nature, on “what is born, as opposed to artificial” and adds that all ties to the real, natural world must be severed.
It is interesting that in its report Future of Food, the UK supermarket giant Sainsbury’s celebrates a future where we are microchipped and tracked and neural laces have the potential to see all of our genetic, health and situational data recorded, stored and analysed by algorithms that could work out exactly what food (delivered by drone) we need to support us at a particular time in our life. All sold as ‘personal optimisation’.
Moreover, it is likely, according to the report, that we will be getting key nutrients through implants. Part of these nutrients will come in the form of lab-grown food and insects.
A neural lace is an ultra-thin mesh that can be implanted in the skull, forming a collection of electrodes capable of monitoring brain function. It creates an interface between the brain and the machine.
Sainsbury’s does a pretty good job of trying to promote a dystopian future where AI has taken your job, but, according to the report, you have lots of time to celebrate the wonderful, warped world of ‘food culture’ created by the supermarket and your digital overlords.
Technofeudalism meets transhumanism — all for your convenience, of course.
Imagine, as you sit all day unemployed in your high-rise, your ‘food’ will be delivered via an online platform bought courtesy of your programmable universal basic income digital money. Food courtesy of Gates-promoted farms manned by driverless machines, monitored by drones and doused with chemicals to produce crops from patented genetically modified seeds for industrial ‘biomatter’ to be engineered, processed and constituted into something resembling food.
Enjoy and be happy eating your fake food, stripped of satisfying productive endeavour and genuine self-fulfilment. But really, it will not be a problem. You can sit all day and exist virtually in Zuckerberg’s fantasy metaverse. Property-less and happy in your open prison of state dependency, track and chip surveillance passports and financial exclusion via programmable currency.
A world also in which bodily integrity no longer exists courtesy of a mandatory vaccination agenda linked to emerging digital-biopharmaceutical technologies.
But none of this will happen overnight. And whether the technology will deliver remains to be seen. Those who are promoting this brave new world might have overplayed their hand but will spend the following decades trying to drive their vision forward.
But arrogance is their Achilles heel.
There is still time to educate, to organise, to resist and to agitate against this hubris, not least by challenging the industrial food giants and the system that sustains them and by advocating for and creating grass-root food movements and local economies that strengthen food sovereignty.
Chapter VII
Platforms of Controland the Unbreakable Spirit
Max Weber (1864-1920) was a prominent German sociologist who developed influential theories on rationality and authority. He examined the different types of rationality that underpinned systems of authority. He argued that modern Western societies were based on legal-rational authority and had moved away from systems that were based on traditional authority and charismatic authority.
Traditional authority derives its power from long-standing customs and traditions, while charismatic authority is based on the exceptional personal qualities or charisma of a leader.
According to Weber, the legal-rational authority that characterises Western capitalist industrial society is based on instrumental rationality that focuses on the most efficient means to achieve given ends. This type of rationality manifests in bureaucratic power. Weber contrasted this with another form of rationality: value rationality that is based on conscious beliefs in the inherent value of certain behaviour.
While Weber saw the benefits of instrumental rationality in terms of increased efficiency, he feared that this could lead to a stifling “iron cage” of a rule-based order and rule following (instrumental rationality) as an end in itself. The result would be humanity’s “polar night of icy darkness.”
Today, technological change is sweeping across the planet and presents many challenges. The danger is of a technological iron cage in the hands of an elite that uses technology for malevolent purposes.
“We do not — or should not — want to become a society in which things of deeper significance are appreciated only for any instrumental value. The challenge, therefore, is to delimit instrumental rationality and the technologies that embody it by protecting that which we value intrinsically, above and beyond mere utility.”
He adds that we must decide which technologies we are for, to what ends, and how they can be democratically managed, with a view to the kind of society we wish to be.
A major change that we have seen in recent years is the increasing dominance of cloud-based services and platforms. In the food and agriculture sector, we are seeing the rollout of these phenomena tied to a techno solutionist ‘data-driven’ or ‘precision’ agriculture legitimised by ‘humanitarian’ notions of ‘helping farmers’, ‘saving the planet’ and ‘feeding the world’ in the face of some kind of impending Malthusian catastrophe.
A part-fear mongering, part-self-aggrandisement narrative promoted by those who have fuelled ecological devastation, corporate dependency, land dispossession, food insecurity and farmer indebtedness as a result of the global food regime that they helped to create and profited from. Now, with a highly profitable but flawed carbon credit trading scheme and a greenwashed technology-driven eco-modernism, they are supposedly going to save humanity from itself.
The World According to Bayer
In the agrifood sector, we are seeing the rollout of data-driven or precision approaches to agriculture by the likes of Microsoft, Syngenta, Bayer and Amazon centred on cloud-based data information services. Data-driven agriculture mines data to be exploited by the agribusiness/big tech giants to instruct farmers what and how much to produce and what type of proprietary inputs they must purchase and from whom.
Data owners (Microsoft, Amazon, Alphabet etc.), input suppliers (Bayer, Corteva, Syngenta, Cargill etc.) and retail concerns (Amazon, Walmart etc) aim to secure the commanding heights of the global agrifood economy through their monopolistic platforms.
But what does this model of agriculture look like in practice?
Let us use Bayer’s digital platform Climate FieldView as an example. It collects data from satellites and sensors in fields and on tractors and then uses algorithms to advise farmers on their farming practices: when and what to plant, how much pesticide to spray, how much fertiliser to apply etc.
To be part of Bayer’s Carbon Program, farmers have to be enrolled in FieldView. Bayer then uses the FieldView app to instruct farmers on the implementation of just two practices that are said to sequester carbon in the soils: reduced tillage or no-till farming and the planting of cover crops.
Through the app, the company monitors these two practices and estimates the amount of carbon that the participating farmers have sequestered. Farmers are then supposed to be paid according to Bayer’s calculations, and Bayer uses that information to claim carbon credits and sell these in carbon markets.
Bayer also has a programme in the US called ForGround. Upstream companies can use the platform to advertise and offer discounts for equipment, seeds and other inputs.
For example, getting more farmers to use reduced tillage or no-till is of huge benefit to Bayer (sold on the basis of it being ‘climate friendly’ as it keeps carbon in the soil). The kind of reduced tillage or no-till promoted by Bayer requires dousing fields with its RoundUp (toxic glyphosate) or some other toxic herbicide and planting seeds of its genetically engineered herbicide tolerant soybeans or hybrid maize.
And what of the cover crops referred to above? Bayer also intends to profit from the promotion of cover crops. It has taken majority ownership of a seed company developing a gene-edited cover crop, called CoverCress. Seeds of CoverCress will be sold to farmers who are enrolled in ForGround and the crop will be sold as a biofuel.
But Bayer’s big target is the downstream food companies which can use the platform to claim emissions reductions in their supply chains.
Agribusiness corporations and the big tech companies are jointly developing carbon farming platforms to influence farmers on their choice of inputs and farming practices (big tech companies, like Microsoft and IBM, are major buyers of carbon credits).
The non-profit GRAIN says (see the article The corporate agenda behind carbon farming) that Bayer is gaining increasing control over farmers in various countries, dictating exactly how they farm and what inputs they use through its Carbon Program.
GRAIN argues that, for corporations, carbon farming is all about increasing their control within the food system and is certainly not about sequestering carbon.
Digital platforms are intended to be one-stop shops for carbon credits, seeds, pesticides and fertilisers and agronomic advice, all supplied by the company, which gets the added benefit of control over the data harvested from the participating farms.
Techno-feudalism
Yanis Varoufakis, former finance minister of Greece, argues that what we are seeing is a shift from capitalism to techno-feudalism. He argues that tech giants like Apple, Meta and Amazon act as modern-day feudal lords. Users of digital platforms (such as companies or farmers) essentially become ‘cloud serfs’, and ‘rent’ (fees, data etc) is extracted from them for being on a platform.
In feudalism (land) rent drives the system. In capitalism, profits drive the system. Varoufakis says that markets are being replaced by algorithmic ‘digital fiefdoms’.
Although digital platforms require some form of capitalist production, as companies like Amazon or Bayer need manufacturers or farmers to produce goods for their platforms, the new system represents a significant shift in power dynamics, favouring those who own and control the platforms.
Whether this system is technofeudalism, hypercapitalism or something else is open to debate. But we should at least be able to agree on one thing: the changes we are seeing are having profound impacts on economies as well as producers and populations that are increasingly surveilled as they are compelled to shift their activities and lives online.
The very corporations that are responsible for the problems of the prevailing food system merely offer more of the same, this time packaged in an app-friendly, genetically engineered, ecomodernist, fake-green, carbon-trading wrapping.
Elected officials are facilitating this by putting the needs of monopolistic global interests ahead of ordinary people’s personal freedoms and workers’ rights, as well as the needs of independent local producers, enterprises and markets.
For instance, the Indian government has in recent times signed memoranda of understanding (MoU) with Amazon, Bayer, Microsoft and Syngenta to rollout data-driven, precision agriculture. Integral to A standardised ‘one world agriculture’ under the control of these companies based on genetically engineered seeds, laboratory created products that resemble food and farming without farmers, with the entire agrifood chain, from field (or lab) to retail in their hands.
In response, a ‘citizen letter’ (July 2024) was sent to the government. It stated that it is not clear what the Indian Council of Agricultural Research (ICAR) will learn from Bayer that the well-paid public sector scientists of the institution cannot develop themselves. The letter says entities that have been responsible for causing an economic and environmental crisis in Indian agriculture are being partnered by ICAR.
The letter raises some key concerns. Where is the democratic debate on carbon credit markets? Is the ICAR ensuring that the farmers get the best rather than biased advice that boosts the further rollout of proprietary products? Is there a system in place for the ICAR to develop research and education agendas from the farmers it is supposed to serve as opposed to being led by the whims and business ideas of corporations?
The authors of the letter note that copies of the MoUs are not being shared proactively in the public domain by the ICAR. The letter asks that the ICAR suspends the signed MoUs, shares all details in the public domain and desists from signing any more such MoUs without necessary public debate.
As will be made clear in the following chapters, this is part of a broader geopolitical strategy to ensure India’s food dependence on foreign corporations and eradicate any semblance of food democracy (or indeed national sovereignty).
“Jayachandra Sharma, a farmer leader from India’s Karnataka Rajya Ryot Sangha farmer union, sees these developments and the digitalisation of agriculture as part of a broader strategy to push millions of farmers out of agriculture and make India’s food supply dependent on global finance and foreign corporations. Given how companies like Microsoft, Syngenta, Amazon and JD.com are expanding, he could well be right.”
Valuing Humanity
Genuine approaches to addressing the challenges humanity faces are being ignored by policymakers or cynically attacked by corporate lobbyists. These solutions involve systemic shifts in agricultural, food and economic systems with a focus on low-consumption (energy) lifestyles, localisation and an ecologically sustainable agroecology.
As activist John Wilson says, this is based on creative solutions, a connection to nature and the land, nurturing people, peaceful transformation and solidarity.
Co-operative labour, fellowship and our long-standing spiritual connection to the land should inform how as a society we should live. This stands in stark contrast to the values and impacts of capitalism and technology based on instrumental rationality and too often fuelled by revenue streams and the goal to control populations.
When we hear talk of a ‘spiritual connection’, what is meant by ‘spiritual’? In a broad sense it can be regarded as a concept that refers to thoughts, beliefs and feelings about the meaning of life, rather than just physical existence. A sense of connection to something greater than ourselves. Something akin to Weber’s concept of value rationality.
The spiritual, the diverse and the local are juxtaposed with the selfishness of modern urban society, the increasing homogeneity of thought and practice and an instrumental rationality which becomes an end in itself.
Having a direct link with nature/the land is fundamental to developing an appreciation of a type of ‘being’ and an ‘understanding’ that results in a reality worth living in.
However, what we are seeing is an agenda based on a different set of values rooted in a lust for power and money and the total subjugation of ordinary people (and farmers) being rammed through under the false promise of techno solutionism (think neural laces to detect moods implanted in the skull, programmable digital money, track and trace technology etc.) and some distant notion of a techno utopia that leave malevolent power relations intact and unchallenged.
Is this then to be humanity’s never-ending “polar night of icy darkness”? Hopefully not. This vision is being imposed from above. Ordinary people (whether, for example, farmers in India or those being beaten down through austerity policies) find themselves on the receiving end of a class war being waged against them by a mega rich elite.
Indeed, in 1941, Herbert Marcuse stated that technology could be used as an instrument for control and domination. Precisely the agenda of the likes of Bayer, the Gates Foundation, BlackRock and the World Bank, which are trying to eradicate genuine diversity and impose a one-size-fits-all model of thinking and behaviour.
A final thought courtesy of civil rights campaigner Frederick Douglass in a speech from 1857:
“Power concedes nothing without a demand. It never did and it never will. Find out just what any people will quietly submit to and you have found out the exact measure of injustice and wrong which will be imposed upon them, and these will continue till they are resisted with either words or blows, or with both. The limits of tyrants are prescribed by the endurance of those whom they oppress.”
“Small farmers are being displaced and family farms are disappearing as those who are truly dedicated to farming have to say tearful farewells to their farms, while billionaires and richest corporations acquire millions of acres of farmland. While small scale food processors too are being pushed out and possibilities of direct contacts between farmers and consumers to promote sustainable livelihoods based on making available healthy food to all are diminishing, giant multinational companies are taking up food production, trade and processing in ways that are harmful for both consumers and farmers.”
However, the trend noted by Dogra is apparent across the world. And it is something that, as yet, is still in the early stages in India. But have no doubt, this is the plan for India too, where small-scale farmers make up 85 per cent of the farming community.
In late 2021, the Indian government announced that three important farm laws, which would have introduced neoliberal shock therapy to the agricultural sector, would be repealed after a one-year farmers’ mobilisation against the legislation (although discussed below, for more in-depth insight into the issues that sparked the protest, see the relevant chapters in Food, Dependency and Dispossession: Resisting the New World Order).
The repeal of the three laws was little more than a tactical manoeuvre given that state elections were upcoming in key rural heartlands in 2022. The powerful global interests behind the legislation have not gone away and farmers’ concerns remain highly relevant.
These interests have been behind a decades-long agenda to displace the prevailing agri-food system in India. The laws might have been struck down, but the goal to capture and radically restructure the sector remains. The farmers’ struggle in India is not over.
The repeal of the controversial farm laws in India may have been seen as a victory for protesting farmers, but it seems the government is pursuing alternative strategies to achieve similar agricultural reforms. These new approaches, while less direct, could potentially implement many of the changes originally proposed in the repealed legislation.
The government seems to be gradually introducing smaller, incremental changes to agricultural policies that align with some of the original goals of the farm laws. For instance, an increased focus on digitalisation and technological solutions in agriculture could indirectly achieve some of the aims of the laws, and encouraging private investment and partnerships in the agricultural sector through other means could still lead to increased corporatisation.
This chapter and the following three chapters will address this and will discuss the implications of a number of agreements between the Indian government and the likes of Amazon, Bayer and Syngenta that had little to no democratic oversight.
But we will begin by looking at the claim that the BJP-led government was seeking to extract revenge for the humiliating defeat it suffered at the hands of the farmers. This claim was made during a press conference that took place in Delhi in October 2023 held by the Samyukta Kisan Morcha (SKM) (United Farmers Front).
The SKM was formed in November 2020 as a coalition of more than 40 Indian farmers’ unions to coordinate non-violent resistance against the three farm acts initiated two months before.
Asserting that the laws violated the constitution and were anti-farmer and pro big business, the SKM announced renewed agitation and expressed grave concern about a crackdown by the government against the online media platform NewsClick, which supported the farmers throughout their one-year struggle.
Those present heard that there has been “baseless dishonest and false allegations in the Newsclick FIR against the historic farmers’ struggle” and that the “FIR accuses the farmers’ movement as anti-national, funded by foreign and terrorist forces.”
An FIR is a ‘first information report’: a document prepared by police in India when they receive information about the commission of a “cognisable” (serious) offence.
Delhi Police issued an FIR against NewsClick founder Prabir Purkayastha and the human resources head Amit Chakravarty, which infers that the farmers’ movement was aimed at stopping the supply of essential goods for citizens and creating law and order issues.
An article on The Hindu newspaper’s Frontline portal describes the nature of the FIR, which goes far beyond the farmers’ issue, and concludes police actions along with the FIR marks a major low point for media freedom in India.
According to Frontline, the police raids on the offices of NewsClick and the residences of virtually anyone associated with it; the indiscriminate seizure of the electronic devices of journalists and other employees; the sealing of the news portal’s main office; the arrest of its founder-editor and its administrative officer on terrorism-related charges; and the searches conducted at the premises of NewsClick and the home of its founder-editor mark the lowest point for media freedom in India since the Emergency of 1975-1977.
The withdrawal of the FIR against Newsclick was called for during the press conference. There was also a demand for the immediate release of NewsClick journalists.
The SKM said that farmers across the country would burn copies of the FIR on 6 November 2023 after a sustained campaign at village level against the government’s pro-corporate policies from 1-5 November.
The farmers’ coalition also pledged to campaign in five poll-going states with the slogan “Oppose Corporate, Punish BJP, Save Country.”
It was also announced that a 72-hour sit-in would take place in front of the Raj Bhawans (official residences of state governors) in state capitals between 26 and 28 November.
On November 13, 2024, the Supreme Court of India declared Purkayastha’s arrest and subsequent remand as invalid, emphasising that he and his legal counsel were not provided with the grounds for his arrest prior to his remand hearing. The court criticised the police for circumventing due process and noted that the lack of communication regarding the grounds of arrest severely hindered Purkayastha’s ability to defend himself. The Supreme Court’s ruling mandated his release upon fulfilling bail bond requirements set by the trial court. The case highlights ongoing concerns regarding press freedom in India, particularly in relation to government actions against journalists and media outlets perceived as critical of state policies.
The SKM stated that the farmers’ movement was committed and patriotic and saw through the “nefarious plan” of the three farm laws to withdraw government support from agriculture and hand over farming, mandis (state-run wholesale agricultural markets) and public food distribution to corporations led by Adani, Ambani, Tata, Cargill, Pepsi, Walmart, Bayer, Amazon and others.
It added that the farmers exposed the corporate-backed plan of depriving the people of India of food security, pauperising farmers, changing cropping patterns to suit corporations and allowing the free penetration of foreign corporations into India’s food processing market.
Those in attendance also heard about the hardships experienced by farmers during the one-year agitation:
“In the process, the farmers braved water cannons, teargas shelling, roadblocks with huge containers, deep road cuts, lathi charge, cold and hot weather. Over 13 months, they sacrificed 732 martyrs… This was a patriotic movement of the highest quality in the face of repression by a fascist government serving interests of Imperialist exploiters.”
State investment in agriculture infrastructure was called for, along with the promotion of profitable farming, the facilitation and securing of modern food processing, marketing and consumer networks under the collective ownership and control of peasant-worker cooperatives.
Accusing the government of acting on behalf of corporate interests, one speaker said that it had targeted Newsclick because it only did what a genuine news media should have been doing — reporting on the truth, the problems of farmers and the nature of the struggle.
It was claimed that:
“The BJP Government is using the farcical FIR to spread a canard that the farmers’ movement was anti-people, anti-national and backed by terrorist funding routed through Newsclick. This is factually wrong and mischievously inserted to portray the movement in bad light and seeking to extract revenge for the humiliating defeat they suffered at the hands of the farmers of our country.”
The farmers’ coalition argued that the government is moving to falsely charge the farmers movement of being foreign funded and sponsored by terrorist forces, while it is “promoting FDI, Foreign MNCs, big corporations into agriculture.”
The coalition said it remains committed to saving the rural economy, preventing foreign looting and rejuvenating the village economy in order to build a strong India.
In 2024, farmers were still protesting. Facilitation of the neoliberal corporatisation of farming that sparked the previous protest remains on the board and farmers’ demands have not been met.
Background
The World Bank, the WTO, global agribusiness and financial capital are working to corporatise India’s agriculture sector. This plan goes back to the early 1990s and India’s foreign exchange crisis, which was used (and manipulated) to set this plan in motion. This debt-trap ‘structural adjustment’ policy and process involves displacing the current food production system with contract farming and an industrial model of agriculture and food retail that serves the above interests.
The aim is to reduce the role of the public sector in agriculture to a facilitator of private capital, which requires industrial commodity-crop farming. The beneficiaries will include Cargill, Archer Daniels Midlands, Louis Dreyfus, Bunge and India’s retail and agribusiness giants as well as the global agritech, seed and agrochemical corporations and the big tech companies with their ‘data-driven agriculture’.
The plan is to displace the peasantry, create a land market and amalgamate landholdings to form larger farms that are more suited to international land investors and industrial farming. As a result, there has been an ongoing strategy to make farming non-viable for many of India’s smallholder farmers and force hundreds of millions out of farming and into urban centres that have already sprawled to form peri-urban areas, which often tend to contain the most agriculturally fertile land. The loss of such land should be a concern in itself.
It is not as though farmers want to leave farming. It tends to be in their blood. But if the are unable to cover the costs of production and make a decent living due to the lack of guaranteed prices and the issues laid out below, they will flock to the cities to try to gain a foothold in urban economies.
And what will those hundreds of millions do? Driven to the cities because of deliberate impoverishment, they will serve as cheap labour or, more likely, an unemployed or underemployed reserve army of labour for global capital — labour which is being replaced with automation. They will be in search of jobs that are increasingly hard to come by the (World Bank reports that there is more than 23 per cent youth unemployment in India).
The impoverishment of farmers results from rising input costs, the withdrawal of government assistance, debt and debt repayments and the impacts of cheap, subsidised imports, which depress farmers’ incomes.
While corporations in India receive massive handouts and have loans written off, the lack of a secure income, exposure to volatile and manipulated international market prices and cheap imports contribute to farmers’ misery of not being able to cover the costs of production and secure a decent standard of living.
The pressure from the richer nations for the Indian government to further reduce support given to farmers and open up to imports and export-oriented ‘free market’ trade is based on nothing but hypocrisy. For instance, policy analyst Devinder Sharma comments that subsidies provided to US wheat and rice farmers are more than the market worth of these two crops. He also notes that, per day, each cow in Europe receives a subsidy worth more than an Indian farmer’s daily income.
The World Bank, the WTO, global institutional investors and transnational agribusiness giants require corporate-dictated contract farming and full-scale neoliberal marketisation for the sale and procurement of produce. They demand that India sacrifice its farmers and its own food security for the benefit of a handful of billionaires.
Farmers are merely regarded as producers of raw materials (crops) to be fleeced by suppliers of chemical and biotech inputs and the food processing and retail conglomerates. The more farmers can be squeezed, the greater the profits these corporations can extract. This entails creating farmer dependency on costly external inputs and corporate-dominated markets and supply chains. Global agrifood corporations have cleverly and cynically weaved a narrative that equates eradicating food sovereignty and creating dependency with ‘food security’.
Farmers’ Demands
In 2018, a charter was released by the All India Kisan Sangharsh Coordination Committee (an umbrella group of around 250 farmers’ organisations). The farmers were concerned about the deepening penetration of predatory corporations and the unbearable burden of indebtedness and the widening disparities between farmers and other sectors.
They wanted the government to take measures to bring down the input costs of farming, while making purchases of farm produce below the minimum support price (MSP) both illegal and punishable.
The charter also called for a special discussion on the universalisation of the public distribution system (PDS), the withdrawal of pesticides that have been banned elsewhere and the non-approval of genetically engineered seeds without a comprehensive need and impact assessment.
Other demands included no foreign direct investment in agriculture and food processing, the protection of farmers from corporate plunder in the name of contract farming, investment in farmers’ collectives to create farmer producer organisations and peasant cooperatives and the promotion of agroecology based on suitable cropping patterns and local seed diversity revival.
These demands remain relevant today due to government inaction. In fact, the three farm laws that were repealed aimed to do precisely the opposite. They were intended to expose Indian agriculture to a massive dose of neoliberal marketisation and shock therapy. Although the laws were struck down, the corporate interests behind them never went away and are adamant that the Indian government implements the policies they require.
This would mean India reducing the state procurement and distribution of essential foodstuffs and eradicating its food buffer stocks — so vital to national food security — and purchasing the nation’s needs with its foreign exchange reserves on manipulated global commodity markets. This would make the country wholly dependent on attracting foreign investment and international finance.
To ensure food sovereignty and national food security, the Mumbai-based Research Unit for Political Economy (RUPE) says that MSPs, through government procurement of essential crops and commodities, should be extended to many major cops such as maize, cotton, oilseed and pulses. At the moment, only farmers in certain states who produce rice and wheat are the main beneficiaries of government procurement at the MSP.
Since per capita protein consumption in India is abysmally low and has fallen further during the liberalisation era, the provision of pulses in the PDS is long overdue and desperately needed. The PDS works with central government, via the Food Corporation of India, being responsible for buying food grains from farmers at MSPs at state-run market yards or mandis. It then allocates the grains to each state. State governments then deliver to ‘ration shops’.
In 2024, farm union leaders were still seeking guarantees for a minimum purchase price for crops. Although the government announces support prices for more than 20 crops each year, government agencies buy only rice and wheat at the support level and, even then, in only some states.
State agencies buy the two staples at government-fixed minimum support prices to build reserves to run the world’s biggest food welfare programme that entitles more than 800 million Indians to free rice and wheat. Currently, that’s more than half the population who per household will receive five kilos per month of these essential foodstuffs for at least the next four years, which would be denied to them by the ‘free market’.
As we have seen throughout the world, corporate plunder under the guise of neoliberal marketisation is no friend of the poor and those in need who rely on state support to exist.
If public procurement of a wider range of crops at the MSP were to occur — and MSPs were guaranteed for rice and wheat across all states — it would help address hunger and malnutrition, encourage crop diversification and ease farmer distress. By helping hundreds of millions involved in farming this way, it would give a massive boost to rural spending power and the economy in general.
Instead of rolling back the role of the public sector and surrendering the system to what constitutes a transnational billionaire class and its corporations, there is a need to further expand official procurement and public distribution.
The RUPE notes, it would cost around 20 per cent of the current handouts (‘incentives’) received by corporations and their super-rich owners, which do not benefit the bulk of the wider population in any way. It is also worth considering that the loans provided to just five large corporations in India were in 2016 equal to the entire farm debt.
However, it is clear that the existence of the MSP, the public distribution system and publicly held buffer stocks are an impediment to global agribusiness interests.
In the meantime, the current administration is keen to demonstrate to international finance capital and agricapital that it is being tough on farmers and remains steadfast in its willingness to facilitate the pro-corporate agenda.
In 2024, after the breakdown in talks between government and farmers’ representatives, the farmers decided to peacefully march to and demonstrate in Delhi. But at the Delhi border, farmers were met with barricades, tear gas and state violence.
However, to date, current farmers’ resistance lacks the momentum of the 2020-21 protests. Furthermore, by one means or another, as the following chapters indicate, the central government continues to ignore the key demands of farmers and hand over the sector to global agribusiness and other corporate interests
Farmers produce humanities’ most essential need and are not the ‘enemy within’. The spotlight should fall on the ‘enemy beyond’. Instead of depicting farmers as ‘anti-national’, as sections of the media and prominent commentators in India try to, the focus needs to be on challenging those interests that seek to gain from undermining India’s food security and sovereignty and the impoverishment of farmers.
Chapter IX
Amazon Gets Fresh, Bayer Loves Basmati
The citizens of India have a problem. In what the media like to call ‘the world’s biggest democracy’, there is a serious, proven conflict of interest among officials in the areas of science, agriculture and agricultural research that results in privileging the needs of powerful private interests ahead of farmers and ordinary people.
This has been a longstanding concern. In 2013, for instance, prominent campaigner and environmentalist Aruna Rodrigues said:
“The Ministry of Agriculture has handed Monsanto and the industry access to our agri-research public institutions, placing them in a position to seriously influence agri-policy in India. You cannot have a conflict of interest larger or more alarming than this one.”
In 2020, Kavitha Kuruganti (Alliance for Sustainable and Holistic Agriculture) stated that the Genetic Engineering Appraisal Committee had acted more like a servant for Monsanto: there is an ongoing revolving door between crop developers (even patent holders) and regulators, with developers-cum-lobbyists sitting on regulatory bodies.
However, the capture of public policymaking space by the private sector is set to accelerate due to a recent spate of memorandums of understanding between state institutions and influential private corporations involved in agriculture and agricultural services, including Bayer and Amazon.
Corporate Capture
As part of a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) between the Indian Council of Agricultural Research (ICAR) and Amazon (June 2023), farmers will produce for Amazon Fresh stores in India as part of a ‘farm to fork’ supply chain. It will see “critical inputs” in agriculture and “season-based crop plans” in collaboration with Amazon based on “technologies, capacity building and transfer of new knowledge.”
This corporate jargon ties in with the much-publicised notion of ‘data-driven agriculture’ centred on cloud-based data information services (which Amazon also offers). In this model, data is to be accessed and controlled by corporates and the farmer will be told how much production is expected, how much rain is anticipated, what type of soil quality there is, what must be produced and what type of genetically engineered seeds and inputs they must purchase and from whom.
This amounts to a recolonisation of Indian agriculture, which will eventually involve a handful of data owners (Microsoft, Amazon etc.), input suppliers (Bayer, Corteva, Syngenta etc.) and retail concerns (Amazon and Walmart-Flipkart — both firms already control 60 per cent of India’s e-commerce market) at the heights of the agrifood economy, determining the nature of agriculture and peddling industrial food. Farmers who remain in this AI-driven system (a stated aim is farmerless farms) will be reduced to exploitable labour at the mercy of global conglomerates.
This is part of a broader strategy to shift hundreds of millions out of agriculture, ensure India’s food dependence on global finance and foreign corporations and eradicate any semblance of food democracy (or national sovereignty).
In addition to the MoU with Amazon, an MoU was signed between the ICAR and Bayer in September 2023. Bayer (it bought Monsanto in 2018), which profits from various environmentally harmful and disease-causing chemicals like glyphosate, signed the MoU to help “develop resource-efficient, climate-resilient solutions for crops, varieties, crop protection, weed and mechanization”, according to the ICAR website.
The ICAR is responsible for co-ordinating agricultural education and research in India, and Bayer seems likely to exploit the ICAR’s vast infrastructure and networks to pursue its own commercial plans, including boosting sales of toxic proprietary products.
But that’s not all. According to the non-profit GRAIN in its article ‘The corporate agenda behind carbon farming’, Bayer is gaining increasing control over farmers in various countries, dictating exactly how they farm and what inputs they use through its Carbon Program.
GRAIN says:
“You can see in the evolution of Bayer’s programmes that, for corporations, carbon farming is all about increasing their control within the food system. It’s certainly not about sequestering carbon.”
Given the seriousness of what is laid out by GRAIN in its article, India’s citizens and farmers should take heed, especially as the ICAR website states that a focus of the MoU with Bayer will be on developing carbon credit markets.
In a letter (July 2004) to Rabindra Padaria,principal scientist at the Indian Agricultural Research Institute (IARI), and Himanshu Pathak, director-general of the ICAR, Aruna Rodrigues says:
“Inking in ICAR’s formal partnership with Bayer (Monsanto) quite simply confirms straightforwardly that the ICAR protects its interest, which is the same as those of Bayer-Monsanto, large chemical/herbicide corporates… the ICAR has ditched its mandate to Indian farmers and farming, which is to promote farmer interests as a priority in an unbiased and objective assessment of what is right and good for Indian farming and food… “
A separate citizens’ letter was also sent to Pathak on the various MoUs that the Indian government has signed with influential private orporations.Hundreds of scientists, farmer leaders, farmers and ordinary citizens signed the letter.
It states:
“Bayer is a company notorious for its anti-people, anti-nature business products and operations in itself and, furthermore, after its takeover of Monsanto. Its deadly poisons have violated basic human rights of peoples across the world, and it is a company that has always prioritised profits over people and planet.”
It goes on to say that it is not clear what the ICAR will learn from Bayer that the well-paid public sector scientists of the institution cannot develop themselves. The letter says entities that have been responsible for causing an economic and environmental crisis in Indian agriculture are being partnered by ICAR for so-called solutions when these entities are only interested in their profits and not sustainability (or any other nomenclature they use).
The letter asks that the ICAR suspends the signed MoUs, shares all details in the public domain and desists from signing any more such MoUs without necessary public debate.
However, on 19 July 2024, there were reports that the ICAR had signed another MoU, this time with Syngenta for promoting climate resilient agriculture and training programmes. In response, the authors of the letter state that the ICAR has (again) partnered with a corporation that has a track record of anti-nature and anti-people activities, selling toxic products like paraquat, class action suits against its corn seeds and anti-competitive behaviour.
Mutagenic HT Rice
It is becoming clear who the ICAR actually serves. Let us return to Aruna Rodrigues and her letter to Rabindra Padaria (IARI) and Himanshu Pathak (ICAR) for additional insight.
Rodrigues’ letter focuses on the commercial cultivation of basmati rice varieties tolerant to imazethapyr-based, non-selective herbicides. These chemicals can be liberally sprayed on herbicide tolerant (HT) crops because the crops have been manipulated to withstand the toxic impacts of spraying.
The HT varieties of rice have undergone some form of mutagenesis rather than genetic engineering. Mutagenesis has traditionally involved subjecting plant cells to chemical or physical agents (for example, radiation) that cause mutations to the DNA in the hope that a resulting mutation may produce a desirable effect in the plant. This kind of mutation breeding has been used for decades but only affects a minority of the plants on the market. Industry watchdog GMWatch says this risky technology (mutagenesis breeding) in the past managed to escape regulation.
So, this HT crop by the mutagenesis route is not defined as ‘genetic engineering’ (the method usually used to create HT crops) and therefore falls outside the purview of current regulations on genetically modified organisms.
Although the Supreme Court-appointed Technical Expert Committee (TEC) bars HT crops (a) for being an HT crop and (b) on account of contamination of crops in a centre of genetic diversity, it has been a long-standing aim of biotech companies like Bayer (Monsanto) to get HT crops cultivated in India.
Rodrigues asks:
“Is it a deliberate decision of the ICAR to use the mutagenesis route to produce HT rice varieties (tolerant to imazethapyr) with the explicit objective to bypass the formal regulation of GE crops/GMOs?”
Rodrigues accuses the ICAR of effectively ditching its mandate to Indian farmers, many of whom regard organic farming as their competitive advantage. This step is also a potential threat to India’s export markets, which are based on organic standards, along with the necessary co-surety that India’s foods and farms are not contaminated by herbicides, a consequence of using HT crops.
By adding a trait for herbicide tolerance, the ICAR is informed:
“ICAR’s action directly impacts this vital issue of contaminating our germ plasm in rice and contravenes a Supreme Court Order of “No Contamination”. Furthermore, our export markets for basmati are in excess of US $5 billion in 2023-24. Your action will also directly impact India’s exports and thereby, impact farmer export potential, incomes and income opportunities that premium prices provide.”
Moreover, Rodrigues asserts that the entire mutagenesis process for HT rice must be elaborated, especially when the mutant variety is for the purpose of human consumption.
The ICAR is duty-bound to provide, for example, whether a physical or a chemical mutagen was used, the range of doses used and the toxicity for the said material, the herbicide(s) used (a key concern, given the effects of certain herbicides on human health — see below) to test the HT of the basmati rice being used, the concentrations of the herbicides used and the genetic mechanism by which HT rice through mutagenesis has a resistant gene to imazethapyr.
While the issue of intellectual property rights for the HT rice varieties using mutagenesis is unclear, the ICAR and IARI have executed a technology transfer agreement of the HT trait for commercial cultivation.
Failed Technology
In her letter, Rodrigues states that, based on empirical evidence of 35 years of HT crops in the US and Argentina, HT crops are a failed technology: it spawns super weeds, increased herbicide use and no added performance yield. Moreover, for India, HT crops are a perverse use of technology, whether genetic engineering or through mutagenesis, that risks small and marginal farmers’ crops and herbs and plants used in many Ayurvedic medicines because of herbicide drift. It will also uniquely impact the employment of women in weeding.
Rodrigues goes on to state (with evidence provided) that in the US overall herbicide use has increased more than tenfold since the introduction of HT Crops (1992-2012 figure). In addition, HT crops are designed for monocultures and completely unsuited to Indian small-holder, multi-crop farming: anything not HT will be destroyed, the resistant crop stands, but everything else dies, including non-target organisms.
The herbicides used with HT crops are also a major human health issue. There is a strong link between glyphosate and non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma. In relation to this, there are more than 100,000 lawsuits winding their way through US Courts.
Glyphosate (used in Bayer’s Roundup herbicide) is also an endocrine disruptor and is linked to birth defects. Monsanto and the US Environmental Protection Agency had both known for over 40 years that glyphosate and its formulations cause cancer.
Other herbicides used by Bayer include glufosinate (used in its Liberty herbicide), which is acknowledged as more toxic than glyphosate and, like it, is a systemic, broad spectrum, non-selective herbicide. It is a neurotoxin that can cause nerve damage and birth defects and is damaging to most plants that come into contact with it.
Glufinosate is banned in Europe and not permitted in India. It has been implicated in brain developmental abnormalities in animal studies and is very persistent in the environment, so it will certainly contaminate water supplies in addition to food where it will be absorbed.
Imazethapyr (contained in Bayer’s Adue herbicide) is also a systemic broad-spectrum herbicide and is banned in some countries and not approved for use in the EU.
Prof. Jack Heinemann (University of Canterbury in New Zealand) adds that the likes of imazethapyr must be tested for their ability to cause bacterial antibiotic resistance. An important concern given that India’s population has some of the highest levels of antibiotic resistance in the world. Any spread of HT crops would put people at severe risk of resistance and disease.
Despite these environmental and health concerns, the herbicide market in India is projected to grow by around 54 per cent in the next five years, from USD 361.85 million in 2024 to USD 558.17 million by 2029.
Rodrigues concludes:
“In view of the above evidence of serious irreversible harm to health, food and agriculture across several dimensions and contravention of the PP (Precautionary Principle), it is a required scientific response for the ICAR to immediately withdraw HT rice varieties and desist from introducing any HT crop through mutagenesis.”
Chapter X
From Monsanto to Bayer:Worst of Both Worlds
Environmentalist and campaigner Rosemary Mason has been relentlessly exposing the insidious effects of agrochemicals on human health and the environment through a decade-long series of incisive reports. Many of these reports have taken the form of scathing open letters directed at corporations, regulators and officials in the UK and the EU.
Mason has never held back in her condemnations of the agrochemical giants. After Bayer’s acquisition of Monsanto in 2018, her focus sharpened on Bayer, scrutinising its troubling history and its actions, not least during one of humanity’s darkest chapters: Nazi Germany.
Bayer’s complicity as part of IG Farben, a chemical and pharmaceutical conglomerate notorious for its involvement in war crimes, is well documented. The company was formed in 1925 from a merger of six chemical firms: Agfa, BASF, Bayer, Chemische Fabrik Griesheim-Elektron, Hoechst and Weiler-ter-Meer.
Bayer was not merely an observer but an active participant in heinous medical experiments conducted on concentration camp inmates. These experiments involved testing drugs on unwilling subjects, including those at Auschwitz, where prisoners were deliberately infected with diseases to evaluate Bayer’s pharmaceuticals.
During World War I, Bayer was involved in the development of chemical weapons, including chlorine and mustard gas. As part of IG Farben, Bayer later contributed to the creation of nerve agents like Tabun, Sarin and Soman. Post-war, Bayer transitioned these chemical developments into pesticides such as parathion, which are neurotoxic.
In addition, IG Farben was implicated in the production of Zyklon B, the gas used in concentration camps. Executives from IG Farben were convicted for their roles in war crimes at the Nuremberg Trials.
.
IG Farben Building, Frankfurt, completed in 1931 and seized by the Allies in 1945 as the headquarters of the Supreme Allied Command. In 2001 it became part of the University of Frankfurt. (Licensed under CC BY-SA 3.0)
.
Bayer’s leadership was fully aware of these atrocities yet chose profit over ethics, benefiting from the forced labour of concentration camp inmates to produce essential chemicals for the Nazi war machine.
The aftermath of World War II saw Bayer and other IG Farben companies face minimal repercussions for their actions. While some executives were tried, they received light sentences or were released early, allowing them to reclaim positions of power within their companies.
As for Bayer, things did not stop with the end of the war. The Powerbase website provides a very long list of Bayer’s corporate wrongdoings since 1945, including allegations of corporate bullying, monopolistic practices, the suppression of scientific information, bribery, poisonings, false advertising and abusing workers.
More recently, Bayer has inherited a legacy of deception through its acquisition of Monsanto. Both companies have been accused of concealing the health risks associated with glyphosate, the active ingredient in Roundup and the world’s most used agricultural herbicide. Internal documents reveal a concerted effort to downplay glyphosate’s carcinogenicity while ignoring substantial evidence indicating its dangers to human health.
In her numerous reports, Mason has indicated how Bayer shaped regulatory processes to secure product approvals, influencing scientific studies and regulatory decisions while suppressing contrary evidence. The environmental devastation wrought by pesticides is alarming: Mason cites significant declines in biodiversity and poisoned ecosystems that she claims are as a direct consequence of the widespread use of Bayer’s chemicals.
Moreover, rising cancer rates in communities exposed to Bayer’s products cannot be ignored, especially increasing cases of non-Hodgkin lymphoma linked to glyphosate use in areas heavily treated with these chemicals.
Rosemary Mason is not alone in her condemnation of Bayer. For instance, journalist Carey Gillam has written extensively about Bayer-Monsanto’s practices, particularly in relation to glyphosate and its health impacts in the book ‘Whitewash: The Story of a Weed Killer, Cancer, and the Corruption of Science’.
“US Roundup litigation began in 2015 after the International Agency for Research on Cancer classified glyphosate as a probable human carcinogen. Internal Monsanto documents dating back decades show that the company was aware of scientific research linking its weed killer to cancer but instead of warning consumers, the company worked to suppress the information and manipulate scientific literature.”
Hit Lists and Lobbying
Gillam has shown that, over the years, Monsanto mounted a deceitful defence of its health- and environment-damaging Roundup and its genetically modified crops, and it orchestrated toxic smear campaigns against anyone — scientist or campaigner — who threatened its interests.
With that in mind, it comes as no surprise that a US-Based PR firm has created a watchlist, profiling activists, scientists and journalists who are critical of pesticide use and genetically modified organisms, as recently revealed in documents obtained by the investigative newsroom Lighthouse Reports.
As a result of a year-long investigation, Lighthouse Reports argues that this operation seeks to cast pesticide critics, environmental scientists or campaigners as an anti-science “protest industry” and used US government money to do so.
The watchlist is the brainchild of Jay Byrne, a former communications executive at Monsanto, and his reputation management firm v-Fluence. It comprises profiles (including personal information) on hundreds of scientists, campaigners and writers. These profiles have been published on a private social network, which grants privileged access to 1,000 people comprising a who’s-who of the agrochemical industry, alongside government officials from multiple countries.
The US government funded v-Fluence as part of its programme to promote genetically modified organisms in Africa and Asia, including “enhanced monitoring” of critics of “modern agriculture approaches” — and to build the network.
Watchlists and hitlists aside, to further its interests, the agrochemical giants pour huge resources into lobbying that seeks to shape narratives, deceive and coerce rather than engage with genuine public health and environmental concerns.
The research and campaign group Corporate Europe Observatory (CEO) recently took a deep dive into Bayer’s disturbing “toxic trail” of lobbying as the company strives to maintain its huge slice of the seed and pesticides markets, fight off regulatory challenges to its toxic products, limit legal liability and exercise political influence.
CEO’s report ‘Bayer’s Toxic Trails: Market Power, Monopolies and the Global Lobbying of an Agrochemicals Giant’ notes that Bayer spent between €7 million and €8 million in 2023 on EU lobbying, the biggest sum declared by any individual chemical company and the highest amount ever spent by Bayer on EU lobbying.
According to CEO, Bayer’s current top lobbying priority in Europe is to derail the original ambitions of the European Green Deal and to prevent any of the company’s firmly established interests (chemicals and pesticides) from being touched. One of the central goals of this deal is to reduce the use and risk of chemical pesticides by 50 per cent by 2030 through the EU’s Farm to Fork strategy. This target aims to address both environmental and public health concerns associated with pesticide use in agriculture.
Bayer’s lobby spend in the US has also risen considerably over the past few years, spending $7.5 million in 2023 alone, some of which is aimed at securing changes in the law to prevent further litigation cases and more hefty payouts to people suffering from conditions due to glyphosate exposure. To date, the company has reportedly paid out approximately $11 billion to settle nearly 100,000 lawsuits stemming from claims that Roundup causes cancer, particularly non-Hodgkin lymphoma.
CEO states:
“Bayer’s lobby tactics continue to capture public policymaking and in doing so hollow out democracy. A perverse symbiosis between corporate lobby groups and decision-makers has been actively created through its economic weight and large investments in many corners of the world, and this consistently leads to crucial decisions being made in favour of industry profits, rather than public interest.”
It concludes that:
“Around the world, Bayer’s modus operandi is not to work in the public interest but rather to capture public policy to serve its private interests and dividends of its shareholders, all while ignoring the public health and environmental impact of its activities.”
Be Careful What You Wish For
So, why would a government want to do a deal with the devil?
As stated in the previous chapter, that is precisely what the government of India seems to have done when it signed a memorandum of understanding (MoU) with Bayer in September 2023. Bayer signed the MoU with the Indian Council for Agricultural Research (ICAR), which is responsible for co-ordinating agricultural education and research in India.
Bayer’s aim first and foremost seems to be to exploit the ICAR’s vast infrastructure and networks to pursue its own commercial plans, including boosting sales of toxic proprietary products and the introduction of genetically modified food crops into India. These crops would be reliant on Bayer’s agrochemicals.
That article explains that mutagenetic techniques are being used to bypass existing regulatory procedures in relation to genetically modified organisms, despite a recent Supreme Court directive for the government to formulate a national policy framework on genetically modified crops based on a democratic consultative process.
Telangana State Seed Development Corporation chairman S Anvesh Reddy recently stated that farmers want a bio-safety policy and not a promotional policy for genetically modified crops.
However, they are in danger of getting the latter. Prominent campaigner Kavitha Kuruganti has warned that the Ministry of Agriculture may bypass the democratic consultative processes recommended by the Supreme Court. It has already appointed a panel of ‘experts’ to draft the policy and information about it is being kept secret.
On X (formerly Twitter), agricultural policy specialist Devinder Sharma stated:
“How can a policy be framed for GM crops when there is still no consensus on the need for these crops? Despite heavy lobbying by industry, most countries oppose it.”
How can this be?
Let us turn to Aruna Rodrigues:
“Our regulatory bodies have been captured by the biotech and agrichemical industries… It is breathtaking; all pretence is gone. We have a cancer that is metastasising vertically and horizontally throughout the entire regulatory body.”
In the meantime, farmers’ leaders from 18 states in India have resolved to oppose genetically modified crops. They say genetically modified organisms in agriculture are harmful to human and animal health, the environment, farmers’ livelihoods and trade and are based on failed promises.
Chapter XI
Bayer’s ‘Backward’ Claim:Bid for Control of Indian Agriculture
For some critics, if one firm tops a league table for anti-people, anti-nature business practices, it is Bayer (although there are many other worthy candidates). Nevertheless, as previously stated, the Indian Council for Agricultural Research (ICAR) signed a memorandum of understanding with Bayer in September 2023.
Bayer’s approach to agricultural development involves promoting a model of industrial agriculture dependent on corporate products, including its toxic chemicals and genetically modified crops, and advocating for precision, data-driven agriculture that relies heavily on its proprietary technologies and software.
Simon Wiebusch, Country Divisional Head of Crop Science for Bayer South Asia, recently stated that India cannot become a ‘developed nation’ with ‘backward’ agriculture. He believes India’s agriculture sector must modernise for the country to achieve developed nation status by 2047.
Bayer’s vision for agriculture in India includes prioritising and fast-tracking approvals for its new products, introducing genetically modified food crops, addressing labour shortages (for weeding) by increasingly focusing on herbicides and developing herbicides for specific crops like paddy, wheat, sugarcane and maize.
Government institutions like the ICAR seem likely to allow Bayer to leverage the agency’s infrastructure and networks to pursue its commercial plans.
Wiebusch’s comments have received much media coverage. There is a tendency for journalists and media outlets to accept statements made by people in top corporate jobs as pearls of wisdom never to be critically questioned, especially in India when there is talk of the country achieving the gold standard in the eyes of some: ‘developed status’. But people like Wiebusch are hardly objective. They are not soothsayers who have an unbiased view of the world and its future.
Bayer has a view of what agriculture should look like and is gaining increasing control of farmers in various countries in terms of having a direct influence on how they farm and what inputs they use. Its digital platforms are intended to be one-stop shops for carbon credits, seeds, pesticides and fertilisers and agronomic advice, all supplied by the company, which gets the added benefit of control over the agronomic and financial data harvested from farms.
As for carbon credits, the non-profit GRAIN argues that, like digital platforms per se, carbon trading is about consolidating control within the food system and is certainly not about sequestering carbon.
So, what does Wiebusch mean when he talks about modernisation of a backward agriculture in India? All of what is set out above and more.
Like Wiebusch, corporate lobbyists often refer to ‘modern agriculture’. Instead, we should really be advocating for a system that produces healthy food for all while sustaining farming communities and livelihoods. That’s because the term ‘modern agriculture’ is deliberately deceptive: it means a system dependent on proprietary inputs and integrated with corporate global supply chains. Anything other is defined as ‘backward’.
According to Bayer, Wiebusch is a star player who can drive market share and create business value for the company. On the Bayer India website it says: “Simon’s key strengths include unlocking business growth, redefining distribution strategies, driving change management and building diverse teams that drive market share and create business value.”
Stripped of the corporate jargon and any talk of ‘helping’ India, the goal is to secure control of the sector and ensure corporate dependency. That is what is really meant by creating business value and driving market share.
India has achieved self-sufficiency in food grains and has ensured there is enough food (in terms of calories) available to feed its entire population. It is the world’s largest producer of milk, pulses and millets and the second-largest producer of rice, wheat, sugarcane, groundnuts, vegetables, fruit and cotton.
In 2014, environmental scientist Viva Kermani stated that India has been self-sufficient in food staples for over a decade and more than that for cereals. She noted that the country:
“… grows about 100 million tons (mt) of rice, 95 mt of wheat, 170 mt of vegetables, 85 mt of fruit, 40 mt of coarse cereals and 18 mt of pulses (refer to the Economic Survey for the data). These totals ensure that our farmers grow enough to feed all Indians well with food staples. We have 66 mt of grain, two-and-a-half times the required buffer stock (on January 1, 2013).”
She concluded:
“The country has reached this stage through, first and foremost, the knowledge and skill of our farmers who have bred and saved seed themselves and exchanged their seed in ways that made our fields so biodiverse.”
Kermani also observed that farmers have legitimate claims to being scientists, innovators, natural resource stewards, seed savers and hybridisation experts. However, they have too often been reduced to becoming recipients of technical fixes and consumers of the poisonous products of a growing agricultural inputs industry.
Who Needs Bayer?
It is clear that Bayer needs India for its corporate growth strategy, but who needs Bayer?
Bhaskar Save certainly did not on his impressively bountiful organic farm in Gujarat. In 2006, he described in an eight-page open letter (along with six annexures) to M S Swaminathan (widely regarded as the father of the Green Revolution in India) how the type of chemical-intensive agriculture that Bayer promotes and the urban-centric model of development favoured by the government has had devastating environmental economic and social consequences for India.
Save offered agroecological alternatives to address the problems, including solutions to boost farmer incomes and rural communities, cultivate a wider range of nutrient-dense crops, build soil fertility, improve water management, enhance on-farm ecology and increase biodiversity.
The prominent environmentalist Vandana Shiva recently posted on X:
“India’s agriculture was sustained over 10,000 years because it was based on nature’s laws of diversity, recycling, regeneration & circularity. Albert Howard spread organic farming worldwide learning from Indian peasants. Working with nature is sophistication, not backwardness.
“Bayer calling India’s agriculture backward is a new toxic colonisation. Bayer/Monsanto, the poison cartel whose roots are in war, has driven biodiversity to extinction with monocultures, spread cancers with glyphosate & herbicides, destroyed democracy.”
It seems that the ‘poor’ must be helped out of their awful ‘backwardness’ by the West and its powerful corporations and billionaire ‘philanthropists’ like Bill Gates. What some might regard as ‘backward’ stems from an ethnocentric ideology, which is used to legitimise the destruction of communities and economies that were once locally based and self-sufficient.
Companies like Bayer present their technologies and products as fixes for the problems created by the model of ‘growth’ and ‘development’ they promote. ‘Scientific innovation’ is touted as the answer. The proposed solutions often create new problems or worsen existing ones. This leads to a cycle of dependency on corporate products and technologies. Monsanto’s failed Bt cotton in India being a case in point.
Problems created by corporate-led development become opportunities for further corporate inputs and the commodification of knowledge and further ‘expert’ interventions. The primary motivation is financial gain rather than genuine societal improvement.
Corporate-driven ‘development’ is a misnomer, especially in agriculture, as it often leads to regression in terms of health, environmental sustainability and rural community resilience, while perpetuating a cycle of problems and ‘solutions’ that primarily benefit large corporations.
But the type of agroecological solutions presented by the likes of Bhaskar Save run counter to Bayer’s aims of more pesticides, more genetically modified organisms, more control and corporate consolidation. For example, as previously mentioned, the industry seeks to derail the EU’s farm to fork strategy (which involves a dramatic reduction in agrochemical use), and Bayer spends record amounts to shape policies to its advantage, courtesy of its entrenched lobbying networks.
Of course, Bayer presents its neocolonial aspirations in terms of helping backward Indian farmers. A good old dose of Western saviourism.
To promote its model, Bayer must appear to offer practical solutions. It uses the narrative of climate emergency to promote a Ponzi carbon trading scheme that is resulting in land displacement across the world. And Bayer says that labour shortages for manual weeding in Indian agriculture are a significant challenge, so the rollout of toxic herbicides like glyphosate are a necessity.
But there are several approaches to address this issue beyond relying on herbicides like glyphosate (it will kill all plants that do not have the herbicide tolerant trait), which is wholly unsuitable for a nation comprising so many small farms cultivating a diverse range of crops.
Mechanical weeding using animal-drawn or tractor-powered implements for larger farms is one solution, and there are several agronomic techniques that can help suppress weeds and reduce labour needs: crop rotation disrupts weed lifecycles, higher planting densities shade out weeds, proper fertilisation gives crops a competitive advantage and use of cover crops and mulches can suppress weed growth.
Even here, however, there are cynical attempts to get farmers to change their cultivation methods (with no tangible financial benefits) and move away from traditional systems.
In the article The Ox Fall Down: Path Breaking and Treadmills in Indian Cotton Agriculture, for instance, we see farmers being nudged away from traditional planting methods and pushed towards a method inconducive to oxen ploughing but very conducive for herbicide-dependent weed management. That article notes the huge growth potential for herbicides in India, something companies like Bayer are keen to capitalise on.
Wiebusch talks of India reaching ‘developed status’. But what does the type of ‘development’ he proposes entail?
We need only look around us for the answer: decision-making centralised in the hands of government and corporate entities, traditional local governance structures weakened and standardised, top-down policies and corporate consolidation through mergers and acquisitions with local independent enterprises struggling to compete.
Consolidated corporations have greater lobbying power to shape regulations in their favour, further entrenching their market position. In other words, political centralisation and corporate consolidation are often intertwined. Centralised political structures tend to align with the interests of large, consolidated corporations, and both centralised governments and large corporations exert greater control over resources.
This dual process has led to reduced economic diversity and resilience, weakened local communities and traditions, increased vulnerability to systemic shocks and diminished democratic participation.
‘Developed status’ also means accelerated urbanisation, land amalgamations for industrial-scale farming and depopulation of the countryside. And it means farmers being encouraged to grow cash crops for export based on trade policies that work in favour of big landowners and heavily subsidised Western agriculture.
As mentioned earlier, it has been estimated that between 2016 and 2030, globally, urban areas will have tripled in size, expanding into cropland and undermining the productivity of agricultural systems. Around 60 per cent of the world’s cropland lies on the outskirts of cities. This land is, on average, twice as productive as land elsewhere on the globe.
As cities expand, millions of small-scale farmers are displaced. These farmers produce the majority of food in the Global South and are key to global food security.
A combination of urbanisation and policies deliberately designed to displace the food-producing peasantry will serve to boost the corporate takeover of India’s agrifood sector. This is what Bayer calls ‘development’.
But none of this is inevitable. Many of us know what the response should be: prioritising sustainable, locally appropriate solutions and restoring food sovereignty and the economic vibrancy of rural communities; focusing on holistic human well-being rather than narrow economic metrics of ‘growth’; preserving traditional knowledge that underpins highly productive farming practices for the benefit of farmers, consumer health and the environment; and empowering communities through localism and decentralisation rather than creating state-corporate dependency.
Such solutions are markedly different from those characterised by rural population displacement, the subjugation of peoples and nature, nutrient-poor diets, degraded on-farm and off-farm ecosystems and corporate consolidation.
There are alternative visions for the future, alternative visions of human development. But these do not boost corporate margins or control and do not fit the hegemonic narrative of what passes for ‘development’.
However, it is concerning that what Bayer advocates is regarded as the common sense of the age.
The ultimate coup d’état by the transnational agribusiness conglomerates is that state officials, scientists and journalists take as given that profit-driven Fortune 500 corporations have a legitimate claim to be custodians of natural assets. These corporations have convinced so many that they have the ultimate legitimacy to own, control and manage what is essentially humanity’s commonwealth.
Water, food, soil, land and agriculture have been handed over to powerful transnational corporations to milk for profit as though they are serving the needs of humanity. Corporations which promote industrial agriculture have embedded themselves deeply within the policy-making machinery on both national and international levels.
The ultimate intertwining of political centralisation and corporate consolidation.
Chapter XII
You Are Still the Enemy Within
It should be clear by now that the issues raised in this book transcend a narrow analysis of the food system. There has been much discussion about social control, technocracy and even transhumanism. And this chapter is no different.
It is essential to explore broader power dynamics in order to gain a clearer understanding of the global food regime and the corporations and interests behind it.
Power is increasingly concentrated in the hands of an elite that wields its considerable wealth, influence and technological advancements to dominate both resources and populations, profoundly shaping the fabric of our lives.
In recent years, we have seen the nudging (manipulating) of populations to accept a ‘new normal’ based on, among other things, a climate emergency narrative, pandemic preparedness tyranny, unaccountable AI, synthetic ‘food’ and farmerless farms.
Whether it involves a ‘food transition’, an ‘energy transition’, 15-minute cities or some other benign-sounding term, all this is to be determined by a supranational state-corporate ‘stakeholder’ elite with ordinary people sidelined in the process. An undemocratic agenda designed to place restrictions on individual liberty, marking a dramatic shift towards authoritarianism.
In the 1980s, to help legitimise the deregulation-privatisation neoliberal globalisation agenda, government and media instigated an ideological onslaught on populations, driving home the primacy of ‘free enterprise’, individual rights and responsibility and emphasising a shift away from the role of the state, trade unions and the collective in society.
We are currently seeing another ideological shift: individual rights and freedoms are said to undermine the wider needs of society and the planet; in a stark turnaround, personal freedom is now said to pose a threat to national security, public health or the climate.
As in the 1980s, this messaging is being driven by an economic impulse. This time, the collapsing neoliberal project.
In the US, it was reported in 2023 that 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.
The Bank of England’s chief economist, Huw Pill, says that people should‘accept’ being poorer. This is similar to the response of Rob Kapito, co-founder of the world’s biggest asset management firm, BlackRock. In 2022, the unimaginably rich and entitled Kapito said that a “very entitled” generation of (ordinary working) people who have never had to sacrifice would soon have to face shortages for the first time in their lives.
While business as usual prevails in Kapito’s world of privilege and that of major arms, energy, pharmaceuticals and food companies, whose megarich owners continue to rake in massive profits, Kapito and Pill tell ordinary people to get used to poverty and the ‘new normal’ as if we are ‘all in it together’ — billionaires and working class alike. They conveniently used COVID and the situation in Ukraine as cover for the collapsing neoliberalism.
Hegemony and Censorship
But this is part of the hegemonic agenda that seeks to ensure that the establishment’s world view is the accepted cultural norm. And anyone who challenges this world view — whether it involves, for instance, questioning climate alarmism, the ‘new normal’, the nature of the economic crisis, the mainstream COVID narrative or the official stance on Ukraine and Russia — is regarded as a spreader of misinformation and the ‘enemy within’.
If we turn to New Zealand, we could see this in action during and after the COVID event. The country’s former prime minister Jacinda Ardern grabbed the global limelight a few years ago, making headlines by stating she wanted to put ‘kindness’ into politics. In 2019, Foreign Policy, a publication closely associated with the Atlantic Council and the US State Department, published the article ‘The Kindness Quotient’, a glowing promotion of Ardern.
The strategic marketing of Ardern in various publications focused on her likeability, pro-environment stance, compassionate values and collaborative nature. To further appeal to liberal sentiments, she was said to represent everything Trump is not.
Ardern belongs to a set of global leaders who were groomed for their positions through the World Economic Forum (WEF) Young Global Leaders Programme. Yes, that WEF — the elitist organisation where hard-nose billionaires and their handmaidens gather to set out policies aligned with powerful business interests.
The charm offensive that Ardern’s promoters undertook was an investment. She delivered on COVID by implementing lockdowns and restrictions without question.
Arden stated in her speech to the UN in September 2022:
“As leaders, we are rightly concerned that even the most light-touch approaches to disinformation could be misinterpreted as hostile to values of free speech that we value so highly.”
She went on to say:
“How do you tackle climate change if people believe it does not exist? How do you ensure the human rights of others are upheld as they are subjected to hateful and dangerous ideology.”
She continued by saying free speech (that the authorities disagree with) can be a weapon of war.
During COVID, Ardern urged citizens to trust the government and its agencies for all information and stated:
“Otherwise, dismiss anything else. We will continue to be your single source of truth.”
Throughout that period, in the US, Fauci presented himself as ‘the science’. In New Zealand, Ardern’s government was ‘the truth’. It was similar in countries across the world. Different figures but the same approach.
When anyone in power or any institution lays claim to ‘the truth’, history shows we are on a slippery slope to silencing thought and dissent that we disagree with.
Like other political leaders, during COVID, Ardern clamped down on civil liberties with the full force of state violence on hand to ensure compliance with ‘the truth’.
Clearly, Ardern was not alone here. Trudeau, the Biden administration and others have continued to display Orwellian undertones as they spoke of the need to challenge ‘misinformation’ and those who question ‘the truth’. The thin end of a very wide authoritarian wedge.
It seems, especially post-COVID, critical analysis and open debate are fine as long as those involved keep within the framework of what is deemed supportive of official narratives.
We are often urged to ‘trust the science’ and accept that the ‘science is decided’ on various issues. We heard this on the COVID issue, when we were told governments are ‘following the science’, while they and the big tech companies censored world-renowned scientists and opposing views and opinions. In ‘following the science’, conflicts of interest were rife and notions of objectivity, open disclosure and organised scepticism — core values of scientific endeavour — were trampled on.
Those who questioned the COVID narrative were smeared, shut down and censored, the playbook of big agribusiness — manipulating science, smearing critics, derailing policies that threaten its interests and claiming that ‘the science is decided’ on genetically modified organisms — and authoritarian governments.
Is anyone who questions and wants a more open debate on climate change or whether such change is occurring as stated or will lead to ‘extinction’ to be charged with disseminating misinformation?
Is questioning the orthodoxy of the zero-carbon policy agenda to be shut down and those who challenge it to be labelled ‘extremists’.
Ardern asked: “How do you tackle climate change if people believe it does not exist?”
But it is also pertinent to ask: How do you tackle it if you accept it exists?
Even if we accept humanity is in trouble and facing a genuine climate emergency, people should at least be able to question the current ‘green’ agenda based on a ‘stakeholder capitalism’ strategy (governments and others facilitating the needs of private capital) that has co-opted genuine concerns about the environment to pursue new multi-billion-dollar global investment opportunities (described in the 2020 report Nature for Sale by Friends of the Earth).
If you read that report, you might conclude that we are witnessing a type of green imperialism that is using genuine concerns about the environment to pursue a familiar agenda of extractivism, colonisation and commodification. The same old mindset, greenwashed and rolled out for public consumption.
Ardern’s utterances on the dangers of free speech, the singularity of ‘truth’ and the implicit shift towards authoritarianism must be viewed within the context of managing an economic crisis. What she was saying revealed how the financial and political elites based on Wall Street, in Washington and in the City of London were thinking.
The authorities fear blowback in terms of mass dissent and uprisings. A few years ago, Liz Truss, then UK prime minister, wanted to place ‘legal curbs’ on striking trade unions. There is also the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts (PCSC) Act 2022, which may undermine the right to protest.
It therefore comes as no surprise that, today, individual rights and free speech are under threat. The ultimate control mechanism would be linking central bank digital currencies to personal carbon footprints (including eating habits), spending and dissent in an age of economic turmoil. Trudeau might have given the game away on that when he hit protesting truckers where it hurt most — restricting access to bank accounts.
How long before ‘misinformation’ and challenging ‘the truth’ becomes thought crime and — as Jacinda Ardern might put it — ‘cruel to be kind’ actions are taken against those who challenge dominant state-corporate narratives?
Well, not long because we have already witnessed it during the last few years. A doubling down since COVID.
Tyranny is the type of ‘kindness’ we don’t need.
Enemy Within
The term ‘enemy within’ was popularised by Margaret Thatcher during the UK miners’ strike in 1984-85 to describe the striking miners. But it is a notion with which Britain’s rulers have regarded protest movements and uprisings down the centuries. From the Peasants’ Revolt in 1381 to the Levellers and Diggers (who are discussed in the final chapter) in the 17th century, it is a concept associated with anyone or any group that challenges the existing social order and the interests of the ruling class.
John Ball, a radical priest, addressed the Peasants’ Revolt rebels with the following words:
“Good friends, matters cannot go well in England until all things be held in common; when there shall be neither vassals nor lords; when the lords shall be no more masters than ourselves.”
The revolt was suppressed. John Ball was captured and hung, drawn and quartered. Part of the blood-soaked history of the British ruling class.
Later on, the 17th-century Diggers’ movement wanted to create small, egalitarian rural communities and farm on common land that had been privatised by enclosures.
The 1975 song ‘The world Turned Upside Down’ by Leon Rosselson commemorates the Diggers. His lyrics describe the aims and plight of the movement. In Rosselson’s words, the Diggers were dispossessed via theft and murder but reclaimed what was theirs only to be violently put down.
Little surprise then that, in the 1980s, Margaret Thatcher used the full force of state machinery to defeat the country’s most powerful trade union, the shock troops of the labour movement, the National Union of Mineworkers — ‘the enemy within’. She needed to do this to open the gates for capital to profit from the subsequent deindustrialisation of much of the UK and the dismantling of large parts of the welfare state.
And the result?
A hollowed-out, debt-bloated economy, the destruction of the social fabric of entire communities and the great financial Ponzi scheme — the ‘miracle’ of deregulated finance — that now teeters on the brink of collapse, leading the likes of Kapito and Pill to tell the public to get ready to become poor.
And now, in 2024, the latest version of the ‘enemy within’ is anyone who disseminates ‘misinformation’ — anything that challenges the official state-corporate narrative. So, this time, one goal is to have a fully controlled (censored) internet.
For instance, US Special Operations Command (USSOCOM) awarded Accrete a contract for Argus to detect disinformation threats from social media. Argus is AI software that analyses social media data to predict emergent narratives and generate intelligence reports at a speed and scale to help neutralise viral disinformation threats.
In a press release, Prashant Bhuyan, founder and CEO of Accrete, boasted:
“Social media is widely recognised as an unregulated environment where adversaries routinely exploit reasoning vulnerabilities and manipulate behaviour through the intentional spread of disinformation. USSOCOM is at the tip of the spear in recognising the critical need to identify and analytically predict social media narratives at an embryonic stage before those narratives evolve and gain traction. Accrete is proud to support USSOCOM’s mission.”
This is about predicting wrong think on social media. But control over the internet is just part of a wider programme of establishment domination, surveillance and dealing with protest and dissent.
The authors of the article ask us to consider some of the ways the US government is weaponising its surveillance technologies to flag citizens as a threat to national security, whether or not they have done anything wrong — from flagging citizens as a danger based on their feelings, phone and movements to their spending activities, social media activities, political views and correspondence.
The elite has determined that the existential threat is you. The article Costs of War: Peterloo, written by UK Veterans for Peace member Aly Renwick, details the history of the brutal suppression of protesters by Britain’s rulers. He also strips away any notion that some may have of a benign, present-day ruling elite with democratic leanings. The leopard has not changed its spots.
As we saw during COVID, the thinking is that hard-won rights must be curtailed, freedom of association is reckless, free thinking is dangerous, dissent is to be stamped on, impartial science is a threat and free speech is deadly. Government is ‘the truth’, Fauci (or some similar figure) is ‘the science’ and censorship is for your own good.
None of this was justified. It only begins to make sense if we regard the COVID restrictions in terms of trying to deal with an economic crisis by closing down the global economy under cover of a public health crisis.
The economic crisis is making many people poorer, so they must be controlled, monitored and subjugated.
The transitions mentioned at the start of this chapter along with the surveillance agenda (together known as the ‘Great Reset’) are being accelerated at this time of economic crisis when countless millions across the West are being impoverished. The collapsing US-led financial system is resulting in an interrelated global debt, inflation and ‘austerity’ crisis and the biggest transfer of wealth to the rich in history.
Integral to this is the ‘food transition’ and the ‘climate emergency’ narrative, an intertwined commentary that has been carefully constructed and promoted (see the work of investigative journalist Cory Morningstar), and net-zero ideology tied to carbon farming and carbon trading.
The ‘food transition’ involves locking farmers (at least those farmers who will remain in farming) further into a corporate-controlled agriculture that extracts wealth and serves the market needs of global corporations, carbon trading Ponzi schemes and institutional investors and speculators with no connection to farming who regard agriculture, food commodities and agricultural land as mere financial assets. These farmers will be reduced to corporate profit-extracting agents who bear all of the risks.
This predatory commercialisation of the countryside attempts to use flawed premises and climate alarmism to legitimise the roll-out of technologies to supposedly deliver us all from climate breakdown and Malthusian catastrophe.
Meanwhile, a wealthy elite increasingly funds science, determines what should be studied, how it should be studied and how the findings are disseminated and how the technology produced is to be used.
This elite has the power to shut down genuine debate and to smear and censor others who question the dominant narrative. The prevailing thinking is that the problems humanity face are to be solved through technical innovation determined by plutocrats and consolidated corporate power.
This haughty mindset (or outright arrogance) leads to and is symptomatic of an authoritarianism that seeks to impose a range of technologies on humanity with no democratic oversight. This includes self-transmitting vaccines, the genetic engineering of plants and humans, synthetic food, geoengineering and transhumanism.
And in India, as we have seen, it involves the imposition of policies in agriculture that, too, also lack any form of democratic oversight or debate. During the farmers’ protest in 2020-21, influential media and commentators wasted no time in attempting to portray farmers as ‘anti-national’ and the ‘enemy within’.
What we see is a misguided eco-modernist paradigm that concentrates power and privileges techno-scientific expertise (a form of technocratic exceptionalism). At the same time, historical power relations (often rooted in agriculture and colonialism) and their legacies within and between societies across the world are conveniently ignored and depoliticised. Technology is not the cure-all for the destructive impacts of poverty, inequality, dispossession, imperialism or class exploitation.
When it comes to the technologies and policies being rolled out in the agriculture sector, these phenomena will be reinforced and further entrenched — and that includes illness and poor health, which have markedly increased as a result of the modern food we eat and the agrochemicals and practices already used by the corporations pushing for the ‘food transition’. However, that then opens up other money-spinning techno-fix opportunities in the life sciences sector for investors like BlackRock that invest in both agriculture and pharmaceuticals.
But in a neoliberal privatised economy that has often facilitated the rise of members of the controlling wealthy elite, it is reasonable to assume that its members possess certain assumptions of how the world works and should continue to work: a world based on deregulation with limited oversight and the hegemony of private capital and a world led by private individuals like Bill Gates who think they know best.
Whether through, for instance, the patenting of life forms, carbon trading, entrenching market (corporate) dependency or land investments, their eco-modern policies serve as cover for generating and amassing further wealth and for cementing their control.
It should come as little surprise that powerful people who have contempt for democratic principles (and by implication, ordinary people) believe they have some divine right to undermine food security, close down debate, enrich themselves further courtesy of their technologies and policies and gamble with humanity’s future.
But the powers that be fear that the masses might once again pick up their pitchforks and revolt. They are adamant that the peasants must know their place.
However, the flame of protest and dissent from centuries past still inspires and burns bright.
“It’s by agriculture and control of the food supply that American diplomacy has been able to control most of the Third World. The World Bank’s geopolitical lending strategy has been to turn countries into food deficit areas by convincing them to grow cash crops — plantation export crops — not to feed themselves with their own food crops.”
In 2019, Hudson described how debt, sanctions and the US-controlled international monetary system had backed Venezuelan president Maduro into a corner. Venezuela had become an oil monoculture, with revenue having been spent largely on importing food and other necessities, which it could have produced itself.
In this respect, Word Trade Organization (WTO) policies and directives, debt and US-supported geopolitical lending strategies have compelled many countries in the Global South to eradicate food self-sufficiency and undermine their own food security.
The control of global agriculture has been a tentacle of US capitalism’s geopolitical strategy. The Green Revolution was exported courtesy of oil-rich interests, and poorer nations adopted Western agri-capital’s chemical- and oil-dependent model of agriculture that required loans for inputs and related infrastructure development. It entailed trapping nations into a globalised system of debt bondage, rigged trade relations and a system vulnerable to oil price shocks (this was touched on in the final chapter of Sickening Profits).
Weaponising Food
In his book The Unsettling of America (1977), Wendell Berrycriticises the US Department of Agriculture for adopting a doctrine that treats food as an instrument of foreign political and economic speculation. Berry argues that treating food as a weapon ultimately serves the interests of large agribusiness corporations rather than farmers or consumers.
He sees the weaponisation of food as part of a larger problem where agriculture is divorced from its cultural and ecological roots, leading to numerous negative consequences. Berry’s book discusses how modern agriculture has fostered a disconnect between people and the land. He laments that farming has been reduced to a mere business venture rather than a way of life that nurtures community and culture.
A business venture and a geopolitical weapon.
Something not lost on environmentalist Vandana Shiva who does not hesitate to label agrochemical companies as a poison cartel. She emphasises that this designation stems not only from the harmful effects of its chemicals on the food system but also from the historical connections of corporations like Bayer and BASF to warfare and chemical weapons. These companies have roots in producing toxic substances used during conflicts, including World War I and II, where they manufactured chemical agents such as chlorine gas and Zyklon B, the latter infamously used in Nazi gas chambers.
These practices reflect a broader underlining (historical) pattern of exploitation and violence in the food system that undermines both human health and ecological integrity.
Major agribusiness companies are deeply embedded in supranational policymaking machinery that allows them to draw up policies to serve their own interests. For instance, Monsanto played a key part in drafting the WTO Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights to create seed monopolies, and the global food processing industry (Cargill) had a leading role in shaping the WTO Agreement on the Application of Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures. The powerful agribusiness lobby has secured privileged access to policy makers to ensure its model of agriculture prevails.
Hit lists, the corruption of science, profiteering and the infiltration of regulatory bodies aside (the list could go on), food cultivation — an endeavour that at its core seeks to nourish and sustain life — has been hijacked and weaponised to coerce, control and suck away life from nature and people.
And Bayer talks about ‘backwardness’, as if any of the above is progressive. But few illusions are as pervasive and pernicious as the ideology of ‘progress’ and ‘development’ that hides behind corporate lobbyist soundbites about agribusiness and its money-spinning inputs being needed to prevent mass starvation.
Development?
This ideology, propped up by the twin pillars of techno-solutionism and technocracy has become the unquestioned truth of the age, a secular religion that promises salvation through the relentless march of technology and the wisdom of experts.
“… is the destruction of nature, now seen as a mere resource to be used for development or as an empty undeveloped space in which development could, should and, ultimately, must take place. It is the destruction of natural human communities, whose self-sufficiency gets in the way of the advance of development, and of authentic human culture and traditional values, which are incompatible with the dogma and domination of development.”
Cudenec argues that those behind ‘development’ have been destroying everything of real value in our natural world and our human societies in the pursuit of personal wealth and power. Moreover, they have concealed this crime behind all the positive-sounding rhetoric associated with development on every level.
Indeed, the notion that human society is on an inevitable trajectory of improvement, driven by technological innovation and guided by technocratic elites, is perhaps the most insidious myth of our time. This narrative of perpetual progress is a convenient smokescreen, obscuring the stark realities of environmental degradation, social inequality and spiritual impoverishment that characterise so-called advanced civilisation.
At the heart of this ideology lies the naive belief in techno-solutionism — the misguided faith that every problem, no matter how complex or deeply rooted in social and political structures, can be solved with the right technological fix. This reductionist worldview reduces the human experience to a series of technical challenges, eagerly awaiting the next groundbreaking innovation to set things right.
Agriculture? Just invent more data-gathering apps. Poverty? Develop an app for that. This simplistic approach not only fails to address the root causes of our predicaments but actively distracts us from the necessary work of systemic change and collective action.
Hand in hand with techno-solutionism marches technocracy — the idea that society would be best governed by the rich, technical experts and engineers rather than elected representatives or, just imagine, ordinary people! This elitist vision of governance places undue faith in the objectivity and benevolence of a technocratic class, ignoring the fact that these so-called experts are just as susceptible to self-interest as any other group.
The technocratic mindset reduces the vibrant reality of human society to a series of data points and algorithms, treating citizens as variables in a grand social engineering experiment. A worldview that values efficiency over empathy, optimisation over justice and control over freedom. In this brave new world, the nuances of culture, the wisdom of tradition and the unpredictability of human nature are seen as inconvenient obstacles to be overcome rather than essential aspects of the human experience.
Proponents of this ideology of progress would have us believe that we’re living in the best of all possible worlds — or at least on the path to it with the proliferation of gadgets as irrefutable evidence of our ascent. But this narrative of continuous improvement conveniently ignores the widening wealth gap, corporate corruption, the epidemic of mental health issues, the erosion of community ties and a globalised food system that results in all manner of illness and environmental degradation.
The obsession with technological progress and economic growth has come at a tremendous cost. Elite interests have sacrificed the health of the planet, the well-being of countless species and our own connection to the natural world on the altar of ‘development’. They traded meaningful work and genuine human connections for the hollow notion of convenience and efficiency. The quantifiable trumps the qualitative, reducing the human experience to a series of metrics.
The ideology of progress serves as a powerful tool for maintaining the status quo. By perpetuating the myth that our current corrupt system is the pinnacle of human achievement, or at least the best we can hope for (there is no alternative!) stifles imagination and is meant to induce apathy and demotivate the masses in striving to bring about meaningful change. And those who dare to question the wisdom of endless growth or propose alternative models of social organisation are censored or dismissed as naive idealists or dangerous radicals.
The tech giants and corporations that benefit most from this ideology have become the new high priests of our age, peddling their digital opiates and shiny gadgets as the path to a better future. They promise connection but deliver isolation, offer information but breed confusion and pledge empowerment while tightening the public noose of surveillance.
Reclaim the Future
Ordinary people need to reclaim their agency, get off their cell phones and reimagine their relationship with technology, viewing it as a tool to be wielded judiciously rather than a force that shapes our destiny.
We need to forge a new path that values human flourishing over ‘growth’, that prioritises ecological harmony over technological domination and that recognises the inherent worth of all beings — not just those deemed productive by the economic system.
This means challenging the state-corporate-financial- digital elite, who use their wealth, policies and technologies to wage a class war on ordinary people, while reclaiming the power to shape our societies through collective action.
It means reevaluating our definition of progress, moving beyond simplistic metrics of economic growth to consider the true measures of human and ecological well-being. And it means appreciating the complexity of the world, recognising that not every problem has a technological solution and that some of the most valuable aspects of human existence cannot be quantified or optimised.
We find ourselves at a critical juncture where the very foundations of our food systems and, indeed, our relationship with the natural world are being systematically dismantled and reconstructed to serve the interests of a unimaginably rich elite. As we stand on the precipice of a brave new world dominated by genetically engineered crops, lab-grown meat and AI-driven farming, it is imperative that we pause and critically examine the path we are being herded down.
The time has come to resist and reject the unchecked corporatisation and mechanisation of our food and, indeed, our lives.
The Green Revolution, once hailed as the saviour of the ‘developing world’, has instead trapped millions of farmers in cycles of debt and dependency, while reducing the nutritional value of food and decimating biodiversity.
Now, we are told that the solution to current problems lies in even more technology — gene editing, precision agriculture and artificial intelligence. But this is merely doubling down on a failed paradigm. These ‘solutions’ are not designed to address the root causes of our food crisis, but rather to further consolidate control over the food system in the hands of a few powerful corporations.
Consider the push for genetically modified organisms and the new wave of gene-edited crops. Proponents claim these technologies will increase yields and reduce pesticide use. Yet, decades of cultivation of genetically modified organisms have shown us that these promises are hollow. Instead, we have seen the rise of superweeds, increased pesticide use and the erosion of seed sovereignty as farmers become beholden to patent-holding corporations.
Similarly, the drive towards ‘smart’ farming and precision agriculture is often presented as a path to sustainability. In reality, it’s a trojan horse for increased corporate control and farmer disempowerment. As farms become more reliant on proprietary software, expensive machinery and data-driven decision making, traditional farming knowledge is devalued, and farmers are reduced to mere operators in a system they no longer fully understand or control.
The solution lies in a return to human-scale agriculture, rooted in agroecological principles. This is not a romanticised view of the past but a forward-thinking approach that recognises the wisdom embedded in traditional farming practices while selectively incorporating appropriate technologies. Agroecology works with nature rather than against it, fostering biodiversity, building soil health and creating resilient food systems.
The push for lab-grown meat and ultra-processed, plant-based alternatives is not about sustainability or animal welfare but about wresting control of protein production from farmers and placing it in the hands of tech companies and their investors. These products, often marketed as eco-friendly solutions, are in reality energy-intensive, highly processed foods that further disconnect us from the natural world and our food sources.
In the face of this techno-industrial onslaught, we must advocate for food sovereignty — the right of peoples to healthy and culturally appropriate food produced through ecologically sound and sustainable methods and their right to define their own food and agriculture systems. This means resisting the corporatisation of our food supply, supporting local food systems and preserving the diversity of crops and culinary traditions that have nourished humanity for millennia.
Chapter XIV
In 1649…
In attempting to shape the future, we can indeed look to the past for inspiration and reclaim part of history by drawing from the radical vision and actions of ‘the Diggers’ movement (1649-1651).
In the annals of agrarian history, one particular movement has left a profound impact on the collective imagination of food sovereignty advocates. The Diggers in 17th century England were led by the visionary Gerrard Winstanley. This radical group emerged during a period of intense social and political upheaval, offering a revolutionary perspective on land ownership and food production that continues to resonate with modern struggles for food justice.
The Diggers, also known as the True Levellers, arose in 1649, a time when England was reeling from the aftermath of civil war. Winstanley and his followers dared to imagine a different world. The group challenged the very foundations of the emerging capitalist system and the enclosure movement that was rapidly privatising previously common lands. But Winstanley’s vision was not merely theoretical.
On 1 April 1649, the Diggers began their most famous action, occupying St. George’s Hill in Surrey, where they established a commune, cultivating the land collectively and distributing food freely to all who needed it. This act of direct action was a powerful demonstration of their philosophy in practice.
As Winstanley declared:
“The earth was made to be a common treasury for all, not a private treasury for some.”
The Diggers, true to their name, began their movement by literally digging up unused common lands and planting crops. According to Professor Justin Champion, they planted “peas and carrots and pulses” and let their cows graze on the fields.
While the Diggers saw their actions as relatively harmless (Champion compares it to having an allotment), local property owners viewed it as a serious threat, likening it to “village terrorism”, according to Champion.
The local landowners called in troops to suppress these actions. Despite their relatively small numbers and short-lived experiments, which spread across parts of England, Champion suggests that the Diggers posed a significant ideological threat to the existing social order, challenging notions of private property and social hierarchy.
“Those that Buy and Sell Land, and are landlords, have got it either by Oppression, or Murther, or Theft”.
He added:
“The Work we are going about is this, To dig up Georges-Hill and the waste Ground thereabouts, and to Sow Corn, and to eat our bread together by the sweat of our brows. And the First Reason is this, That we may work in righteousness, and lay the Foundation of making the Earth a Common Treasury for All, both Rich and Poor, That every one that is born in the land, may be fed by the Earth his Mother that brought him forth, according to the Reason that rules in the Creation.”
The backlash from local landlords was systematic. The Diggers faced beatings and arson, forcing them to move from St George’s Hill to a second site in Cobham, until they were finally driven off the land entirely.
Writing in 1972 in his book The World Turned Upside Down, Christopher Hill, a prominent historian of the English Civil War period, suggested that the Diggers’ influence was more widespread than just their most famous colony at St. George’s Hill. He argued that from Nottinghamshire and Northamptonshire to Gloucestershire and Kent, Digger influence spread all over southern and central England.
While the actual number of people involved in Digger experiments was relatively small (estimated at 100-200 people across England), their ideas spread more widely through pamphlets and word of mouth.
This widespread influence, as described by Hill, suggests that the Diggers’ ideas resonated with people across a significant portion of England, even if actual Digger colonies were few in number.
The Diggers were a radical, biblically inspired movement that practically implemented their beliefs about common ownership of land, provoking strong opposition from the established landowners despite their generally peaceful methods.
The St. George’s Hill experiment represented a radical alternative to the prevailing economic and social order. It was an early example of what we might today call a food sovereignty project, emphasising local control over food production and distribution.
In today’s era of industrial agriculture and corporate food systems, the Diggers’ ideas remain highly significant. Their resistance to the enclosure of common lands in the 17th century mirrors today’s struggles against corporate land grabs — and the colonising actions that underpin the likes of Bayer’s corporate jargon about the unlocking of ‘business growth’, ‘driving change management’, ‘driving market share’ and ‘creating business value’ — as well as the privatisation of seeds and genetic resources.
The consolidation of the global agri-food chain in the hands of a few powerful corporations represents a modern form of enclosure, concentrating control over food production and distribution in ways that would have been all too familiar to Winstanley and his followers.
The Diggers’ emphasis on local, community-controlled food production offers a stark alternative to the industrial agriculture model promoted by agribusiness giants and their allies in institutions like the World Bank and the WTO Where the dominant paradigm prioritises large-scale monocultures, global supply chains and market-driven food security, the Diggers’ vision aligns more closely with concepts of food sovereignty and agroecology.
Food sovereignty, a concept developed by the international peasant movement La Via Campesina, shares much with the Diggers’ philosophy. Both emphasise the right of communities to define their own food and agriculture systems.
The Diggers’ legacy can be seen in various contemporary movements challenging the corporate food regime. From La Via Campesina’s global struggle for peasant rights to local community garden initiatives and the work of the Agrarian Trust in the US (which provides good insight into the Diggers and their continued relevance in The Diggers Today: Enclosure, Manure and Resistance), we see echoes of the Diggers’ vision.
Modern projects to create community-owned farms, seed banks and food cooperatives can be seen as spiritual descendants of the Diggers’ movement, aiming to reclaim food production from corporate control and put it back in the hands of communities.
However, realising the Diggers’ vision in the current context faces significant obstacles.
The influence of agribusiness conglomerates over key institutions and policymaking bodies presents a formidable challenge. From the World Bank to national agriculture ministries, as this book has made clear, corporate interests often shape policies that prioritise industrial agriculture and global markets over local food systems. International trade agreements and MoUs, often negotiated with minimal public scrutiny, frequently benefit large agribusiness at the expense of small farmers and local food sovereignty.
Moreover, proponents of industrial agriculture often argue that it is the only way to feed the world. This narrative, however, ignores the environmental and social costs of this model, as well as the proven productivity of small-scale, agroecological farming methods.
The Diggers didn’t just theorise about an alternative society; they attempted to build it by taking direct action, occupying land and implementing their vision of communal agriculture.
The Diggers also understood that changing the food system required challenging broader power structures. Today’s food sovereignty movements similarly recognise the need for systemic change, addressing issues of land rights, trade policies and economic justice alongside agricultural practices.
In this era of corporate-dominated agriculture, the Diggers’ vision of a “common treasury for all” remains as radical and necessary as ever.
By reclaiming the commons, promoting agroecological practices and building food sovereignty, ordinary people can work towards a world where food is truly a common treasury for all.
The Diggers recognised that true freedom and equality could not be achieved without addressing the fundamental question of who controls the land and the means of production. This understanding is crucial in the current context, where corporate control over the food system extends from land, seeds and inputs to distribution and retail.
The Diggers’ vision also challenges us to rethink our relationship with the land and with each other. In a world increasingly dominated by individualism and market relations, the emphasis on communal ownership and collective labour offers a radical alternative.
The Diggers’ legacy challenges us to think beyond the confines of the prevailing food regime, to envision and create a world where food and land are not commodities to be bought and sold but common resources to be shared and stewarded for the benefit of all.
Their vision of a world where “the earth becomes a common treasury again” is not a quaint historical curiosity, but a vital and necessary alternative to the destructive practices of those who dominate the current food system.
It is noteworthy that the annual Wigan Diggers Festival celebrates the life and ideas of Wigan born and bred Gerrard Winstanley and the Diggers’ Movement (see Wigan Diggers’ Festival).
But let us finish with Leon Rosselson’s song lyrics from his 1975 song in reference to the Diggers’ movement (Billy Bragg’s version can be found here on YouTube).
The World Turned Upside Down
In sixteen forty-nine/To St. George’s Hill A ragged band they called the Diggers/Came to show the people’s will They defied the landlords/They defied the laws They were the dispossessed reclaiming what was theirs
We come in peace they said/To dig and sow We come to work the lands in common/And to make the waste grounds grow This earth divided/We will makе whole So it will be/A common treasury for all
Thе sin of property/We do disdain No man has any right to buy and sell/The earth for private gain By theft and murder/They took the land Now everywhere the walls/Spring up at their command
They make the laws/To chain us well The clergy dazzle us with heaven/Or they damn us into hell We will not worship/The God they serve The God of greed who feed the rich/While poor man starve
We work we eat together/We need no swords We will not bow to masters/Or pay rent to the lords We are free men/Though we are poor You Diggers all stand up for glory/Stand up now
From the men of property/The orders came They sent the hired men and troopers/To wipe out the Diggers’ claim Tear down their cottages/Destroy their corn They were dispersed/Only the vision lingers on
You poor take courage/You rich take care The earth was made a common treasury/For everyone to share All things in common/All people one We come in peace/The order came to cut them down
Click the share button below 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.
This seemingly contradictory policy actually isn’t all that surprising if one takes the time to deeply reflect on it.
Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrovtold Hurriyet in early November that he considers Turkiye’s approach to the Ukrainian Conflict to be “perplexing” since it’s facilitating peace talks while still arming Ukraine against Russia. Although not mentioned in the interview, another bone of contention between Moscow and Ankara is the latter’s insistence on recognizing Ukraine’s pre-2014 borders. This seemingly contradictory policy actually isn’t all that surprising if one takes the time to deeply reflect on it.
Like most countries nowadays, Turkiye prioritizes its national interests as its leadership sincerely understands them to be, to which end it believes that there are benefits to be had in balancing between the West-Ukraine and Russia. This takes the form of facilitating peace talks by serving as a neutral mediation platform, supporting the West-Ukraine by arming Kiev and recognizing its pre-2014 borders, and supporting Russia by defying the West’s unilateral sanctions regime against it.
For as difficult as it is to balance between neutrality, the West/Ukraine, and Russia, President Recep Tayyip Erdogan has done very well thus far. No one is fully pleased with him, though no one is fully displeased with him either. All the while, Turkiye benefits by correspondingly improving its international reputation as a diplomatic bridge between East and West, reassuring NATO that it’s not going to “defect”, and profiting from trade with Russia, the latter of which reaffirms its sovereignty vis-à-vis the West.
Putin doesn’t seem to mind all that much either no matter how “perplexed” Lavrov is or at least claims to be for whatever reason. The Russian leader told the Valdai Club in October 2022 that
“[he] is a competent and strong leader who is guided above all, and possibly exclusively, by the interests of Turkiye, its people and its economy…President Erdogan never lets anyone get a free ride or acts in the interests of third countries.”
He then concluded that
“President Erdogan is a consistent and reliable partner. This is probably his most important trait, that he is a reliable partner.”
This insight was also analyzed here at the time. What it goes to show is that Erdogan’s seemingly contradictory policy is pretty understandable and therefore predictable to Putin. Accordingly, the Russian leader sincerely considers his Turkish counterpart to be “a reliable partner”, which he’s proven to be in spite of what can be described as his “double-dealing”.
About that, it was to be expected among objective observers, who knew better than to think that Turkiye would pivot to either warring party’s side. There were certainly some in the West and Russia who hoped that it would take theirs over the other’s, but that was always nothing more than wishful thinking. In fact, even Russia’s prestigious Valdai Club tacitly recognizes this now as evidenced by what they advised in their report last month about “The World Majority and Its Interests”, which was analyzed here.
In their words,
“it is imperative to exclude, at the level of political rhetoric, calls for other countries to adopt the position of followers with regard to Russia. The attempts to fit them into one’s own speculative geopolitical schemes would be a mistake.”
With this insight in mind, while it’s lamentable from Russia’s perspective that Turkiye still arms Ukraine and is even building a Bayraktar drone production factory there, any real pressure on Turkiye to change its policy would be counterproductive.
Russia and Turkiye mutually benefit from the latter’s role in facilitating peace talks, not to mention its defiance of Western sanctions, thus meaning that the only two realistic policy options that Russia has to pressure Turkiye (ending one or both of these aforesaid relationships) would harm its own interests. Likewise, Turkiye maintains both policies despite Western pressure because it’s not going to harm its own interests for anyone else’s sake, thus balancing everything out in its own way.
This approach therefore isn’t “perplexing”, but pragmatic, even though Lavrov couldn’t of course admit that because he’s obviously against Turkiye arming Ukraine. The complexities of today’s International Relations are such that Russian-Turkish ties still remain strong in spite of that, just like Western-Turkish ties still remain strong in spite of Turkiye facilitating peace talks and defying Western sanctions. Turkiye’s geostrategic balancing act might soon become an example for others in the Global South to follow.
*
Click the share button below 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.
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: Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov is seen during a United Nations meeting in Geneva, Switzerland. (Credit: UN / Emmanuel Hungrecker)
Aparentemente, a alegada autorização de ataques de longo alcance por parte da Ucrânia está a ter um grande impacto negativo a nível interno dos EUA. Os líderes da oposição à administração Biden e até personalidades não relacionadas à política estão a protestar fortemente contra a decisão do presidente, o que indica que Biden enfrentará ainda mais impopularidade nas suas últimas semanas no cargo.
Em 17 de Novembro, os meios de comunicação ocidentais noticiaram que o Presidente Joe Biden tinha finalmente autorizado ataques “profundos” contra o território indiscutível da Federação Russa. Embora não existam provas suficientes para confirmar que Biden realmente autorizou tais operações, a falta de uma refutação dos relatórios indica que ele concorda com as alegações – ou pelo menos que cedeu à pressão pública do lobby pró-guerra.
A reação ao caso ocorreu tanto no nível oficial quanto no popular. Moscou reiterou que tais atos mudariam completamente a natureza do conflito e poderiam desencadear uma resposta nuclear direta, dada a recente atualização dos termos da doutrina nuclear da Rússia. Os russos afirmaram que estes ataques não serão vistos como meras manobras da Ucrânia, mas como uma verdadeira intervenção da OTAN no conflito, considerando que os instrutores ocidentais são os verdadeiros responsáveis pela condução de armas de longo alcance no campo de batalha ucraniano.
A nível popular, houve uma reação igualmente negativa à decisão de Biden. Os cidadãos americanos criticam ferozmente as ações do presidente, chamando-o de político irresponsável e “suicida”, disposto a ameaçar toda a arquitetura de segurança global – incluindo a própria segurança nacional dos EUA – nos seus últimos dias no cargo. Nas redes sociais, os internautas americanos expressam frequentemente as suas opiniões sobre Biden e apelam a protestos contra as políticas de guerra do presidente.
Por exemplo, Scott Ritter, um veterano militar americano e antigo inspector de mísseis da ONU conhecido pela sua posição dissidente nos EUA, apelou aos apoiantes de Trump – referidos como “MAGA” – para saírem às ruas de Washington D.C. Segundo ele, se Biden não reverter a medida, “não haverá América para Trump” – alertando assim para o risco de escalada nuclear. É importante sublinhar que Ritter é um ativista independente, sem qualquer ligação ao Partido Republicano, pelo que o seu apelo público é um gesto genuíno de preocupação patriótica, e não uma simples propaganda política.
“Os americanos do MAGA deveriam fechar Washington DC até que Biden reverta sua decisão sobre o ATACMS. Cercar a Casa Branca. Cercar o Congresso. Fechar tudo. Porque se não o fizermos, pode não haver América para Trump tornar grande novamente em 20 de janeiro “, publicou.
Também houve sérias críticas oficiais a Biden nos EUA. A deputada republicana Marjorie Taylor Greene disse que o presidente está “tentando perigosamente iniciar a Terceira Guerra Mundial” antes de terminar seu mandato. Afirmou que é preciso parar de financiar as guerras externas, enfatizando os problemas que esta política traz para a estabilidade americana. Além disso, Greene deixou claro que o povo americano decidiu votar em Trump precisamente para acabar com o conflito, e que a medida de Biden é, portanto, uma violação da vontade do povo.
“Ao deixar o cargo, Joe Biden está perigosamente tentando iniciar a Terceira Guerra Mundial, autorizando a Ucrânia a usar mísseis de longo alcance dos EUA na Rússia. O povo americano deu um mandato em 5 de novembro contra essas decisões e não quer financiar ou lutar guerras estrangeiras. Queremos resolver os nossos próprios problemas. Chega disto, isto tem de parar”, disse ela.
Na mesma linha, o oligarca americano Elon Musk, chefe da empresa de comunicação “X”, publicou sua opinião sobre o tema nas redes sociais, concordando com uma postagem anterior feita por um senador republicano contra Biden. O senador de Utah, Mike Lee, afirmou que “os liberais (como os republicanos chamam os democratas) amam a guerra porque a guerra facilita um governo mais totalitário”. Musk compartilhou a postagem concordando com seu conteúdo deixando clara sua condenação à autorização de ataques de longo alcance.
Além disso, o filho de Trump, Donald Jr., afirmou que Biden está defendendo os interesses do complexo industrial militar ao autorizar tais ataques. Segundo ele, o atual presidente quer realmente iniciar a Terceira Guerra Mundial antes da posse de Trump, o que certamente impediria o novo líder de ter sucesso na sua agenda pró-paz.
“O Complexo Industrial Militar parece querer garantir o início da 3ª Guerra Mundial antes que meu pai tenha a chance de criar a paz e salvar vidas (…) Tenho que garantir esses trilhões de dólares. Dane-se a vida!”, disse ele.
Esta situação apenas mostra como autorizar ataques profundos foi um suicídio político para Biden. O cenário interno dos EUA será extremamente instável num futuro próximo, com protestos em massa esperados e uma grande crise de legitimidade. Em vez de simplesmente “iniciar uma guerra mundial”, Biden também pode ter dado passos significativos no sentido de um confronto político interno no seu próprio país.
The latter half of this year took a particularly hefty toll on both Washington DC and Brussels, as well as their other geopolitical pendants, vassals and satellite states. Western leaders have been effectively illegitimate for months, as their popularity is almost exclusively in the negative, which explains the humiliating defeat that the corrupt Democrats suffered in the United States.
It would seem that Trump’s victory is also directly affecting Germany, whose government effectively collapsed less than 24 hours after the US presidential election. Most analysts speculate that snap elections in Germany will be held on February 23, which leaves its so-called “legacy” political parties with only around two months to essentially pull off a miracle.
However, an even bigger problem for them is the blistering growth of the AfD’s popularity. This “controversial” political party (Alternative for Germany, hence the AfD acronym) is now the second most popular in the country and is essential for making any potential coalitions, much to the chagrin of the ruling elite. In fact, they’re so terrified of this prospect that they’re mulling a total, blanket ban on the AfD, which would be an entirely unprecedented move.
According to reports from German state media, specifically the ARD and ZDF, the motion to ban the AfD was signed by 112 MPs (Members of Parliament) and has also been handed to Bundestag President Bärbel Bas of the far-left Social Democrats (SPD). If the ban were to pass, the Bundestag (German Parliament) will start additional proceedings that will also include the Constitutional Court of Germany, which will then determine whether the AfD can be legally banned. It should be noted that there are 733 seats in the Bundestag and the motion just needs a simple majority to be adopted. Germany’s “legacy” political parties see this as the only way to not only prevent the AfD from acquiring more political influence, but also as a way to neutralize the “controversial” party before it becomes too powerful.
Since its very beginnings, the AfD was usually mocked for its program, but as it gradually gathered support, the ruling elite became quite worried. The endless failures of consecutive German governments only helped the AfD’s popularity, resulting in it becoming the second most popular party in Germany earlier this year. Polls show that support for the AfD currently hovers at around 20%, just behind CDU which is close to 28%. As previously mentioned, the increasingly popular AfD will be virtually impossible to ignore in future coalitions, particularly if its standing keeps improving. The mainstream propaganda machine would usually denigrate the AfD, particularly around the election, but as this is increasingly ineffective, an outright ban is becoming the only way to politically “defeat” the “controversial” party.
And while the “legacy” forces in German politics could always try to combine their support and form coalitions, these temporary alliances are quite unstable, as evidenced by the collapse of the Scholz cabinet. Besides motivation based purely on a power struggle, for some German politicians, suppressing the AfD is also a form of personal vendetta.
Thus, many of the most prominent proponents of the ban, such as CDU MP Marco Wanderwitz, operate under the motto that they’re “saving democracy” from the AfD. For instance, Wanderwitz lost his local election to an AfD politician, so he’s more than willing to work with others who might be able to limit the AfD’s growing power. Apparently, this includes Till Steffen, the parliamentary leader of the Greens group, who said that 50 members of the Greens signed on to the motion to ban the AfD.
Most other German politicians support the idea, but many are terrified of the “Trump effect” if the motion passes. Some propose “better pacing” and “waiting for the best possible moment”. However, if the AfD were to be outright banned, this could have a completely opposite effect. Legal procedures could take years, while the AfD could use the attempts to ban it to present them as a form of persecution (which is the case, all things considered).
All this would only increase its popularity, especially if the Supreme Court rules that the ban is unconstitutional, thus proving beyond doubt that the motion was purely politically motivated. This is precisely why some MPs from the ranks of Greens are against the ban, at least for the time being. One of them is Renate Künast, who submitted a proposal that a thorough assessment of its consequences is needed.
Künast’s countermotion states that “a ban must be thoroughly legally examined first, including commissioning experts to assess the chances of success of a ban”. However, Wanderwitz is adamant that a ban needs to be imposed immediately due to upcoming elections. In other words, the political establishment doesn’t even bother hiding the purely political nature of persecuting the AfD.
There are attempts to effectively reclassify the “controversial” party as an “extremist organization”, but this too is a lengthy legal process that is highly unlikely to be over before the election. Either way, Germany is demonstrating that its political system is actually even worse than the one in the US, as the double standards and two-tiered “justice” system are quite obvious and even publicly supported by the political establishment.
*
Click the share button below 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.
In this follow up interview, Peter and we discuss the fact that despite a leadership change with the Trump Presidency the technocratic transhumanist agenda continues.
He gives updates on the fact that the geopolitical situation is not what is seems and that there is more collaboration of world powers than meets the eye to continue digital money, digital enslavement, and the rise of AI.
We also discuss the spiritual warfare and the escape from this matrix through knowledge of self and our quantum holographic universe.
—Ana Maria Mihalcea, MD
*
Click the share button below 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.
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.
In August 2021, following the withdrawal of major U.S./NATO military forces from Afghanistan after two decades of occupation, Taliban forces took effective control over the country. In response, the United States seized the assets of Afghanistan’s central bank totaling around $7 billion. Half of that amount was transferred to the misleadingly named “Afghan Fund” in September 2022, a Swiss-based “charitable foundation” whose only role thus far has been to privately conceal and invest the funds without any concrete plans to return them, as confirmed by U.S. Special Representative for Afghanistan Thomas West. This runs contrary to popular demands by experts and humanitarian organizations who argue that a return of the funds is desperately needed now more than ever to help everyday Afghans.
Afghan women do not have any representation on the board of the “Afghan Fund,” nor do they have any official say over whether the assets should be returned. The board of trustees includes: two men selected by the U.S. State Department, Anwar ul-Haq Ahady and Shah Mehrabi, the U.S. Under Secretary of the Treasury for International Affairs Jay Shambaugh, and Swiss government official AmbassadorAlexandra Baumann.
According to a July 2024 press statement from the board of the “Afghan Fund,” some of the stolen assets may also be disbursed to the Asian Development Bank, an institution controlled by the United States, Japan, and Australia via majority shareholder status. While the funds are not returning to the Afghan people, this move shows that a process to return the funds to Afghanistan can begin immediately if the board members agree to do so. Regardless of whether the funds are in fact disbursed elsewhere over time, board members Ahady, Mehrabi, Shambaugh, and Baumann are all culpable in the forced starvation and impoverishment of tens of millions of Afghans – tantamount to the collective punishment of the Afghan people.
According to a January 2024 written testimony by the U.S. Congress-established Office of the Special Inspector General for Afghanistan Reconstruction (SIGAR), the remaining $3.5 billion in sovereign funds held in the United States may eventually be transferred to the “Afghan Fund” depending on litigation filed by the families of 9/11 victims and other plaintiffs, while other funds held in Europe and the United Arab Emirates may also be added to the “Afghan Fund.” SIGAR found that none of the funds in the “Afghan Fund” as of early 2024 have been spent, are planned to be spent, or will ever be used to provide humanitarian or development assistance. Notably, while no disbursements have been made for the benefit of the Afghan people, portions of the over $340 million in interest that have been accrued from the stolen assets are being used to pay for the “Afghan Funds” operational and administrative costs.
The sudden deprivation of access to its sovereign assets led to a sharp economic and financial crisis in Afghanistan in 2021, which a recent United Nations Development Program (UNDP) study found is disproportionately affecting women and children. The seizure of assets combined with both U.S. and UN sanctions – ostensibly only targeting the Taliban – have hurt ordinary Afghans and aid organizations, affirmed by US-aligned rights groups and media outlets. The same UNDP report found that 69% of Afghans “do not have adequate resources for basic subsistence living,” while an estimated 15.8 million Afghans – including nearly 8 million children – are expected to experience “acute food insecurity” throughout 2024.
Clearly, the “Afghan Fund” – controlled by Western officials and Afghan compradors – has deliberately withheld billions from the suffering Afghan populace.
It should be reiterated that a process to return these stolen funds, and in turn mitigate the U.S.-enabled humanitarian and economic crises plaguing Afghanistan, can and must begin right away. The following individuals have full power or influence over the release of the illegally stolen assets back to its rightful owners: the Afghan people.
*
Click the share button below 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.
Since the formation of the Alliance of Sahel States (AES) during 2023, the governments of France and the United States along with their surrogates have sought to undermine the political and economic objectives of these developing nations.
When the military Committee for the Safeguard of Our Homeland (CNSP) took power in Niger last year on July 26, Paris and Washington sought to have members of the Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS) stage a military intervention into this uranium-rich country to reimpose the French and U.S.-backed ousted President Mohamed Bazoum.
Despite these efforts, various political parties and mass organizations throughout the region rejected this proposed invasion which would have been coordinated by the Pentagon and the French Foreign Legions. Such a plan would have severely disrupted the entire ECOWAS region of 15 member-states with particularly negative impacts upon those countries located in the Sahel territories.
In Mali where the transition from bourgeois democratic rule propped-up by France to a military administration geared towards the removal of neo-colonial corporate forces, has experienced an escalation of attacks from putative “Islamic terrorist” groupings. It was brought to light several months ago that these so-called “rebels” were being trained and guided in cooperation with the NATO-backed government in Ukraine. (See this)
Since Mali has reached out to the Russian Federation for military assistance in their fight against the insurgents, Transitional President Assimi Goita has been the subject of attempts aimed at regime change. This same pattern of destabilization is being replicated in neighboring Burkina Faso and Niger. Consequently, all three of these administrations have come together to decide on how to effectively combat western economic isolation and military threats.
Australian Mining CEO and Executives Arrested
The global market was hit by shockwaves in the wake of the arrests of a CEO and two gold mining executives by the Malian authorities during mid-November. Resolute Mining had been accused of corruption by the authorities in Bamako when they traveled to the country to hold discussions with the government.
Image: Mali gold mine
Although Mali is listed as one of the least developed states in the world, the country is a center for the mining of gold and prospecting for other valuable natural resources. This same situation of impoverished people and large deposits of strategic minerals and metals exists throughout the entire West Africa region.
These contradictions are fueling the movements to overthrow pro-western regimes even if they have been brought to power through multi-party elections. Many of those representing political parties are funded and made marionettes for international finance capital. There are examples of these “civilian” administrations which have altered the national constitutions to allow them to extend their terms of office. Despite these unconstitutional maneuvers by the imperialist-funded parties, they are often given financial, military and diplomatic cover by the western capitals to continue in their domestic and foreign policies which largely benefit the transnational corporations.
“Resolute Mining said it is continuing to negotiate the release of three detained employees, including CEO Terence Holohan, after signing a protocol with the Malian government for further discussions over the future of the mining group’s operations in Mali. As part of the protocol, Resolute has made an initial settlement payment of US$80 million ($123.8 million) to the Malian government from existing cash reserves, with future payments of US$80 million to be made in the coming months from existing liquidity sources. ASX-listed Resolute said it is working with the Malian government on the remaining procedural steps for the release of its employees, who were detained by government officials last week.”
Due to this uncertainty and the political significance of the detentions of these mining representatives, the markets have reacted to the situation. These events are not occurring in a vacuum. Many states in Africa are facing similar dilemmas such as the people of the AES sub-region. The phenomenon of rising prices for resources on the financial markets does not necessarily translate to higher incomes and living standards of the people in Africa and other developing states.
Therefore, in their same report Capital Brief noted that:
“Shares in Resolute Mining fell on the ASX after the mining group said it would pay the Malian government nearly $250 million as part of ongoing discussions around the future of its operations in the country. Resolute shares were down 3.7% by 12:20pm AEDT, having shed more than 40% since Malian authorities detained the miner’s chief executive Terence Holohan and two other employees last week.”
On November 18, Resolute Mining announced that it had reached an agreement with the Malian government to pay $160 million as part of a memorandum of understanding. However, as of November 20, there has been no news of the release of the three corporate officials. (See this)
The questions raised regarding the exploitative economic arrangements so prevalent within the system of neo-colonialism, are clearly related to the devastating results of rebel activity. The United Nations General Assembly address by the Malian Deputy Prime Minister Abdoulaye Maiga in September conveyed the nexus between underdevelopment and insurgent violence.
This address was summarized in a United Nations publication which emphasized:
“Indeed, terrorist activities, instigated by sponsors inside and outside the region, had a dire impact on Mali’s security and stability due to rising violence, ‘all kinds of trafficking, money laundering and community conflicts,’ the Deputy Prime Minister explained. Having witnessed the failure of international forces on its territory since 2013 to deal with these issues, Malian authorities decided to ‘take their fate in their own hands.’ Since 2021 Mali had launched a vast campaign to re-equip and reorganize the Malian defense and security forces. After a subsequent national assessment, Malian authorities and citizens had together concluded that their country, its people and its defense and security forces had been ‘left pillaged and polluted; battered and humiliated; high and dry and stabbed in the back,’ by parties that had instigated violence, and looted the country’s raw materials for their own gain. Such was the case for much of Africa.”
The former French colonies of Mali, Burkina Faso and Niger are today on the frontline in the struggle against neo-colonialism on the continent. Consequently, their revolutionary movement should be supported and defended by anti-imperialists and peace activists based in capitalist countries.
Burkina Faso and Niger Subjected to Same Hegemonic Project
During late August there was a massacre of civilians in the Burkinabe village of Barasalogho where an estimated 600 people died. The operation was claimed by an al-Qaeda affiliated grouping known as Jamat’ at Nusrat wal Muslimin which has also been active in Mali.
Image: Burkina Faso leader Ibrahim Traore accuses Ukraine of terrorism
Later between October 6-8 another massacre was carried out in the eastern region of Burkina Faso in the village of Manni. Approximately 150 people lost their lives at the hands of the same rebel organization.
The gunmen attacked a marketplace in the village looting property. They would, during the following two days, engage in mass killings and the pillage of belongings owned by the residents of the area.
In Niger tensions remain high in relations with France. A Non-governmental Organization (NGO), Acted, was ordered out of the country on November 12 when the Interior Ministry stripped away its license to operate.
Niger has one of the world’s largest deposits of uranium. Since the CNSP came to power in July 2023, the government has ordered the departure of French and U.S. troops. In addition, the French-controlled Orano mining firm was ordered to leave the country during 2024.
Since its severance with Orano, the Niger government has announced its intentions to bring in Russian investors for partnerships in the uranium industry. These developments are following the same patterns as Burkina Faso and Mali further heightening tensions with France and the U.S.
Also, in the fields of telecommunications, Russia and Niger have signed a satellite agreement to provide greater access to internet and phone services. Such a dramatic shift in strategic cooperation indicates the desire to break with the French and U.S. imperialism in favor of Moscow.
“This comes as Niger signed an agreement with the Russian company Glavkosmos earlier this month to acquire advanced satellite technology. The move – aimed at enhancing national security and counter-terrorism efforts – is expected to deliver three high-altitude satellites within four years. Niger’s Minister of Communication, Sidi Mohamed Raliou, emphasized the strategic importance of the satellites for communication, remote sensing, and defense capabilities, further solidifying Niger’s technological relationship with Russia…. Niger’s strategy to court Russian firms for mining and technological investments underlines the military régime’s audacious restructuring of foreign relations – especially with France – amid ongoing geopolitical tensions, as Paris grapples with its waning influence in its former African colonies.”
On November 16, tens of thousands of people rallied in support of the government in Niamey denouncing the plots to destabilize the CNSP government. The crowd also expressed solidarity with the people of Burkina Faso and Mali. (See this)
These AES governments are pointing the way for a new direction regarding partnerships with Russia and other potentially collaborative states such as China, Iran and neighboring African administrations. Nonetheless, as these recalibrations of relationships evolve, the commitment of the people to effectively resist neocolonialism will place them on a collision course with the imperialist states.
*
Click the share button below 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.
Dr. Fayez Abed from Al Awda Hospital in northern Gaza shares a harrowing account of the conditions faced by patients and medical staff under the ongoing threat of bombings. On October 20, 2023, we had spoken with the director of the hospital, Dr. Ahmed Muhanna. Since his abduction on December 17, 2023 by Israeli occupation forces, no information about his fate has been available.
Interview with Lode Vanoost
On October 20, 2023, we managed a live WhatsApp call with Dr. Ahmed Muhanna, director of Al Awda Hospital in northern Gaza. Despite poor sound and video quality, the communication worked (you can watch our conversation on the second video of this article).
Two months later, on 17 December 2023, Dr. Muhanna was abducted by Israeli occupation forces. Since then, there has been no information about his fate, health, or whereabouts. Several other medical colleagues have also been abducted, some of whom died under suspicious circumstances after severe torture, while others were tortured and later released. Their situation remains as uncertain as Dr. Muhanna’s.
One year later, direct conversations are no longer possible due to the destruction of transmission antennas and communication equipment by the occupation forces. Dr. Fayez Abed, who continues working at Al Awda Hospital, communicates minimally via his mobile phone near an open window—which is life-threatening because of Israeli sniper fire targeting anyone visible.
.
Photo shows Drs. Muhanna and Abed caring for an infant and staff mourning three colleagues executed by occupation forces.
.
The interview was conducted in phases: questions were sent via WhatsApp, and Dr. Abed responded in brief text messages in Spanish, a language he learned while studying medicine in Cuba. His answers were compiled and translated.
Concerns About Dr. Ahmed Muhanna
There are many reasons to worry about the abducted Dr. Ahmed Muhanna. Is he still alive? If so, in what conditions is he being held? What is his health status? We asked Dr. Abed for an update on this and the current situation at Al Awda Hospital.
Dr. Fayez Abed:
“There has been no official information about Dr. Ahmed Muhanna since his abduction on 17 December2023.”
Dr. Abed describes critical shortages:
“Al Awda Hospital faces a series of problems, the most critical being the lack of medicines, medical supplies, food, and fuel for the generator, as well as insufficient medical staff. Despite repeated pleas from the Red Cross and the World Health Organization sourced from the hospital administration, the occupation forces have refused to coordinate the delivery of basic necessities during more than 41 days of siege.”
.
The staff bids farewell to three colleagues executed by the occupying army
.
Regarding electricity: “We only use the generator for life-saving surgeries.”
All departments are overcrowded.
“For the first time, Al Awda Hospital has placed extra beds in hallways. We have around 56 patients with companions and receive 70 to 150 patients daily in reception and emergency, most of whom are women and children. Some require admission for emergency surgeries.”
Interview with doctor Ahmed Muhanna on October 20, 2023 (11:29, English, no subtitles)
Staff Shortages:
Dr. Abed reports:
“We have one surgeon performing life-saving procedures, four obstetricians handling emergency gynecological operations, three emergency physicians, and two anesthesiologists. Including all staff—doctors, nurses, and support services—we have 69 employees. This is only 45% of the original 157 health personnel before October 7, 2023.”
.
A wounded child does not give up hope
.
“The occupation forces repeatedly threatened us with evacuating the hospital, but we refused and remained steadfast amid bombings and sniper fire to save what remains of our people in northern Gaza.”
.
A seriously injured child is carried in
.
The Belgian NGO Viva Salud supports Al Awda Hospital and three other healthcare facilities in Gaza through projects recognized by Belgium’s Ministry of Development Cooperation.
*
Click the share button below 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.
A House committee report revealed the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services’ $900 million “We Can Do This” COVID campaign was flawed and claimed COVID shots prevented transmission despite FDA stating there was no such evidence
CDC’s shifting mask guidelines and reversals on recommendations damaged public trust, with changes appearing politically motivated rather than based on scientific evidence
The government aggressively promoted COVID shots for children despite low risk levels, using emotional manipulation and fear-based messaging through the Fors Marsh Group PR firm
Clinical trial studies showed significant bias in measuring COVID shot effectiveness, with case-counting window bias making ineffective shots appear 50% to 70% effective
Pfizer and Moderna vaccine trials revealed higher risks of serious adverse events than initially reported, with Pfizer showing 36% higher risk compared to placebo groups
*
The U.S. House of Representatives Energy and Commerce committee released an assessment of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services’ (HHS) COVID-19 public health campaign, revealing it was fraught with miscalculations that set the stage for widespread public distrust.1
In December 2020, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) granted Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) to the first COVID-19 shots, yet these authorizations clearly stated there was no evidence the shots prevented viral transmission. Despite this, the administration launched the “We Can Do This” Campaign, spending over $900 million to promote vaccine uptake and public health measures.
However, foundational issues plagued the campaign from the beginning. Past contracts and fiscal mismanagement within HHS raised red flags about the effectiveness and integrity of their public relations efforts. As the campaign aimed to shape public behavior around masking, social distancing and vaccination, the reliance on flawed Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) guidance undermined its credibility.
By allowing CDC recommendations to drive public messaging, the administration sowed confusion and mistrust. These early failures were not isolated incidents but part of a broader pattern of inconsistent and politically influenced public health strategies that ultimately eroded the very trust needed to effectively manage a public health crisis.
Shifting Mask Guidelines Undermined Public Trust
Initially, masks were deemed unnecessary for the general public, with prominent figures like Dr. Anthony Fauci advocating against their widespread use. However, by April 2020, the CDC had completely reversed its stance, recommending masks for everyone outside the home. This flip-flop was not just confusing but also seemed politically motivated, influenced by factors such as teachers’ unions pushing for prolonged school closures.2
The subsequent inconsistent messaging continued, with masks being recommended, then downplayed again as the shots rolled out. Each reversal rightfully fostered skepticism and resistance, while undermining the credibility of public health institutions. This erosion of trust was further exacerbated when breakthrough infections and variants like Delta emerged, proving that earlier mask guidance had been incorrect.
Overstating COVID-19 Shot Efficacy — A Critical Misstep
When COVID-19 shots were introduced, Americans were told to believe they were not only preventing illness but also halting the virus’ transmission. However, this narrative quickly unraveled, as there was no evidence that vaccines prevented transmission. Despite this, the CDC and the “We Can Do This” campaign promoted the idea that only vaccinated individuals could safely forego masks and social distancing.
This overstated efficacy became a significant issue as breakthrough infections began to rise, especially with the emergence of more transmissible variants like Delta. The administration’s insistence that vaccines stopped transmission contradicted the FDA’s original EUA terms and created a false sense of security.
When real-world data began to show that vaccinated individuals could still spread the virus, the CDC was forced to retract and revise its messaging, further damaging its credibility. This disconnect between official statements and emerging evidence betrayed the public’s trust.
Meanwhile, the report highlights how vaccine mandates became a contentious tool in the government’s strategy to control the pandemic.3 You saw federal, state and private employers enforcing COVID-19 shot requirements, often without clear, evidence-based justification. These shot mandates targeted millions, demonstrating the extent of overreach and coercion.
The resignation of top FDA officials over booster shot policies underscored the internal conflict and raised questions about the government’s motives. Even vaccine proponents like Dr. Paul Offit criticized the mandates as politically driven rather than grounded in solid public health needs. The mandates disproportionately affected younger populations who were already at lower risk of severe illness and represented an infringement on personal autonomy.
Targeting Children with Fearmongering and Misinformation
One of the most alarming aspects of the COVID-19 response was the aggressive push to vaccinate children, despite mounting evidence that COVID-19 posed minimal risk to this age group.4
The CDC and HHS launched extensive campaigns targeting parents, using emotionally charged messaging to persuade them to get COVID-19 injections for their young children. Ads featuring celebrity parents and medical professionals painted a dire picture of COVID-19’s impact on children, despite studies showing that severe illness and death in this demographic were exceedingly rare.5
By emphasizing the need for COVID-19 shots to keep schools open and protect community health, the government leveraged fear and misinformation to drive vaccine uptake. This approach not only misrepresented the actual risk but also disregarded the developmental and social impacts of prolonged masking and school closures on children.
Parents were left feeling manipulated, as the narrative suggested that vaccination was the only way to ensure their children’s safety, ignoring the broader context of low transmission and minimal severe outcomes in young populations, along with the unknown side effects of the experimental shots.
The Fors Marsh Group Was Hired to Orchestrate the Propaganda Campaign
Behind the scenes of the HHS’ public health messaging was the Fors Marsh Group (FMG), a PR firm contracted to manage the “We Can Do This” campaign. Engaging FMG, HHS aimed to craft a nationwide multimedia propaganda effort to shape public perception and behavior regarding COVID-19.6
FMG deployed a strategic mix of paid and earned media, leveraging influencers, celebrities and targeted advertisements to promote vaccination, mask-wearing and social distancing. This partnership raised significant concerns about the politicization of public health messaging. Past contracts with FMG had already been scrutinized for fiscal mismanagement, and this massive investment in a single campaign further highlighted conflicts of interest and inefficiencies.
FMG’s approach relied heavily on emotional manipulation and fearmongering, often overstating the risks of COVID-19 to justify stringent public health measures. By prioritizing persuasive messaging over transparent, evidence-based communication, FMG and HHS effectively prioritized political agendas over scientific integrity.
This collaboration not only amplified mixed messages but also deepened public distrust as the true motives behind the campaign became increasingly opaque. The use of a private PR firm to drive national health policies exemplified a troubling shift toward prioritizing image over substance, undermining the credibility of public health institutions tasked with presenting accurate information.
Data Manipulation Included Overcounting Deaths
The final blow to public trust came when the CDC admitted to overcounting COVID-19 deaths due to a faulty algorithm.7 This admission affected all age groups, including children, and exposed significant flaws in the data tracking system. The recalculation led to a 24% decrease in reported pediatric deaths, revealing that the initial numbers had been significantly inflated.
This revelation shattered any remaining credibility the CDC had, as it became clear that the pandemic response was built on inaccurate data. The CDC’s admission that 80% of reported errors exaggerated the severity of the COVID-19 situation further eroded trust. This manipulation of data undermined the entire public health narrative.
Overall, the report underscores a troubling pattern of inconsistent messaging, overstated claims and data mismanagement by key public health authorities during the COVID-19 pandemic.
Based on a study published in the Journal of Evaluation in Clinical Practice, case-counting window bias dramatically distorted COVID-19 shot effectiveness estimates.8 In randomized controlled trials (RCTs), both vaccine and placebo groups have synchronized case-counting windows, ensuring a fair comparison. However, in real-world observational studies, this window often applies only to the vaccinated group.
This asymmetry means that cases occurring shortly after vaccination in the unvaccinated group are counted, while similar cases in the vaccinated group are excluded. Consequently, an entirely ineffective vaccine could misleadingly appear to have substantial effectiveness — sometimes showing 50% to 70% efficacy when, in reality, the vaccine has zero effectiveness.9
This bias arises because the early post-vaccination period, when individuals are not yet fully protected, is treated differently between groups. Understanding this flaw is crucial for interpreting vaccine effectiveness accurately and recognizing that observational studies may overstate the true benefits of vaccination due to methodological inconsistencies.
The study also highlighted the impact of age bias on COVID-19 effectiveness estimates. In observational studies, vaccinated individuals are often older and may be less healthy than their unvaccinated counterparts because vaccines were prioritized for those at higher risk. This imbalance skews results, making vaccines appear more effective than they truly are.
The study also sheds light on background infection rate bias, which significantly misrepresents the true impact of vaccines. During periods when overall COVID-19 infection rates are declining, vaccinated individuals may appear to have lower infection rates simply because they received the injection during a peak period.
Conversely, if infection rates rise, unvaccinated individuals might show higher rates not necessarily due to lack of protection but because they were exposed during a surge. This temporal mismatch creates a misleading picture of COVID-19 shot effectiveness. For instance, a decline in cases might be attributed to vaccination when, in fact, it could be due to other factors like natural immunity.
COVID Shot Safety Overstated in Observational Studies
A separate study published in the Journal of Evaluation in Clinical Practice further revealed how adverse effect counting windows significantly distorted the perceived safety of COVID-19 shots in observational studies.10 This study highlights that methodological flaws, such as limited counting windows, lead to an underestimation of shot-related adverse events.
For instance, by excluding adverse effects occurring within the first two weeks post-shot, observational studies overlook critical data points, including severe reactions like anaphylaxis. This exclusion creates a skewed safety profile, making the shots appear safer than they actually are.
Moreover, the study points out that even when considering longer follow-up periods, the reliance on unsolicited adverse event reporting misses subtle yet significant health impacts. As a result, the true risk associated with vaccines, especially serious conditions like myocarditis, remains obscured. Myocarditis, an inflammation of the heart muscle, was linked to mRNA vaccines, especially in young males.
Within just three weeks post-vaccination, there was a noticeable uptick in myocarditis cases among this demographic. However, due to the limited adverse effect counting windows in both observational studies and clinical trials, many of these cases went unreported or were misclassified. Furthermore, rapid unblinding of trials compromises the ability to monitor long-term safety outcomes, leaving many important questions unanswered.
Excess Serious Adverse Events in Pfizer and Moderna Shot Trials
Research published in the journal Vaccine also uncovered alarming discrepancies in the safety profiles of Pfizer and Moderna mRNA COVID-19 shots.11 The analysis revealed that both shots were associated with an excess risk of serious adverse events of special interest (AESIs) compared to their placebo groups.
Specifically, Pfizer’s shot showed a 36% higher risk of serious adverse events, translating to 18 additional events per 10,000 vaccinated individuals. Moderna’s vaccine exhibited a 6% higher risk, equating to seven additional events per 10,000. When combined, the mRNA vaccines presented a 16% higher risk of serious AESIs, with a risk difference of 13.2 per 10,000 vaccinated participants.
These findings are particularly concerning because they show the shots carry more serious risks than initially reported. There was also a stark contrast between its findings and the FDA’s official safety reviews. While the study identified a significant excess risk of serious adverse events in the Pfizer trial, the FDA concluded that serious adverse events were “balanced between treatment groups.”12
This discrepancy arises primarily from differences in data analysis methodologies. The FDA focused on the incidence of participants experiencing any serious adverse event, effectively masking the higher number of multiple adverse events in the shot group. In contrast, the study accounted for the total number of adverse events, revealing a more nuanced and concerning risk profile.
In short, the official narratives provided by regulatory bodies did not fully capture the true extent of shot-related risks.13
Other research published in Social Science & Medicine unveiled the profound impact of government-sponsored disinformation on the severity of respiratory infection epidemics, including COVID-19.14 The research analyzed data from 149 countries between 2001 and 2020, revealing a significant positive association between disinformation campaigns and the incidence of respiratory infections.
Specifically, countries with higher levels of government-driven misinformation experienced more severe outbreaks of COVID-19. This correlation underscores how deliberate dissemination of false information seriously undermines public health efforts, leading to increased transmission rates and higher case numbers.
The study also highlights the detrimental effects of internet censorship on the reporting and management of respiratory infections. Governments that actively censor information limit the public’s access to accurate health data,15 worsening outcomes as occurred during the pandemic. As Dr. Robert Malone put it, “Both the background summary and the study findings are prophetic, and almost completely aligned with the Energy and Commerce committee report.”16
The Path Forward — Ensuring Transparency and Trust in Public Health
It’s evident that the COVID-19 public health campaign was fraught with hidden dangers and systemic challenges. In the aftermath of these revelations, the need to advocate for transparency, accountability and evidence-based policies is clear. Only by addressing these foundational issues will we ensure more effective responses in future health emergencies.
The lessons learned from these failures should drive a fundamental rethinking of how public health campaigns are managed and communicated, prioritizing scientific data over propaganda to better serve and protect the public.
*
Click the share button below 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.
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
The entering into force of Russia’s updated nuke doctrine, the purpose of which was analyzed here in late September, made headlines across the world because it coincided with a major escalation of the NATO-Russianproxy war in Ukraine. The US allowed Ukraine to use its ATACMS inside of Russia’s pre-2014 territory despite Moscow warning how dangerous that would be. This moment of truth was analyzed here for those who’d like to learn more about how it’ll influence the contours of this conflict.
The circumstances in which Russia might resort to using nukes can be better understood after Sputnik published an unofficial translation of this doctrine here (see annex). The document stipulates that their purpose is to deter a wide range of threats and that they’ll only be used as a last resort. Such threats include everything from nearby large-scale military drills by Russia’s foes to the blocking of critical transport links in a likely nod to Kaliningrad among well-known ones like overwhelming conventional attacks, et al.
Moreover, Russia will regard such threats by countries with the backing of others as joint acts of aggression, thus placing these proxies’ patrons in its crosshairs if they cross its most sensitive red lines. The main point that’s being conveyed through these updated terms is that Russia will not allow Ukraine to be used as NATO’s proxy for inflicting the bloc’s hoped-for strategic defeat upon it. The timing of its publication suggests that the spree of provocations since February 2022 reshaped Russia’s thinking.
Targets such as the Kremlin, early warning systems, strategic airfields, nuclear power plants, and critical transport links like the Crimean Bridge were previously thought to be off limits in any proxy conflict. Instead, every single one of those was bombed by Ukraine with NATO’s backing, yet Russia time and again declined to dramatically respond out of concern that tensions could then spiral into World War III. Each example, however, could theoretically qualify for a nuclear retaliatory strike under the new terms.
To be sure, Putin is unlikely to abandon his prior caution by suddenly nuking Ukraine in response to another NATO-backed drone strike against one of Russia’s nuclear power plants for example when he won’t even authorize the destruction of a single major bridge over the Dnieper, but he might have even greater provocations in mind. It could be that he concluded that his prior restraint was interpreted as weakness instead of appreciated and that something much more dangerous is now being planned.
If that’s the case, then it would make sense why he’d want to convey the wide range of threats that his country’s nuclear doctrine is supposed to deter, thus legitimizing Russia’s reciprocal escalation in the lead-up to them materializing and counteracting perceptions that it might just be (another) “bluff”. In pursuit of this potential goal, it would make sense to publish the document instead of keeping it classified so that the public can be aware of the stakes involved, ergo Sputnik’s unofficial translation.
With this in mind, Russia’s updated nuke doctrine is meant to influence Western policymakers and the public alike, the first in terms of hopefully deterring them from whatever greater provocations they could be planning while the second might pressure them from below to complement this effort. The takeaway is that Russia is very concerned about future escalations and wants the world to know that it will indeed resort to nukes as a last resort in self-defense if its most sensitive red lines are crossed.
*
Click the share button below 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.
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: Russia ringing nuclear weapon use alarm bells but many in the West don’t buy the threat. Image: Screengrab / NTV via Asia Times
Annex: Sputnik’s unofficial translation of Russia’s updated nuclear doctrine
Apparently, the reported authorization of long-range strikes by Ukraine is having a major negative impact on the US domestic level. Opposition leaders to the Biden administration and even non-political personalities are protesting strongly against the president’s decision, which indicates that Biden will face even more unpopularity in his final weeks in office.
On November 17, Western media reported that President Joe Biden had finally authorized “deep” strikes against the undisputed territory of the Russian Federation. Although there is not enough evidence to confirm that Biden actually authorized such operations, the lack of a refutation of the reports indicates that he agrees with the claims – or at least that he has given in to public pressure from the pro-war lobby.
The reaction to the case has come both at the official and popular levels. Moscow has reiterated that such acts would completely change the nature of the conflict and could trigger a direct nuclear response, given the recent update of the terms of Russia’s nuclear doctrine. The Russians have stated that these strikes will not be seen as mere maneuvers by Ukraine, but as actual NATO intervention in the conflict, considering that Western instructors are the ones truly responsible for conducting long-range weapons on the Ukrainian battlefield.
At the popular level, there has been a similarly negative reaction to Biden’s decision. American citizens are fiercely criticizing the president’s actions, calling him an irresponsible and “suicidal” politician, willing to threaten the entire global security architecture – including the US’ own national security – in his final days in office. On social media, American netizens frequently express their opinions about Biden and call for protests against the president’s war policies.
For example, Scott Ritter, an American military veteran and former UN missile inspector known for his dissident stance in the US, called on Trump supporters – referred to as “MAGA” – to take to the streets of Washington D.C. in mass protests. According to him, if Biden does not reverse the measure, “there will be no America for Trump” – thus warning of the risk of nuclear escalation. It is important to emphasize that Ritter is an independent activist, without any ties to the Republican Party, so his public call is a genuine gesture of patriotic concern, not simple political propaganda.
“MAGA Americans should shut down Washington DC until Biden reverses his decision on ATACMS. Surround the White House. Surround Congress. Shut it all down. Because if we don’t, there may be no America for Trump to make great again come January 20,” he published.
There has also been serious official criticism of Biden in the US. Republican Representative Marjorie Taylor Greenesaid that the president is “dangerously trying to start WWIII” before ending his term. She stated that it is necessary to stop financing foreign wars, emphasizing the problems that this policy brings to American stability. Furthermore, Greene made it clear that the American people decided to vote for Trump precisely to end the conflict, and that Biden’s move is therefore a violation of the will of the people.
“On his way out of office, Joe Biden is dangerously trying to start WWIII by authorizing Ukraine the use of U.S. long range missiles into Russia. The American people gave a mandate on Nov 5th against these… decisions and do not want to fund or fight foreign wars. We want to fix our own problems. Enough of this, it must stop,” she said.
In a similar vein, American oligarch Elon Musk, head of communications company “X”, published his opinion about the topic on social media, agreeing with a previous post made by a Republican senator against Biden. Utah Senator Mike Lee stated that “Libs (as the Republican call the Democrats) love war [because] war facilitates bigger government”. Musk shared the post stating “true”, thus making clear his condemnation of the authorization of long-range strikes.
Also, Trump’s son, Donald Jr., claimed that Biden is advocating for the interests of the military industrial complex by authorizing such strikes. According to him, the current president actually wants to start World War III before Trump is inaugurated, which would certainly prevent the new leader from succeeding in his pro-peace agenda.
“The Military Industrial Complex seems to want to make sure they get World War 3 going before my father has a chance to create peace and save lives (…) Gotta lock in those $Trillions. Life be damned!,” he said.
This situation just shows how authorizing deep strikes was a political suicide for Biden. The domestic US scenario will be extremely unstable in the near future, with expected mass protests and a major crisis of legitimacy. Instead of simply “starting a world war,” Biden may have also taken significant steps towards an internal political clash in his own country.
*
Click the share button below 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.
This article was originally published on InfoBrics.
Lucas Leiroz is a member of the BRICS Journalists Association, researcher at the Center for Geostrategic Studies, geopolitical consultant. You can follow Lucas on Twitter and Telegram. He is a regular contributor to Global Research.
In the past 24 hours, a shockwave of panic was unleashed after reports emerged about the United States allegedly allowing the usage of its long-range missiles against Russia. The New York Times, an infamous neoliberal mouthpiece, broke the story first, which was then quoted by hundreds of other major media outlets worldwide.
Leading expert in bioweapons & international Law, Dr. Francis Boyle, has authored a Bill of Impeachment Against Biden & calls on Americans to wield it in order to help stop WW3.
January 31, 2011, President Obama dispatches Frank G. Wisner Junior to Egypt to “oversea the protest movement”. It was an intelligence op, a preamble to the regime change and the wars against Syria and Libya.
Amazon founder Jeff Bezos is investing $9.4 million to develop a vaccine designed to reduce the number of methane-producing microbes in a cow’s stomach, Agriland reported. The funding comes from his Bezos Earth Fund, a philanthropy he established with $10 billion in 2020. The fund intends to distribute all of its money by 2030, by funding projects to “fight climate change and protect nature.”
Ukraine has already begun using US-supplied long-range missiles in Russia, despite Putin’s warning that this exact sort of escalation will place NATO at war with Russia. This happens as Russia officially changes its nuclear doctrine to lower the threshold for when it’s permissible to use nuclear weapons in retaliation for attacks on its territory.
As a physician and researcher who has fought tirelessly for truth, I am compelled to share the staggering revelations that recently emerged from the Robert Koch Institute (RKI) archives. These documents shed light on the covert political and scientific maneuvers behind the global COVID-19 response. The evidence is damning and confirms what many have suspected: much of the “pandemic” narrative was built on lies.
A UN Special Committee has characterized Israel’s war in Gaza as genocide, while Western “free” media has abandoned its ethical responsibility to cover and or report objectively on the conduct of Israel’s wars in Gaza and Lebanon. Western corporate media outlets, without exception, acquiesced to Israeli directives barring reporters from entering Gaza.
Here are more incredible letters of support from around the world.
Why is Alberta Premier Danielle Smith doing this?
God bless you all for your support.
.
.
*
Click the share button below 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.
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.
One of the very few good things coming out of the relentless nightmare happening in Gaza is that at long last the western world is getting a clear look at Israel. The real Israel.
Not the Israel they teach you about in school. Not “the only democracy in the middle east,” where Jews were given safe haven after their victimization at the hands of the Nazis and managed to create a thriving society despite existing in a sea of savage enemies bent on their destruction.
Not that Israel. The real one. Arguably the most racist society on earth, whose existence has depended on nonstop violence, theft, tyranny and abuse since its very inception.
The real Israel, whose government is deliberately and methodically starving Palestinian civilians to death by the tens of thousands just for being the wrong ethnicity.
The real Israel, whose military is so sadistic that it created an AI system to specifically target suspected Hamas fighters when they are at home with their families, and called the AI “Where’s Daddy?” because it would be killing fathers when they are at home with their children.
The real Israel, whose soldiers cannot stop posting footage of themselves mockingly dressed in the undergarments of dead and displaced Palestinian women and playing with the toys of dead and displaced Palestinian children.
The real Israel, where the majority of men do not believe acquaintance rape or spousal rape are real crimes, and where the majority do not believe the soldiers accused of raping and torturing a Palestinian prisoner to the point of severe injury should face criminal charges.
The real Israel, who routinely bombs buildings full of civilians and then uses sniper drones to pick off the survivors, including children.
The real Israel, whose drones have been heard playing the sounds of crying babies and screaming women in order to lure out civilians so they can be killed.
The real Israel, whose military forces target medical staff so methodically that doctors and nurses in Gaza reportedly change out of their uniforms when they leave the hospital in order to avoid assassination.
The real Israel, who has been knowingly attacking the locations of humanitarian aid workers.
The real Israel, whose citizens are so warped and twisted that they attend boat tours to cheerfully witness the devastation in the Gaza Strip.
The real Israel, whose citizens set up blockades to prevent aid trucks from getting to starving civilians in Gaza while they enjoy barbecues and set up bouncy castles and cotton candy machines for their children.
The real Israel, whose TikTok influencers started a viral trend mocking the suffering of civilians in Gaza.
The real Israel, whose citizens will travel to another country and tear down Palestinian flags and sing about how there are no children left in Gaza and then cry victim when people fight back.
This is the real Israel, in all its glory. And it is good that it is being seen.
The sooner everyone stops supporting this freakish, murderous society and begins insisting that normal human values win out over the demented forces which keep it going, the sooner there can be peace in the region. And the better off our entire species will be.
*
Click the share button below 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.
Amazon founder Jeff Bezos is investing $9.4 million to develop a vaccine designed to reduce the number of methane-producing microbes in a cow’s stomach, Agriland reported.
The funding comes from his Bezos Earth Fund, a philanthropy he established with $10 billion in 2020. The fund intends to distribute all of its money by 2030, by funding projects to “fight climate change and protect nature.”
Researchers at the United Kingdom’s Pirbright Institute and Royal Veterinary College, and New Zealand’s AgResearch are among the groups receiving funding to research how a vaccine could reduce the methane emitted by cows as they digest and expel food through manure, flatulence and burping.
“Vaccines have proven to be an incredibly cost-effective way to deliver global health solutions,” said Bezos Earth Fund President and CEOAndrew Steer in a press release. “If we can apply this approach to vaccinate cattle and reduce emissions, the scalability and impact could be phenomenal.”
Although scientists have sporadically researchedmethane vaccines for over four decades, no vaccine yet exists. The project’s first goal is to show that such a vaccine is possible.
“This grant is a moonshot for proof-of-concept — risky bets like this are essential to tackling the climate crisis,” Steer said, according to Agriland.
The researchers will study how methanogens, or methane-producing microbes, colonize the digestive tract of calves and how their immune system responds to those methanogens.
Researchers will then determine which antibodies would effectively target the methanogens, as the first step in developing the criteria for their methane vaccine.
Professor John Hammond, Immunogenetics Group leader at the Pirbright Institute, said that before they could develop a methane vaccine, they had to first define “what a successful vaccine needs to achieve. By understanding the precise antibody responses required, we can provide a clear path forward for vaccine development.”
“This approach reduces the trial-and-error aspect and focuses on targeted, high-resolution immunology,” Hammond added. Researchers can use that knowledge to trigger an immune response in cattle that will inhibit methane production, he said.
Crop scientist and regenerative farmer Howard Vlieger told The Defender such a vaccine could be damaging to cows because it is being designed to target the organisms living in cows’ digestive system — organisms the animals need to digest fiber.
Vlieger cited research on glyphosate showing that when necessary microorganisms in a cow’s rumen are eliminated, even in small amounts, it seriously affects the animal’s health.
However, Hammond said dramatic interventions are necessary to cut global methane emissions.
“Vaccination is a widely accepted farming practice that is auditable and can be used in combination with other strategies, such as chemical inhibition, selection for low-methane genetics or early-life interventions to permanently alter microbiome composition in livestock,” he said, according to Agriland.
But Vliegar said that regenerative farmers take a different approach, which is to be attentive to cattle nutrition and to keep their cattle in balance with the environment.
Bill Gates Also Funding Methane Vaccine
Shortly after the Bezos Earth Fund announced in August that it was funding the methane vaccine, ag-biotech startup ArkeaBio announced it also had raised $38.5 million to develop a methane vaccine.
Investors include the Bill Gates-backed Breakthrough Energy Ventures, Rabo Ventures, the Grantham Foundation and others. The Series A funding ArkeaBio announced was from its second round of funding.
Breakthrough Energy had fully funded its previous seed funding round with $12 million, Axios reported.
Gates founded Breakthrough Energy in 2015 to fund start-ups focused on innovating to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Bezos and other well-known billionaires, including Richard Branson and Jack Ma, are also investors.
That means Bezos is funding the methane vaccine through his for-profit investment group and his philanthropic organization.
So is Gates. The Pirbright Institute, which receives Bezos grant funding for the methane vaccine, will use technologies developed in its Pirbright Livestock Antibody Hub, funded by the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation.
Both the Bezos Earth Fund and the ArkeaBio initiatives were launched following a meeting in Dubai in 2023, during which the Gates Foundation brought together approximately 40 interested parties to discuss expanding a global effort to develop a methane-reducing vaccine, Beef Central reported.
The meeting included the few researchers working on methane vaccines and potential investors, vaccine producers and regulators who will need to sign off on a vaccine once it is developed. Researchers predict that will happen within five years.
Paul Wood of the Global Methane Hub organized the meeting. Promotional materials and media reports about the vaccine cite the hub’s claim that reducing methane emissions by 45% by 2030 could cool the earth by 0.3 degrees Celsius as justification for why the vaccine is needed.
The Global Methane Hub is also funded by the Gates Foundation and the Bezos Earth Fund. Google, which produces tens of millions of metric tons of carbon per year, also is a funder.
Gates said it is imperative to address the issue of cows when it comes to global emissions.
As Microsoft founder Gates, Amazon and Google pour money into changing the biology of cows to reduce methane, their own carbon footprints are soaring due to the increased energy needed to power their artificial intelligence.
Wood said the Global Methane Hub is also pushing for countries to sign the Global Methane Pledge, which aims to reduce methane from fossil fuels and livestock by 30% between 2020 and 2030.
He said the methane pledge stimulated investments of up to $200 million into the Global Methane Hub research program.
‘A Little Dystopian’
“The whole thing feels a little dystopian,” according to Axios, “but agribusiness sailed over the dystopian hurdle long ago.”
ArkeaBio CEO Colin South said other strategies — including breeding, feed additives and gene editing microbiomes in the rumen — all could address the methane issue. But a vaccine would be a “holy grail in methane mitigation,” because it could scale easily.
Although their focus is cattle, he said, he thought the vaccine could also be used for other species.
The company says it doesn’t yet have a viable product but aims to have something soon that will reduce methane by 15-20% for three to six months and be administered to cattle twice a year.
South said the idea for the vaccine has been around for a long time, “but there has never been the confluence of money, markets, and technology to make it happen until pretty recently.”
Will Harris: ‘Cattle are like carbon converting machines’
Regenerative cattle farmer Will Harris said the whole project is unnecessary because cattle are actually good for greenhouse gas emissions.
When properly grazed on well-managed rangeland, rather than in confinement, “cattle are like carbon converting machines,” a reality that Harris has demonstrated on his Georgia farm.
Excess greenhouse gases are a problem, he said, but technological fixes like this one are not the right solution. He said such interventions generate unanticipated problems that require more technological fixes — a never-ending cycle he said began with the post-WWII shift to industrial agriculture.
“Since then it has become a real game,” Harris said. “And big tech companies solve problems that create another problem requiring another solution. It’s never-ending and a lot of money is being made on it, and it’s not being made by the farmer and it’s not being made by the consumer.”
Harris said he believes people have broken the carbon cycle, but they’ve also broken the water cycle, the mineral cycle and the microbial cycle.
“There is more discussion of the carbon cycle,” he said, “because it is easily monetized — there is a lot of money to be made in technological climate fixes. There are also a lot of people out to vilify cattle,” he said, “and it is unjust.”
*
Click the share button below 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.
Brenda Baletti, Ph.D., is a senior reporter for The Defender. She wrote and taught about capitalism and politics for 10 years in the writing program at Duke University. She holds a Ph.D. in human geography from the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill and a master’s from the University of Texas at Austin.
Leading expert in bioweapons & international Law, Dr. Francis Boyle, has authored a Bill of Impeachment Against Biden & calls on Americans to wield it in order to help stop WW3.
Impeaching Joseph Robinette Biden Jr., President of the United States
For high crimes and misdemeanors
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
May__,20__ Mr./Ms. _ submitted the following resolution, which was referred to the Committee on Judiciary.
A RESOLUTION
Impeaching Joseph Robinette Biden Jr, President of the United States, for high crimes and misdemeanors.
Resolved. That Joseph Robinette Biden Jr., President of the United States, be impeached for high crimes and misdemeanors, and that the following articles of impeachment be exhibited to the Senate:
Articles of Impeachment exhibited by the House of Representatives of the United States of America, against Joseph Robinette Biden Jr., President of the United States of America, in maintenance and support of its impeachment against him for high crimes and misdemeanors.
ARTICLE I
In the conduct of the office of President of the United States, Joseph Robinette Biden Jr. in violation of his constitutional oath faithfully to execute the office of the President of the United States, and to the best of his ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States, and in violation of his constitutional duty, to take care that the laws be faithfully executed, has engaged in a campaign of non-neutral acts and belligerent acts and acts of war against the Russian Federation without the express authorization of the United States Congress in violation of the War Powers Clause of the United States Constitution set forth in Article 1, Section 8 thereof and in violation of Congress’s own War Powers Resolution of 1973 set forth in 50 U.S.C. Sections 1541 to 1548. In all of this Joseph Robinette Biden Jr. has acted in a manner contrary to his trust as President and subversive of constitutional government, to the great prejudice of the cause of law and justice and to the manifest injury of the people of the United States.
Wherefore Joseph Robinette Biden Jr., by such conduct, warrants impeachment and trial, and removal from office.
ARTICLE II
In the conduct of the office of President of the United States, Joseph Robinette Biden Jr. in violation of his constitutional oath faithfully to execute the office of the President of the United States, and to the best of his ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States, and in violation of his constitutional duty, to take care that the laws be faithfully executed, has engaged in a campaign of non-neutral acts and belligerent acts and acts of war against the Russian Federation in violation of the United States Neutrality Legislation set forth in 18 U.S.C. Section 960, which is a crime. To wit:
§960. Expedition against friendly nation. Whoever, within the United States, knowingly begins or sets on foot or provides or prepares a means for or furnishes the money for, or takes part in, any military or naval expedition or enterprise to be carried on from thence against the territory or dominion of any foreign prince or state, or of any colony, district, or people with whom the United States is at peace, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both. (June 25, 1948, ch. 645, 62 Stat. 745; Pub. L. 103–322, title XXXIII, §330016(1)(J), Sept. 13, 1994, 108 Stat. 2147 (emphasis added).
The United States Congress has not declared war against the Russian Federation and therefore constitutionally and legally the United States of America still “is at peace” with the Russian Federation. In all of this Joseph Robinette Biden Jr. has acted in a manner contrary to his trust as President and subversive of constitutional government, to the great prejudice of the cause of law and justice and to the manifest injury of the people of the United States.
Wherefore Joseph Robinette Biden Jr., by such conduct, warrants impeachment and trial, and removal from office.
ARTICLE III
In the conduct of the office of President of the United States, Joseph Robinette Biden Jr. in violation of his constitutional oath faithfully to execute the office of the President of the United States, and to the best of his ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States, and in violation of his constitutional duty, to take care that the laws be faithfully executed, has engaged in a campaign of non-neutral acts and belligerent acts and acts of war against the Russian Federation in violation of the 1907 Hague Convention Respecting the Rights and Duties of Neutral Powers and Persons in Case of War on Land, 36 Stat. 2310, and in violation of the 1907 Hague Convention Concerning the Rights and Duties of Neutral Powers in Naval War, 36 Stat. 2415. Both of these Hague Neutrality Conventions are treaties to which the United States of America is a contracting party and thus “the supreme Law of the Land” under Article VI of the United States Constitution. Both the Russian Federation and Ukraine are also contracting parties to these two Hague Neutrality Conventions. In all of this Joseph Robinette Biden Jr. has acted in a manner contrary to his trust as President and subversive of constitutional government, to the great prejudice of the cause of law and justice and to the manifest injury of the people of the United States.
Wherefore Joseph Robinette Biden Jr., by such conduct, warrants impeachment and trial, and removal from office.
*
Click the share button below 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.
Click the share button below 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.
Incoming Senate Majority Leader John Thune (R-S.D.) on Nov. 17 urged the Senate to impose sanctions against the International Criminal Court (ICC) if it continued to pursue arrest warrants for Israeli officials over the Israel–Hamas war in Gaza.
In June, the House of Representatives passed a bill aimed at imposing sanctions on those involved in the ICC’s efforts “to investigate, arrest, detain, or prosecute a protected person.” Under this bill, those subject to sanctions would be ineligible to enter or remain in the United States.
Thune said the Senate Republican majority will make the bill, along with other supportive legislation, “a top priority in the next Congress” should there be no action taken by outgoing Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.).
“If the ICC and its prosecutor do not reverse their outrageous and unlawful actions to pursue arrest warrants against Israeli officials, the Senate should immediately pass sanctions legislation, as the House has already done on a bipartisan basis,” Thune stated on social media platform X.
In May, the ICC’s chief prosecutor Karim Khan requested arrest warrants for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and then-Defense Minister Yoav Gallantover alleged war crimes in Gaza sparked by Hamas’s Oct. 7, 2023, attack on southern Israel.
Khan also requested arrest warrants for three Hamas leaders over the killings and kidnappings that Hamas terrorists committed when they entered southern Israel during the attack.
A bipartisan group of senators released a statement on May 21, saying:
“These actions by the ICC jeopardize efforts to bring about sustainable peace in the Middle East. It puts at risk sensitive negotiations to bring home hostages, including Americans, and surge humanitarian assistance.”
Not all lawmakers opposed the ICC move.
“The allegations from the prosecutor’s office are significant, and it has long been my belief that the absence of credible processes for justice are a key reason the conflict between Israel and Palestinians continues to escalate,” Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-Minn.) said in May.
Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) said in May that the ICC prosecutor was right to take these actions.
“These arrest warrants may or may not be carried out, but it is imperative that the global community uphold international law,” he said at the time.
The Biden administration expressed concerns about Khan’s arrest warrant applications for Israeli officials but said that it “strongly opposes” imposing sanctions against the ICC as a response.
In a June statement, the White House warned that the legislation “could require sanctions against court staff, judges, witnesses, and U.S. allies and partners who provide even limited, targeted support to the court in a range of aspects of its work.”
“There are more effective ways to defend Israel, preserve U.S. positions on the ICC, and promote international justice and accountability, and the Administration stands ready to work with the Congress on those options,” the White House stated.
Some Republican senators said they agreed with Thune’s position of imposing sanctions against the ICC over its arrest warrants for Israeli officials.
“Well done Senator Thune,” Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) wrote on X. “The ICC’s actions against Israel have been outrageous, and an independent review into the prosecutor’s actions is more than called for.”
Sen. Jim Risch (R-Idaho), ranking member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, said the Senate should immediately pass the sanction legislation against the ICC.
“We waited for months for the majority to schedule the vote only to have them postpone it before the election. We will not fail to act when Republicans are in the majority,” Risch stated on X.
Schumer did not immediately respond to a request for comment on Thune’s statement.
State Department spokesman Matthew Millersaid on May 20 that the ICC lacks jurisdiction to bring charges relating to the ongoing war between the Israeli military and the Hamas terror group in Gaza.
Khan said on Aug. 23 that the ICC had jurisdiction over the matter and asked the court to urgently decide on his request for arrest warrants.
“Any unjustified delay in these proceedings detrimentally affects the rights of victims,” the ICC prosecutor stated in an Aug. 23 court filing.
*
Click the share button below 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.
Aldgra Fredly is a freelance writer covering U.S. and Asia Pacific news for The Epoch Times.
Featured image: Elect Majority Leader Sen. John Thune (R-S.D.) after the Senate Republican leadership election in Washington on Nov. 13, 2024. Madalina Vasiliu/The Epoch Times
On Friday November 15, 2024, Washington, D.C. correspondent for Prensa Latina, Deisy Francis Mexidor, who writes for the Cuban news agency which is celebrating its 65th anniversary, was the special guest for a gathering at the Swords into Plowshares Art Gallery located in downtown Detroit.
This reception was held in connection with the National Network on Cuba (NNOC) annual meeting.
The reception and the annual meeting attracted activists from the city and around the country.
Prof. Emeritus Charles Simmons of Detroit, a longtime Cuban solidarity activist and journalism teacher at several higher educational institutions including Howard and Eastern Michigan University, spoke at the reception on his first visit to Cuba during 1964. Six decades later the same blockade remains in force which complicates normal relations between Cubans and the people living in the United States.
.
Cuba solidarity reception for Prensa Latina correspondent
.
Simmons recounted a meeting involving his youth delegation of 1964 and Commander Ernesto Che Guevara. Guevera fought alongside President Fidel Castro and the July 26th Movement which came to power in the aftermath of the seizure of power on January 1, 1959. Simmons and his comrades stayed in Cuba for two months.
In later years, Simmons went on to work as a senior correspondent for the Muhammad Speaks newspaper of the Nation of Islam during the late 1960s and early 1970s. The newspaper was founded by Malcolm X when he was a member of the NOI. During this period the paper had one of the largest circulations of African American newspapers in the U.S. and internationally.
Francis emphasized as it relates to her work with Prensa Latina that:
“Personally, I feel honored to belong to the Prensa Latina family. Each photo of mine tells its own story of events and movements. For example here in the United States at the demonstrations against the war in Gaza in favor of the Palestinian people; in South Africa during the visit of the Cuban Five, in Namibia with members of a local tribe or in the depths of the Sierra Tarahumara in Chihuahua, Mexico, where the Rarámuri indigenous people were like those forgotten by God. However, a woman carrying her child on her back smiled so much at me that I could not imagine that at that moment she had gone more than three days without food and her people were dying of hunger. Prensa Latina has survived more than six decades in the midst of strong challenges.”
History of Prensa Latina
The news agency Prensa Latina was established to provide alternative information on Cuban and world affairs. At present, PL has two bureaus in the United States with one in Washington, D.C. and the other in New York City.
Deisy Francis Mexidor in her address at the reception stated that the agency has bureaus around the world including Lebanon where they evacuated recently in light of the escalating bombing by the Israeli Air Forces (IAF). Cuba and other revolutionary countries in Latin America such as the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela have consistently expressed their solidarity with the people of Gaza in Palestine and Lebanon.
Cuba like Palestine has for decades been a target of imperialism. Every year there are overwhelmingly majority votes within the United Nations General Assembly calling for the lifting of the blockade against the Caribbean Island-nation. Over the last year since the beginning of the Al-Aqsa Flood, votes within the UNGA have endorsed the formation of a Palestinian state and for the ending of the occupation.
Just two days after the photo exhibit reception and NNOC annual meeting, it was announced that a co-founder of Prensa Latina, Gabriel Molina Franchossi, 91, had passed away. His professional life represents the Cuban revolution and its internationalist origins.
“A fighter against Batista’s dictatorship with the Revolutionary Directory, Molina graduated in law and journalism, a passion that guided his life and earned him respect as a professional. In addition to founding Prensa Latina, he established the newspapers Combate, Granma, and Granma Internacional, directing the latter for 27 years, and also served as vice-president of the Cuban Institute of Radio and Television.”
From the very genesis of the revolution Fidel Castro and Che Guevara encouraged the creation of a news agency which would have global coverage. This decision has been an indispensable element in the longevity of the socialist state and the political vitality of the ruling Communist Party.
Corporate press services, radio, print and television networks routinely spread misinformation against the Cuban government and people. Today, more than ever, in light of the advances in telecommunications technologies, Cuba can broadly transmit its own perspectives on domestic and world events.
In a report published in 2023 on the history of PL it notes:
“The origins of Prensa Latina went back just three weeks after the triumph of the Cuban Revolution in January 1959, when, as part of Operación Verdad (Truth Operation ), a massive press briefing was held in Havana, to which more than 400 national and foreign journalists attended. The newly-born Government presented the radical changes that the country was undergoing…. With this premise, revolutionary fighter Ernesto Che Guevara and journalists Jorge Ricardo Masetti and Carlos María Gutiérrez conceived the idea and organized an agency that would transmit news as an alternative vision to the international news agencies. With an initial group of 20 journalists, translators, and technicians, and Masetti as its director, Prensa Latina made history on June 16, 1959, transmitting its first news cable in New York and opening the way to break the media information.”
Cuban media outlets have set a standard for reporting on world affairs from the viewpoint of the working class and oppressed peoples. Other agencies such as Telesur of Venezuela have been heavily influenced by their Cuban counterparts.
Francis in her remarks noted the advancements made by Prensa Latina over the last 65 years saying:
“There have been many transformations in the international media landscape, but our main objective has remained unchanged–to report with an alternative message connected to the truth and different from that of the major Western media. Prensa Latina remains committed to tell the stories of the peoples and countries whose voices are not usually heard.”
Cuba, Africa and World Revolution
On the following day there was a cultural program held on the city’s southwest side where various artists performed before the NNOC delegates. The weekend of events attracted many youth activists working in solidarity with Cuba and other international issues.
.
Cuba solidarity activist at reception
.
Several of the delegates were also involved in solidarity work with Africa, particularly the political and economic processes unfolding in the Sahel region of West Africa. In Mali, Burkina Faso and Niger, the three states have joined together to form an Alliance of Sahel States (AES) to defend themselves against the destabilization efforts launched by the imperialists in Washington and Paris.
Cuba recently issued a statement in solidarity with the Southern African state of the Republic of Zimbabwe which has been under draconian sanctions by Britain, the European Union and the U.S. Zimbabwe was attacked in 2000 when the parliament passed a comprehensive land reform bill returning half of the commercial farms back over to the African people who had been colonized and displaced during the late 19th century by the British.
Joining in with the Southern African Development Community (SADC) and the African Union (AU), Cuba endorsed the annual Anti-Sanctions Day on October 26. This public action continues a decades-long tradition of solidarity with the African continent.
Between 1975-1989, hundreds of thousands of Cuban internationalists served in the Republic of Angola to consolidate the independence of the country and later to drive out the-then racist apartheid South African Defense Forces (SADF). Cuban solidarity with the liberation movements of Southern Africa including the South-West African People’s Organization (SWAPO) of Namibia and the African National Congress of South Africa (ANC), paved the way for the independence of Namibia and South Africa in 1990 and 1994 respectively.
Cuban medical workers intervened between 2014-2015 in West Africa when the states of Sierra Leone, Guinea and Liberia were being severely impacted by the Ebola Virus Disease (EVD). Later in 2020, Cuba assisted in containing the COVID-19 pandemic in several AU member-states including South Africa and Angola.
This practical solidarity work will inevitably continue as Africa and other geopolitical regions wage struggles against systematic oppression and underdevelopment. Cuba’s socialist internationalist policies are a role model for other states in the Global South.
*
Click the share button below 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.
Ukraine has already begun using US-supplied long-range missiles in Russia, despite Putin’s warning that this exact sort of escalation will place NATO at war with Russia. This happens as Russia officially changes its nuclear doctrine to lower the threshold for when it’s permissible to use nuclear weapons in retaliation for attacks on its territory.
So far the attacks appear to have been mostly repelled without having done any significant damage.
This is frightening, but I have a hard time imagining that Russia makes any extreme moves against the US before Trump takes office. It seems like they’d want to wait and see what Trump does once he gets in before taking any horrifying risks like that. It is much more likely that Russia will instead respond to this escalation by escalating its attacks on Ukraine, like it normally does.
Who knows, though? If these attacks on Russia continue, there’s literally no limit to how bad this could get.
*
It’s so fun how the Biden administration is using its lame duck months to skyrocket hostilities between nuclear superpowers and we don’t even know who’s really making these decisions because the president’s brain is cottage cheese.
*
These escalations happen as Ukrainians begin moving into a majority consensus that it is time to seek peace. A new Gallup poll has found that a majority of Ukrainians throughout the country now support peace talks to end the war with Russia, with 52 percent favoring peace and 38 percent wanting to fight on.
As usual people are more opposed to continuing the war the closer they are to the frontline, with 63 percent of the respondents in eastern Ukraine supporting peace talks and only 27 percent wanting to continue fighting. The further you are from the effects of this horrific proxy war the more likely you are to support it; it’s just as true inside Ukraine’s borders as it is when you include all the western armchair warriors who want to continue fighting to the last Ukrainian.
“Listen to the Ukrainians,” we were told when all this started. Well, here they are. This proxy war has been waged in the name of defending Ukrainian democracy, and yet it continues to dangerously escalate against the will of the majority, at the direction of a president in Kyiv whose elected term ended months ago.
*
Fighting a war with Russia always seems like a swell idea until you actually try it. The fact that the majority of Ukrainians now support ending the war is yet another example of this oft-repeated history lesson.
*
The only way to view Trump as significantly worse than Biden is to take very little interest US foreign policy, and the only way to take so little interest in US foreign policy is to care very little about non-western lives.
*
Every day I’m interacting with liberals who inadvertently reveal that they are only just now beginning to pay close attention to what’s happening in Gaza, now that they’ll be able to blame the genocide on someone else. I was just talking to a Democrat who informed me I’m going to miss Biden after hundreds of Palestinians begin starving to death in Gaza when Trump gets into office. I told him Palestinians are believed to be starving to death by the tens of thousands presently; we just don’t hear about it because indirect deaths like malnutrition aren’t part of the official daily death toll.
It’s so much worse than they realize because they spent more than a year looking the other way while it was happening, so now you’ll often see them warning that Trump is going to do things that Biden has been doing this entire time.
*
People who say you get more conservative as you get older are just projecting their own personal shittiness onto everyone else. I get more radicalized by the year. It’s not even about older people having more wealth to protect; I’m making more money than ever before and I still want to obliterate capitalism.
You get more conservative and right wing as you get older if you fail to grow as you age. It just means you’ve been wasting your time on this planet and allowing yourself to become intellectually lazy and morally stagnant.
*
Click the share button below 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.
Featured image: President Joe Biden holds up a U.S proclamation he signed that designates November 17th as International Conservation Day, Sunday, November 17, 2024, at the Museu da Amazonia in Manaus, Brazil. (Official White House Photo by Adam Schultz)
President Biden has given Ukraine authorization to start using long range weapons to attack Russia.
The timing of all of this is very interesting.
.
.
.
.
*
Click the share button below 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.
O recente telefonema entre Olaf Scholz e Vladimir Putin causou muita controvérsia na política ocidental. O líder alemão tem sido criticado pela sua postura relativamente diplomática, uma vez que a maioria dos políticos ocidentais acredita que Moscou deveria ser tratado como um “pária internacional”. No entanto, os movimentos feitos pelos EUA, França e Reino Unido logo após a ligação de Scholz podem ser a principal explicação para o seu contato com o presidente russo.
Recentemente, o chanceler alemão telefonou ao presidente russo e manteve uma conversa que durou cerca de uma hora sobre temas sensíveis nas relações bilaterais. Comentando os detalhes da conversa, Scholz explicou que esta era uma oportunidade para reafirmar a posição alemã e europeia e para deixar claro a Putin que o apoio a Kiev não irá diminuir. Disse também que considera importante manter o diálogo com a Rússia, apesar da sua posição publicamente pró-ucraniana sobre o conflito, e enfatizou a necessidade de os líderes europeus participarem no processo diplomático. Além disso, Scholz surpreendentemente prometeu ligar novamente para Putin no futuro.
“A conversa foi muito detalhada, mas contribuiu para o reconhecimento de que pouco mudou na visão do presidente russo sobre a guerra – e isso não é uma boa notícia (…) Era importante dizer-lhe que nãose pode contar com apoio [para Kiev] da Alemanha, da Europa e de muitos outros no mundo em declínio (…) Há quem na Alemanha considere a falta de negociações com Putin uma boa ideia, mas eu não sou um deles (…) Em breve voltarei a falar com o presidente da Rússia (…) Na minha opinião, não seria uma boa ideia se houvesse conversações entre os presidentes americano e russo e o líder de um importante país europeu não o fizesse também”, ele disse.
A reação à iniciativa de Scholz foi extremamente negativa. Vladimir Zelensky disse que o líder alemão abriu uma “caixa de Pandora” ao iniciar um diálogo com Putin. Zelensky enfatizou os seus desejos irrealistas de vitória, afirmando que não haverá “Minsk 3.0” e prometendo tacitamente levar a guerra às suas últimas consequências.
“O chanceler Scholz me disse que ia ligar para Putin (…) Agora pode haver outras conversas, outras ligações (…) Sabemos como agir. E queremos avisar: não haverá ‘Minsk 3.0’. Precisamos de paz verdadeira”, disse Zelensky.
Na verdade, a conversa entre Scholz e Putin parecia, à primeira vista, ser mais um passo na direção da tentativa da Europa de assumir um papel de liderança num alegado “processo de paz” que alguns diplomatas da UE têm tentado promover desde a vitória de Donald Trump. No entanto, o recente anúncio de que os EUA levantaram as restrições a ataques “profundos” contra a Rússia pode ser uma chave interessante para compreender o verdadeiro propósito do telefonema.
Em 17 de novembro, vários meios de comunicação ocidentais anunciaram que Joe Biden tinha levantado as restrições ao uso de armas americanas de longo alcance contra alvos no território “profundo” da Rússia. Além disso, logo após o anúncio, surgiram rumores, que ainda não foram oficialmente negados, de que a França e o Reino Unido teriam seguido o exemplo americano e também autorizado tais operações pela Ucrânia.
Como as autoridades russas afirmaram repetidamente, esta é uma escalada irreversível do conflito, uma vez que altera substancialmente a natureza da guerra. As armas de longo alcance não são operadas por militares ucranianos, mas por especialistas da OTAN enviados ilegalmente para o campo de batalha. Até agora, Moscou tem sido tolerante com o uso de tais armas dentro das Novas Regiões, uma vez que o Ocidente as considera territórios ucranianos. No entanto, ataques de longo alcance dentro do território que o Ocidente reconhece como russo significariam incursões da própria OTAN na Federação Russa, o que legitimaria, de acordo com as recentes mudanças na doutrina militar russa, uma resposta nuclear.
Aparentemente, Joe Biden está a usar os seus últimos dias na Casa Branca para destruir toda a arquitetura de segurança global e depois dar a Donald Trump um mundo em guerra global aberta. Os principais aliados militares dos EUA na Europa, o Reino Unido e a França, estão a seguir o mesmo caminho e a co-participar na catástrofe liderada por Biden. No entanto, Scholz parece cauteloso. A Alemanha até agora não forneceu à Ucrânia mísseis de longo alcance, com Scholz dizendo que “a Alemanha tomou uma decisão clara sobre o que faremos e o que não faremos” e que “esta decisão não mudará”.
É claro que decisões importantes não são tomadas às pressas. A autorização das greves certamente estava planejada há muito tempo e Biden escolheu justamente o momento atual, durante a Cúpula do G20 no Brasil, para levantar as restrições sem causar grande impacto político e midiático, esperando que o mundo se distraísse com o evento reunindo os principais líderes globais no Rio de Janeiro.
Nesse sentido, é possível que Scholz soubesse de antemão o que estava para acontecer e tenha decidido conversar previamente com Putin para deixar claro que a Alemanha não enviaria armas de longo alcance e, portanto, não estaria participando da escalada promovida por Biden. Desta forma, Scholz espera poupar Berlim das possíveis consequências devastadoras que uma guerra irrestrita entre a Rússia e a OTAN causaria.
Há dois fatos que defendem esta análise. Scholz culpou recentemente o apoio à Ucrânia pela crise no seu governo. A coligação que apoia o chanceler alemão ruiu e ele parece agora preocupado com o futuro da sua posição. Isto pode estar a levá-lo a agir desesperadamente para evitar consequências ainda mais negativas para o seu governo.
Além disso, no mesmo dia em que as restrições foram levantadas, o ministro da defesa alemão, Boris Pistorius, fez uma declaração pública enfatizando a posição da Alemanha de não enviar mísseis Taurus de longo alcance para a Ucrânia, afirmando que tal medida significaria o envolvimento direto da Alemanha no conflito.
“O Taurus não seria uma virada de jogo. Nossa missão é diferente. Temos agora de garantir que a Ucrânia continue a receber abastecimentos sustentáveis (…) Só seria sustentável entregar [estas armas] se nós próprios determinarmos e definirmos os alvos, e isso, mais uma vez, não é possível se não quisermos fazer parte deste conflito”, disse ele.
É difícil acreditar que todos estes movimentos sejam mera coincidência. Scholz tem agido de forma irresponsável desde o início do conflito, mas parece completamente incapaz de lidar com uma escalada descontrolada. O chanceler teme o que a guerra poderá trazer à Alemanha e a si próprio se o ponto sem retorno for ultrapassado. O seu apelo a Putin foi uma tentativa desesperada de libertar a Alemanha das consequências da guerra. Resta saber se ele terá força política suficiente para resistir à pressão dos seus próprios “parceiros” ocidentais de agora em diante.
If Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu wants a war with Iran, on the US taxpayers and voters expense, he had better attack quickly. On January 20, President Donald Trump takes office, and he was elected on an anti-war platform.
We don’t know what Trump will do after assuming office, and we don’t know if Netanyahu will remain in office. His extremist ministers, Bezalel Smotrich and Itamar Ben Gvir, have shackled Netanyahu to a policy of genocide in Gaza, and they are advocating annexing the Occupied West Bank.
Gaza, the West Bank and Lebanon are all scenes of brutal Israeli military aggression, and the US taxpayers are paying for every bullet fired and every bomb dropped.
While the outgoing Biden administration has failed to stop Netanyahu, or even to get a ceasefire, the Trump administration may see the situation differently, and put on the breaks, instead of shining the green light.
Steven Sahiounie (SS): Israel has assassinated the political and military leaders of Hezbollah, but Hezbollah’s military operation against Israel is increasing. How do you analyze this?
Tarik Cyril Amar (TCA): It’s clear, now empirically “tested” evidence that Hezbollah’s organization is deep and complex enough and its popularity great enough to resist a “decapitation” strategy. It can maintain effective operations during and after such “decapitation” strikes and it can also generate new leaders at multiple levels. Regarding Israel, its repeated reliance on such methods indicates that it has illusions about its adversaries, systematically underestimating them, in part at least, I strongly suspect, due to a colonialist-racist mental bias: the old prejudice that “the natives” are incapable of complex organization and that therefore one merely has to kill their “chiefs” to defeat them. In that sense, the whole phenomenon illustrates not only Hezbollah’s strength, but also one of the weaknesses generated by Zionist-colonial ideology, that Israel cannot shed and that will stay with it to its downfall.
SS: Israel announced that they have attacked Iran, but Iran announced that the attack was not overwhelming. In your opinion, was the Israeli attack on Iran an Israeli success?
TCA: No, on the contrary. The last Israeli attack showed limits of Israel’s military power and reach and, I believe, also that Israel is actually deterred by Iranian missile capabilities even now, while Iran does not have nuclear weapons yet (at least as far as we know). What we do not know at this stage is what shape a potential further Israeli attack may take, in particular under the circumstances of the incoming Trump administration. Therefore, while we can register that the last attack was a failure, it would be very unwise to draw too many conclusions.
SS: Iran is threatening to attack Israel in response of the Israeli attack on Iran. In your opinion, will this attack happen, and if so will it take the region to a war?
TCA: Like others, I can only offer a guess. In my opinion, Iran will retaliate, but not with one massive missile strike, because that would make it all too easy for Israel to get the US on its side again for either massive support for another Israeli attack on Iran or even, in the worst case, make the US itself go to war with Iran. Israel, of course, wants precisely that: to make America fight yet another devastating war in the “Middle East” on its behalf. It is, I believe, very hard to predict if Israel will get its way in this regard. It is true that the incoming Trump administration is as Zionist, Israel-compliant, and co-genocidal as the outgoing Biden administration (at least), but Trump is also a nationalist and averse to war, not out of the goodness of his heart, but because he sees how wasteful it is. From Tehran’s perspective it is probably a priority now to minimize, as much as possible, US aggression. Much of it is inevitable, but a direct American attack is not a foregone conclusion. Against that backdrop, Tehran may well choose to tread carefully and calibrate its response in a manner that avoids that kind of escalation.
SS: The US presidential election is over. In your point of view, how will President Trump winning the election effect the situation in the Middle East?
TCA: In short: badly. But then, that’s what all US administrations do. The outgoing Democrats needed to be punished for their co-perpetrating a genocide with Israel. Unfortunately, that does not mean that Trump will not do the same. We will see a shift from Genocide Joe to Genocide Donald. Trump has also already signaled that he won’t be any better than Biden regarding anti-genocide protest and resistance in the US either. The new president as well will do his worst to repress them. The fundamental problem remains: the enormous pro-Israel bias of the American establishment.
Again, what we don’t know is how far Trump will go in obeying all of the Israeli agenda by waging direct US wars in the “Middle East.” That is a more complicated question. It is true that his current picks for high positions signal that “hawks” with, in essence, neocon agendas, are put in charge. But, as Stephen Walt has posted on X, the picks also signal that Trump wants weak figures that leave him in charge ultimately. Moreover, US foreign policy hawks have more than one target of aggression. A focus on China may play a role in restricting their most extreme options with regard to Iran and Syria.
What should not be underestimated, in any case, is the influence of players other than the US and Israel. By which I don’t mean the EU-Europeans, who have voluntarily chosen complete subordination to the US. Lebanon, at this point, is yet another victim of horrendous Israeli aggression and, like Gaza and the West Bank, has been effectively abandoned by the so-called “international community.” There, the decisive factor is the local resistance offered by Hezbollah, which Israel has not been able to subdue.
But Iran, Yemen (under de facto Ansarallah control), Iraq, Syria, even states such as Egypt and Saudi Arabia are not entirely controllable or entirely predictable. If the Trumpists believe that a simple return to the “normalization” policies of the first Trump administration is possible, they are likely to be disappointed. This is all the more so since the importance of other power centers such as Russia and China is also growing, if mostly quietly.
In short, I would expect nothing good at all from this new administration; I never have. But the new administration – notwithstanding Trump’s customary braggadocio and America’s equally customary arrogance – won’t call all the shots.
Finally, a key question remains if/when Iran acquires nuclear weapons and, crucially, the capacity to deliver them not only regionally but intercontinentally. Iran with the deterrent capabilities of North Korea would, of course, be a – if not the – “game changer.” Personally, I am optimistic in that regard.
*
Click the share button below 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.
As a physician and researcher who has fought tirelessly for truth, I am compelled to share the staggering revelations that recently emerged from the Robert Koch Institute (RKI) archives. These documents shed light on the covert political and scientific maneuvers behind the global COVID-19 response. The evidence is damning and confirms what many have suspected: much of the “pandemic” narrative was built on lies.
The RKI, Germany’s equivalent of the CDC, is supposed to act as an independent medical advisory board. However, leaked protocols reveal a shocking narrative. These documents were secured through a combination of Freedom of Information Act requests and whistleblower leaks, exposing a calculated and politically motivated response to COVID-19.
Science Ignored
In the early days of the pandemic, RKI scientists provided clear data to the government. They concluded that:
SARS-CoV-2 was “hardly contagious” and did not pose a significant threat to the population.
Measures like lockdowns, masking, and social distancing were scientifically unsupported.
Testing asymptomatic individuals with PCR tests was explicitly discouraged due to its lack of diagnostic reliability.
Despite this, politicians pushed forward with restrictive measures, ignoring the RKI’s advice. They manipulated data to justify lockdowns, masks, and eventually the rollout of “vaccines.”
Lies, Manipulations, and the Cost of Compliance
Masks and Misinformation
The protocols highlighted that masks, including FFP2 masks, were ineffective in preventing viral transmission. This aligns with earlier scientific consensus. Yet, mask mandates were enforced worldwide. Why? The answer lies in fear and control. Masks served as symbols of compliance, increasing public anxiety and reducing critical thinking.
The PCR Test Fallacy
The misuse of PCR tests was central to perpetuating the pandemic narrative. According to the RKI leaks:
The tests had a false positive rate of 86.5%.
Testing asymptomatic individuals was against RKI recommendations but became widespread.
This tactic inflated case numbers, creating a false perception of a widespread emergency.
The “Vaccine” Agenda
Perhaps the most alarming aspect of the leaks involves the so-called “vaccines.” The documents reveal that:
Approval was rushed without sufficient testing, skipping standard safety protocols.
Early data showed negligible protection and significant risks, yet these were ignored.
Post-marketing surveillance was used as a substitute for clinical trials, making humanity the experimental group.
Even worse, the “vaccines” were marketed as a societal good, despite the RKI admitting that they offered no protection against transmission. This deception coerced millions into taking an untested genetic experiment under false pretenses.
Collateral Damage: The Impact on Society
The leaked files also expose the devastating consequences of pandemic policies:
Children, who faced virtually no risk from COVID-19, were subjected to school closures, masking, and isolation, resulting in psychological trauma and developmental delays.
Hospitals reported historically low occupancy rates, debunking claims of overwhelming medical crises.
The elderly and vulnerable were denied effective treatments like ivermectin and vitamin D, leading to preventable deaths.
Seeking Justice and Moving Forward
These revelations demand accountability. The deliberate harm inflicted on societies worldwide cannot go unanswered. Politicians, health officials, and complicit media figures must face justice for their roles in this orchestrated deception.
As we move forward, it is crucial that we reclaim science from political interference and restore trust in public health systems. The path to healing begins with truth, accountability, and a commitment to never let this happen again.
This is not just a fight for justice; it is a fight for the future of humanity. Let us stand together and demand transparency, accountability, and a brighter future.
*
Click the share button below 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.
Featured image: Protest against Corona measures in Berlin on August 1, 2020: Leonhard Lenz, Wikimedia Commons, CCO
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
A UN Special Committee has characterized Israel’s war in Gaza as genocide, while Western “free” media has abandoned its ethical responsibility to cover and or report objectively on the conduct of Israel’s wars in Gaza and Lebanon. Western corporate media outlets, without exception, acquiesced to Israeli directives barring reporters from entering Gaza. Journalists embedded with the Israeli army report only what Israel permits them to observe, creating one sided heavily filtered narrative.
The programmed absence has deprived Western public of critical information to show what UNICEF describes as the most dangerous place in the world for children. Disregarding these realities, corporate Western media outlets often dehumanize Palestinians, dismissing their grievance while overtly empathizing with the Israelis. Case in point, they extensively cover the relocation of hundreds of Israeli families, while offering little to no coverage on the Scholasticide of the 625,000 Palestinian children who are unable to attend school for a second year because Israel has damaged or destroyed 85% of Gaza’s schools. Similarly, they disregard U.N. documented Israel’s use of “starvation as a weapon of war . . . destroying vital water, sanitation and food systems,” and neglect the plight of 90% of Gaza’s internally displaced population, many of whom have been forced to relocate nine or ten times. In addition, the media’s intentional omission of the destruction of the entire higher education system, with 100% of Gaza’s 12 universities demolished, leaving 88,000 students unable to continue their studies.
Just as with the systematic destruction of Gaza’s educational system, the “free” media has failed to critically report on Israel’s deliberate strategy to dismantle Gaza’s healthcare system. According to former U.N. High Commissioner for Human Rights Navi Pillay, this strategy involved “relentless and intentional attacks on medical personnel and facilities,” including the killing, detention, and torture of medical staff as part of a “concerted policy to destroy Gaza’s healthcare system.” By the end of July 2024, the World Health Organization reported that Israel had conducted 498 raids on healthcare facilities. Out of Gaza’s 36 hospitals, less than 16 are partially operational, leading to the near-total collapse of the healthcare system.
The managed “free” media deploys countless reporters in Tel Aviv to cover the effectiveness of Israel’s Iron Dome missile system, yet no one on the ground investigates the starvation in North Gaza or even show the face of one of the approximately 16,800 murdered children or the anguish of over 17,000 children who have lost one or both parents. At the same time, the programmed media floods screens with images of a broken glass window in a “Jewish only” colony, but no cameras are allowed to capture the devastated 163,778, plus residential units in Gaza.
The so-called “free” Western media does not question or fact-check Israeli disinformation, hasbara, when American made jets target schools or demolish residential towers under the pretext of “command centers” inside these facilities. Worse yet, the media propagates a false narrative, portraying Israel’s malevolent policies as acts of benevolence because they issue a warning ahead of bombing homes to smithereens, and then murder civilians as they evacuate under the same orders. Journalists ignore Palestinian voices pointing out that the wide scale destruction of homes, “safe shelters,” and critical infrastructure is part of a calculated Israeli strategy to render Gaza uninhabitable and forcibly displace its residents. Their reporting from afar, normalize Israeli violence and ethnic cleansing as they parrot Israeli Newspeak without scrutiny.
A glaring example of the media abdicating its objectivity is the case of Al-Shifa Hospital, where Israeli military officials showcased an elaborate 3D model purportedly depicting a command center beneath the hospital. The Israeli disinformation was echoed by U.S. President Joe Biden and the White House, further amplifying the false Israeli narratives to an unsuspected public.
In November 2023, Al-Shifa Hospital was occupied by the Israeli army. Doctors were arrested, several tortured to death in Israeli custody, and the hospital was forced out of service. Western journalists, embedded with the Israeli military, joined the Israeli army to show the world what was claimed to be a military command center beneath the hospital. However, to uncover that the only underground edifices in the hospital’s vast complex were originally designed by Israeli architectsGershon Zippor and Benjamin Idelson, and commissioned by the occupying Israeli Public Works Department in 1983.
The embedded Israeli propaganda tool, aka Western media, accompanied Israel’s chief disinformation officer on a tour of Al-Shifa Hospital but left empty-handed, unable to find the flaunted “command control center” or any military facilities under the hospital. Human Rights Watch later concluded that the military raid at the hospital constituted a war crime after failing to provide evidence “to justify revoking the hospital’s status as protected by the laws of war.”
Rather than holding Israel accountable for destroying a major health facility, the embedded media continued to market Israeli lies to excuse violations of international law. The lack of critical reporting and fact-checking is a betrayal of the journalistic responsibilities, effectively serving as implicit approval or, at the very least, normalization of the Israeli war crimes.
Another case on how the media facilitates violence and aggression is the adoption of Israeli-nuanced jargons that desensitizes readers, and redirects focus. For instance, by framing Israel’s wars against Palestinians in Gaza and the people of Lebanon as a war against “Hamas” or “Hezbollah,” the media employs euphemisms that deflect Israeli responsibility for the broader impact of the war on innocent civilians. This framing whitewashes Israeli culpability for the destruction of 80% of homes, 60% of the hospitals, 85% of the schools, 100% of the universities, the displacement of 90% of the population, the razing of villages, and the starvation of children, portraying these atrocities as mere “collateral damage,” or unintended victims in a crossfire.
Furthermore, Western media’s dereliction in contextualizing Israeli violations of the international humanitarian law, the findings of the International Court of Justice and International Criminal Court, leaves readers unaware of the legal ramifications and obscures accountability. In doing so, Western media becomes, wittingly or unwittingly, a complicit platform in Israeli hasbara.
Western media has even abandoned fellow local journalists who remained in Gaza and were purposely targeted by the Israeli army. Israel’s assault on the truth, including attacks on journalists and their families, is unprecedented in war zones. According to the Committee to Protect Journalists (CPJ), Israel has murdered 137 journalists and media workers, making it the deadliest since CPJ began collecting data in 1992.
Zionist hasbara, bolstered by a powerful media plutocracy and influential special interest groups in the West, has normalized Israeli lies and bias against Palestinians for over 76 years. This media-constructed narrative distorts public understanding, manipulates public discourse and shapes policy debates. Inevitably, the systematic dissemination of misinformation shapes a one-dimensional view of the conflict, suppresses dissent, and position Western media as a key instrument in manufacturing consent for Israel’s wars of genocide.
*
Click the share button below 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.
Jamal Kanj is the author of “Children of Catastrophe,” Journey from a Palestinian Refugee Camp to America, and other books. He writes frequently on Arab world issues for various national and international commentaries. He is a regular contributor to Global Research.
On Sunday, President Joe Biden authorized the use of U.S.-supplied long-range missiles by Ukraine for strikes inside Russia. The sudden reversal of policy represents a dramatic escalation in the war that will require a strong response from Moscow. President Putin has repeatedly warned that firing missiles at targets located on Russian territory would trigger harsh retaliatory attacks not just on sites in Ukraine but also on those nations that are directly involved in the strikes, namely NATO and the United States. As military analyst Will Schryver noted:
With his back against the wall, we expect that Putin will defend his country just as the US would defend itself if Chinese contractors, using Chinese missile systems, linked to Chinese satellites and technology, fired missiles at targets in the US from locations in Mexico. The situation is the same here which is why Putin went to great lengths to explain the problem in May when he said the following:
….the final target selection… can only be made by highly skilled specialists who rely on this reconnaissance data, technical reconnaissance data. … Launching other systems, such as ATACMS, for example, also relies on space reconnaissance data, targets are identified and automatically communicated to the relevant crews that may not even realize what exactly they are putting in. A crew, maybe even a Ukrainian crew, then puts in the corresponding launch mission. However, the mission is put together by representatives of NATO countries, not the Ukrainian military.
The point Putin was making can be summarized like this:
The long-range precision weapons (ATACMS) are provided by the US.
The long-range precision weapons are manned by experts or contractors from the US.
The long-range precision weapons must be linked to space reconnaissance data provide by the US or NATO
The targets in Russia are also provided by space reconnaissance data provide by the US or NATO
In other words, the long-range missiles are made by NATO, furnished by NATO, operated and launched by NATO contractors, whose targets are selected by NATO experts using space reconnaissance data provided by NATO. In every respect, the firing of long-range precision weapons at targets in Russia, is a NATO-US operation. The fact that the system may have been located on Ukrainian soil does not mitigate Washington’s role in the aggression. Bottom line: Putin will defend his country against foreign aggression in the same way that any US president would defend America.
Naturally, Biden’s critics have said that his actions are pushing the US towards World War III. (which is true) But what is equally shocking is that Biden has been informed by his top advisors that using the ATACMS would have no material impact on the outcome of the war which is already a ‘lost cause’. (Russian troops are currently advancing at the fastest pace since the war began while Ukraine’s frontlines continue to collapse.) The only effect the policy-change will have is to put US and NATO military assets and bases at greater risk. Biden was aware of this when he made his decision which further illustrates his inability to grasp the consequences of his actions.
So what can we expect now that Biden has forced Putin to respond?
First of all, we can expect Putin to continue to press ahead until he has liberated the Donbas and achieved the strategic aims of the Special Military Operation. And while the use of long-range missiles will not hamper Russia’s progress on the battlefield, it will force Moscow to expand the buffer zone that will separate the two adversaries pushing deeper into western Ukraine in order to protect Russian cities from missile attacks. Some analysts think that Putin will seize all of the territory “east of the Dnieper River, as well as the Black Sea coastal regions all the way to the Danube.” This seems probable but tragic all the same. Ukraine will be a perennial economic basket-case with no access to the sea, forever dependent on the generosity of foreign governments. What a waste. Here’s more from Will Schryver:
…. when the realization of this objective draws nearer and nearer to being a fait accompli, we can be almost certain that the empire and its obeisant European vassals will do something stupid and bring to pass some level of direct warfare between them and the Russians.If and when that happens, then we will see the Russians finally move decisively against the US/NATO ISR assets in the region. And they will do so with at least two full years of battlefield experience, careful observations of its weaknesses, and competent adaptation and innovation cultivated by that analysis. Patiently Waiting to Strike, Will Schryver@imetatronink
IMHO, Trump is just as likely to “do something stupid” as Biden due to his feeble understanding of the conflicts’ origins and his blundering eagerness to impose a deal on Putin that Putin will undoubtedly reject. After two years and much bloodshed, the war in Ukraine is going to be settled on Russia’s terms, not Washingtons. Ukraine is going to be neutral or it’s going to be obliterated. Those are the only two options. If Trump thinks Putin will allow western Ukraine to continue to be armed-to-the-teeth by the West and serve as a hostile American outpost on Russia’s border, he’s got another think coming.
While Biden’s policy turnaround was a surprise it was not completely unexpected. In August, the Ukrainians launched an offensive into the Kursk region, where they burned villages, ransacked homes and seized a sizable chunk of Russian territory. For a while the forces seemed to be unstoppable, wreaking havoc and destruction wherever they went. Three months later, however, Ukraine’s splinter army is surrounded and taking heavy casualties. It’s only a matter of time before they are killed or defeated, which is why—according to the New York Times—Biden approved the use of the long-range missiles systems:
“If the Russian assault on Ukrainian forces in Kursk succeeds”, says the Times, “Kyiv could end up having little to no Russian territory to offer Moscow in a trade.” Later in the article, the authors add this: “(Biden) was… swayed, by concerns that the Russian assault force would be able to overwhelm Ukrainian troops in Kursk if they were not allowed to defend themselves with long-range weapons.” (NY Times)
In short, the future of the doomed assault force (that unwisely invaded Russia in August) has factored heavily into Biden’s decision to green light the use of long-range missiles. But it seems particularly delusional that anyone would think that Putin would negotiate to reclaim Russian territory or that he would halt his offensive because a few missiles hit targets in Russia. That’s just not going to happen. Putin did not want this war, and did everything in his power to avoid it, but now that Russia is involved, he is going to move heaven-and-earth to prevail. As we said earlier, the ATACMS will have no impact on the outcome of the war at all.
It’s also worth noting, that no missile system, air force or army is capable of beating Russia in its own backyard. That should have been obvious from the beginning but, of course, the critics of the war were banned from the cable news channels that have become the lone purview of retired generals, recycled neocons and other war-mongering fantasists. Even now these armchair warlords think we must intensify the conflict to “teach Putin a lesson” and restore the battered image of the withering Empire. The fact is, however, that direct NATO involvement would not have made a bit of difference in the eventual outcome because Russia presently has over 1 million men who have experienced high-intensity warfare, an industrial base that is geared for the production of weaponry, bombs and munitions, and an ironclad strategic alliance with the world’s undisputed economic powerhouse (China) that will certainly come to Moscow’s aid if push-comes-to-shove. Here’s more from Schryver:
I continue to be convinced the US/NATO could never win and will never fight a war against Russia in eastern Europe – unless the #EmpireAtAllCosts death cult somehow seizes the reins of power, in which case, it will become the biggest catastrophe in US military history, and very possibly result in a civilization-ending nuclear war.
For me, one of the most intriguing aspects of the unprecedented levels of propaganda beclouding the ongoing Ukraine War is the incessant claim, from the very beginning, of the alleged strategic, tactical, and logistical ineptitude of the Russian military….
Never mind the numerous reports from western mercenaries and foreign legion volunteers who managed to escape back to their home countries after very brief and terrifying “tours of duty” in Ukraine, all of whom relate similar accounts.
They talk about encountering overwhelming firepower for the first time in their military careers, and they soberly warn anyone else thinking of embarking on a “safari” to kill Russians that it was “nothing like Iraq” and they feel very lucky to have made it out alive – often without ever firing their weapon, nor having even seen a Russian soldier.
Never mind also the fact that there are few if any conscripts among the Russian forces fighting in Ukraine, and few if any reports in Russian independent media sources of demoralized, under-supplied Russian battalions in any theater of the war.
Quite to the contrary, every indication I have seen suggests that Russian morale is sky high, both among the soldiers doing the fighting and the Russian public at home….
And with that preface, let’s turn to the primary question: could NATO fight and win a war against the Russians on this same battlefield?
My answer is an emphatic NO – for three distinct but equally disqualifying reasons:
1– There is zero persuasive evidence that NATO soldiers, weaponry, training, logistics, and command are superior to that of the Russians.
2– Sufficient NATO forces could NEVER be assembled, equipped, and sustained to defeat the Russians in their own backyard.
3– The very attempt to concentrate sufficient US forces in the region in order to take on the Russians would very likely result in the disintegration of the global American Empire and its massive network of overseas bases – thereby rapidly accelerating the already-in-progress transition to a multipolar world.
…..if NATO had to go to war today against The Return of Industrial Warfare Russia, and all their troops and equipment could be magically teleported to the battlefield, they simply could not sustain high-intensity conflict for more than about a month, as this excellent analysis persuasively argues: The Return of Industrial Warfare.
The zealous disciples of indisputable American military supremacy will undoubtedly reply: “Overwhelming American air power alone would devastate Russian military capabilities in a matter of days; a couple weeks at most.”
The average Call of Duty warrior believes such nonsense, but I’m confident very few in the Pentagon harbor such delusions.
To the contrary, they understand perfectly well that Russian best-in-class air defenses would shred attempted US/NATO airstrikes. It would be a stunning massacre, the results of which after even the first 48 hours would see wiser heads calling for an immediate cessation of hostilities.
Not only that, but even attempted, but catastrophically failed NATO airstrikes against Russia would result in a massive series of counterstrikes against NATO bases and warships at distances never seen in previous wars. It would be a no-holds-barred affair.
Staging areas in Poland and Romania would be hit first and hardest, but strikes would very likely range over all of Europe and the Mediterranean. Russian missiles and submarines would sink several ships within hours, including, almost certainly, a US carrier.
This, of course, is the nightmare scenario – one which very conceivably risks an escalation to nuclear war.
One final observation on this whole notion of the US/NATO making war against Russia:
People neglect to consider the fact that US forces are dispersed all around the world, in over 750 foreign bases of varying sizes and strategic importance. In other words, most fail to appreciate the fact that US military might is highly diluted, and the only way to possibly concentrate a force sufficient to take on the Russians would be to literally evacuate almost every significant US base on the planet.
Japan, Korea, Guam, Syria, Turkey, multiple African nations, etc. A massive power vacuum would be created all around the world and would constitute an irresistible temptation for “hostile powers” to exploit. It would spell the end of American global empire and hegemony. The United States Could Not Win and Will Not Fight a War Against Russia, Will Schryver, Substack
So, if you were waiting for the end of US hegemony; wait no longer. It’s already here.
*
Click the share button below 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.
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).
November 19th, 2024 by Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene
Below is a screenshot of the H. Res. 57, Impeaching Joseph R. Biden, President of the United States, for abuse of power by enabling bribery and other high crimes and misdemeanors.
Dear Readers,
this Resolution which dates back to January 21, 2021, while referring to the Hunter-Biden issue, is nonetheless relevant to the current context.
It is essential that the US Congress take action against Biden’s initiative to trigger World War III
.
.
.
.
*
Click the share button below 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.
Grass fed and grain-fed cattle follow dramatically different paths after their first 7 to 9 months. Grass fed cattle continue grazing naturally until 20 to 28 months, while grain-fed are moved to feedlots and fattened rapidly with corn and soy-based diets until 15 to 18 months
Conventional feedlot operations expose cattle to numerous chemicals including antibiotics, growth hormones, pesticides in feed, and routine vaccinations — with pesticide residues in animal feed allowed to be up to 100 times higher than what’s permitted in human-consumed grains
Grain-fed beef can contain higher levels of phytoestrogens and other endocrine-disrupting compounds due to soy and grain-based feeds, while grass fed beef naturally contains lower levels of these potentially harmful substances
Grass fed beef offers superior nutrition with up to twice the riboflavin, three times the thiamine, four times the vitamin E, and 1.5 to 3 times more conjugated linoleic acid (CLA) compared to grain-fed beef
Contrary to common belief, regenerative grazing practices can increase livestock carrying capacity by 50% to 70% compared to continuous grazing, while also improving soil health, biodiversity, and carbon sequestration
*
In an era where food choices can significantly impact both personal and environmental health, the distinction between grass fed and grain-fed beef has never been more relevant. While all beef provides essential nutrients, the way cattle are raised creates meaningful differences in the final product’s nutritional profile and environmental impact.
As consumers become more conscious about their food choices, understanding these differences becomes crucial for making informed decisions about the meat we put on our plates.
The Tale of Two Systems: Understanding Modern Cattle Raising
The journey of beef from farm to plate follows two distinctly different paths in modern agriculture. Both grass fed and grain-fed cattle begin life similarly — nursing from their mothers and grazing freely for their first 7 to 9 months. However, their paths diverge dramatically after this initial phase, leading to significant differences in the final product.
Conventional cattle are transferred to feedlots, often confined to small stalls where they receive a high energy, corn and soy-based diet (with other components that have the potential to alter the fatty acid profile of beef — not what we want! More about that later in the article).
These animals are rapidly fattened and typically sent to slaughter at 15 to 18 months, weighing 1,200 to 1,500 pounds. Imagine spending your days on the couch with little movement, eating processed foods your body wasn’t really designed to consume — of course you would gain weight rapidly!
In contrast, grass fed cattle continue their natural grazing lifestyle with regular movement, reaching slaughter weight more slowly — usually between 20 to 28 months at 1,000 to 1,300 pounds, depending on pasture quality and grazing management.
This difference represents more than just timing — it reflects two fundamentally different agricultural philosophies: regenerative versus conventional farming. The term ‘conventional agriculture’ is somewhat misleading, as this industrial approach, characterized by mass production methods and heavy use of synthetic chemicals, only became widespread in the mid-20th century (only about ~70 years ago!).
Perhaps more accurate terms would be ‘industrial agriculture’ or ‘degenerative agriculture,’ standing in stark contrast to regenerative systems that work in harmony with natural processes.
On the one hand, we have naturally raised animals who rarely get sick. This is because they eat a natural diet, have plenty of exercise and space, are moved to fresh patches of grass with fresh air, aren’t confined, and aren’t exposed to manure and parasites due to regular rotations of the livestock with moveable fencing. Animals raised this way do not need routine vaccinations or pharmaceuticals.
On the other hand, there are conventionally raised animals who are likely to get sick without pharmaceutical interventions. This is because they eat an unnatural diet when in the feedlot, live in crowded living spaces, are not able to exercise or breathe fresh air. Animals raised this way would not produce food or survive without routine vaccinations and antibiotics.
The Hidden Toxin Story
One of the most compelling reasons to choose grass fed beef lies in what you won’t find in it. Feedlot operations, or CAFOs (Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations), rely heavily on chemical interventions to maintain animal health and manage pests in crowded conditions.
“Feed yards house thousands of cattle in relatively small areas, approximately 20 sq. meters per head. To maintain cattle health and maximize growth among high densities of animals, many countries (USA, Australia, South Africa, Japan, Mexico, New Zealand, and Chile) rely heavily on veterinary pharmaceuticals.
In these countries, more than 90% of all feed yards treat cattle with antibiotics, 85% use β−agonists, and over 80% use synthetic anabolic steroids. Antibiotics, β−agonists, and melengestrol acetate (progesterone-like steroid) are administered to cattle via feed, whereas the primary route of administration for other growth-promoting steroids is slow release implant.”1
The chemical exposure doesn’t stop there. The Environmental Working Group estimates that a staggering 167 million pounds of pesticides are used annually just to grow animal feed (GMO and non-GMO) in the United States. Even more concerning, the allowed glyphosate residues in animal feed can be more than 100 times higher than what’s permitted in human-consumed grains, with red meat allowed to contain 20 times more than most plant crops.2
These chemicals don’t simply disappear. Pesticides can accumulate in animals’ fatty tissues over time,3 creating a concentrated source of exposure for consumers. Additionally, the prevalence of GMO crops in livestock feed introduces another layer of potential concern as trace amounts of these substances could potentially be present in the final beef product.
Currently, there are no requirements to label beef products as containing GMOs based on the animal’s feed.4 The CAFO environment itself necessitates numerous chemical interventions:
Insecticides for fly control
Dewormers for parasite management
Vaccines and antibiotics for disease prevention (a long list of ‘routine vaccinations’ are very common in conventional beef systems)
Rodenticides and other pest control agents
This chemical-dependent approach starkly contrasts with regenerative farming practices that focus on preventing health issues through natural management methods.
The Endocrine Disruption Connection
Perhaps most concerning is the potential endocrine-disrupting effects of conventionally raised beef.
Certain pesticides used in feed production are known endocrine disruptors, which are chemicals that interfere with the endocrine system, which regulates hormones in the body. These chemicals can mimic, block, or alter natural hormones, potentially causing developmental, reproductive, neurological, and immune issues.
In addition to pesticides, phytoestrogen levels in feedlot and grain-finished beef can be higher — causing further disruption to endocrine systems. Phytoestrogens are plant-derived compounds that can mimic or influence estrogen activity in the body (and we often do not need more estrogen in modern times). Phytoestrogens in high doses may cause hormonal abnormalities in both men and women as well as children.5
The data promoting the use of phytoestrogen consumption (like flax) is from epidemiological studies and have not been replicated in a clinical setting. And there is data in the thermography world demonstrating that a high phytoestrogen diet causes more complications for cancer.6
Grain-based feeds, particularly those containing legumes like soybeans, or supplemental flax seeds, can be high in phytoestrogens. Cattle in feedlots are often fed diets that include higher levels of phytoestrogens, leading to higher phytoestrogen exposure compared to grass fed cattle.7
Phytoestrogens consumed by livestock can accumulate in their tissues, including meat and fat. The concentration of these compounds in animal products depends on the amount and duration of exposure through feed.8
Grain-fed cattle may also be exposed to other estrogenic compounds beyond phytoestrogens. For example, zearalenone, a mold toxin that can act as a mycoestrogen, may be present in moldy grains fed to feedlot cattle.
While estrogen-mimicking compounds are generally low in beef products compared to some other food sources, grain-fed beef may have higher levels of estrogenic compounds due to the feed composition. So if you are struggling with estrogen dominance symptoms, being mindful of beef sourcing can help with hormonal rebalance.
Grass fed beef is generally expected to have lower levels of phytoestrogens and other estrogenic compounds due to the animals’ diet being primarily composed of grasses rather than grains and legumes.
While there aren’t many studies investigating the quantitative comparison of phytoestrogen levels in feedlot versus grass fed beef, some data suggest that grain-finished beef from feedlots is more likely to contain higher levels of phytoestrogens and other estrogenic compounds in their meat and fat compared to grass fed beef. This is primarily due to the differences in feed composition and potential exposure to various estrogenic substances in the feedlot environment.
The Nutritional Advantage
Grass fed beef doesn’t just have fewer undesirable compounds — it offers superior nutrition. Studies have found nearly twice the riboflavin and three times the thiamine concentrations in grass-finished beef compared to grain-finished.9 Moreover, grass fed beef can contain up to four times more vitamin E than beef from feedlot cattle.10
Further, the conjugated linoleic acid (CLA) content is particularly impressive, with levels 1.5 to 3 times higher in pasture-raised meat and dairy products.11 CLA has anticarcinogenic and anti-adipogenic properties. The benefits extend to consumers, as research shows that eating pasture-raised animal products elevates serum CLA concentrations in humans.12
The Remarkable World of Phytonutrients
One of the most fascinating aspects of grass fed beef is its phytonutrient content. While we typically associate phytochemicals with plant foods, meat from pastured animals contains significant levels of these beneficial compounds.13
Phytochemicals are secondary compounds found in fruits and vegetables that are well documented to have a number of health benefits. For example, terpenoids are a class of phytochemicals that have anti-inflammatory, antiviral, and anticarcinogenic properties.14 Polyphenols are well documented to exert strong in vivo anti-inflammatory effects in both animals and humans.
Other therapeutic benefits of phenols include protection again various cancers, hepatic disorders, cardiovascular disease, neurodegenerative diseases, Type 2 diabetes, obesity, improved immune function, and gut microbial composition.15
Importantly, the phytonutrient content varies significantly based on grazing practices. Animals grazing on diverse pastures accumulate both higher amounts and a wider variety of phytochemicals in their meat compared to those on monoculture pastures or grain-based diets.16This highlights the importance of not just grass-feeding, but ensuring cattle have access to diverse, nutrient-rich pastures.
.
.
“Animals grazing more botanically diverse pastures accumulate both higher amounts and a wider variety … phytochemicals in their meat and milk compared to animals grazing non-diverse (i.e., monoculture) pastures, while concentrations of phytochemicals are further reduced — and often remain undetected — in the meat and milk of animals fed grain-based diets in feedlots.”17
While total phytonutrient concentration is higher in plant foods, the contribution of phytochemicals from pasture-raised meat and milk to overall dietary intake should not be underestimated. Consuming plant foods is of course important, but consuming phytochemically-rich meat will provide us with a spectrum of phytonutrients from classes of plants otherwise not readily consumed by humans.
The Revolutionary Impact of Regenerative Grazing
Regenerative grazing practices represent a fundamental shift in livestock management. This approach, also known as Adaptive Multi-Paddock (AMP) grazing, involves rotating animals through multiple smaller paddocks within a pasture. This method mimics natural grazing patterns of wild herbivores and offers numerous environmental benefits:
Enhanced soil health and fertility
Improved carbon sequestration
Reduced parasite exposure for livestock
Increased biodiversity
Better water retention
Enhanced nutrient density in the final product
These practices create a virtuous cycle where healthier soil leads to more nutritious forage, which in turn produces healthier animals and more nutritious meat.
.
.
The Fat Factor
The fat composition of beef tells another important story. Before we dive into types of fats, let’s first address the overall fat content. Feedlots have significantly increased the fat composition of ruminant animals like cows, resulting in meat that’s much fattier than what was historically consumed. Wild animals, by contrast, are naturally lean.
Modern feedlots rely on energy-dense feeds and restrict livestock movement, promoting rapid weight gain and increased fat deposits. This raises the question: Are today’s super-fatty ribeye steaks from CAFO beef truly “ancestral”?
Now, when it comes to the type of fat in beef, this is where beef differ from chickens and pigs (who have a single stomach). The fat of all ruminant animals have relatively low levels of linoleic acid (LA), even if they are eating some higher omega-6 PUFA sources. This is because their stomach has a ‘biohydrogenation chamber’ that contains bacteria that can convert the high LA fat they eat from grains and seeds into saturated and monounsaturated fats.
While all ruminant animals naturally convert some dietary fats through biohydrogenation, the final fatty acid profile still differs between grass fed and grain-fed beef. Research by the Weston A. Price Foundation found that grass fed tallow contains 45% less total polyunsaturated fatty acids (PUFA), 66% less omega-6 linoleic acid, and 36% more saturated fat stearic acid.18
This fat composition difference becomes particularly relevant in the context of modern diets, which already often contain excessive amounts of omega-6 fatty acids. What’s more — there is ongoing research on how the PUFA content of cows can be increased even more! Based on the false premise that saturated fats are bad for us, and PUFAs are good for us.
This research of dairy fatty acid manipulation started in the 1980s — “Interest in manipulating the fat content of milk was in full force entering the 1980s. The Dietary Guidelines for Americans published in 1980 by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services and the Department of Agriculture (USDA) emphasized reductions in total fat, saturated fat, and cholesterol.”19
Rumen bypass or “rumen escape” technology is used to protect proteins and lipids from degradation in the rumen, allowing them to be digested more efficiently in the small intestine and altering the fatty acid composition.20 Attempting to bypass the natural biohydrogenation process in the rumen!
A few methods that can lead to PUFAs bypassing the rumen include high levels of distillers grains in the diet,21 calcium soaps of fatty acids to protect PUFAs from the ruminal biohydrogenation,22 and the inclusion of various other whole, treated or protected oilseeds like whole cottonseed, roasted soybeans, canola seed, sunflower seeds, flaxseeds.23
Calcium soaps have been used with soybean oil (rich in linoleic acid) to maximize the delivery of omega-6 fatty acids to the duodenum for absorption.24 The use of rumen bypass techniques allow for more of the dietary linoleic acid to be absorbed intact and incorporated into the beef25 — not what we want!
Some studies do not measure the linoleic acid change in the meat, but it is likely that feeding rumen-protected oilseeds would increase the linoleic acid content beyond normal confinement beef levels.
There is also research into using transgenic techniques to modify fat content in animal products, including beef,26 which involves genetically modifying the animals themselves. Why can’t we just leave Mother Nature alone? We will never out smart her!
The Metabolic Health Connection
The health of the animal directly impacts the quality of its meat. Research shows that pen-finished animals display elevated glucose metabolites, triglycerides, markers of oxidative stress, and proteolysis compared to pasture-finished animals.27,28 Extended grain feeding can lead to insulin resistance in ruminants,29 and studies have documented different energetic levels between grass fed and grain-fed animals.30
.
.
While the full implications for human health are still being studied, some research suggests that consuming products from pasture-fed cattle may have different metabolic effects compared to those from grain-fed cattle.31 This raises important questions about how the metabolic health of livestock might influence the metabolic health of consumers.
When an animal has poor metabolic health, detoxification systems are downregulated. Add on top of that, higher bacterial and toxin load when in confinement, and that is a recipe to get sick! So of course a long list of ‘routine vaccinations’ and regular antibiotic use are required to maintain health!
The Antibiotic Challenge
The confined conditions of feedlots often necessitate routine use of antibiotics, with water bowls being a common administration route. An estimated 50% to 60% of feedlot cattle receive low-level antibiotics during feeding,32 used both for growth promotion and disease prevention in crowded conditions.33 This routine antibiotic use contributes to growing concerns about antibiotic resistance in both animal and human populations. Common antibiotics used in cattle feedlots include:34
Tetracyclines (e.g. oxytetracycline)
Macrolides (e.g. tylosin, erythromycin)
Florfenicol (Florkem)
Tulathromycin (Draxxin)
Ceftiofur (Excede)
Antibiotic-resistant bacteria have been found in feedlot water bowls, even before cattle arrive, indicating environmental reservoirs.35 Moreover, the water bowls can become hotspots for the spread of antibiotic resistance genes between different bacterial species.36,37 Resistant bacteria in water bowls may then transfer resistance genes to pathogens that cause bovine respiratory disease.38
It’s important to note that practices may vary between different countries and regions, and efforts are being made in some areas to reduce antibiotic use in livestock production.
It is also important to note that there is a huge difference in using pharmaceutical interventions to keep an animal alive or on an as-needed basis, versus a large list of ‘routine vaccinations’ or ‘regular antibiotics’ to prevent future health problems due to infrastructure set up. However, there are consequences to constantly trying to fight Mother Nature!
But Grass Fed Requires More Space!
This oversimplified view misses crucial nuances in grass fed farming — management practices make all the difference!
As highlighted in van Vliet et al. (2021): “Management practices that use ecological principles can increase the carrying capacity of livestock by 50% to 70% compared to continuous (largely unmanaged) grazing … There is also potential for increased carrying capacity from multi-species grazing with little dietary overlap.
For instance, integrating cattle with sheep, goats, and pigs and/or potentially other feed-conversion-efficient herbivores such as ducks, geese, and rabbits can improve animal productivity compared to grazing single species … This synergy is achieved because different species exploit different ecological niches and one species can increase resource availability for another species …
Greater diversification of livestock can allow for more efficient use of the resources provided by a particular ecosystem. For example, goats and sheep readily eat species of forbs, shrubs and trees that large herbivores like cattle and bison often avoid, while larger herbivores can better utilize lower quality forage compared to small herbivores such as sheep and goats.”39
The untapped potential is enormous. Most pastures are underutilized, and we’re overlooking a major opportunity: millions of acres of row crop fields sit idle for 4 to 8 months each year. By introducing cover crops and grazing cattle between harvests, we could dramatically increase available pastureland while enhancing soil health and agricultural sustainability.
Rather than cramming more animals into industrial facilities, let’s embrace holistic management practices. By enhancing pasture productivity and creating integrated farming enterprises, we can boost both environmental sustainability and farmer profitability — a win-win solution that benefits animals, land, and agricultural communities.
According to the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), current agricultural output is sufficient to meet the caloric needs of approximately 12 billion people, while the global population is around 8 billion, indicating a surplus of food production.40,41
Meaning, already produce enough food to feed 1.5 times the world population — we don’t need to focus on maximizing quantity at the expense of quality! Focus instead needs to be improving infrastructure and distribution.
Making an Informed Choice
The price difference between conventional and grass fed beef often raises eyebrows, but understanding the “why” behind this cost difference reveals the true value proposition. Grass fed cattle take longer to reach market weight (20 to 28 months versus 15 to 18 months for grain-fed), requiring more time, land, and careful management.
This extended timeline, combined with the intensive pasture management needed for regenerative grazing (daily moves, if not 2 to 3 times a day!), contributes to the higher price point.
However, when we consider the broader picture — lower toxin exposure, enhanced nutrient density, superior fat composition, and healthier animals — the premium price of grass fed beef becomes an investment in both personal and environmental health rather than merely an expense.
While all beef provides essential nutrients like zinc, B vitamins, and creatine, grass fed beef from regenerative farming systems offers these nutrients in a package with fewer concerning compounds and additional beneficial substances like phytonutrients.
For those working within budget constraints, it’s reassuring to know that conventional beef still provides valuable nutrition. The choice doesn’t have to be all-or-nothing — incorporating grass fed beef when possible while choosing conventional beef at other times can be a practical approach to balancing nutrition, sustainability, and budget considerations.
The key is making informed decisions based on your personal circumstances while understanding the real differences between these two products.
The higher cost of grass fed beef reflects not just the extended raising time, but also the investment in regenerative farming practices that benefit soil health, animal welfare, and ultimately, human health. When viewed through this lens, the price premium becomes more understandable — it’s the true cost of producing beef in harmony with natural systems rather than forcing nature to conform to industrial efficiency.
Can’t find a farm nearby? Premium producers like White Oak Pastures, Alderspring Ranch, and Nourish Food Club deliver 100% grass fed, regeneratively raised beef directly to your home, making sustainable choices convenient no matter where you live.
Plus, you can save money while maximizing nutrition by choosing budget-friendly cuts of beef. Ground beef offers versatility, while “tough cuts” like shanks, roasts, and cheeks transform into incredibly tender meat when braised low and slow. These affordable options are particularly rich in gelatin, providing a well-rounded amino acid profile that many premium cuts lack.
*
Click the share button below 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.
Ashley Armstrong is the co-founder of Angel Acres Food Club, which specializes in low-PUFA (polyunsaturated fat) eggs that are shipped to all 50 states, and Nourish Food Club, which ships 100% grass fed, vaccine-free, regeneratively raised beef and lamb, plus low-PUFA pork and chicken, A2 dairy and cheese, and traditional sourdough to all 50 states. Waitlists will reopen shortly.
Ukrainian soldiers leave their positions as soon as Russian military personnel appear, Ukrainian media reported, citing an officer of the Armed Forces of Ukraine. This situation has become so prevalent that it is believed that more than 100,000 Ukrainians have abandoned their positions and left the fighting, meaning that the Kiev regime’s drive to alleviate the catastrophic manpower shortage failed.
Many experts consider recent times to be some of the worst for Ukraine since the conflict began, as for months, the Ukrainian military has been constantly retreating, sometimes losing several villages in one day.
In this context, social media is full of videos of recruitment officers forcibly conscripting civilians into the military, catching them and beating them. In fact, recently, a video appeared of a man in uniform shooting a civilian who was running away from him.
The cited officer also revealed the low morale among the mostly forcibly deployed Ukrainian soldiers.
“As soon as the Russians enter our trench, our men leave and run away,” the Ukrainian officer complained.
He noted that Ukrainian soldiers are abandoning their positions not only due to insufficient training but also because they are not confident that artillery will help them.
“If the enemy gets within 50 metres of you and your artillery is silent and your drones are not flying, you will feel like you are alone, without support,” the officer explained.
Earlier, the media reported that Ukrainian army servicemen are now deserting in groups and not individually as before.
In late October, a member of the Ukrainian parliament, Anna Skorokhod, said that more than 100,000 Ukrainian servicemen had already deserted the Armed Forces or left their units without authorization.
“I will not tell you the [exact] number of people who deserted and went AWOL but will say it is over 100,000 (…) People are raising questions that I cannot provide answers to. ‘Why must I, a repair shop worker from just a month ago, sit in the trenches while senior officers are far away from the front line? Why are just 10% to 15% of the army personnel actually participating in combat?’” she said.
Her comment followed that of military lawyer Roman Lykhachev, who revealed that “definitely more than 100,000 servicemen” have already deserted their positions.
Earlier this month, Solomiia Bobrovska, a member of the Ukrainian parliament and on the parliament’s defence committee, said that the Ukrainian authorities would not be able to implement the mobilization plan by the end of the year. She also admitted that the process of mobilizing citizens into the Ukrainian Army has been slowing down since September and confirmed that service members from the Air Force had to be transferred to infantry units because of large losses.
Ukrainian defences in Donbass are collapsing due to a shortage of fighters and ammunition, which has allowed Russian troops to step up attacks. This is especially true after the Kiev regime redirected resources to reinforce its invasion of Russia’s Kursk Oblast. The most important resource redirected to Kursk were elite Ukrainian soldiers, a move that is especially baffling considering the manpower shortage on the eastern front.
The manpower shortage is so bad that the Kiev regime has turned to citizens outside of Ukraine as a recruitment source. However, efforts to extend the mobilization drive beyond Ukraine’s borders have failed.
RMF24 reported that an effort to create a military detachment of Ukrainians living in Poland, which was supposed to be staffed and trained in the country, was disastrous. According to the Polish radio station, the number of Ukrainians willing to join a volunteer unit is very small, despite Kiev having previously said that at least 500 men in Poland were ready to fight on the front.
“Less than 30 people are ready for training. In practice, few Ukrainians are willing to fight. This means that training in Poland has not started and will not start if this situation continues,” the radio said.
The Kiev regime wants to draft another 160,000 troops into its military as Russia continues to capture territory in the east. However, Ukrainians who have already fled the country are evidently not interested in returning to fight, whilst Ukrainians unable to escape the country and forcibly recruited are deserting their positions.
Ukrainians are not naïve and understand that once Donald Trump becomes president in January, the US, the largest donor of aid to Ukraine, will begin rescinding support, which will turn what is already a desperate situation even worse.
At the same time, with the temperature in Ukraine plummeting week by week, the nightmarish situation for Ukrainian troops will deepen. These two factors have sucked what very little morale was left in Ukrainians, and it can be expected that desertions will continue to increase during the winter.
*
Click the share button below 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.
Hulscher told The Defender the study provides “robust evidence that COVID-19vaccines can cause death. This means that the FDA’s [U.S. Food and Drug Administration] criteria for a Class I recall have been fulfilled, warranting an immediate market withdrawal.”
The FDA defines a Class I product recall as “a situation in which there is a reasonable probability that the use of or exposure to a violative product will cause serious adverse health consequences or death.”
Risch, professor emeritus of epidemiology at the Yale School of Public Health, told The Defender that the COVID-19 vaccine spike protein “can stay around in some people and continue to do inflammatory damage in any site where it gets to through the bloodstream.”
In ‘Striking Act of Censorship’ Publishers Withdraw Study, Shut Down Debate
The study results were first made public on July 5, 2023, as a preprint with The Lancet on SSRN, an open-access research platform.
However, Preprints with The Lancet removed the study from the server within 24 hours, posting a statement that the study’s conclusions were “not supported by the study methodology,” The Daily Sceptic reported.
Preprint servers offer a place for the public to view scientific reports and papers while they undergo peer review, making scientific findings available immediately and for free and opening them up to broader public debate.
The authors subsequently posted on the Zenodo preprint server, while the review underwent peer review at Forensic Science International. It was downloaded over 130,000 times.
On June 21, 2024, after successful peer review, Forensic Science International published the study.
Within weeks, the study became the top trending research paper worldwide across all subject areas, according to the Observatory of International Research, Hulscher recalled.
.
.
“Unfortunately,” Hulscher wrote on Substack, “in a striking act of censorship, Elsevier and Forensic Science International withdrew the article on August 2nd, 2024 in flagrant violation of their own withdrawal policy and COPE guidelines.”
He said they “left no traces behind, completely wiping our paper from the webpage.”
Elsevier and Forensic Science International said that “members of the scientific community” — who remained anonymous, Hulscher pointed out — cited numerous concerns about the study, including inappropriate citation references, inappropriate methodological design and a lack of factual support for its conclusions.
The concerns were “unfounded,” Hulscher wrote. The study authors wrote a rebuttal defending their study and submitted a revised manuscript. However, Elsevier and Forensic Science International rejected the revised manuscript.
Hulscher noted that Elsevier and Forensic Science International “failed to follow the proper scientific discourse method of allowing debate in Letters to the Editor.” Instead, they shut down the possibility of debate by censoring the study.
“This type of academic censorship poses a serious threat to the progress of scientific discovery,” he said.
73.9% of Deaths Reviewed by Authors Linked to COVID Vaccines
They first searched PubMed and ScienceDirect for all published autopsy and necropsy — another word for autopsy — reports related to COVID-19 vaccination in which the death occurred after vaccination.
They screened out 562 duplicate studies among the 678 studies initially identified in their search. Other papers were removed because they lacked information about vaccination status.
Ultimately, they evaluated 44 papers containing 325 autopsies and one necropsy case. Three physicians independently reviewed each case and adjudicated whether or not the COVID-19 shot was the direct cause or contributed significantly to the death reported.
They found 240 of the deaths (73.9%) were found to be “directly due to or significantly contributed to by COVID-19 vaccination.” The mean age for death was 70.4 years old.
Primary causes of death included sudden cardiac death, which happened in 35% of cases, pulmonary embolism and myocardial infarction, which occurred in 12.5% and 12% of the cases respectively.
Most deaths occurred within a week of the last shot.
The authors concluded that because the deaths were highly consistent with the known mechanisms for COVID-19 vaccine injury, it was highly likely the deaths were causally linked to the vaccine.
They said the findings “amplify” existing concerns about the vaccines, including those related to vaccine-induced myocarditis and myocardial infarction and the effects of the spike protein more broadly.
They also said the studies have implications for unanticipated deaths among vaccinated people with no previous illness. “We can infer that in such cases, death may have been caused by COVID-19 vaccination,” they wrote.
The authors acknowledged some potential biases in the article.
First, they said, their conclusions from the autopsy findings are based on an evolving understanding of the vaccines, which are currently different from when the studies evaluated were published.
They also noted that systematic reviews have bias potential in general because of biases that may exist at the level of the individual papers and their acceptance into the peer-reviewed literature.
They said publication bias could have affected their results because the global push for mass vaccination has made investigators hesitant to report adverse events.
They also said their research did not account for confounding variables like concomitant illnesses, drug interactions and other factors that may have had a causal role in the reported deaths.
*
Click the share button below 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.
Suzanne Burdick, Ph.D., is a reporter and researcher for The Defender based in Fairfield, Iowa.
Featured image is from CHD
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
“Departing US president Joe Biden… has taken one of the most provocative, uncalculated decisions of his administration, which risks catastrophic consequences,” declared the website of the Russian government newspaper Rossiyskaya Gazeta on Monday morning.
Russian MP Leonid Slutsky, head of the pro-Kremlin Liberal-Democratic Party, predicted that the decision would “inevitably lead to a serious escalation, threatening serious consequences”.
Russian senator Vladimir Dzhabarov called it “an unprecedented step towards World War Three”.
Anger, yes. But no real surprise.
Komsomolskaya Pravda, the pro-Kremlin tabloid, called it “a predictable escalation”.
What really counts, though, is what Vladimir Putin calls it and how the Kremlin leader responds.
Click the share button below 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.
For the second time in 8 days, hundreds of Israeli soccer hooligans attacked unidentified fans at a football match in Paris, France. A number of videos circulating on social media show swarms of young men—mostly dressed in black with masks and stocking caps or draped in Israeli flags—pummeling an unknown Frenchman who was beaten to the ground. The extent of his injuries remains unknown.
The skirmishes took place at Thursday’s UEFA Nations League soccer game between France and Israel at the Stade de France which drew the smallest crowd in history due to the threat of hooligan violence. But although the streets of Paris were heavily patrolled by thousands of police and security guards to protect the visiting Israelis, fans of the home team received no such security. When the Maccabi Tel Aviv fans began raining-down blows on their unnamed victims, the police were nowhere to be found.
.
Source: The Unz Review
.
Some of the videos show terrified fans fleeing an area in the stands that was overrun by a hostile Maccabi mob sprinting across the upper deck while thousands of fans “Booed” loudly from below. The scene seemed more reminiscent of the political street fights that took place in Weimar Germany in the early 1930s than a football match in 2024. The ensuing mayhem was described by analyst Arnaud Bertrand on his Twitter site:
…. There was a football match between Israel and France yesterday and this happened at the beginning of the match: a horde of Israeli supporters openly lynched some French supporters in the stands. Macron himself was in attendance at the match to show his commitment to “fighting antisemitism” after Amsterdam…
He made no public comment that I know of on these French supporters getting lynched in front of his eyes. And the police made no reported arrests. Had the reverse been the case, had this been some Israeli supporters getting lynched by a horde of French supporters, you can absolutely bet 100% that he (and all the French media) would have made a huge deal out of it. You cannot overstate the absurdism of it: because we’ve so gaslighted ourselves around “antisemitism” and so distorted the meaning of it, Western countries would literally rather let our their own citizens get lynched on their own soil – in front of the president’s eyes (!) – than face accusations being “antisemitic” in their own definition of the term. @RnaudBertrand (video)
Bertrand is using the term “lynching” in the legal sense as it relates to the “Emmett Till Anti-lynching Act” in 2022…. meaning “that the actions of the Israeli supporters would most certainly be considered lynching under US law because they conspired as a mob to cause serious bodily harm based on bias regarding “the actual or perceived religion or national origin” of the person(s) – matching exactly 18 USC §249(a)(5)’s definition requiring conspiracy & serious injury in hate-motivated attacks. @RnaudBertrand
Arnaud is correct in pointing out that President Macron attended the match. Not surprisingly, Macron was joined in his luxury box by two former presidents, the current prime minister and a large portion of France’s political establishment, all of whom stand foursquare behind the violent Zionist thuggery they witnessed in the stands. (Note—Joshua Zarka, Israeli ambassador to Paris, was also at the game, while Ronen Bar, the head of Israel’s Shin Bet security service, was in France to supervise the security of Israeli players and fans.)
This is from an article at inews.uk:
Fights broke out at a sparsely attended France–Israel match at the Stade de France in Paris on Thursday night, despite a heavy security presence inside and outside the stadium. Footage on social media showed clashes between home and away fans in the stands, with one clip appearing to show men wearing Israel flags punching and kicking a man on the ground before stewards intervened.
Tensions ran high even before the match with a heavy security operation around the stadium, with 4,000 police and 1,600 civilian security personnel deployed as French authorities sought to avoid a repeat of the violent scenes around a Maccabi Tel Aviv match in Amsterdam last week. Police lines extended more than a kilometer from the stadium with barricades along the streets and helicopters buzzing overhead….Just 13,000 tickets had been sold the day before the game – reportedly the lowest attendance for any home fixture in the history of the French national team…
Israel fans sang songs in support of the Israel Defence Force (IDF) and “free the hostages,” in references to captives held by Hamas in Gaza. Some wore masks and IDF shirts.
Despite Israeli government advice, some Israeli dual nationals were in Paris with Betar, an international right-wing Zionist group. Betar’s social media channels posted an image of members in the French capital holding baseball bats before the game. Fights break out at France-Israel match in Paris despite heavy security, inews.co.uk
.
.
Let’s recap:
No expense was spared to provide security for the Maccabi hooligans, but French fans were beaten in the stands without anyone lifting a finger.
A mere 13,000 people attended a stadium that holds 80,000, but the match was given the go-ahead regardless.
The Maccabi mob sang military songs and bellowed racist slogans, but no government official has had the courage to order an inquiry. Note: According to the Middle East Eye, Israeli fans chanted “Free the hostages” and “Hamas, Hamas, we’re fucking you”.)
.
.
Readers should take a minute and carefully examine the photo at the top of this article. What do you see?
Do you see a gathering of typical soccer fans dressed in team colors and jerseys waving banners and singing team songs, or do you see a uniformly dressed and deeply threatening throng of black-clad troopers with stocking caps and masks who could—just as easily be conducting a military operation as attending a match of their favorite football team?
Who wears a black mask and a stocking cap to a soccer match? Who chants “Hamas, Hamas, we’re fucking you” at a soccer match?
Was this really a spontaneous get together of pumped-up Maccabi fans expressing their support for their team or a clandestine infiltration of the EU overseen by Israeli intelligence agents on secret assignment?
And be sure to take special note of the author’s last observation:
Despite Israeli government advice, some Israeli dual nationals were in Paris with Betar, an international right-wing Zionist group. Betar’s social media channels posted an image of members in the French capital holding baseball bats before the game.
Betar? The far-right youth movement founded by Vladimir Jabotinsky that fought against the British in Mandatory Palestine and was closely affiliated with the Zionist terrorist organization, the Irgun?
.
Source: The Unz Review
.
Here’s more from an article at the Middle East Eye:
At the demonstration in Paris, Salah Hamouri, a French-Palestinian lawyer who was deported from Jerusalem by Israel in 2022 after spending many years in prison and is now a member of Urgence Palestine, also accused the French president of sending a political message of support for Israel by attending the match.
“This match and the participation of Macron, Hollande and Sarkozy is part of France’s complicity in the ongoing genocide. It is a diplomatic green light given to the Israeli occupier for all its actions in Palestine and Lebanon and for it to continue its massacres in Palestine and in Lebanon,” he told MEE.
“Today, the low turn-out at the stadium shows that the public opinion in France is in favour of the Palestinian cause, and that the people support the people. It shows that the voice of the Palestinian people has been heard, and that a boycott needs to be implemented.” France-Israel match marked by scuffles, booing and a record-low attendance, Middle East Eye
Summary and Analysis
So, now we’ve seen two significant and politically destabilizing events in less than 10 days both of which took place in European capitals. And in both cases, the violence and racist chants were initiated by Israeli hooligans engaged in actions aimed at intimidating the public. Is there a rational explanation for this sudden uptick in social unrest attributable to Maccabi sports fans?
Of course, it could be just a coincidence linked to the behavior of overzealous sports fans who need to practice more self-restraint. That is one possibility. We cannot exclude another possibility, however, that the violence we have seen in Paris and Amsterdam is not a one-off or merely a case of exuberant young men “letting off a little steam.” We must at least consider the possibility that Israeli powerbrokers have launched this operation—using their assets in the IDF and Mossad—to advance their own strategic agenda consistent with their expansionist Zionist plan.
What we’ve seen is that the incitements on the ground have been coordinated with journalists in the legacy media and with political leaders across the West who have fabricated a narrative of growing antisemitism when, in fact, that storyline is easily debunked by the hundreds of first-person eyewitness accounts and the numerous videos on social media that prove that the sole responsibility for the violence in both cities lies entirely with the Israeli soccer thugs.
But why would political leaders and the media want to create the impression that antisemitism is on the rise? That is the question we must ask ourselves, because that is the narrative we are expected to believe.
IMHO, Israeli leaders understand that the claim of antisemitism is a powerful coercive tool that can be used to pressure parliamentarians to modify the law in ways that benefit one group over the others. Thus, as fears of a new wave of antisemitism intensify, the demand for changes to the law increase. Eventually—as in the case of Israel—equal protection is no longer equal protection. One category of people is placed above the law, while the others are crushed beneath the wheel of “second class citizenship.” This erosion of equal protection—that is attributable to the creation of “special” laws for special people—is the fast-track to apartheid, which is the end of a justice system that treats all people equally and with dignity.
Israel is frequently called an apartheid state because one group of people is treated differently (under the law) than the other. If my theory is correct, then Israeli policymakers are trying to affect those same changes in Europe, which means, they are exporting their racist political model to the continent.
Readers may want to skim the article below and decide for themselves whether this theory has any merit:
The German Bundestag took the clearest decision. Last week, the parliament accepted a resolution from both the government and the Christian Democratic opposition to protect Jewish life in the country. The title of the resolution was “Never again is now”, according to reports from the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung.
According to the text, hatred against Jews and Israel is higher than “decades” since the terror attacks on October 7th 2023. The resolution also explicitly mentions that migrants especially add to this problem…. Concrete measures of the resolution are that no state money can go to organizations that… call for a boycott against Israel. Also, schools will be supported in educating about the Holocaust….
Norway
This Monday, the Norwegian Prime Minister Jonas Gahr Støre presented an action plan with 22 measures against hatred against Jews. He invited representatives of the Jewish community to a meeting to discuss the matter. “We would love we did not need an action plan”, the Prime Minister said. “But we know that it is necessary.”
The Holocaust Centre in Norway has reported that anti-Semitism is growing after many years of decrease. “It is not just one budget post that resolves this”, Støre said. “This is about something difficult as attitudes.”…
Netherlands
Also , the Dutch government has been invited to take action against anti-Semitism. On Wednesday, there was a lengthy urgency debate in the Lower House about the incidents in Amsterdam last Friday.
The debate was dominated by Geert Wilders –who is leading the largest party– who presented immigration by Muslims as the basic problem of anti-Semitism.
The Dutch society was shocked by the pogrom-style hunt of Israeli football supporters. Hundreds of Maccabi Tel Aviv supporters were asked for their passports, beaten and chased. Opposition leader Frans Timmermans expected concrete measures from the government. He advocated for appointing more detectives to track down anti-Semitic offenders and then imposing harsher penalties….
European Parliament
Also, in the European Parliament in Brussels, parties held an urgency debate about anti-Semitism later on Wednesday. The debate was requested by the Dutch MEP Bert-Jan Ruissen from the Reformed SGP party after the shocking events in Amsterdam. The title of the debate is the “deplorable escalation of violence around the football match in the Netherlands and unacceptable attacks on Israeli football fans.”
“Europe is increasingly in the grip of extremist violence and Jew-hatred”, Ruissen said in a written statement. “This must stop as soon as possible.”
Already in October, the EU ministers of Foreign Affairs adopted a declaration that condemned “all forms of anti-Semitism, racism, hatred and discrimination.” Also, in this statement, action in schools was asked to keep the Holocaust in the “collective memory”.Calling for a boycott against Israel is now forbidden, CNE
Everyone is entitled to equal treatment under the law. There should be no legal carveouts for special people.
*
Click the share button below 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.
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).
Alberta Premier Jason Kenney destroyed his political career when he ordered AHS to persecute Christian Pastors during the lockdown. It remains the biggest political blunder in history. Jason Kenney cannot show his face in public now, and won’t for the rest of his life.
Alberta Premier Danielle Smith is the first Canadian leader to work with corrupt health bureaucrats (AHS) to have a Canadian doctor (myself) imprisoned for protecting his family. They are demanding that I be imprisoned for 83 days and today they were shopping for a Court date: Jan. 15, 2025.
Why is she doing this? I don’t know exactly, but it’s an extremely bad sign for Alberta and Canada in general.
UCP is also going after Carrie Sakamoto’s COVID-19 Vaccine Injury class action lawsuit, asking for it to be thrown out before it gets heard in Court.
Remember, Stephen Harper is pro big pharma, pro mRNA vaccine, pro lockdowns, pro vaccine mandates and pro vaccine passports (pro UN, pro WHO and pro WEF).
.
.
Big pharma has fully captured Alberta at the UCP AGM – we are now at the mercy of the UN and WHO, who will run this province through AHS, we are headed for lockdowns and mandatory injections maybe by January?
God bless you all who kept Danielle Smith’s phone lines ringing all day (780-427-2251) and who are writing her emails, keeping her staff busy.
.
*
Click the share button below 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.
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: Alberta premier Danielle Smith (Source: Global News / YouTube)
“Permission for American missile strikes deep into Russia is an unprecedented step that will lead to the start of World War III, but Russia’s response will be immediate.” —Vladimir Dzhabarov, First Deputy Chairman, Russian Federation Council Committee on International Affairs.
What Vladimir Dzhabarov says sounds in tune with Mr. Putin’s own words, expressed on various occasions,
“If Kiev was using NATO US-made long-range ATACMS or SCALP/Storm Shadow missiles, Russia will respond with tactical nuclear weapons in Ukraine.”
And take note, President Putin also said, that
“Countries that have handed over these weapons to Ukraine will be considered direct participants in attacks against Russia.”
If Kiev indeed shoots these ATACMS long-range missiles deep into Russia, God forbid into Moscow, Europe will be for the third time in about 120 years in the center of a world war – you may call it WWIII or simply no name because after that, it could well be that the world as we know it, will not exist anymore.
This is not fear-mongering. It could be real because NATO troops and weapons are stationed all over Europe. Germany is currently recruiting and training new soldiers to go to war with Russia. And those NATO bases and troops would logically be targeted first for destruction by Russia.
And would you believe, when this horrendous, thoughtless “authorization“ given by President Biden or whoever directs him, immediately followed by other NATO countries like the UK and France, the European media and public-at-large cheered for joy –
“This [the authorization] should have happened a long time ago!”
Can you imagine the brainlessness of such people – and media of course – who cheer for war, a war that most likely, if it indeed was to happen, would destroy those who cheer for joy about war and many more along with infrastructure, production capacity, agriculture, food, and the entire European economy.
That is of course the plan of UN Agenda 2030 and the WEF’s Great Reset.
*
What is in the cards is a last-minute attempt to stop Trump from taking office on 20 January 2025. If a war erupts due to NATO provocations, the US can and may call out Martial Law, under which continuation of the current Presidency would be an almost certainty. Biden could remain President, or in case he would be forced to resign by his party, the Dems, his Vice-President, Kamala Harris, alias Obama, would remain in the Globalist Seat of the US empire.
At the outset, it may look as if the Deep State was divided. The anti-globalist, anti-Woke, sovereign USA, MAGA side of the dark Deep State, allowed the election of Donald Trump just to give the appearance.
On the other hand, the globalist, monetized, linear, digitized, all-controlling, non-human Deep State, however, does not want to risk their power liquidated by non-globalist policies, by a sovereign leader, who may inspire other leaders around the globe to follow in the non-globalist, but sovereign, multi-polar, footsteps of a non-globalist world.
Therefore, a Big War may finish the anti-globalist dream of almost the entire world population. As long as money buys everything – Zionist wealth, into 12 to 15 digits (no kidding!), buys everything. It buys the US Congress, laws they will pass, amounting to censoring, to declaring anybody criticizing Israel for its genocide in Palestine, Lebanon – and, if not stopped, soon the entire Middle East – as criminal behavior. Any critique on Israel is NOT allowed.
Zionist power buys the US Presidency and with it the US vassals, European Union and is gradually moving back into South America – under the still very much observed 1823 Monroe Doctrine.
For good memory: President James Monroe’s 1823 annual message to Congress contained the so-called Monroe Doctrine, which warned European powers not to interfere in the affairs of the Western Hemisphere, considered territories under US influence. The Monroe Doctrine is alive and kicking to this day.
Just take this as a vivid example for “money vulnerability.” Towards the end of his campaign, Trump received a US$ 100 million “campaign donation” from Miriam Adelson – a prolific Israeli supporter and Iran hater. Acceptance of that money means not only obeying the donor but also verbally AND publicly standing behind Israel; and that with continued weapons supply.
With so much money buying Trump’s politics, there is not much room for Peace.
It appears that Mr. Trump did not have the integrity to return the 100 million, which would have given him more liberty and autonomy on how to shape his Middle East policies.
GOP megadonor Miriam Adelson is an Israeli-American physician, businesswoman and political donor. She is the widow of businessman Sheldon Adelson, with a long history of staunch support for Israel, no matter what Israel does.
Then, there is Trump’s nomination for Defense Minister, Fox News host Pete Hegseth, a pro-Israel and Iran hawk. See this.
By this choice, Trump is not only tapping someone largely inexperienced and untested on the global stage to take over the US military, but also an unforgiving, limitless, staunch Israeli supporter. There are several Cabinet nominees who are all Zionist-Israel supporters.
That does not bode well for Peace in the Middle East.
In fact, no Peace movement sounds good for the profit hungry Military-War Complex (MWC), and its sidekicks, the Tech- and Financial Giants.
So, who are the ones who attempt to block Trump’s move back into the White House?
Maybe the Globalists, who care more about total control, an all-digitized world where Artificial Intelligence (AI) will reign, where the Woke scam around the world will continue creating havoc, plus UN Agenda 2030, and the newly adopted UN Pact for the Future that includes a Global Digital Compact and a Declaration on Future Generations – and WHO as the GESTAPO-like worldwide health tyrant.
Though, as a Pact not legally binding, would President Trump opt out of it?
Too many questions for a straight answer. It is also possible that the Deep State in unison keeps playing with Us, the People, dividing the populace over and over again, a brainless compliant society, that cannot depart from its cognitive dissonance or ignorance, believing their authorities, despite the treacherous scams and crimes they have been living for decades, but mostly during the past four years.
Have we once more been fooled with Trump as the Agent of Change, as was Obama in 2008, who was supposedly bringing the change that people around the world were so much praying for? He made the status quo of US-NATO-led wars even worse, by starting four new ones – and eventually leading six wars throughout his Presidency. Mr. Trump has to his credit that he did not start any war during his Presidency 2016-2020.
Finally, keep this in mind:
“The biggest damage is created by the Silent Majority, which only wants to survive, submissive and obedient” [Sophie Scholl, original in German].
Civilization is demolishing itself, as it keeps depending on and believing in imposed authorities.
We, the People, are our Own Authority.
*
Click the share button below 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.
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.
Zelenskyy admitted the situation on the battlefield in eastern Ukraine was dire as Russia made strategic advances. He added that the war will “end sooner” than it otherwise would have after president-elect Donald Trump is inaugurated on January 20, 2025.
COP29 was always going to be memorable, for no other reason than the hosting country, Azerbaijan, is a petrostate indifferent to the issue of emissions and scornful of ecological preachers. It has seen its natural gas supply grow by 128% between 2000 and 2021.
Of all Trump’s choices for his foreign policy team, Marco Rubio is the least controversial to the neoconservative foreign policy establishment in Washington, and the most certain to provide continuity with all that is wrong with U.S. foreign policy, from Cuba to the Middle East to China.
The Canadian peace movement is organizing some large scale events this weekend in Montreal to oppose the 70th Annual Parliamentary Assembly of NATO (the North Atlantic Treaty Organization) at the Palais des congrès in Montreal, Nov. 22-25. The main purpose of NATO parliamentary assemblies is to “help build parliamentary and public consensus in support of Alliance policies.”
Much is being talked about how US newly elected President Donald Trump is supposedly at war with the “Deep State” (and the intelligence apparatus) – because of the announcements made pertaining to his nomination choices for some key US government positions.
Prof. Chossudovsky discusses current geopolitical events, including the war in Ukraine and the possibility of nuclear escalation. He remarks that the US Military-Industrial Complex and nuclear weapons manufacturers, through a progressive whitewashing operation started in 2003, have gradually convinced government decision-makers to soften the thresholds for using nuclear bombs, even in conventional wars, claiming their limited danger to the population.
In his dramatic shift away from arming the Kiev regime, Donald Trump’s Secretary of State Marko Rubio says he’s now against funding a “stalemate” concerning the NATO proxy war against Russia. The use of the word stalemate misrepresents the actual situation in a way that serves to prolong a conflict which Trump correctly said should’ve never happened.
Sweden is sending out five million pamphlets to residents urging them to prepare for the possibility of war, with instructions on how to stockpile food and even seek shelter during a nuclear attack, as fears grow of a conflict between Russia and NATO.
Since the start of the war in Ukraine, Stockholm has repeatedly urged Swedes to prepare both mentally and logistically for a possible conflict, citing the worsening security situation in its vicinity.
It comes as tensions between Moscow and the West have escalated to new heights after Joe Biden gave Kyiv the green light to blast targets deep inside Russia with US-supplied long-range missiles, which Donald Trump’s son has criticised as making sure ‘they get WWIII going before my father has a chance to create peace’.
The booklet ‘If Crisis or War Comes’, sent out by the Swedish Civil Contingencies Agency (MSB), contains information about how to prepare for emergencies such as war, natural disasters, cyber attacks and terrorism.
‘An insecure world requires preparedness. The military threat to Sweden has increased and we must prepare for the worst – an armed attack,’ its new introduction states.
In one of the more worrying excerpts, which harks back to advice given by governments during the darkest days of the Cold War, it informs people of the risk of nuclear weapons.
‘The global security situation increases the risks that nuclear weapons could be used. In the event of an attack with nuclear, biological or chemical weapons, take cover in the same way as in an air attack,’ the pamphlet instructs readers.
Click the share button below 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.
Three in five Canadian university students say they fear expressing their honest views on contentious political issues due to potential backlash from peers and instructors, a campus free speech survey says.
Participants in a survey of 1,548 university and college students were asked if they felt comfortable discussing “controversial issues” in the classroom, such as the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, transgender issues, and other politically charged subjects.
“Students were asked about potential consequences from other students and instructors if they shared their honest thoughts, ideas, and questions during a class discussion,” said the survey report, which was conducted by the non-profit organization Heterodox Academy (HxA).
Potential consequences feared by the students included formal career repercussions, such as an instructor refusing to write a recommendation letter, as well as informal social consequences, such as a classmate posting negative comments on social media about the student’s character, the report said.
Sixty-three percent of those surveyed said “they feared at least one formal consequence if they expressed their honest thoughts and opinions during class,” the report said.
“Among responses, students feared retribution from professors more than they were concerned about formal complaints from other students.”
Forty percent of respondents said they had experienced negative consequences after discussing their thoughts on contentious topics, while nearly half (49.3 percent) reported witnessing another student face similar repercussions.
“These data suggest that both students’ reluctance to discuss controversial issues and their fear of consequences from peers and faculty may be well-founded,” researchers said.
‘Deeper Issue’
HxA researchers also assessed students’ attitudes toward freedom of speech issues using a “left-wing authoritarian (LWA) scale” to gauge opinions. Left-wing authoritarianism is defined as individuals who “support a strong central government that can enforce their preferred social and economic policies, and who are intolerant of dissent,” according to a study cited by HxA.
Through the LWA scale, students were asked the extent to which they agreed or disagreed with statements such as “classroom discussions should be safe places that protect students from disturbing ideas” and “universities are right to ban hateful speech from campus.”
At least half of the respondents supported various restrictions on freedom of speech, researchers said.
Support for restrictions on free speech ranged from 49.7 percent of students at least somewhat agreeing with the statement “getting rid of inequality is more important than protecting the so-called ‘right’ to free speech,” to 57.9 percent saying they somewhat agree that “to succeed, a workplace must ensure that its employees feel safe from criticism.”
Researchers noted that there does not appear to be a political bias in support for curbing free speech, because 52.8 percent of students who self-identified as “very left” and 61.9 percent of those who self-identified as “very right” at least somewhat agreed that “classroom discussions should be safe places that protect students from disturbing ideas.”
HxA research director Alex Arnold said these findings suggest a “deeper issue in Canadian higher education,” because free expression and open inquiry are “essential to the core mission of universities to pursue truth and advance knowledge.”
“Absent a deep, unyielding appreciation for free speech and open inquiry, universities cannot effectively study complex social problems, including problems such as how to address inequality and reduce poverty,” he told The Epoch Times.
“Furthermore, history shows that protecting free speech has been crucial for advancing civil rights and social justice. The fact that many students, when asked what they would prioritize, are apt to sacrifice free speech and open inquiry is concerning for the future of higher education and social progress alike.”
*
Click the share button below 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.
With the seemingly endless fear-generating narratives of the corporate-owned mass media in relation to catastrophic CO2-induced climate change; virus pandemics; nuclear war; or whatever else they can come up with to keep you shivering under your sheets – is it any wonder that stress and so-called mental health issues have been in ‘pandemic’ mode? The modern-day solution to such problems is to go to your doctor, and he prescribes some ‘bio-pharmaceutical pills’ that he probably does not know the actual ingredients of. If the pills do not numb your worries, the doctor will happily send you to ‘mental health services’, where a psychologist or psychiatrist gives you a diagnosis and all the pharmaceutical ‘help’ you need. This ‘pop a pill’ process has become ingrained in modern society.
Even many school kids and students today are on a daily regime of behaviour control pills or antidepressants. God forbid your children display normal behaviour of energetic play and discovery. Now our kids are supposed to be docile automatons of the new world order technocracy – to sit in class and learn nonsense that CO2 is killing the planet, accept fake science and fake history, and that we must be vaccinated to survive the next ‘plandemic’. Such misinformation amounts to child abuse.
The book Godless Fake Science and the previous article Godless Fake Science demonstrate that much of the scientific narrative we have been taught from our school days onwards, is based on falsehood, and that the institution of ‘science’ itself has in many ways been hijacked by financial interests seeking to advance their own narrative and agenda. This article asks the question does modern-day psychiatry belong to the category of fake science?
‘Psyche’ means ‘of the soul’. Therefore, the discipline of psychology should really involve the study or ‘the science of the soul’. The original (not altered versions) of the ancient scriptures of the world have already described the science of the soul in great detail. In contrast to this ancient wisdom for human wellbeing, modern day psychology and psychiatry is steeped in the profit-making and drug-pushing agendas of bio-pharmaceutical corporations. It appears to me modern-day psychiatry has more to do with corporate profits and behaviour control than real science or real mental health.
The reality is that no medical test exists for any so-called “mental disorder”. Psychiatrists, medical doctors, and psychologists worldwide prescribe many different drugs based on same symptoms. This is unscientific.
An example of the potentially detrimental impact of this subjectiveness was recounted to me some years ago when I happened to meet a clearly intelligent man who had worked as a scientist for a state agency of the Government of Ireland. This man had been detained against his will due to a single opinion, that of the family doctor, in circumstances that appeared to be contentious, and was committed as an involuntary patient to a mental institute. He described to me some of the horrors of the experience and that, whilst he was detained, he was force-fed pharmaceutical drugs that he did not wish to take. Note that all such drugs come with potential side-effects that can be mild or serious. Thus, a single doctor’s opinion that you are mentally ill can have major ramifications.
This man later wrote about his horrific experience in a highly critical analysis of Irish psychiatry. His article was published by the Irish Times newspaper, in an article titled Psychiatric diagnosis not scientific but subjective, see Endnote [i]. He pointed out that “psychiatric diagnoses are based on the subjective interpretation of behaviour by third parties”. The person is then seen as a “faulty object”, with a chemical imbalance requiring a certain type of pill. The diagnosis can have a very dehumanising effect on someone, along with the stigma of a mental illness that actually has no scientific basis associated with it. The person is led to believe what these “experts” are saying.
Worse still your children can be taken away by the ‘system’ if they are ‘deemed’ to be suffering from a mental disorder, see Endnote [ii]. A psychiatrist makes the decision as to whether your child is mentally ill or not. For example, the Irish Citizens Information portal states:
“If the voluntary patient is a child and the parents or guardian want to remove them, the professional may have the child detained and placed in the custody of the Health Service Executive (if the professional considers that the child is suffering from a mental disorder).”
Revealing Quotes About Psychiatry and the Controversial DSM-IV Classification System
The following quotations easily sourced online are from academics, psychiatrists, psychology teachers, and doctors, and provide a notable condemnation of modern-day psychiatry:
[Note: DSM-IV codes are the classification found in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders.]
“There are no objective tests in psychiatry-no X-ray, laboratory, or exam finding that says definitively that someone does or does not have a mental disorder…. there is no definition of a mental disorder…. It’s bull—. I mean, you just can’t define it.” — Allen Frances, Psychiatrist and former DSM-IV Task Force Chairman
“DSM-IV is the fabrication upon which psychiatry seeks acceptance by medicine in general. Insiders know it is more a political than scientific document… DSM-IV has become a bible and a money making bestseller—its major failings notwithstanding.”— Loren Mosher, M.D., Clinical Professor of Psychiatry
“It’s not science. It’s politics and economics. That’s what psychiatry is: politics and economics. Behavior control, it is not science, it is not medicine.”— Thomas Szasz, Professor of Psychiatry Emeritus
“everyone with an interest in mental health should at least be aware of the Szaszian critique of the mental health industry… medicine is a real science that deals with biological phenomena, especially cellular pathology… Now take a look at the DSM and one will immediately note that the DSM is not based at all on cellular pathology… For many of the conditions, organic explanations are to be RULED OUT in order for a DSM diagnosis to be given… Crucial for Szasz is that the attribution of disease then legitimizes in psychiatrists and other mental health professionals the power of social control. By labeling others as “sick”, we can lock them away, force drugs upon them, and separate them from “normal” people like us because there is something fundamentally wrong with them. And we can justify it all in the name of science. But really it is about social control. The mental health industry manufactures illnesses to legitimize and feed itself and it serves those in power via social control of deviants…. according to Szasz, the science of mental sickness is all metaphor and the emperor has no clothes…. while the Emperor might not be completely naked, it seems to me he is often down to his skivvies.” – Gregg Henriques, Ph.D., directs the Combined Clinical and School Psychology Doctoral Program at James Madison University.
“In reality, psychiatric diagnosing is a kind of spiritual profiling that can destroy lives and frequently does.” — Peter Breggin, Psychiatrist
“…modern psychiatry has yet to convincingly prove the genetic/biologic cause of any single mental illness… Patients [have] been diagnosed with ‘chemical imbalances’ despite the fact that no test exists to support such a claim, and…there is no real conception of what a correct chemical balance would look like.” — Dr. David Kaiser, Psychiatrist
“There’s no biological imbalance. When people come to me and they say, ‘I have a biochemical imbalance,’ I say, ‘Show me your lab tests.’ There are no lab tests. So what’s the biochemical imbalance?” — Dr. Ron Leifer, Psychiatrist
“Virtually anyone at any given time can meet the criteria for bipolar disorder or ADHD. Anyone. And the problem is everyone diagnosed with even one of these ‘illnesses’ triggers the pill dispenser.” — Dr. Stefan Kruszewski, Psychiatrist
“No behavior or misbehavior is a disease or can be a disease. That’s not what diseases are. Diseases are malfunctions of the human body, of the heart, the liver, the kidney, the brain. Typhoid fever is a disease. Spring fever is not a disease; it is a figure of speech, a metaphoric disease. All mental diseases are metaphoric diseases, misrepresented as real diseases and mistaken for real diseases.” — Thomas Szasz, Professor of Psychiatry Emeritus, best known for coining the term the “myth of mental illness
“It has occurred to me with forcible irony that psychiatry has quite literally lost its mind, and along with it the minds of the patients they are presumably supposed to care for.”— David Kaiser, Psychiatrist
“All psychiatrists have in common that when they are caught on camera or on microphone, they cower and admit that there are no such things as chemical imbalances/diseases, or examinations or tests for them. What they do in practice, lying in every instance, abrogating [revoking] the informed consent right of every patient and poisoning them in the name of ‘treatment’ is nothing short of criminal.”— Dr Fred Baughman Jr., Paediatric Neurologist
“Psychiatry makes unproven claims that depression, bipolar illness, anxiety, alcoholism and a host of other disorders are in fact primarily biologic and probably genetic in origin…This kind of faith in science and progress is staggering, not to mention naïve and perhaps delusional.” — Dr. David Kaiser, psychiatrist
“In short, the whole business of creating psychiatric categories of ‘disease,’ formalizing them with consensus, and subsequently ascribing diagnostic codes to them, which in turn leads to their use for insurance billing, is nothing but an extended racket furnishing psychiatry a pseudo-scientific aura. The perpetrators are, of course, feeding at the public trough.”— Dr. Thomas Dorman, internist and member of the Royal College of Physicians of the UK
“I believe, until the public and psychiatry itself see that DSM labels are not only useless as medical ‘diagnoses’ but also have the potential to do great harm—particularly when they are used as means to deny individual freedoms, or as weapons by psychiatrists acting as hired guns for the legal system.” — Dr. Sydney Walker III, psychiatrist
“The way things get into the DSM is not based on blood test or brain scan or physical findings. It’s based on descriptions of behavior. And that’s what the whole psychiatry system is.”— Dr. Colin Ross, psychiatrist
“No biochemical, neurological, or genetic markers have been found for Attention Deficit Disorder, Oppositional Defiant Disorder, Depression, Schizophrenia, anxiety, compulsive alcohol and drug abuse, overeating, gambling or any other so-called mental illness, disease, or disorder.” — Bruce Levine, Ph.D., psychologist and author of Commonsense Rebellion
“Unlike medical diagnoses that convey a probable cause, appropriate treatment and likely prognosis, the disorders listed in DSM-IV [and ICD-10] are terms arrived at through peer consensus.”— Tana Dineen Ph.D., psychologist
“The greater the number of treatment facilities and the more widely they are known, the larger the number of persons seeking their services. Psychotherapy is the only form of treatment which, to some extent, appears to create the illness it treats.” – Dr. Jerome Frank of the Johns-Hopkins University School of Medicine in Baltimore
“Psychiatry and psychology are the most lucrative professions in America, and among all professionals, the highest suicide rate is found among psychiatrists and psychologists” – Chaitanya Charan das, Author
Was Psychologist Sigmund Freud a Fraud?
“The entire system of classical psycho-analytical thought rests on nothing more substantial than Freud’s word that it is true. And that is why the late Nobelist in medicine Sir Peter Medawar famously condemned that system as a stupendous intellectual confidence trick.“ – Frederick Crews, Professor Emeritus of English, University of California
Let us consider the work of the famous Jewish psychologist, Sigmund Freud (1856-1939), upon which much of modern-day psychiatry and psycho-analysis is based. His ideas have had a significant impact upon modern society. In his writings Freud confesses to a definite sexual longing for his mother, and because of this he assumed that all men did. This unscientific piece of Freudian perversion was promoted to such an extent it became embedded into modern-day psychology. Why should the whole world have to accept this theory based on Freud’s confession of his own perverted state? Throughout human history such thoughts have been considered by traditional society as being preposterous and morally unacceptable, but to Freud it seemed completely natural. Freud said:
“I have found in my own case too, the phenomena of being in love with my mother and jealous of my father, and I now consider it to be a universal event… ”.
Freud’s notion is unscientific and lacking a shred of evidence, yet the entire rest of the world has been painted into the picture of Freudian psychology. Freud also asserted that it would better for people if they had sexual relations with both genders. Again, this was asserted with no evidence. In fact, many scientists and academics have questioned the legitimacy of Freudian psychoanalysis, for example, Frank L. Cioffi of Princeton University author of the book Freud and the Question of Pseudo-science. The following are revealing comments about Freud by prolific academics and notable personalities:
“He [Freud] was for many years an enthusiastic user [of cocaine] to the point where his nose bled and became filled with pus – which he treated with more cocaine…Freud’s friend Ernst von Fleischl-Marxov (1846-1891) had become despairing addict after Freud had prescribed cocaine as medicine for a painful hand tumor. There is no doubt that the addiction brought about his early death…. Freuds neurotic dysfunctions manifested themselves in unusual behavior patterns and in psychosomatic ailments – particularly those affecting the mouth, the genitals and the anus… more often than not he was chronically depressed and bad tempered.” – David McCalden (1951-1991), Writer
“No one has yet evaluated the hallucinatory effects of cocaine on Freuds mind during the formative years of psychoanalysis. Without cocaine, could Freud have created such improbable flights of human fancy?” – Martin L. Gross, writer and former Associate Professor of Social Science at New York University.
“[On Freudian theory] “I think it’s such a narcissistic indulgence that I cannot believe in it” – Sophie Freud, grand-daughter of Sigmund Freud, PhD from Florence Heller School for Social Welfare
“A major contributor to the present-day tendency to accept and encourage homosexuality is Dr. Sigmund Freud… In other words, homosexuality was no longer to be considered an illegal form of debauchery or perversion in which one willingly engaged a person of his own sex…” – Dr. Tim LaHaye, Author
“I don’t want an elderly gentleman from Vienna with an umbrella inflicting his dreams upon me” – Vladimir Nabokov (1899-1977), novelist, critic, from an aristocratic Russian family
“[Freudian belief and psychoanalysis] were never a science. Freud was a fashion, and then he became unfashionable, completely absurd.” – Sonu Shamdasani PhD, a historian of psychology and a research associate at UCL
“To me, psychoanalysis is a hoax – the biggest hoax ever played on humanity. By showing who analysts are, how they work, what they believe, and what they have done, I hope to show Freud as a fraud. If I succeed, I am idealistic enough to hope that the world may return to the belief in love, ideals, good taste and courtesy – the ‘books’ that have been burned by the Freudian Inquisition.” – Edward R. Pinckney MD
“The seduction stories that provide the proffered empirical basis of the Oedipal complex were in fact a construction by Freud who then interpreted his patients’ distress on hearing his constructions as confirmation. Freud then deceptively obscured the fact that his patients’ stories were reconstructions and interpretations based on his a priori theory. He also retro-actively changed the identity of the fancied seducers from non-family members (servants, etc.) when his oedipal story required fathers instead… What started out as speculation in need of empirical support ended up as a fundamental a priori assumption.
Now 100 years after its inception, the theory of the Oedipal complex, childhood sexuality, and the sexual etiology of neuroses remain without any independent empirical validation…. the idea that children would have a specifical sexual attraction to their opposite sex parent is extremely implausible… Freud has been the most overrated figure in the entire history of science and medicine, one who wrought immense harm through the propagation of false etiologies, mistaken diagnoses, and fruitless lines of inquiry… psycho-analysis has a lot to answer for… since its inception, psycho-analysis has been denounced as a pseudo-science.
By the early 1960s philosophers of science such as Michael Polanyi, Karl Popper, Ernst Nagel and Sidney Hook had noted the self-authenticating nature of psychoanalytical assertion. More recently, highly critical accounts of psychoanalysis from Henri Ellenberger (1970), Frank Sulloway (1992/1979), Adolph Grunbaum (1984), Frank Cioffi (1969, 1970, 1972), and most recently, Malcolm MacMillan (1991) have appeared.”
– Professor Kevin MacDonald PhD, Department of Psychology CSU-Long Beach
“They are translating this Freud’s philosophy, pig civilization.” – Srila Prabhupada, Renowned Spiritual Leader and Vedic scholar
“I think that Sigmund Freud had sexual conflicts within himself which he did not resolve. His belief in constitutional bisexuality, for example, was an excuse for certain personal traits.” – Dr. Harold M. Voth, a Freudian psychiatrist at the Menninger Foundation
“I dimly sensed some slight feminine aspect in his manner and movements.” Modern critics suggest that present-day Freudians are influenced by Freud’s “feminine, passive feelings” so much that they “regard masculine assertiveness and aggression as a neurotic manifestation.” – Freud’s biographer, Ernest Jones
“No one has yet evaluated the hallucinatory effects of cocaine on Freud’s mind during the formative years of psychoanalysis.” – Martin L. Gross, author of The Psychological Society
“Dr. Voth is convinced that Freud displayed ‘a considerable degree of femininity’ in his personality, a trait that has colored the entire profession by making what he calls the ‘neurotically troubled’ Dr. Freud a model… Those driving needs have infiltrated the psyche of millions of individuals as well, remaking much of our personalities in his image. By offering his catalog of foibles as the symbols of normality, Freud achieved immortality…
The portrait that emerges is one of a man driven by the furies of hostility and envy, weighed down by depression, death wishes, phobias and severe debilitating neuroses. He was professionally distorted by his extreme surreptitiousness and gullibility — the antithesis of a man of science. Freud the man is more the unhappy philosopher than the intrepid researcher who society thought would unlock the key to our confused behavior.”
– Jewish author Martin L. Gross and Dr. Harold M. Voth, a Freudian psychiatrist at the Menninger Foundation
“There is little question but that a good deal of the impetus for the discovery of psychoanalysis came from Freud’s general hostility toward Christianity…” – Stanley Rothman, in an article Group Fantasies and Jewish Radicalism published in the Fall 1978 issue of The Journal of Psychohistory
“The psychoanalyst Sandor Ferenczi reports a statement by Freud from 1932 that referred to patients as “rabble” and “only good for money-earning and studying.” From 1884 onward, Freud was in effect a snake-oil salesman. He then began experimenting with cocaine… Michel Onfray, an author who wrote a comprehensive and critical monograph on Freud in 2010, documented deaths from his gross misdiagnosis… Psychotherapy was a potpourri of techniques lifted from previous colleagues, laced with a heavy dose of sexual fixations, most of them exclusively Jewish in nature… Soon using a charade of the scientific method, Freud began to surmise that most of his patients’ problems were sexual in nature…
Freud obviously experienced Oedipal lust… he then suffered the delusion that his abnormality was normal and universal… Freud told his colleague Karl Abraham that “too many of us are Jews. I don’t want Psychoanalysis to become a Jewish national affair…. The Israeli philosophy professor Yeshayahu Leibowitz went even further and held that Freud psychoanalysis was “primarily a Jewish money-making scheme”, and that’s a “bad sign for (us) Jews.” He went on to say that psychoanalysis was “entirely in the hands of the Jews” and has “brought unspeakable suffering to millions of people.”
– Richard Boyden, in an article which he says is based in part on David McCalden’s treatise Exiles From History, see Endnote [iii].
Conclusion: It appears the profession been infected by a disciplic succession of Freudian quackery.
The Sex Delusion
In addition, Freud and his financial backers promoted the concept that orgasm is necessary for health. Such Freudian narratives have proliferated in this current sex-dominated culture, and some people are, thus, under the impression that the more sex, the better it is for their health and wellbeing.
We all have freewill to make our own personal choices, however, it appears to me that this assertion by Freud’s also has no scientific basis. In regard to this I note a book titled Brain Gain by the American writer, academic and spiritual leader, Dr. Dane Holtzman, better known as Danavir Goswami. The book provides evidence that the opposite is the case – that overindulgence in sex can lead to health disorders, including nervous disorders, via loss of vital bodily fluids. It is asserted with references from physicians that wasting vital bodily fluids decreases vitality and immunity because it involves the loss of precious proteins, lipoids, cholesterin, and minerals.
It is cited that dozens of geniuses throughout history practiced celibacy for this reason, including Pythagoras, Plato, Aristotle, Beethoven, Sir Isaac Newton, Leonardo da Vinci, Michelangelo, Pascal, Spinoza, Kant, Thoreau, Handel, Schopenhauer, Nietzsche, Sidis, Tesla, who all lived celibate lives to transmute their sexual energy into intellectual development. In the spiritual domain, Jesus Christ, Sukadeva Goswami, prophets Elijah and Elisha, John the Baptist, and many more were celibate. Chaste women of prolific fame include, Joan of Arc, Queen Elizabeth I, Florence Nightingale, Draupadi, Sita, Saint Teresa, Emily Dickinson, Mirabai, Saint Catherine, Mother Teresa and the Virgin Mary.
“To control the sexual impulse efficiently has always been and ever will be regarded as the highest test of human wisdom” – Auguste Comte, French Philosopher
Note also that cholesterol is a vital substance in the brain. In fact, the brain has the highest cholesterol content of any organ in the body. Most of the brain’s cholesterol exists in the axons of nerve cells. According to a 2014 study, titled Cholesterol in brain disease: sometimes determinant and frequently implicated, see Endnote [iv].
“Cholesterol is essential for neuronal physiology, both during development and in the adult life… defects in brain cholesterol metabolism may contribute to neurological syndromes.”
It is also commonly known in the sport of boxing that a fighter, in order to retain his strength, should not engage in sexual relations before a fight. It appears there is valid science behind this instruction. If we accept the research detailed in Brain Gain, then Freud’s popularized assertion has most probably resulted in an increase in mental health problems! Could it be that Freud was actually the one with a mental disorder? Why he was compelled to talk endlessly of perversion? Karl Jung, a psychiatrist who founded analytical psychology, noted the following:
“Freud never asked himself why he was compelled to talk continually of sex, why this idea had taken such possession of him. He remained unaware that his monotony of interpretation expressed a flight from himself…” – Carl Jung, Psychiatrist
Freud’s work is also an inversion of original Christian values and of traditional values that existed world-wide for thousands of years, including the values of ancient Vedic cultures.
“… the body is not for fornication… Flee fornication… he that committeth fornication sinneth against his own body. What? Know ye not that your body is the temple of the Holy Ghost which is in you, which ye have of God, and ye are not your own?” – (Bible: Book of 1st Corinthians 13, 18, 19)
“The union, then, of male and female for the purpose of procreation is the natural good of marriage. But he who makes a bad use of this good who uses it bestially, so that his intention is on the gratification of lust.” – Saint Augustine, Christian Saint
“The practice of chastity is counselled by Christ, taught by His example, and practiced by the Apostles.” – Saint Francis, Christian Saint
“Adultery and fornication are forbidden for a number of reasons. First of all, because they destroy the soul; “He that is an adulterer, for the folly of his heart shall destroy his own soul.”… which is whenever the flesh dominates the spirit… Thirdly, these sins consume his substance, just as happened to the prodigal son in that ‘he wasted his substance living riotously.” – Saint Thomas Aquinas, Christian Saint
“When veerya [vital fluid] is not used, it is all transmuted into ojas sakti or spiritual energy and stored up in the brain… loss of memory, premature old age, and various nervous diseases are attributable to the heavy loss of this fluid” – His Holiness Sri Swami Sivananda
“… in Vedic times, sex was meant for procreation, not recreation…. We would do well to remember that our so-called primitive ancestors were not brainwashed by the maddening media blitz saturated with covert and overt sexual overtones… Apart from sanctified procreation, the institution of marriage was meant for gratification of the bodily sex drive in a regulated, religious way. This would gradually help both the spouses to realize the futility of all bodily enjoyment and help each other to advance together on the journey back to Krishna (God). “ – Chaitanya Charan das, Author
In contrast to the modern sex-culture, original scriptures inform us that sex should be reserved only for the creation of children. Furthermore, and tragically, the frantic culture of carnal-gratification in modern times seems to have degraded our most precious faculty – love itself. How can young men and young women find a stable path in such an environment? The ephemeral nature of it all is likely to leave a void in the heart.
For example, in ancient Vedic cultures young men were trained as a brahmacarya until the age of 25. Brahmacarya life involved conduct consistent with the divine path of God-consciousness; and becoming expert in learning, military arts, administration, spiritual counselling, etc., according to each man’s individual qualities. By remaining celibate until the age of 25, men became physically and intellectually stronger not weaker – their energy was not wasted on promiscuity and needless sex. At that point many men would then marry and sex was only then for the purpose of raising a (God-conscious) family – it was not to be done needlessly. Vedic culture also utilized specific dietary habits to avoid stimulating sex desire, see Endnote [v] for details.
The Climate Politics of Milk – Seeking Sustenance for a Healthy Brain
In ancient times, cows were revered and they provided the miracle food of high-quality cholesterol-rich milk with all the nutrients the human body needs, and which was beneficial to the brain and higher thinking. Ancient brahmans and sages could live on milk alone. To this day, in Ayurvedic medicine ghee, which is made from milk, it is used to improve memory and reduce mental tension. For thousands of years mankind drank raw milk – any impurities can be eliminated by simply boiling it prior to drinking it and this is the best way to drink milk. The cows were not vaccinated, and the milk did not go through the modern enzyme-destroying process of pasteurization, which can make the milk harder to digest for some people. In ancient cultures worldwide, cows were not regarded as mere commercial commodities to be sold and exploited, rather they were an essential part of a functioning community.
Modern-day commercial dairy farming can involve the use of growth hormones, man-made chemicals, pesticides on the farm, vaccination of the cows, GMOs, etc.; and it appears to me the milk is of poorer quality for it. We have consumed raw milk for at least 5,000 years, but today it is illegal in various countries to sell or produce raw milk – for example, this is the case in Canada, under the Food and Drug Regulations since 1991. I note also that in the US, in 2011, Judge Patrick J. Fiedler made an astonishing unjust ruling, where he judged “no, plaintiffs do not have a fundamental right to produce and consume the foods of your choice… no right to contract with a farmer… no right to own a cow”. Three weeks later, he resigned from his position as a judge and joined a law firm that represents Monsanto, a major producer of rBGH growth hormones for commercial dairy cows, see Endnote [vi]. In response to such injustice, some towns in the US have been approving food sovereignty initiatives that allow food producers to sell food without federal or state interference.
I note also the current UN-inspired, plan, voiced by the Irish Department of Agriculture, and the Irish Environmental Protection Agency, to kill 200,000 dairy cows in Ireland in a murderously deluded attempt to stop manmade climate change. The reality is that methane emissions from cows do not cause climate change. See also the book Transcending the Climate Deception Toward Real Sustainability. There are many farmers and independent groups in Ireland that know this, yet the Irish government appears to have shut out all debate on climate change, and it seems will pay 5,000 euros ($5,622) for each cow killed, in this psychotic onslaught. Psychosis being defined as an acute or chronic mental state marked by loss of contact with reality.
What Causes Depression? Links Between Toxicity in the Body and Mental Health Issues
I am not doctor, I am not here to provide medical advice, this article is simply based on my own experience and initial research, yet I note the words of Thomas Szasz, Professor of Psychiatry Emeritus (1920 – 2012) best known for coining the term the “myth of mental illness. He states:
“No behavior or misbehavior is a disease or can be a disease. That’s not what diseases are… All mental diseases are metaphoric diseases, misrepresented as real diseases and mistaken for real diseases.”
Was Szasz correct in his analysis? Tens of millions of people are prescribed bio-pharmaceutical drugs to address so-called mental health issues. such as depression, anxiety etc. However, it appears to me that such drugs do not address the underlying cause of such issues. Furthermore, it seems that no one really knows what exactly causes depression. We hear about factors such as biochemical imbalance, stress, and genetic predisposition, but where is the scientific basis? Could there be another cause not acknowledged by the profession? What about environmental factors?
Consider that industrial globalization has produced many substances that are registered as pollutants, including thousands of new man-made chemical compounds, toxins, nano-particles and genetically modified organisms (GMOs) that are in violation of the scientific pre-cautionary principle. Over the past tens of thousands of years, the human body has never been exposed to these new substances so we do not know the long-term effects. UN environmental law instruments are largely impotent in safe-guarding human health and nature from the vast scale of rampant corporate technological pollution. Instead, the UN focuses on the bogus manmade climate change due to CO2, and methane from cows, agenda, see this article.
I note that depression has been linked to the proliferation of toxins that exist in the modern environment that we are exposed to. A study titled Environmental Chemicals and Nervous System Dysfunction published in The Yale Journal of Biology and Medicine, see Endnote [vii], states:
“The etiology of many neurological and/ or psychiatric disorders is obscure or completely unknown. Affected patients frequently have nonspecific complaints that are easily passed off as being minor, temporary, psychosomatic, due to stress, etc. However, these same subtle symptoms may be the first signs of intoxication with environmental and occupational chemicals. The medical community should become sensitized to considering nervous system toxicants as a source of these otherwise unexplainable symptoms, and evidence for occupational and environmental exposures must be included in the differential diagnosis of neurological diseases. The toxicity of the compounds mentioned in this review is now well known, but they may represent only the “tip of the iceberg.”
Exposure to toxic heavy metals, such as mercury, lead, and arsenic are known to cause anxiety and/or depression. Government literatures do warn us of neurotoxicity, for example, the US National Advisory Neurological Disorders and Stroke Council website, see Endnote [viii], states:
“Neurotoxicity occurs when the exposure to natural or manmade toxic substances (neurotoxicants) alters the normal activity of the nervous system. This can eventually disrupt or even kill neurons (nerve cells) which are important for transmitting and processing signals in the brain and other parts of the nervous system. Neurotoxicity can result from exposure to substances used in chemotherapy, radiation treatment, drug therapies, and organ transplants, as well as exposure to heavy metals such as lead and mercury, certain foods and food additives, pesticides, industrial and/or cleaning solvents, cosmetics, and some naturally occurring substances.”
It appears that the neurotoxic factor is rarely considered by doctors or psychiatrists in relation to mental health and depression. This may be because environmental health is not usually taught in medical education. To make matters even more complicated, a depressed mood is actually a common side effect of the bio-pharmaceutical medications that are prescribed to combat depression, see Endnote [ix].
The Psychology of the Soul
Remember ‘psyche’ means ‘of the soul’. According to psychotherapist Neal M. Goldsmith Ph.D: “Before Wilhelm Wundt opened the first experimental psychology laboratory in 1879, there was no academic discipline of psychology separate from philosophy and biology. Perhaps it should have stayed like that for a while longer at least.”
In conclusion, it appears to me that modern-day psychiatry is fake science and that for our wellbeing we need to re-embrace the true ‘science of the soul’. It can only benefit us to remember our true identity as an eternal soul – as children of God – that is the science of self-realisation. Wellbeing is the natural psychological state of the God-conscious soul, and despite external circumstances, the soul itself is never damaged by external temporalities. In this realization the self is protected from the mental ills of this current topsy-turvy world of chaos, fake science, and greed. Furthermore, a common thread in both the Christian scriptures and the ancient Vedic scriptures is that God protects his sincere devotees.
“We know that God’s children do not make a practice of sinning, for God’s Son holds them securely, and the evil one cannot touch them.” – John 5:18
“this very Supreme Personality of Godhead is the supreme controller, the supremely worshipable, all-cognizant, fully determined, fully opulent, the emblem of forgiveness, the protector of surrendered souls, munificent, true to His promise,” – from the Nectar of Devotion by Srila Prabhupada, Spiritual leader in the tradition of Vedic Vaishnavism
*
Click the share button below 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.
[v] The Vedic diet referred to involves the avoidance of meat, fish, eggs, garlic, onions, alcohol, coffee, tea and tobacco, all of which are aphrodisiacal stimulants. Note that eminent Danish nutritionist Mikkel Hindhede (1862-1945), stated “we must conclude that sex in its ordinary manifestation among civilised human beings is not the product of natural instinct that it is generally supposed to be but is a chemotropism evoked or conditioned reflex (in Pavlov’s sense) evoked in response to aphrodisiacal stimulation by foods and beverages, especially animal proteins, alcohol, coffee, and also tobacco. This tropistic reaction, in both its physical and psychical aspects, is subject to voluntary control through diet, an alkaline-forming, low protein vegetable diet reducing it, while an acid-forming high-protein met diet increases it.”
COP29 was always going to be memorable, for no other reason than the hosting country, Azerbaijan, is a petrostate indifferent to the issue of emissions and scornful of ecological preachers. It has seen its natural gas supply grow by 128% between 2000 and 2021. Between 2006 and 2021, gas exports rose by a monumental 29,290%. A dizzying 95% of the country’s exports are made up of oil and gas, with much of its wealth failing to trickle down to the rest of the populace.
The broadly described West, as stated by President Ilham Aliyev in his opening address to the Conference of the Parties to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, was in no position to be lecturing his country about cutting back on the use of fossil fuels. They were, he grandly claimed, “a gift from God”. In this, he should have surprised no one. In April 2024, he declared that, as a leader of a country “which is rich in fossil fuels, of course, we will defend the right of these countries to continue investments and to continue production.”
A few days later, Aliyev played the other side of the climate change divide, suggesting at a meeting with island leaders that France and the Netherlands had been responsible for “brutally” suppressing the “voices” of communities in such overseas territories as Mayotte and Curaçao concerned with climate change. (Aliyev himself is no stranger to suppressing, with dedicated brutality, voices of dissent within his own country.) This proved too much for France’s Ecological Transition Minister, Agnès Pannier-Runacher, who cancelled her planned attendance to the summit while attacking Baku for “instrumentalising the fight against climate change for its undignified personal agenda.”
On the second day of the summit, the UN Secretary-General, Antonio Guterres, tried to turn the attention of delegates to the urgent matter at hand.
“The sound you hear is the ticking clock – we are in the final countdown to limit global temperature rise to 1.5°C, and time is not on our side.”
Others, however, heard the sound of money changing hands, with the fossil fuel industry lurking, fangs and pens at the ready, presided over by the good offices of a petrostate.
In the background lie assessments of gloomy inevitability. The Climate Change Tracker’s November 2024 briefing notes this year was one characterised by “minimal progress, with almost no new national climate change targets (NDCs) or net zero pledges even though government have agreed to (urgently) strengthen their 2030 targets and to align them with the 1.5°C goal of the Paris Agreement.”
.
World Leaders Climate Action Summit at COP29 (Licensed under CC BY 4.0)
.
As easy as it is to rage against the opportunistic Aliyev, who crudely blends environmentalism with ethnic cleansing, few attending the summit in Baku come with clean hands. As with previous COP events, Baku offers another enormous event of emitters and emission, featuring tens of thousands of officials, advisors and minders bloviating in conference. That said, the 67,000 registrants at this conference is somewhat lower compared with the 83,000 who descended on Dubai at COP28.
The plane tracking website FlightRadar24 noted that 65 private jets landed in the Azerbaijani capital prior to the summit, prompting Alethea Warrington, the head of energy, aviation and heat at Possible, a climate action charity, to tut with heavy disapproval:
“Travelling by private jet is a horrendous waste of the world’s scarce remaining carbon budget, with each journey producing more emissions in a few hours than the average person around the world emits in an entire year.”
COP29 is also another opportunity to strike deals that have little to do with reducing emissions and everything to do with advancing the interests of lobby groups and companies in the energy market, much of it of a fossil fuel nature. In the spirit of Dubai, COP29 is set to follow in the footsteps of the wily Sultan Ahmed Al Jaber, who chaired COP28 in Dubai. Prior to the arrival of the chatterati of climate change last year, the Sultan was shown in leaked briefing documents to the BBC and the Centre for Climate Reporting (CCR) to be an avid enthusiast for advancing the business of the Abu Dhabi National Oil Company (Adnoc). It was hard to avoid the glaring fact that Al Jaber is also the CEO of Adnoc.
The documents in question involve over 150 pages of briefings prepared by the COP28 team for meetings with Jaber and various interested parties held between July and October this year. They point to plans to raise matters of commercial interest with as many as 30 countries. The CCR confirms
“that on at least one occasion a nation followed up on commercial discussions brought up in a meeting with Al Jaber; a source with knowledge of discussions also told CCR that Adnoc’s business interests were allegedly raised during a meeting with another country.”
The COP29 chairman, Samir Nuriyev, had already put out feelers as early as March this year that a “fair approach” was needed when approaching countries abundant with oil and natural gas, notably in light of their purported environmental policies. He went so far as to argue that Azerbaijan was an ideal interlocutor between the Global South and Global North. His colleague and chief executive of the COP29 team, Elnur Soltanov, showed exactly how that process would work in a secret recording ahead of the conference in which he discusses “investment opportunities” in the state oil and gas company with a person posing as a potential investor. (The person in question purported to be representing a fictitious Hong Kong investment firm with a sharp line in energy.) “We have a lot of gas fields that are to be developed,” Soltanov insists. “We will have a certain amount of oil and gas being produced, perhaps forever.”
In many ways, the Baku gathering has all the hallmarks of a criminal syndicate meeting, held under more open conditions. Fair play, then, to the Azerbaijani hosts for working out the climate change racket, taking the lead from Dubai last year. Aliyev and company noted months in advance that this was less a case of being a theatre of the absurd than a forum for business. And so, it is proving to be.
*
Click the share button below 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.
Dr. Binoy Kampmark was a Commonwealth Scholar at Selwyn College, Cambridge. He currently lectures at RMIT University. He is a Research Associate of the Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG). Email: [email protected]
Researcher Adam Green reveals Fox News “analyst” and Donald Trump’s Defense Secretary appointee Pete Hegseth is a “[redacted]-first sellout,” “war hawk,” “neocon,” and “Third Temple cultist” who “wants war with Iran and Russia.”
Hegseth says he is a “Christian Zionist” who believes Jesus will “return” once the “Third Temple” is built where the Dome of the Rock, also called the Al-Aqsa mosque compound, now sits on the Temple Mount in the Old City of Jerusalem.
“Pete Hegseth, Trump’s nominee for Secretary of Defense has also sparked controversy among the military. The 44-year-old Fox News host and Army National Guard who will be heading the Pentagon has been described by Paul Rieckhoff (founder of Independent Veterans of America) as “the least qualified nominee for SecDef in American history.”.(Uriel Araujo, Global Research)
Perhaps the most demented of [Trump’s appointees] is also is the individual in the most potentially threatening position, Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth.
Hegseth is a journalist with FOX news with one observer noting that he has never managed any organization larger than his three wives and five children prior to his upgrade to the $1 trillion budgeted 2.9 million Pentagon employees.
Even by Christian Zionist standards, he might well be considered to be an extremist.
An excerpt from Hegseth’s book,American Crusade, Our Fight to Stay Free(2020) includes:
“Simply put: if you don’t understand why Israel matters and why it is so central to the story of Western civilization — with America being its greatest manifestation — then you don’t live in history.
“America’s story is inextricably linked to Judeo-Christian history and the modern state of Israel.
“You can love America without loving Israel but that tells me your knowledge of the Bible and Western civilization is woefully incomplete. …
“If you love America, you should love Israel. We share history, we share faith, and we share freedom. We love free people, free expression, and free markets.”
These architectural ambitions could be harmless enough, like constructing a Methodist kindergarten, except religious authorities claim that when the Third Temple is built, the Messiah (Moshiach) will come and enslave or kill all gentiles.
Christians like Hegseth and Messianic rabbis like Jonathan Cahn say they believe this messiah will be Jesus, who will “rapture” believers into the sky “to meet Him in the air.”
Others including some Orthodox Jews say the messiah will be someone else, not Jesus.
Regardless, around when the messiah presents himself to the world, a massive war will kill two-thirds of the world’s population, rabbis claim.
Preachers like Cahn and John Hagee (video below) urge us to welcome these wars while kicking back and munching popcorn, on the grounds the ensuing destruction is inevitable fulfillment of “prophecies.”
Judge Andrew Napolitano tells Gerald Celente (video below) that Hegseth is spectacularly unqualified to be defense secretary, lacking any strategic reasoning, management skills, or empathy.
Judge Napolitano says Hegseth and fellow [redacted]-first Trump designees Marco Rubio (Secretary of State) and Mike Huckabee (US Ambassador to Israel) “will lead us to World War III.”
Of Hegseth’s plan for a military apocalypse, rabbis like Michael Danielov (video below) say the Torah and Talmud predict Persia (now represented by Russia and Iran) will defeat Rome (today’s Europe and America).
Click the share button below 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.
Hegseth has been active in conservative and Republican politics since his undergraduate days at Princeton University. In 2016, he emerged as a supporter of Donald Trump‘s presidential candidacy and served as an occasional advisor to Trump throughout the latter’s first term as president. He reportedly persuaded Trump to pardon three American soldiers accused or convicted of war crimes related to the shooting of non-combatants in Iraq. Hegseth, who was a platoon leader at Guantanamo Bay during his military service, defended the treatment of inmates detained there.[1]
A controversial “nonprofit killer” bill is back on track after it was blocked earlier this week.
A majority of Democrats in the House of Representatives rejected the bill on Tuesday out of fear that it could grant President-elect Donald Trump the legal tools with which to target his ideological foes, but Republicans are swiftly pressing ahead.
The Stop Terror-Financing and Tax Penalties on American Hostages Act, which would empower the secretary of the Treasury to designate any nonprofit as a “terrorist supporting organization” and revoke its tax-exempt status, is set to go before the Committee on Rules on Monday for a hearing that could tee up the bill for a new floor vote.
The hearing was announced Thursday evening, just two days after 144 Democrats and one Republican voted against the bill as part of a fast-track parliamentary procedure that required a two-thirds majority.
The bill, also known as H.R. 9495, has come under withering criticism from a broad coalition of organizations that say its sponsors are pushing it as a means of cracking down on free speech — particularly speech in support of Palestine. In a joint statement earlier this week, a coalition of Arab American and Muslim organizations pledged to continue to fight the bill.
“This bill was designed to criminalize organizations and activists who oppose the U.S.’s unconditional support of Israel’s genocide of Palestinians and the slaughter of Lebanese civilians,” read the statement, which was signed by the Council on American-Islamic Relations, American Muslims for Palestine, and others. “We will continue to stand firm in protecting all organizations’ freedom to speak and operate without fear of political retribution.”
Offices for the chair and ranking member of the Ways and Means Committee, through which the bill must pass, did not respond to requests for comment.
With pro-Israel groups lobbying for the bill, it gained popularity among House Democrats, in part due to a provision providing tax relief to Americans held hostage abroad.
The reelection of Trump, however, galvanized opponents, including Rep. Lloyd Doggett, D-Texas, who led the charge to reject the bill on Tuesday. Doggett doubled down on Thursday after learning of the newly scheduled Rules Committee hearing.
“In this mislabeled bill, House Republicans are hiding behind hostages,” Doggett said in a statement to The Intercept. “Their rush to reconsider this bill is solely to offer Trump more and more power, while Trump’s nominees for key national security posts this week indicate how he will be using it.”
Simple Majority to Pass
Doggett and fellow Democratic opponents of the bill face an uphill battle to halt the legislation for good. They were able to block it on Tuesday only because H.R. 9495 was put to a House vote under suspension of the rules, a maneuver allowing for legislation to be fast-tracked by limiting debate and barring the addition of new amendments in exchange for the requirement of a two-thirds majority to pass.
Ultimately, 144 Democrats voted no, along with Rep. Thomas Massie, R-Ky., barely meeting the threshold to block the bill from fast-track passage. Voting in favor were 204 Republicans and 52 Democrats. The narrow loss — with so many Democrats supporting the bill, opponents had no votes to spare — provoked outrage from supporters of the bill like Rep. Jason Smith, R-Mo., who had spoken in favor of it prior to the vote.
“This shameful partisan play only sets back efforts to halt the abuse of America’s tax code by terrorist organizations,” Smith said in a statement published Wednesday by the House Ways and Means Committee. “Going forward, I encourage our Democrat colleagues to put the defense of our nation and the needs of American taxpayers first.”
Civil liberties groups that had long opposed the bill hailed the vote to block it as a victory, albeit a fleeting one.
The bill is slated for a hearing on Monday known as a markup session, in which committee members may briefly discuss the legislation and propose amendments. If a majority of committee members approve of the bill, whether in its original or amended form, it would move on to another vote on the House floor.
This time, it would likely be put to a simple majority vote. With Republicans in control of the chamber and around 52 Democratic lawmakers showing support by voting for it on Tuesday, the bill would almost certainly pass.
Doggett, however, remained determined:
“We Democrats can either post a Yield Right of Way sign or push back to make every effort to protect civil society and our freedoms.”
*
Click the share button below 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.
Much is being talked about how US newly elected President Donald Trump is supposedly at war with the “Deep State” (and the intelligence apparatus) – because of the announcements made pertaining to his nomination choices for some key US government positions. While he has named “outsiders” for the post of Director of National Intelligence (DNI), and to head the Pentagon, and amazingly the CIA, he has also chosen hawkish Senator Marco Rubio to lead the Department of State.
Trump has tapped Tulsi Gabbard (former Democrat Congresswoman) as DNI. She is on record stating that Washington had no business interfering in Syria and that Russian President Vladimir Putin had his reasons to launch the Russian campaign in Ukraine. Such views are considered radical or even heresy within the American Establishment. Gabbard however has little experience with intelligence work.
The name of Pete Hegseth, Trump’s nominee for Secretary of Defense has also sparked controversy among the military. The 44-year-old Fox News host and Army National Guard who will be heading the Pentagon has been described by Paul Rieckhoff (founder of Independent Veterans of America) as “the least qualified nominee for SecDef in American history.” Finally, there is John Ratcliffe (former DNI), appointed to serve as CIA director. He is basically seen as a fierce Trump loyalist, and is accused by US hawks of being too “soft” on Russia (albeit being a “China hawk”).
Reid Smith (Foreign Policy Vice President) and Dan Caldwell (Public Policy Adviser at Defense Priorities), argue in their Foreign Policy piece that “the United States has overreached in its foreign policy and must correct course”, and that Donald Trump’s presidency could be the way out of it. They warn that the “Republican Party should embrace Trump’s ‘art of the deal’ foreign policy approach” of “tough-minded diplomacy” (focusing on “diplomatic dealmaking”) rather than a “neoconservative foreign policy consensus”, which focuses on intervention and warfare.
The US, after all, they argue, has reached, after two decades of “military entanglements”, a state of “battle fatigue”, and also “operates in a world of constraints”, with a limited industrial capacity. Thus “America First” should mean “a commitment to realism and restraint”, and the Grand Old Party (GOP), as the Republican Party is often called, should prioritize “American interests over maintaining the hegemony of liberal values worldwide.”
It all sounds quite merry and optimistic, and makes sense, considering some of Donald Trump’s aforementioned nominations. The announcement of Rubio’s nomination, however (together with other China hawks), should make anyone skeptical about Washington exercising much restraint under Trump. For one thing, with Rubio, the risk of further American interventions in Venezuela and Latin America in general will increase – which confirms what I wrote last week about Monroeism being the other side of Trump’s supposed isolationism. The choice of Rubio seems to “balance” the names of Ratcliffe, Hegseth and Gabbard. It also sends a clear message and seems to be a way to “appease” the diplomatic-military Establishment
In the US, the Secretary of State (SecState) is analogous to a Minister of Foreign Affairs or a Chancellor in other countries. He or she heads the Department of State (responsible for the country’s foreign policy and relations), and is the second-highest-ranking member of the president’s Cabinet, after the vice president, ranking fourth in the presidential line of succession. It is often said that no two US agencies work “more closely together” (in foreign nations) than the Department of State and the CIA.
Moreover, according to Joseph W. Wippl (former CIA officer and International Relations professor at the Boston University), “some CIA responsibilities cover identical areas of reporting by the Department of State, but through clandestine means rather than official contacts”. He adds: “in my extensive experience, the greatest beneficial effect on policy came when State and CIA reporting dovetailed. Common positions did not always occur, and tension between the two agencies resulted when there were differences.”
If the Secretary of State is an Establishment “hard-liner” hawk while the Director of National Intelligence, and other appointees are “doves” (on Syria and other issues) or radical outsiders and loyalists, then internal conflict is bound to occur within the intelligence community, and the high echelons of the bureaucracy. That can compromise governability. In this way, exercising any amount of restraint in foreign policy will be a challenge – and doing just the opposite will be a challenge too.
Rather than a “rupture” or breaking with an interventionist foreign policy, the choice of Marco Rubio signals continuity with it. Trump’s choices (other than Rubio) are ideology and loyalty-oriented – they are also questionable in terms of curriculum, expertise, and qualifications. But they do seem to signal a rupture. How can one make sense of it?
While no one can be sure Trump will actually deliver a more “restrained” foreign policy (as promised and as Reid Smith and Dan Caldwell hope), what one can be sure of is that Trump will attempt to “tame” the intelligence services so as to be able to better advance his own political and personal goals. This is first and foremost about increasing presidential powers, which is in line with Trump’s whole agenda of expanding the Executive, as outlined in Project 2025.
In Trump v. United States, the Supreme Court has already ruled that the President cannot be criminally prosecuted for “official acts”, and such immunity provides him with a firm ground to pursue such an agenda. US Presidents are already temporary de jure dictators when it comes to foreign policy (for example, they can actually wage in warfare without Congress approval), but they are of course constrained in practice by the “Deep State”. Trump wants to turn Presidents into near-dictators when it comes to domestic policy too – and while he is at it, he also wants to challenge the Deep State. Those are too bold goals for anyone – even for someone who is so well positioned and empowered as Trump currently is.
Considering the many failures the Secret Service displayed with regards to Trump’s assassination attempt in Pennsylvania (during the presidential election campaign) not to mention the inconsistencies, the newly elected US President could be in a very vulnerable position if he attempts to challenge too much the so-called deep state – especially considering the American record when it comes to intrigue and assassin attempts against officials.
*
Click the share button below 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.
In his dramatic shift away from arming the Kiev regime, Donald Trump’s Secretary of State Marco Rubio says he’s now against funding a “stalemate” concerning the NATO proxy war against Russia. The use of the word stalemate misrepresents the actual situation in a way that serves to prolong a conflict which Trump correctly said should’ve never happened.
Since February 24, 2022, the start of Russia’s Special Miliary Operation (SMO), the Russian military has qualitatively and quantitively gotten stronger with the Kiev regime going in reverse. During this same period, Russia’s economy has fared comparably better than that of the EU. For all practical purposes, the Kiev regime doesn’t have a functioning economy.
In the US, the overall population face considerable socioeconomic challenges and is therefore reluctant to see massive aid going to Project Ukraine. This is a key motivating reason for Trump’s resounding victory over the Democratic Party establishment. A limited American military engagement abroad enables a Trump administration concentration on US domestic concerns.
In his changed position, Rubio notes that Ukraine is better off with a practical peace settlement which maintains the former Soviet republic as a functioning state. The US foreign policy establishment peace proposals are out of whack with reality.
Shortly before Trump’s decisive victory, Council on Foreign Relations President Richard Haass, gave an unrealistic commentary in Foreign Affairs. Contrary to Haass, Russia has already rejected the idea of a ceasefire for the purpose of building up Kiev regime military capability, as well as a 10-20 year wait on whether Ukraine can join NATO. As the party winning and most likely to win the NATO proxy war against it, Russia will have a great say on the settlement terms.
Haass’s selective BS (when applied to Russia) about ethically not redrawing boundaries via force is pretty rich given what NATO has done regarding Kosovo. Borders continue to be redrawn elsewhere via armed conflict. South Sudan is a recent example. In the not-too-distant past, Germany was reunified after it had been forcefully separated. Hence, it’s not so out of the ordinary for some culturally, historically, linguistically and religiously Russian territory to be reunited.
Mirroring Haass, New York former Republican Governor Geroge Pataki said on a November 12 WABC New York Talk Radio show (at the 40:24 mark) that aggression shouldn’t be rewarded. He wasn’t referring to neocon, neolib, neo-Nazi Banderite aggression. Rather, an overly selective and inaccurate overview on his part. The Hungarian-American Pataki is no Viktor Orban or Péter Szijjártó.
Among the considerably better American commentators getting some establishment play, there’s room for valid disagreement. James Webb of the Quincy Institute is the brilliant son of a former US Secretary of the Navy and Virginia Senator.
In a November 12 segment on The Duran (at the 1:00:38 mark), Webb spoke of a hypothetical geopolitical exchange involving a Russian military withdrawal from Syria. For the purpose of satisfying Western neocon and neolib feelings, there’s no need for this.
Russia’s number of military bases in the Middle East and elsewhere dwarfs that of the US. In Syria, the Russian armed presence is welcomed by the internationally recognized Syrian government unlike the current US troop deployment there. The secular Syrian government (which BTW is preferred by the majority of Syrian Christians) sought Russian, Iranian and Lebanese Hezbollah help in combating Sunni extremists affiliated with either ISIS or Al Qaeda.
Even with the Russian settlement terms, the collective Western foreign policy establishment can brag (albeit erroneously) about:
NATO adding two new members (Finland and Sweden, thus further extending itself)
how Putin didn’t take all of Ukraine (not that he ever actually attempted to do such).
At this time, a Russian proposed settlement is along these lines:
strictly adhered to Ukrainian neutrality, with a limited Ukrainian armed forces
all of Zaporozhe, Donetsk, Lugansk and Kherson going to Russia
end of SMO related sanctions against Russia
complete release of Russian “frozen” (stolen) assets
protection of Russian identity (like language use) within Ukraine’s Communist drawn boundary
discussion on a new Euro-Atlantic security arrangement.
A year ago, the Kiev regime could’ve gotten a better deal. Going back further, the Minsk Accords was an even better option for it. The longer the proxy war against Russia continues, the greater the likelihood of the Kiev regime losing more Ukrainian territory.
Don’t be fooled by the clownishly pompous likes of Sebastian Gorka. On a November 16 RT aired show (at the 15:45 mark), Gorka said that if Russia refused a Trump peace proposal, the incoming US president will flood Ukraine with arms. Like Pataki, the Brit-Hungarian-American Gorka is no Orban or Szijjártó.
Seasoned military analysts including Daniel Davis, Jacques Baud, Brian Berletic, Lawrence Wilkerson, Douglas Macgregor, Mark Sleboda and Scott Ritter, have conclusively shown how the Collective West is pretty much tapped out on what it can (within reason) militarily provide the Kiev regime, in conjunction with a dwindling number of available Kiev regime armed forces personnel.
Daniel Davis has astutely detailed why the recently reported move by the Biden administration isn’t going to change the eventual outcome.
*
Click the share button below 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.
This is a monumental achievement in the face of historically unprecedented scientific censorship. Yes, COVID-19 mRNA vaccines cause sudden death and most are within the first two weeks – that’s why they were labeled UNVACCINATED. This paper proves why they did it.
Reports emerged on Sunday that the US finally approved Ukraine’s request to use long-range ATACMS missiles against targets inside of Russia’s pre-2014 borders, which was followed by other reports claiming that France and the UK then followed suit.
Western NGOs have sent the Georgian opposition political parties that they finance into the streets to protest the Georgian Dream Party’s sweep of the legislative elections. The Georgian Dream Party favors pragmatic relations with Russia, whereas the collection of small parties financed by the West want to create another Maidan Revolution to open a second front for Washington against Russia. See this.
Trump’s election certainly creates a situation open to change from what would have been made if Kamala Harris had become president in the wake of Biden. However, it must be seen what these changes will be. It might be possible, for instance, to open negotiations with Moscow to end the US/NATO war against Russia via Ukraine.
What we are living is the most serious economic-social crisis in world history. What is happening in Palestine is interconnected with what is happening in other parts of the world. It requires a historical background.
Two more United Nations committee resolutions. Both concerning the conduct of Israel past and current. While disease, hunger and death continue to stalk the Gaza Strip, and the West Bank remains under the thick thumb of occupation, deliberations in foreign fora continue to take place about how to address this hideous state of affairs.
On this week’s episode of the Global Research News Hour, we will endeavour to explore the issue broadly, as we get a look behind the curtain concealing the true players behind the COP29’s much ado about nothing.
Colleges could become liable to pay for medical costs for students who experienced adverse effects from the COVID-19 vaccine under a new law being introduced by House Republicans.
“If you are not prepared to face the consequences, you should have never committed the act,” Rosendale said in a statement. “Colleges and universities forced students to inject themselves with an experimental vaccine knowing it was not going to prevent COVID-19 while potentially simultaneously causing life-threatening health defects like Guillian-Barre Syndrome and myocarditis. It is now time for schools to be held accountable for their brazen disregard for students’ health and pay for the issues they are responsible for causing.”
Under the legislation, students could seek reimbursement for medical costs through a formal request that includes a record of COVID-19 vaccination, certification from a medical provider that the vaccine caused some sort of disease, and a detailed account of medical expenses.
Diseases covered by the legislation include myocarditis, pericarditis, thrombosis with thrombocytopenia syndrome, Gullian-Barre Syndrome, and other diseases that the secretary of education determines are associated with a COVID-19 vaccine.
Colleges would then be required to accept requests and pay the costs within 30 days. Universities can challenge requests for being fraudulent or containing insufficient evidence.
The legislation comes as at least 17 colleges and universities still require COVID-19 vaccines for enrollment, according to data from No College Mandates. Now, lawmakers and anti-mandate groups are looking for accountability for students who experienced adverse reactions but were not given opportunities to opt out of the enrollment requirements.
“College students were stripped of their fundamental right to bodily autonomy and informed consent when colleges imposed some of the most coercive and restrictive vaccination policies,” Lucia Sinatra, co-founder of No College Mandates, said in a statement thanking Rosendale. “Countless college students have been injured by Covid-19 vaccinations.”
At least two House Republicans have signed on as co-sponsors to the legislation, including Reps. Eli Crane (R-AZ) and Bill Posey (R-FL).
“No student in the United States should face crippling medical costs because of an experimental vaccine their school forced them into receiving,” Crane said. “We must hold institutions to account for continuing to inflict COVID-era idiocy on their student body, and that’s exactly what this bill would accomplish. I’m proud to be a cosponsor of this legislation to help rectify this unjustified overreach.”
It is not yet clear whether the bill will be brought up for a vote when the House returns in November. However, even if it does pass the House, the legislation would face an uphill battle in a Democratic-led Senate.
Click the share button below 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.
Our thanks to Dr. William Makis for bringing this to our attention.
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
Of all Trump’s choices for his foreign policy team, Marco Rubio is the least controversial to the neoconservative foreign policy establishment in Washington, and the most certain to provide continuity with all that is wrong with U.S. foreign policy, from Cuba to the Middle East to China.
The only area where there might be some hope for ending a war is Ukraine, where Rubio has come close to Donald Trump’s position, praising Ukraine for standing up to Russia, but recognizing that the U.S. is funding a deadly “stalemate war” that needs to be “brought to a conclusion.”
But in all the other hot spots around the world, Rubio is likely to make conflicts even hotter, or start new ones.
1. His obsession with regime change in Cuba will sink any chance of better relations with the island.
Like other Cuban-American politicians, Marco Rubio has built his career on vilifying the Cuban Revolution and trying to economically strangle and starve into submission the people of his parents’ homeland.
It is ironic, therefore, that his parents left Cuba before the Revolution, during the U.S.-backed dictatorship of Fulgencio Batista, whose executioners, secret police and death squads killed an estimated 20,000 people, according to the CIA, leading to a wildly popular revolution in 1959.
When President Obama began to restore relations with Cuba in 2014, Rubio swore to do “everything possible” to obstruct and reverse that policy. In May 2024, Rubio reiterated his zero tolerance for any kind of social or economic contacts between the U.S. and Cuba, claiming that any easing of the U.S. blockade will only “strengthen the oppressive regime and undermine the opposition… Until there is freedom in Cuba, the United States must maintain a firm stance.”
In 2024 Rubio also introduced legislation to ensure that Cuba would remain on the U.S. “State Sponsor of Terrorism List,” imposing sanctions that cut Cuba off from the U.S.-dominated Western banking system.
These measures to destroy the Cuban economy have led to a massive wave of migration in the past two years. But when the U.S. Coast Guard tried to coordinate with their Cuban counterparts, Rubio introduced legislation to prohibit such interaction. While Trump has vowed to stem immigration, his Secretary of State wants to crush Cuba’s economy, forcing people to abandon the island and set sail for the United States.
2. Applying his anti-Cuba template to the rest of Latin America will make enemies of more of our neighbors.
Rubio’s disdain for his ancestral home in Cuba has served him so well as an American politician that he has extended it to the rest of Latin America. He has sided with extreme right-wing politicians like Jair Bolsonaro in Brazil and Javier Milei in Argentina, and rails against progressive ones, from Brazil’s Ignacio Lula da Silva to Mexico’s popular former President Lopez Obrador, whom he called “an apologist for tyranny” for supporting other leftist governments.
In Venezuela, he has promoted brutal sanctions and regime change plots to topple the government of Nicolas Maduro. In 2019 he was one of the architects of Trump’s failed policy of recognizing opposition figure Juan Guaido as president. He has also advocated for sanctions and regime change in Nicaragua.
In March 2023, Rubio urged President Biden to impose sanctions on Bolivia for prosecuting leaders of a 2019 U.S.-backed coup that led to massacres that killed at least 21 people.
Rubio also condemned the government of Honduras for withdrawing from an extradition treaty with the United States this past August, in response to decades of U.S. interference that had turned Honduras into a narco-state riven by poverty, gang violence and mass emigration, until the election of democratic socialist President Xiomara Castro in 2022.
Rubio’s major concern about Latin America now seems to be the influence of China, which has become the leading trade partner of most Latin American countries. Unlike the U.S., China focuses on economic benefits and not internal politics, while American politicians like Marco Rubio still see Latin America as the U.S. “backyard.”
While Rubio’s virulent anti-leftist stands have served him well in climbing to senior positions in the U.S. government, and now into Trump’s inner circle, his disdain for Latin American sovereignty bodes ill for U.S. relations with the region.
3. He believes the US and Israel can do no wrong, and that God has given Palestine to Israel.
Despite the massive death toll in Gaza and global condemnation of Israel’s genocide, Rubio still perpetuates the myth that “Israel takes extraordinary steps to avoid civilian losses” and that innocent people die in Gaza because Hamas has deliberated placed them in the way and used them as human shields. The problem, he says, is “an enemy that doesn’t value human life.”
When asked by CODEPINK in November 2024 if he would support a ceasefire, Rubio replied,
“On the contrary. I want them to destroy every element of Hamas they can get their hands on. These people are vicious animals.”
There are few times in this past year that the Biden administration has tried to restrain Israel, but when Biden begged Israel not to send troops into the southern city of Rafah, Rubio said that was like telling the Allied forces in World War II not to attack Berlin to get Hitler.
In a letter to Secretary of State Blinken in August 2024, Rubio criticized the Biden administration’s decision to sanction Israeli settlers linked to anti-Palestinian violence in the occupied West Bank.
“Israel has consistently sought peace with the Palestinians. It is unfortunate that the Palestinians, whether it be the Palestinian Authority or FTOs [Foreign Terrorist Organisations] such as Hamas, have rejected such overtures,” Rubio wrote. “Israelis rightfully living in their historic homeland are not the impediment to peace; the Palestinians are,” he added.
No country besides Israel subscribes to the idea that its borders should be based on 2,000-year-old religious scriptures, and that it has a God-given right to displace or exterminate people who have lived there since then to reconquer its ancient homeland. The United States will find itself extraordinarily isolated from the rest of the world if Rubio tries to assert that as a matter of U.S. policy.
4. His deep-seated enmity toward Iran will fuel Israel’s war on its neighbors, and may lead to a U.S. war with Iran.
Rubio is obsessed with Iran. He claims that the central cause of violence and suffering in the Middle East is not Israeli policy but “Iran’s ambition to be a regional hegemonic power.” He says that Iran’s goal in the Middle East is to “seek to drive America out of the region and then destroy Israel.”
He has been a proponent of maximum pressure on Iran, including a call for more and more sanctions. He believes the U.S. should not re-enter the Iran nuclear deal, saying:
“We must not trade away U.S. and Israeli security for vague commitments from a terrorist-sponsoring regime that has killed Americans and threatens to annihilate Israel.”
Rubio calls Lebanon’s Hezbollah a “full blown agent of Iran right on Israel’s border” and that wiping out Hezbollah’s leadership, along with entire neighborhoods full of civilians, is a “service to humanity.” He alleges that Iran has control over Iraq, Syria, the Houthis in Yemen and is a threat to Jordan. He claims that “Iran has put a noose around Israel,” and says that the goal of U.S. policy should be regime change in Iran, which would set the stage for war.
While there will hopefully be leaders in the Pentagon who will caution Donald Trump about the perils of a war with Iran, Rubio will not be a voice of reason.
5. He is beholden to big money, from the weapons industry to the Israel lobby.
Open Secrets reports that Rubio has received over a million dollars in campaign contributions from pro-Israel groups during his career. The Pro-Israel America PAC was his single largest campaign contributor over the last 5 years. When he last ran for reelection in 2022, he was the third largest recipient of funding by pro-Israel groups in the Senate, taking in $367,000 from them for that campaign.
Rubio was also the fourth largest recipient of funding from the “defense” industry in the Senate for the 2022 cycle, receiving $196,000. Altogether, the weapons industry has invested $663,000 in his Congressional career.
Rubio is clearly beholden to the US arms industry, and even more so to the Israel lobby, which has been one of his largest sources of campaign funding. This has placed him in the vanguard of Congress’s blind, unconditional support for Israel and subservience to Israeli narratives and propaganda, making it unlikely that he will ever challenge the ongoing extermination of the Palestinian people or their expulsion from their homeland.
6. He’s so antagonistic towards China that China has sanctioned him–twice!
Speaking at the Heritage Foundation in 2022, Rubio said:
“The gravest threat facing America today, the challenge that will define this century and every generation represented here, is not climate change, the pandemic, or the left’s version of social justice. The threat that will define this century is China.”
It will be hard for our nation’s “top diplomat” to ease tensions with a country he has so maligned. He antagonized China by co-sponsoring the Uyghur Forced Labor Prevention Act, which allows the U.S. to bar Chinese imports over alleged Uyghur rights abuses, abuses that China denies and independent researchers question. In fact, Rubio has gone so far as to accuse China of a “grotesque campaign of genocide” against the Uyghurs.
On Taiwan, he has not only introduced legislation to increase military aid to the island, but actually supports Taiwanese independence — a dangerous deviation from the US government’s long-standing One China approach.
The Chinese responded to Rubio by sanctioning him, not once but twice–once regarding the Uyghurs and once for his support of Hong Kong protests. Unless China lifts the sanctions, he would be the first U.S. secretary of state to be banned from even visiting China.
Analysts expect China to try to sidestep Rubio and engage directly with Trump and other senior officials. Steve Tsang, the director of the China Institute at the U.K.’s School of Oriental and African Studies, told Reuters, “If that doesn’t work, then I think we’re going to get into a much more regular escalation of a bad relationship.”
7. Rubio knows sanctions are a trap, but he doesn’t know how to escape.
Rubio is a leading advocate of unilateral economic sanctions, which are illegal under international law, and which the UN and other countries refer to as “unilateral economic coercive measures.”
The United States has used these measures so widely and wildly that they now impact a third of the world’s population. U.S. officials, from Treasury Secretary Yellen to Rubio himself, have warned that using the U.S. financial system and the dollar’s reserve currency status as weapons against other countries is driving the rest of the world to conduct trade in other currencies and develop alternative financial systems.
And yet Rubio has continued to be a leading sponsor of sanctions bills in the Senate, including new sanctions on Iran in January 2024 and a bill in July to sanction foreign banks that participate in alternative financial systems.
So, while other countries develop new financial and trading systems to escape abusive, illegal U.S. sanctions, the nominee for Secretary of State remains caught in the same sanctions trap that he complained about on Fox.
8. He wants to crack down on U.S. free speech.
Rubio wants to curtail the right to free speech enshrined in the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. In May, he described campus protests against Israel as a “complete breakdown of law and order.”
Rubio claimed to be speaking up for other students at American universities.
“[They] paid a lot of money to go to these schools, [but are being disrupted by] a few thousand antisemitic zombies who have been brainwashed by two decades of indoctrination in the belief that the world is divided between victimizers and victims, and that the victimizers in this particular case, the ones that are oppressing people, are Jews in Israel,” said Rubio.
The Florida senator has said he supports Trump’s plan to deport foreign students who engage in pro-Palestinian campus protests. In April, he called for punishing supporters of the Israel boycott movement as part of efforts to counter antisemitism, falsely equating any attempt to respond to Israel’s international crimes with antisemitism.
And what about those crimes, which the students are protesting? After visiting Israel in May, Rubio wrote an article for National Review, in which he never mentioned the thousands of civilians Israel has killed, and instead blamed Iran, Biden and “morally corrupt international institutions” for the crisis.
Marco Rubio expects Americans to believe that it is not genocide itself, but protests against genocide, that are a complete breakdown of law and order. He couldn’t be more wrong if he tried.
Students are not Rubio’s only target. In August 2023, he alleged that certain “far-left and antisemitic entities” may have violated the Foreign Assistance Registration Act by their ties to China. He called for a Justice Department investigation into 18 groups, starting with CODEPINK. These unfounded claims of China connections are only meant to intimidate legitimate groups that are exercising their free speech rights.
Conclusion
On each of these issues, Rubio has shown no sign of understanding the difference between domestic politics and diplomacy. Whether he’s talking about Cuba, Palestine, Iran or China, or even about CODEPINK, all his supposedly tough positions are based on cynically mischaracterizing the actions and motivations of his enemies and then attacking the “straw man” he has falsely set up.
Unscrupulous politicians often get away with that, and Rubio has made it his signature tactic because it works so well for him in American politics. But that will not work if and when he sits down to negotiate with other world leaders as U.S. secretary of state.
His underlying attitude to foreign relations is, like Trump’s, that the United States must get its way or else, and that other countries who won’t submit must be coerced, threatened, couped, bombed or invaded. This makes Rubio just as ill-equipped as Antony Blinken to conduct diplomacy, improve U.S. relations with other countries or resolve disputes and conflicts peacefully, as the UN Charter requires.
*
Click the share button below 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.
Medea Benjamin and Nicolas J. S. Davies are the authors of War in Ukraine: Making Sense of a Senseless Conflict, published by OR Books, with an updated edition due in February 2025. They are regular contributors to Global Research.
Click the share button below 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.
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.
Reports emerged on Sunday that the US finally approved Ukraine’s request to use long-range ATACMS missiles against targets inside of Russia’s pre-2014 borders, which was followed by other reports claiming that France and the UK then followed suit. They’ve yet to be used at the time of writing, but Zelensky ominously implied later that day that this could happen very soon. The reason why this is the moment of truth is because Putin earlier warned that it would amount to NATO’s direct involvement in the conflict.
This analysis here about Russia’s updated nuclear doctrine hyperlinks to eight related analyses about everything from “red lines” to the “war of attrition” that readers should review for background context. It also points out how this new policy “regard[s] an aggression against Russia from any non-nuclear state but involving or supported by any nuclear state as their joint attack against the Russian Federation” in Putin’s own words. The stakes therefore haven’t ever been this high.
The reason why the US only just now greenlit Ukraine’s request is because the outgoing ruling collective wants to create the conditions for ensuring that Trump either perpetuates or escalates the conflict. There was concern after his historic electoral victory that he’d completely cut Ukraine off of aid and thus hand Russia its desired maximum victory that would then lead to the US’ worst-ever strategic defeat. It was explained here, here, and here, however, that he was always more likely to “escalate to de-escalate”.
.
.
In any case, what’s most important is how perceptions of those who are still in power shape their policy formulations, which in this example manifested themselves through granting Ukraine the use of Western long-range missiles despite Russia’s prior warnings. The whole point is to intensify the conflict over the next two months before Trump’s reinauguration so that he inherits a much more difficult situation than at present. This is expected to push him into adopting a more hawkish position on the conflict.
Realistically speaking, however, all that’ll likely happen between then and now is that Russia carries out more missile strikes against military targets in Ukraine. Nothing extraordinary like its speculative use of tactical nukes or bombing NATO is expected, both possibilities of which were addressed in the pieces that were enumerated in the earlier analysis about Russia’s updated nuclear doctrine. At most, it might destroy a major bridge across the Dnieper or carry out decapitation strikes, but even those are unlikely.
Putin is averse to escalation since he sincerely fears everything spiraling out of control into World War III. Time and again, precedent proves that he’ll do his utmost to avoid that worst-case scenario as proven by him refusing to significantly escalate after Ukraine bombed the Kremlin, Russia’s early warning systems, strategic airfields, the Crimean Bridge, oil refineries, and residential areas, among its many other targets. There’s accordingly no reason to expect him to jump out of character and significantly escalate after this.
Having said that, sometimes even the most patient people snap, and it’s always possible that Putin might have enough and decide to do what many of his supporters have wanted from the get-go. This could take the form of replicating the US’ “shock and awe” bombing campaign, no longer caring about civilian casualties, and proverbially throwing the kitchen sink at Ukraine. In other words, Russia could take a page from Israel’s playbook as was explained here, which could raise the odds of a maximum victory.
If he stays the course and doesn’t escalate after Ukraine uses Western long-range missiles against targets inside of Russia’s pre-2014 borders, then that could be seen as yet another “goodwill gesture”, which would be aimed at making it easier for Trump to broker a peace deal. The trade-off though is that he might be convinced by some of the hawks around him into interpreting this as weakness, thus emboldening him to “escalate to de-escalate” and leading to serious opportunity costs for Russia.
In that event, it would have been better in hindsight for Russia to escalate just below the level of a Cuban-like brinksmanship crisis, enough to advance as many of its interests as it can while also not going as far as to provoke an “overreaction” from the West that could lead to freezing the conflict pronto. It remains unclear what Putin will ultimately do, but whichever of these two choices he makes will determine the trajectory of this conflict from now on, either more escalation or a possible compromise.
*
Click the share button below 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.
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.
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
“From our side, we must do everything so that this war ends next year, ends through diplomatic means,” Volodymyr Zelenskyy said in a radio interview aired on Saturday, according to the Guardian.
Zelenskyy admitted the situation on the battlefield in eastern Ukraine was dire as Russia made strategic advances. He added that the war will “end sooner” than it otherwise would have after president-elect Donald Trump is inaugurated on January 20, 2025.
On Friday, Zelensky spoke by phone with Trump, and said,
“I didn’t hear anything that goes against our position.” Trump said in Florida after the call, “We’re going to work very hard on Russia and Ukraine. It’s got to stop.”
Zelensky was upset by German chancellor Olaf Scholz’s call with Putin, characterizing the call as playing into Putin’s hand. The Scholz call to Putin demonstrates the emerging cracks in the wall of the EU, as not everyone in Europe has supported the Biden-NATO aggression aimed at Russia.
Steven Sahiounie (SS): The American people recently elected Donald Trump as president, but he won’t take office until January 20. Trump has said that he will stop the conflict in Ukraine even before he takes office. In your opinion, what could be Trump’s plan to end the war?
Arnaud Develay (AD): Trump has indeed expressed his desire to see the Ukraine conflict brought to an end (an end to violence). There’s however a major difference between formulating campaign slogans and putting into application a formula which can be deemed to satisfy all parties to the conflict. As of this writing, Russia’s position is clear: The Special Military Operation will continue until Ukraine is de-Nazified and de-militarized. This implies that the foremost concerns of the Russian Federation bear on securing security guarantees that NATO will not threaten it on its Western borders. It also implies that the liberated, and now parts of Russia, former regions on the east of Ukraine are to be made secured from Western-sponsored aggression. To date, rumors emanating from Washington seem to refer to a freezing of the conflict with a demilitarized zone set up between Russian troops and European service-members. Some of these rumors also suggest that in exchange for Ukraine not joining NATO for any period of time between 10 and 20 years, the West would be able to keep arming Kiev. Obviously, this is a non-starter for Russia for these merely postpone the resumption of hostilities to a not-so-distant future. Russia will thus have to take matters in its own hands and if need be take control of the whole of Ukraine.
SS: According to media reports, the Russian army has been making important gains on the battlefield. In your view, what is the military situation in Ukraine now?
AD: On the ground, the Russian military is advancing all along the front, registering territorial gains every single day and methodically obliterating Ukraine’s ability to mount any significant operations. Settlements are increasingly not even being defended as UAF are simply retreating to a defensive position in the face of Russian advances. Russia for its part is aiming to capture the logistical hub of Prokrovsk which in turn would lead to the liberating of major urban centers such as Kramatorsk and Kupiansk without having to fire a single shot. At some point in the not so-distant future, we could witness the total collapse of the front followed by a general offensive aimed at removing the terrorist regime sitting in Kiev.
SS: After the Trump election victory, the European countries are beginning to shift their positions on their support of Ukraine. In your opinion, which countries will support an end to the war?
AD: The European position is not unified as it relates to Ukraine in a post-Trump victory. Some like France and Britain have expressed their desire to keep arming Ukraine, and currently seek to secure Biden’s authorization to send long-range missiles to Zelensky. Germany’s Olaf Scholz has thus far refrained from delivering ATACMS Taurus long-range ballistic systems to Kiev (the use of which is a red line to Moscow), but as early German parliamentary elections are set to be held in March, there are opposition German politicians seemingly willing to favor escalation. In Brussels, EU Commissioner Ursula Von der Leyen is a hard-core Kiev supporter who favors the thieving of Russian assets (300 Billion dollars) to keep financing the war. Finally, European countries such as Hungary and Slovakia are in favor of negotiating a settlement which would put an end to the war and allow trade to resume with Moscow. These countries are a minority and Viktor Orban’s efforts as rotating President of the European Council has failed to sway the tide.
SS: President Putin has a good relationship with Iran, and has had a good relationship with President Trump. In your opinion, can Putin serve as a mediator between Trump and Iran?
AD: Vladimir Putin is always predisposed to promote diplomacy in order to avoid conflicts. His ability to mediate between Washington and Tehran is however not likely to be an easy task. Some hawks in Washington (including if not specifically in the incoming Trump administration) simply want Iran to abandon its defense capabilities and its support for the Palestinian cause. That’s a non-starter. It is thus of paramount importance that the Israeli-Palestinian conflict be tackled in the context of an international conference which would include all regional powers, but also the UN, the EU, Russia and America (the now dissolved Quartet). Short of a desire to get to the root of the instability in West Asia (Israeli policies of apartheid and regional aggression), the prospect for peace are dim to say the least.
SS: The Biden administration put heavy sanctions on Russia. In your opinion, will President Trump continue those sanctions?
AD: It bears remembering that it was under the Trump administration that the largest amount of sanctions was imposed upon Russia. Biden merely continued the policy initiated following the coup d’état of the Maidan in 2014. I would surmise that in the context of peace-building atmosphere and confidence-building measures, it is likely that some of the sanctions (over 20,000 as of this writing) are likely to be lifted. Keep in mind that Trump strategists are seeking to decouple Russia from China. This is the policy pursued these last 30 years in Washington: sometimes favoring Beijing, sometimes favoring Moscow, with the net result that the two Eurasian powers are now closer than ever.
*
Click the share button below 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.
Western NGOs have sent the Georgian opposition political parties that they finance into the streets to protest the Georgian Dream Party’s sweep of the legislative elections. The Georgian Dream Party favors pragmatic relations with Russia, whereas the collection of small parties financed by the West want to create another Maidan Revolution to open a second front for Washington against Russia. See this.
Russia’s Foreign Minister Lavrov says that there is no reason to doubt that the West is trying to push Georgia into war with Russia.
Putin-the-Unready rejects claims that Russia interfered in the Georgian election. Putin still hasn’t learned that the role of good democrat makes no impression on the West. Will Putin’s toleration of hostile actions against Russia lead to the opening of a second front against Russia?
The US Defense Department Inspector General has reported that Congress has appropriated $182 billion for Ukraine since February 2022, $43.84 billion of which went for governance and development. “Governance and development” could mean bribes paid to Ukrainians to support military conflict with Russia.
Ukraine has been fighting Russia with Western weapons and targeting information for close to three years. But Putin doesn’t count this as the West being at war with Russia. Drones hitting deep into Russia also don’t count as the West being at war with Russia. The war doesn’t start until Washington begins firing missiles into Russia. Apparently, some weapons are war weapons and some are not.
Standing aside from Washington’s destabilization and overthrow of the Ukrainian government in 2014 has left Putin with an ever-widening war that will be difficult to end without Putin making concessions. What will these concessions be? Washington now has a stake in the outcome, and Trump cannot stand an agreement the media can turn into a Trump defeat from giving in to Putin. The media and Democrats will say that it proves Trump was a Putin agent after all.
The tense situation between Russia and the West cannot be resolved until the conflict in Ukraine is resolved. This dilemma and the huge expense in lives and money associated with the three year war could all have been avoided if Putin had not come up with such an impractical course of action as a limited military operation that allowed Kiev to continue the war. We would have a better situation today if Putin had struck hard enough to bring the conflict to a quick end before the West could get involved with its prestige committed.
Putin’s dilly-dallying has made Russia look weak, and it has given Washington time to stir up new fronts for Russia in Georgia and Abkhazia. There will be a price to be paid for this dilly-dallying.
Meanwhile the US Democrat Party has revived the “Russian agent” hoax. This time the targets are Elon Musk and Tulsi Gabbard. See this, this, and this.
*
Click the share button below 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.
Paul Craig Roberts is a renowned author and academic, chairman of The Institute for Political Economy where this article was originally published. Dr. Roberts was previously associate editor and columnist for The Wall Street Journal. He was Assistant Secretary of the Treasury for Economic Policy during the Reagan Administration. He is a regular contributor to Global Research.
Prof. Michel Chossudovsky was speaker at The Northern Light Convention, Denmark, June 2023 focussing on the 2020-2023 COVID-19 Pandemic and its aftermath
His E-Book entitled “The Worldwide Corona Crisis, Global Coup d’Etat Against Humanity,”, can be downloaded for free. See details below.
Click the share button below 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.
Featured image is by fernando zhiminaicela from Pixabay
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
[This interview was conducted in 2022 by Pangea Grandangolo.]
In this special Pangea’s Grandangolo episode, Jean Marazzani Visconti interviews Prof. Michel Chossudovsky, award-winning, author of 11 books, Professor of Economics (emeritus) at the University of Ottawa, and Founder, and Director of the Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG).
Prof. Chossudovsky discusses current geopolitical events, including the war in Ukraine and the possibility of nuclear escalation.
He remarks that the US Military-Industrial Complex and nuclear weapons manufacturers, through a progressive whitewashing operation started in 2003, have gradually convinced government decision-makers to soften the thresholds for using nuclear bombs, even in conventional wars, claiming their limited danger to the population.
He also talks about the privatization of war and governments and how this impacts current events.
*
Click the share button below 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.
Featured image: The world’s first nuclear explosion – the U.S. ‘Trinity’ atomic test in New Mexico, July 16, 1945. If a nuclear war breaks out today, the devastation caused by modern nuclear weapons would make Trinity’s power look small by comparison. Most life on Earth would likely be wiped out. | U.S. Department of Energy
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
[This article was first posted by GR in March 2024.]
Last summer, motoring from Paris to Nice through what Parisians call “la France profonde”, I could not help but notice how thoroughly France has been Americanized.
The scenery in Burgundy and Provence is as lovely as ever, and the old towns are still extremely picturesque, but one now enters most if not all of them along gasoline alleys lined with hamburger joints dispensing “malbouffe”, car dealerships, and shopping centers with exactly the same retailers you would find in malls on the other side of the Atlantic, plus piped-in music featuring not Edith Piaf but Taylor Swift.
I was motivated to find out more about why, when, and how this “coca-colonization” of France had started and, as it happened, I found the answer in a book that had just come off the press; it was written by maverick historian Annie Lacroix-Riz, author of quite a few other remarkable opuses, and its title promises to clarify the origins of the famous Marshall Plan of 1947.
The history of the United States is bursting with myths, such as the notions that the conquest of the Wild West was a heroic undertaking, that the country fought in World War I for democracy, and that Oppenheimer’s Bomb wiped out over 100,000 people in Hiroshima to force Tokyo to surrender, thus presumably saving the lives of countless Japanese civilians and American soldiers.
Yet another myth involves American “aid” to Europe in the years following World War II, epitomized by the so-called “European Recovery Program”, better known as the Marshall Plan, because it was George C. Marshall, a former chief of staff of the army and Secretary of State in the Truman administration, who formally launched the project in a speech at Harvard University on June 5, 1947.
Image: The labeling used on aid packages created and sent under the Marshall Plan. (From the Public Domain)
The myth that arose virtually instantaneously about the Marshall Plan holds that, after defeating the nasty Nazis, presumably more or less singlehandedly, and preparing to return home to mind his own business, Uncle Sam suddenly realized that the hapless Europeans, exhausted by six years of war, needed his help to get back on their feet.
And so, unselfishly and generously, he decided to shower them with huge amounts of money, which Britain, France, and the other countries of Western Europe eagerly accepted and used to return not only to prosperity but also to democracy.
The “aid” dispensed under the auspices of the Marshall Plan, then, supposedly amounted to a free gift of money. However, it has been known for some time that things were not so simple,
that the Plan aimed at conquering the European market for US export products and investment capital, and that it also served political purposes, namely preventing nationalizations and countering Soviet influence.[1]
Even so, the myth about the Marshall Plan is kept alive by the authorities, academics, and the mainstream media on both sides of the Atlantic, as reflected by the recent suggestion that Ukraine and other countries that are also in economic dire straits need a new Marshall Plan.[2]
On the other hand, critical historical investigations reveal the illusionary nature of the myth woven around the Marshall Plan. Just last year, the French historian Annie Lacroix-Riz has produced such an investigation, focusing on the antecedents of the Plan, and while her book understandably focuses on the case of France, it is also extremely helpful for the purpose of understanding how other European countries, ranging from Britain via Belgium to (West) Germany, became recipients of this type of American “aid”.
Lacroix-Riz’s book has the merit of viewing Marshall’s scheme in the longue durée, that is, of explaining it not as a kind of post-WW II singularity but as part of a long-term historical development, namely the worldwide expansion of US industry and finance, in other words, the emergence and expansion of American imperialism.
This development may be said to have started at the very end of the 19th century, namely when Uncle Sam conquered Hawaii in 1893 and then, via a “splendid little war” fought against Spain in 1898, pocketed Cuba, Puerto Rico, and the Philippines.
US finance, industry, and commerce, in other words: American capitalism, thus expanded its profitable activities into the Caribbean, the Pacific, and the Far East. Privileged access to the resources and markets of those far-flung territories, in addition to those of the already gigantic home market, turned the US into one of the world’s greatest industrial powers, capable of challenging even Britain, Germany, and France.
But Europe’s great powers also happened to be expanding worldwide, in other words, becoming “imperialist”, primarily by adding new territories to their existing portfolios of colonial possessions. The imperialist powers thus became increasingly competitors, rivals, and either antagonists or allies in a ruthless race for imperialist supremacy, fueled ideologically by the prevailing social-Darwinist ideas of “struggle for survival”.
This situation led to the Great War of 1914-1918. The US intervened in this conflict, but rather late, in 1917, and did so for two important reasons: first, to prevent Britain from being defeated and thus be unable to pay back the huge sums it had loaned from American banks to buy supplies from American industrialists; second, to be among the imperialist victors who would be able to claim a share of the loot, including access to the gigantic market and vast resources of China.[3]
The Great War was a godsend to the US economy, as trade with the allies proved immensely profitable. The war also caused Britain to withdraw most of its investments from Latin America; this made it possible for these countries to be penetrated economically and dominated politically by Uncle Sam, thus achieving a US ambition formulated approximately one century earlier in the Monroe Doctrine of 1823. The US increasingly needed new markets for its products — and for its mushrooming stock of investment capital — because its industry had become super-productive thanks to the introduction of so-called Fordist techniques, that is, the system of mass production pioneered by Henry Ford in his automobile factories, epitomized by the assembly line. American capitalism now enjoyed the huge advantage of “economies of scale”, that is, lower production costs due to their scale of operation,[4] which meant that American industrialists were henceforth able to outperform any competitors in a free market. It is for this reason that the US government, which had systematically relied on protectionist policies in the 19th century, when the country’s industry was still in its fledgling stage, morphed into a most eager apostle of free trade, energetically and systematically seeking “open doors” for its exports all over the world.
However, in the years after World War I industrial productivity was also increasing elsewhere, which led to overproduction and ultimately triggered a worldwide economic crisis, known in the US as the Great Depression. All the great industrial powers sought to protect their own industry by creating barriers on imports duties, thus creating what US businessmen detested, namely “closed economies”, including the economies not only the “mother countries” but also their colonial possessions, whose markets and rich mineral wealth might have been made available to Uncle Sam via free trade. To America’s great chagrin, Britain thus introduced a highly protectionist system in its empire, referred to as “imperial preference”. But with the Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act of 1930, the US likewise sought to protect its own industry by means of high import duties.
In the dark night of the Great Depression, Uncle Sam could perceive only one ray of light, and that was Germany. In the 1920s, the unprecedented profits generated by the Great War had allowed numerous US banks and corporations such as Ford to start up major investments in that country.[5] This “investment offensive” is rarely mentioned in history books but is of great historical importance in two ways: it marked the beginning of a transatlantic expansion of US capitalism and it determined that Germany was to serve as the European “bridgehead” of US imperialism. US capitalists were elated to have chosen Germany when it turned out that, even in the context of the Great Depression, excellent business could be done by their subsidiaries in the “Third Reich” thanks to Hitler’s rearmament program and subsequent war of conquest, for which firms such as Ford and Standard Oil supplied much of the equipment — including trucks, tanks, airplane engines, and machine guns – as well as fuel.[6] Under Hitler’s Nazi regime, Germany was and remained a capitalist country, as historians such as Alan S. Milward, a British expert in the economic history of the Third Reich, have emphasized.[7]
The United States had no desire to go to war against Hitler, who proved to be so “good for business”. As late as 1941, the country had no plans for military action against Germany at all, and it would only “back into” into the war against the Third Reich, as an American historian has put it, because of the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor.[8]However, the conflict unleashed by Hitler created fabulous opportunities for the US to crack open “closed economies” and create “open doors” instead. At the same time, the war enabled Uncle Sam to subjugate economically, and even politically, some major competitors in the great imperialist powers’ race for supremacy, a race that had triggered the Great War in 1914 but remained undecided when that conflict ended in 1918, so that may be said to have sparked another world war in 1939.
The first country to be turned into a vassal of Uncle Sam was Britain. After the fall of France in the summer of 1940, when left alone to face the terrifying might of Hitler’s Reich, the former Number One of industrial powers had to go cap in hand to the US to loan huge sums of money from American banks and use that money to buy equipment and fuel from America’s great corporations. Washington consented to extend such “aid” to Britain in a scheme that became known as “Lend-Lease”. However, the loans had to be paid back with interest and were subject to conditions such as the promised abolition of “imperial preference”, which ensured that Britain and its empire would cease to be a “closed economy” and instead open their doors to US export products and investment capital. As a result of Lend-Lease, Britain was to morph into a “junior partner”, not only economically but also politically and militarily, of the US. Or, as Annie Lacroix-Riz puts it in her new book, Lend-Lease loans to Britain spelled the beginning of the end of the British Empire.[9]
However, Uncle Sam was determined to use free trade to project his economic as well as political power not only to Britain, but to as many countries as possible.[10] In July 1944, at a conference held in the town of Bretton-Woods, New Hampshire, no less than forty-four nations, including all those that found themselves in an uncomfortable economic position because of the war and were therefore dependent on American assistance, were induced to adopt the principles of a new economic world order based on free trade. The Bretton-Woods Agreement elevated the dollar to the rank of “international reserve currency” and created the institutional mechanisms that were to put the principles of the new economic policy into practice, above all the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and the World Bank, so-called international organizations that have always been dominated by the United States.
In her new book, Lacroix-Riz frequently refers to Uncle Sam’s pursuit of postwar free trade in general but does of course focus on the case of France, which was a different kettle of fish compared to, say, Britain or Belgium. Why? After its defeat in 1940, France and its colonial empire were to remain for a long time under the authority of a government led by Marshal Pétain, ensconced in the town of Vichy, which collaborated closely with Nazi Germany. The Roosevelt administration formally recognized this regime as the legitimate government of France and continued to do so even after the US entered the war against Germany in December 1941; conversely, FDR refused to recognize Charles de Gaulle’s “Free French” government exiled in Britain.
It was only after American and British troops landed in North Africa and occupied the French colonies there in the fall of 1942, that relations between Washington and Vichy were terminated, not by the former but by the latter. Under the auspices of the Americans, now the de facto masters of France’s colonies in North Africa, a French provisional government, the Committee of National Liberation (Comité français de Libération nationale, CFLN), was established in Algiers in June 1943; it reflected an uneasy fusion of de Gaulle’s Free French and the French civil and military authorities based in Algiers, formerly loyal to Pétain but now siding with the Allies. However, the Americans, arranged for it to be headed not by de Gaulle but by General François Darlan, a former Pétainist.
Darlan was one of the numerous recycled Vichy generals and high-ranking civil servants who – as early as the summer of 1941 or as late as the end of the Battle of Stalingrad, in January 1943 – had realized that Germany was going to lose the war. They hoped that a liberation of France by the Americans would prevent the Resistance, led by the communists, from coming to power and implementing radical and possibly even revolutionary, anticapitalist social-economic as well as political reforms. These Vichyites, representatives of a French bourgeoisie that had fared well under Pétain, feared that “a revolution might break out as soon as the Germans withdrew from French territory”; they counted on the Americans to arrive in time “to prevent communism from taking over the country” and looked forward to see the US replace Nazi Germany as “tutor” of France and protector of their class interests.[11] Conversely, the Americans understood only too well that these former Pétainists would be agreeable partners, ignored or forgave the sins the latter had committed as collaborators, labelled them with the respectable epithet of “conservative” or “liberal”, and arranged for them, rather than Gaullists or other leaders of the Resistance, to be placed in positions of power.
The American “appointment” of Darlan paid off virtually immediately, namely on September 25, 1943, when the French provisional government signed a Lend-Lease deal with the US. The conditions of this arrangement were similar to those attached to Lend-Lease with Britain and those that were to be enshrined one year later at Bretton-Woods, namely, an “open door” for US corporations and banks to the markets and resources of France and its colonial empire. That arrangement was euphemistically described as “reciprocal aid” but was in reality the first step in a series of arrangements that were to culminate in France’s subscription to the Marshall Plan and impose on France what Lacroix-Riz describes as a “dependency of the colonial type”.[12]
The FDR administration would have preferred to continue dealing with France’s former collaborators, but that course of action triggered serious criticism stateside as well as in France itself. In October 1944, after the landings in Normandy and the liberation of Paris, de Gaulle was finally recognized by Washington as the head of the French provisional government, because two things had become clear. First, from the perspective of the French people, he was widely considered fit to govern since his reputation, unlike that of the Pétainists, was not soiled by collaboration; to the contrary, having been one of the great leaders of the Resistance, he enjoyed immense prestige. Second, from the Americans’ own point of view, de Gaulle was acceptable because he was a conservative personality, determined not to proceed with nationalizations of banks and corporations and other radical, potentially revolutionary social-economic reforms planned by the communists. On the other hand, the Americans continued to have issues with the General. They knew very well, for example, that as a French nationalist he would oppose their plans to open the doors of France and her empire to US economic and, inevitably, political penetration. And they also realized that, once the war would be over, he would claim financial and industrial reparations and even territorial concessions from defeated Germany, claims that ran counter to what Uncle Sam perceived to be vital American interests. Let us briefly look into that issue.
We know that the many branch plants of American corporations in Nazi Germany were not expropriated even after the US went to war against Germany, raked in unseen profits which were mostly reinvested in Germany itself, and suffered relatively little wartime damage, mainly because they were hardly targeted by allied bombers.[13] And so, when the conflict ended, US investment in Germany was intact, greater, and potentially more profitable, than ever before; this also meant that, as a bridgehead of US imperialism in Europe, Germany was more important than ever. Uncle Sam was determined to take full advantage of this situation, which required two things: first, preventing anticapitalist social-economic changes not only in Germany itself but in all other European countries, including France, whose domestic and colonial markets and resources were expected to open up to American goods and investments; and second, ensuring that Germany would not have to pay significant reparations, and preferably none at all, to the countries that had been victimized by the furor teutonicus, since that would have ruined the profit prospects of all German businesses, including those owned by US capital.[14]
To achieve the first of these aims in France, the Americans could count on the collaboration of the government of the conservative de Gaulle, the more so since, as a condition for finally being “anointed” by Washington in the fall of 1944, he had been coerced to recycle countless former Pétainist generals, politicians, high-ranking bureaucrats, and leading bankers and industrialists, and to include many of them in his government. However, after years of German occupation and rule by a very right-wing Vichy regime, the French, not the well-to-bourgeoisie but the mass of ordinary people, were in a more or less anti-capitalist mood. De Gaulle was unable to resist the concomitant widespread demand for reforms, including the nationalization of automobile manufacturer Renault, a notorious collaborator, and the introduction of social services similar to those that were to be introduced in Britain after Labour’s advent to power in the summer of 1945 and became known as the Welfare State. From the perspective of the Americans, the situation became even worse after the elections of October 21, 1945, when the Communist Party won a plurality of votes and de Gaulle had to make room in his cabinet for some communist ministers. Another determinant of the American aversion for de Gaulle was that he was a French nationalist, determined to make France a grande nation again, to keep full control of its colonial possessions, and, last but not least, to seek financial and possibly even territorial reparations from Germany; these aspirations conflicted with the Americans’ expectation of “open doors” even in the colonies of other great powers and, even more so, with their plans with respect to Germany.
Thus we can understand the stepmotherly treatment Washington meted out in 1944-1945 to a France that was economically in dire straits after years of war and occupation. Already in the fall of 1944, Paris was informed that there were to be no reparations from Germany, and it was in vain that de Gaulle responded by briefly flirting with the Soviet Union, even concluding a “pact” with Moscow that would prove to be “stillborn”, as Lacroix-Riz puts it.[15] As for France’s urgent request for American credits as well as urgently needed food and industrial and agricultural supplies, they did not yield “free gifts” of any kind, as is commonly believed, for reasons to be elucidated later, but only deliveries of products of which there was a glut in the US itself and loans, all of it to be paid in dollars and at inflated prices. Lacroix-Riz emphasizes that “free deliveries of merchandise to France by the American army or any civil organization, even of the humanitarian type, never existed”.[16]
The Americans were clearly motivated by the desire to show de Gaulle and the French in general who was the boss in their country, now that the Germans were gone. (De Gaulle certainly understood things that way: he often referred to the landings in Normandy as a second occupation of his country and never attended even one of the annual commemorations of D-Day.) It was not a coincidence that the American diplomat who was appointed envoy to France in the fall of 1944 was Jefferson Caffery, who had plenty of experience in lording it over Latin American “banana republics” from US embassies in their capitals.[17]
De Gaulle headed a coalition government involving three parties, the “Gaullist” Christian-democratic Popular Republican Movement (MRP), the Socialist Party, then still officially known as the French Section of the Workers’ International (SFIO), and the Communist Party (PCF). The general himself resigned as head of the government on January 20, 1946, but “tripartism” continued under a string of cabinets headed by socialists such as Félix Gouin and MRP headmen like Georges Bidault. Yet another socialist, Paul Ramadier, would lead the final tripartite government from January until October 1947; on May 4 of that year, he brought tripartism to an end by expelling the communists from his government.
With the pesky de Gaulle out of the way, the Americans found it much easier to proceed with their plans to “open the door” of France and penetrate the former grande nation economically as well as politically. And they managed to do so by taking full advantage of the country’s postwar economic problems and urgent need for credits to purchase all sorts of agricultural and industrial goods, including food and fuel, and finance reconstruction. The US, which had emerged from the war as the world’s financial and economic superpower and richest country by far, was able and willing to help, but only at the conditions already applied to the Lend-Lease agreements, outlined in enshrined in the Bretton-Woods Agreements, conditions certain to turn the beneficiary, in this case France, into a vassal of Uncle Sam – and an ally in its “cold” war against the Soviet Union.
In early 1946, Léon Blum, a high-profile socialist leader who had headed France’s famous Popular Front government in 1936, was sent to the US to negotiate a deal with Truman’s Secretary of State, James F. Byrnes. Blum was accompanied by a retinue of other high-profile politicians, diplomats, and high-ranking civil servants; it included Jean Monnet, the CFLN’s agent in charge of supplies (ravitaillement), who had been overseeing the purchases of weapons and other equipment in the US, where he had developed a great fondness for the country and for things American in general. These negotiations dragged on for months, but eventually yielded an agreement that was signed on May 28, 1946, and soon ratified by the French government. The Blum-Byrnes Agreement was widely perceived as a wonderful deal for France, involving free gifts of millions of dollars, loans at low-interest rates, deliveries at low cost of all sorts of essential food, industrial equipment, and was proclaimed by Blum himself as “an immense concession” from the Americans.[18]
However, Lacroix-Riz begs to differ. She demonstrates that the meetings between Byrnes and Blum did not involve genuine negotiations but amounted to an American Diktat, reflecting the fact that the French side “capitulated” and meekly accepted all the conditions attached by the Americans to their “aid” package. These conditions, she explains, included a French agreement to purchase, at inflated prices, all sorts of mostly useless “surplus” military equipment the US army still had in Europe when the war had come to an end, disparagingly referred to by Lacroix-Riz as “unsellable bric-à-brac”.[19] Hundreds of poor-quality freighters, euphemistically known as Liberty Ships, were similarly foisted on the French. The supplies to be delivered to France included very little of what the country really needed but virtually exclusively products of which there was a glut in the US itself, due to the decline of demand that resulted from the end of the war and economists, businessmen, and politicians to fear that America might slide back into a depression, bringing unemployment, social problems, and even demand for radical change, as had been the case in the Depression-ridden “red thirties”.[20] Postwar overproduction constituted a major problem for the US and, as Lacroix-Riz, writes, continued to be “extremely worrisome in 1947”, but exports to Europe appeared to offer a solution to the problem; she adds that “the final stage of the frenzied search for [this] solution of the problem of postwar overproduction” would turn out to be the Marshall Plan, but it clear that the Blum-Byrnes Agreements already constituted a major step in that direction.[21]
Moreover, payment for US goods had to be made in dollars, which France was forced to earn by exporting to the US at the lowest possible prices due to the fact that the Americans had no urgent need for French import and therefore enjoyed the advantage of a “buyer’s market”. France also had to open its doors to Hollywood productions, which was most detrimental to her own movie industry, virtually the only concession of the agreement that was to receive public attention and it still remembered today. (The Wikipedia entry about the Blum-Byrnes Agreement deals virtually exclusively with that issue.)[22] Yet another condition was that France would compensate US corporations such as Ford for wartime damages suffered by their subsidiaries in France, damages that were in fact mostly due to bombings by the US Air Force. (Incidentally, during the war, Ford France had produced equipment for Vichy and Nazi Germany and made a lot of money in the process.)[23]
As for money matters, Wikipedia echoes a widely held belief when it suggests that the agreement involved the “eradication” of debts France had incurred earlier, e.g. under the terms of the Lend-Lease deal signed in Algiers. However, upon closer scrutiny, it turns out that Wikipedia merely writes that the agreement “aimed to [italics added] eradicate” those debts but never mentions if that aim was ever achieved.[24] According to Lacroix-Riz, it was not; she calls the “wiping out” (effacement) of France’s debt to the US “imaginary” and emphasizes that the notion that fabulous new credits were being planned amounted to wishful thinking; her categorical conclusion is that other than loans with onerous strings attached, “the ‘negotiations’ produced no credits whatsoever” (Les négotiations ne débouchèrent sur aucun crédit ).[25]
It follows that the economic reconstruction of France in the years following the end of World War II, so rapid in comparison with the country’s industrial comeback after 1918, was not due to the generosity of an outsider, Uncle Sam. Instead, it was mostly the result of the “Stakhanovite” efforts of France’s own workers, aiming to revive the country’s industry in general, in the so-called “Battle of Production” (bataille de la production), particularly successful in the then still crucially important field of production of coal in the nationalized mines. Even though this “battle” was certain to benefit the capitalist owners of factories, it was orchestrated by the Communist Party, a member of the “tripartite” government, because its leaders were keenly aware that “a country’s political independence required its economic independence”, so that reliance on American “aid” would mean subordination of France to the US.[26] (Incidentally, most if not all of the money borrowed from the US was not be invested in France’s reconstruction but in a costly, bloody, and ultimately doomed attempt to hang on to the “jewel in the crown” of her most colonial possessions, Indochina.)
Image: One of the numerous posters created to promote the Marshall Plan in Europe. (From the Public Domain)
That France’s postwar economic recovery was not due to US “aid” is only logical because, from the American perspective, the aim of the Blum-Byrnes Agreements or, later, the Marshall Plan, was not at all to forgive debts or help France in any other way to recover from the trauma of war, but to open up the country’s markets (as well as those of her colonies) and to integrate it into a postwar Europe — for the time being admittedly only Western Europe — that was to be capitalist, like the US, and controlled by the US from its German bridgehead. With the signing of the Blum-Byrnes Agreements, which also included a French acceptance of the fact that there would be no German reparations, that aim was virtually achieved.
The conditions attached to the agreements did indeed include a guarantee by the French negotiators that France would henceforth practice free-trade policy and that there would be no more nationalizations like the ones that, almost immediately after the country’s liberation, befell car manufacturer Renault as well as privately owned coal mines and producers of gas and electricity; the conditions also banned any other measures that Uncle Sam perceived to be anticapitalist, regardless of the wishes and intentions of the French people, known at the time to have an appetite for radical social-economic as well as political reforms.[27]
How did Blum and his team manage to cover up their “capitulation” and present it to the French public as a victory, “a felicitous event” (un évènement heureux), for their country?[28] And why did they lie so blatantly about the results and the conditions? These two questions are also answered by Lacroix-Riz in her new book.
First, the information dispensed about the Blum-Byrnes Agreements by the French side, and eagerly echoed by most of the media, except for communist publications, included all sorts of exaggerations, understatements, omissions, even outright lies, in other words, amounted to what is now commonly known as “spin”. The financial wizards and other “experts” among the high-ranking civil servants on Blum’s team proved to be excellent “spinmeister”, they managed to conjure up all sorts of ways to fool the public with electorate”, including obfuscating crucial details of the agreement.[29] The French women and men were reassured in vague and euphemistic language that their country was to benefit regally from the generosity of Uncle Sam. There were references to many millions of dollars of future credits, with no strings attached, but it was not mentioned that the flow of dollars was not guaranteed at all and could in fact not realistically be expected to be forthcoming; German reparations in the form of deliveries of coal, for example, were similarly hinted at in vague terms, even though the negotiators knew that to reflect nothing but wishful thinking.[30]
About the many rigorous conditions attached to the deal, on the other hand, the French public heard nothing, so it had no idea that their once great and powerful country was being demoted to the status of a vassal of Uncle Sam. The text submitted for ratification — in its entirety, or not at all![31] — to the National Assembly was long, vague, and convoluted, drawn up in such a way as to befuddle non-experts, and much important information was buried in notes, appendixes, and secret annexes; reading it, nobody would have realized that all of the tough conditions imposed by the Americans had been accepted, conditions going back all the way to the deal concluded with Darlan in November 1942.[32]
Since Blum and his colleagues knew from the start that they would have no choice but to accept an American Diktat in its entirety, their transatlantic sojourn could have been a short one, but it was stretched over many weeks to create the appearance of thorough and tough negotiations. The negotiations also featured plenty of “smoke and mirrors”, including visits (and attendant photo-ops) with Truman; interviews producing articles lionizing Blum as “a figurehead of the French Resistance” and “one of the most powerful personalities of the moment”; and a side trip by Blum to Canada, photogenic but totally useless except in terms of public relations.[33]
Lacroix-Riz’s conclusion is merciless. Blum, she writes, was guilty of “maximum dishonesty”, he was responsible for a “gigantic deception”.[34] However, the charade worked wonderfully, as it benefited from the cooperation by the Americans, who cynically pretended to have been coaxed into making major concessions by experienced and brilliant Gallic interlocutors. They did so because elections were coming up in France and a truthful report of the outcome of the negotiations would certainly have provided grist for the mill of the communists and might have jeopardized ratification of the deal.[35]
Lacroix-Riz also points out that historians in France, the US, and the rest of the Western world, with the exception of America’s own “revisionists” such as Kolko, have similarly distorted the history of the Blum-Byrnes Agreement and glorified it as a wonderfully useful instrument for the postwar reconstruction of France and the modernization of its economy. She describes how this was mainly due to the fact that French historiography itself was “atlanticized”, that is Americanized, with the financial support of the CIA and its supposedly private handmaids, including the Ford Foundation.[36]
The British had not been able to reject the rigorous conditions attached to the Lend-Lease arrangement of 1941, but that was during the war, when they fought for survival and had no choice but to accept. In 1946, France could not invoke that excuse. So, what motivated Blum, Monnet, and their colleagues to “capitulate” and accept all American conditions? Lacroix-Riz provides a persuasive answer: because they shared Uncle Sam’s paramount concern about France, namely, an eagerness to preserve the country’s capitalist social-economic status quo, in a postwar situation when the French population was still very much in a reformist if not revolutionary mood, with the communists extremely popular and influential. “Nothing else she emphasizes, “can explain the systematic acceptance of the draconian [American] conditions”.[37]
The concern to preserve the established social-economic order is understandable in the case of Bloch’s conservative colleagues, representatives of the MRP faction in the tripartite government, the “Gaullist” MRP, which included many recycled Pétainists. It is likewise understandable in the case of the high-ranking diplomats and other civil servants in Blum’s team. These bureaucrats were traditionally defenders of the established order and many if not most of them had been happy to serve Pétain; but after Stalingrad, at the latest, they had switched their allegiance to Uncle Sam and thus become “European heralds of American-style free trade” (hérauts européens du libre commerce américain)” and, more in general, very pro-American “Atlanticists”, a breed of which Jean Monnet emerged as the example par excellence.[38]
The Communist Party was a member of the tripartite government but, writes Lacroix-Riz, “were systematically excluded from its “decision-making structures”[39] and had no representatives on the team of negotiators, but the Left was represented by socialists, including Blum. Why did they not put up any meaningful resistance to the Americans’ demands? In the wake of the Russian Revolution, European socialism had experienced a “great schism”, with the revolutionary socialists, friends of the Soviet Union, soon to become known as communists, on one side, and the reformist or “evolutionary” socialists (or “social democrats”), antagonistic towards Moscow, on the other. The two occasionally worked together, as in the French Popular Front government of the 1930s, but most of the time their relationship was characterized by competition, conflict, and even outright hostility. At the end of World War II, the communists were definitely in the ascendant, not only because of their preponderant role in the Resistance, but also because of the great prestige enjoyed by the Soviet Union, widely viewed as the vanquisher of Nazi Germany. To keep up with, and hopefully eclipse, the French socialists, like the former Pétainists, also opted to play the American card, and proved willing to accept whatever conditions the latter imposed on them, and on France in general, in return for backing the socialists with their huge financial and other resources. Conversely, in France the Americans needed the socialists – and “non-communist leftists” in general– in their efforts to erode popular support for the communists. It was in this context that Blum and many other socialist leaders had frequently met with US Ambassador Caffery after his arrival in Paris in the fall of 1944.[40]
The socialists thus proved to be even more useful for anti-communist (and anti-Soviet) purposes than the Gaullists, and they offered Uncle Sam yet another considerable advantage: unlike the Gaullists, they did not seek territorial or financial “reparations” from a Germany that the Americans wanted to rebuild and turn into their bridgehead for the economic and even political conquest of Europe.
In postwar France, then, the socialists played the American card, while the Americans played the socialist card. But in other European countries, Uncle Sam likewise used the services of anti-communist socialist (or social-democratic) leaders eager to collaborate with them and in due course these men were to be richly rewarded for their services. The Belgian socialist headman Paul-Henri Spaak comes to mind, who was to be appointed by Washington as secretary general of NATO, presumably an alliance of equal partners but in reality a subsidiary of the Pentagon and a pillar of American supremacy in Europe, which he had helped to establish.[41]
The integration of France into a postwar (Western) Europe dominated by Uncle Sam would be completed by the country’s acceptance of Marshall Plan “aid” in 1948 and its adherence to NATO in 1949. However, it is wrong to believe that these two highly publicized events occurred in response to the outbreak of the Cold War, conventionally blamed on the Soviet Union, after the end of World War II. In reality, the Americans had been keen to extend their economic and political reach across the Atlantic and France had been in their crosshairs at least since their troops had landed in North Africa in the fall of 1942. They took advantage of the weakness of postwar France to offer “aid” with conditions that, like those of Lend-Lease to Britain, were certain to turn the recipient country into a junior partner of the US. This became a reality, as Lacroix-Riz demonstrates in her book, not when France subscribed to the Marshall Plan, but when her representatives signed the agreements that resulted from the unheralded Blum-Byrnes Negotiations. It was then, in the spring of 1946, that France, unbeknownst to the majority of its citizens, waved adieu to her status of great power and joined the ranks of the European vassals of Uncle Sam.
*
Click the share button below 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.
Kolko, Gabriel. Main Currents in Modern American History, New York, 1976.
Kuklick, Bruce. American Policy and the Division of Germany: The Clash with Russia over Reparations, Ithaca and London, 1972.
Pauwels, Jacques. The Myth of the Good War: America in the Second World War, revised edition, Toronto, 2015.
— The Great Class War 1914-1918, Toronto, 2016.
— Big Business and Hitler, Toronto, 2017.
Zinn, Howard. A People’s History of the United States, s.l., 1980.
Notes
[1] Eisenberg, p. 322.
[2] See e.g. the article by Kierkegaard.
[3] See Pauwels (2016), pp. 447-49.
[4] “Economies of scale”.
[5] See Pauwels (2017), pp. 144-54.
[6] Pauwels (2017), p. 168. The total value of American investments in Nazi Germany, involving no less than 553 corporations, rose to $450 million by the time of Hitler’s declaration of war against the United States in December 1941.
[7] Pauwels (2017), pp. 63-65.
[8] Quotation from Ambrose, p. 66.
[9] Lacroix-Riz, p. 13.
[10] Zinn, p. 404: “Quietly behind the headlines in battles and bombings, American diplomats and businessmen worked hard to make sure that when the war ended, American economic power would be second to none in the world . . . The Open Door policy of equal access would be extended from Asia to Europe”.
[11] Lacroix-Riz, pp. 116-17.
[12] Lacroix-Riz, p. 9.
[13] For details, see Pauwels (2017), pp. 199-217.
[14] Lacroix-Riz refers to Bruce Kuklicks’s pioneering work focusing on this theme. For more on the importance of postwar Germany to the US, see Pauwels (2015), p. 249 ff.
[15] Lacroix-Riz, p. 198.
[16] Lacroix-Riz, pp. 203, 206-208.
[17] Lacroix-Riz, pp. 170-72, 174-83.
[18] Lacroix-Riz, p. 409.
[19] Lacroix-Riz, p. 331.
[20] Kolko, p. 235.
[21] Lacroix-Riz, pp. 413-14.
[22] “Blum–Byrnes agreement”.
[23] Lacroix-Riz, p. 326 ff. Lacroix-Riz has examined the case of Ford France’s wartime collaboration in an earlier book on French industrialists and bankers during the German occupation.
[24] “Blum–Byrnes agreement”.
[25] Lacroix-Riz, pp. 336-37, 342-43.
[26] Lacroix-Riz, pp. 199-202. The “Battle of Production” is a subject Lacroix-Riz focused on in her 1981 doctoral dissertation as well as other writings. On the benefits of historical nationalizations in France, see also the article by Paul Cohen.
[27] Lacroix-Riz, pp. 277, 329-30, 363.
[28] Lacroix-Riz, p. 338.
[29] Lacroix-Riz, p., pp. 416-17.
[30] Lacroix-Riz, pp. 342-43, 345-46
[31] Lacroix-Riz, p. 408: “L’Assemblée nationale devrait donc adopter en bloc tout ce qui figurait dans la plus grosse pièce du millefeuille officiel des accords Blum-Byrnes”.
[32] Lacroix-Riz, pp. 334-37, 354-55.
[33] Lacroix-Riz, pp. 323-26.
[34] Lacroix-Riz, pp. 271, 340.
[35] Lacroix-Riz, pp. 342-43, 345-46
[36] Lacroix-Riz, p. 376 ff.
[37] Lacroix-Riz, pp. 114-15, 122, 386, 415.
[38] Lacroix-Riz, p. 273.
[39] Lacroix-Riz, p. 418.
[40] Lacroix-Riz, pp. 170-72, 174-83.
[41] Lacroix-Riz, p. 57-58, 417.
Featured image: Chief Petty Officer Michael McNabb – Public Domain
Big Business and Hitler
Author: Jacques R. Pauwels
ISBN: 9781459409873, 1459409876
Published: October 31, 2017
Publisher: James Lorimer & Company
For big business in Germany and around the world, Hitler and his National Socialist party were good news. Business was bad in the 1930s, and for multinational corporations Germany was a bright spot in a world suffering from the Great Depression. As Jacques R. Pauwels explains in this book, corporations were delighted with the profits that came from re-arming Germany, and then supplying both sides of the Second World War.
Recent historical research in Germany has laid bare the links between Hitler’s regime and big German firms. Scholars have now also documented the role of American firms — General Motors, IBM, Standard Oil, Ford, and many others — whose German subsidiaries eagerly sold equipment, weapons, and fuel needed for the German war machine. A key roadblock to America’s late entry into the Second World War was behind-the-scenes pressure from US corporations seeking to protect their profitable business selling to both sides.
Basing his work on the recent findings of scholars in many European countries and the US, Pauwels explains how Hitler gained and held the support of powerful business interests who found the well-liked oneparty fascist government, ready and willing to protect the property and profits of big business. He documents the role of the many multinationals in business today who supported Hitler and gained from the Nazi government’s horrendous measures.
The New York Times reports that the Biden administration has authorized Ukraine to use US-supplied long-range missiles to strike Russian and North Korean military targets inside Russia — yet another dangerous escalation of nuclear brinkmanship in this horrific proxy war.
The Times correctly notes that authorizing Ukraine to use ATACMS, which have a range of about 190 miles, has long been a contentious issue in the Biden administration for fear of provoking military retaliations against the US from Russia. This reckless escalation has been authorized despite an acknowledgement from the anonymous US officials who spoke to The New York Times that they “do not expect the shift to fundamentally alter the course of the war.”
As Antiwar’s Dave DeCamp notes, Vladimir Putinsaid back in September that if NATO allows Ukraine to use western-supplied weapons for long-range strikes inside Russian territory, it would mean NATO countries “are at war with Russia.” This is about as unambiguous a threat as you’ll ever see.
NYT reports that Biden’s policy shift “comes two months before President-elect Donald J. Trump takes office, having vowed to limit further support for Ukraine.” And it is here worth noting that last week it was reported by The Telegraph that BritishPM Keir Starmer and French President Emmanuel Macron had been scheming to thwart any attempt by Trump to scale back US support for Ukraine by pushing Biden to authorize long-range missile strikes in Russian territory.
But it is also true that the day before the US electionMike Waltz, Trump’s next national security advisor, had himself endorsed the idea of authorizing long-range missile strikes into Russia with the goal of pressuring Moscow to end the war. His plan for disentangling the US from the conflict entails ramping up sanctions on Russia and “taking the handcuffs off the long-range weapons we provide Ukraine” in order to pressure Putin into eagerly accepting a peace deal.
So while this is being framed as an administration that’s more hawkish on Russia executing a maneuver that’s designed to hamstring the peacemongering of an incoming administration that’s less favorable to assisting Ukraine, in reality it may just be goal-assisting the next administration in a policy change it had planned on implementing anyway.
Either way, it’s insane. Putin ordered changes to Russia’s nuclear doctrine in September in order to ward off these sorts of escalations by lowering the threshold at which nuclear weapons could be used to defend the Russian Federation, and they’re just barreling right past that bright red line like they barreled over the red lines which led to the invasion of Ukraine. And the fact that they’re adding yet another nuclear-armed state into the mix with North Korea is just more gravy for the nuclear brinkmanship pot roast.
At one point in 2022, US intelligence agencies reportedly assessed that the odds of Russia using a nuclear weapon in Ukraine was as high as 50 percent, but the Biden administration kept pushing forward with this proxy war anyway. These freaks are taking insane risks to advance agendas that stand to yield the slimmest of benefits even by their own assessments.
We are living in dark and dangerous times.
*
Click the share button below 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.
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
Below is a biographical summary focussing on Chossudovsky’s academic and professional activities, including publications and awards (as well as his contribution to the Encyclopedia Britannica)
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.
Citizenships
Canada, Republic of Ireland, United Kingdom
Education
Ecole internationale, Geneva, Maturité fédérale suisse, type scientifique (C), 1962 BA (Econ) Honours, Department of Economics, University of Manchester, UK, 1965 Diploma in Economic Planning, International Institute of Social Studies (ISS), The Hague, Netherlands, 1967, The ISS is now part of Erasmus University, Rotterdam. Ph.D., Department of Economics, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, NC, USA. 1971
Chossudovsky was a student of social anthropologist Prof. Max Gluckman at the University of Manchester, of Nobel Laureate in Economics Prof. Jan Tinbergen at the Institute of Social Studies (ISS), The Hague and of mathematical statistics Prof Harold Hotelling at the University of North Carolina (UNC).
Languages: Fluent in English, French, Spanish, German. Knowledge of Portuguese, Chinese (Mandarin), Dutch (Netherlands), Thai, Russian, Melanesian (Papua New Guinea).
He has undertaken field research in Latin America, China, India, Southeast Asia, the Middle East, sub-Saharan Africa, the Pacific and has written extensively on the economies of developing countries with a focus on poverty and social inequality.
His recent research focusses on economic and social policy, health economics, geopolitics, globalization.
Academic, Research and Advisory positions:
Professor of Economics, emeritus, University of Ottawa, Department of Economics, (First academic appointment in 1968-)
Professor, National Autonomous University of Nicaragua (UNAN), Managua, Centre for Development Studies Miguel d’Escoto Brockmann (CEDMEB), Founding Member of CEDMEB (2019- )
Visiting Professor, Postgraduate Program in Geopolitical Analysis, Faculty of Humanities and Social Sciences, Autonomous University of the City of Mexico (UACM) (2022)
Visiting Professor, University of the Philippines, Cebu, Faculty of Social Sciences (2015, 2016, 2017, 2018).
Directeur de recherche invité, Visiting Research Fellow, Lecturer. L’Ecole des hautes études en sciences sociales (EHESS), Paris (1993)
Associate, Saint Mary’s University, International Development Studies, Halifax, Nova Scotia, (1990s)
Associate Fellow, Centre for Developing Area Studies, McGill University, Montreal, (1990s)
Visiting Research Scholar, Chulalongkorn University, Department of Economics, Bangkok, (1991, 1992)
Visiting Professor, Catholic University of Peru, Department of Economics, Lima (1989-90, 1991)
Visiting Professor and Research Scholar, Kohn Kaen University, Department of Social Sciences, Khon Kaen, Thailand (1987-88), under contract with CIDA.
Policy Adviser, Rural and Social Development, Department of Economic and Technical Cooperation (DTEC), Prime Minister’s Office, Royal Thai Government, Bangkok (1986-87), under contract with the Canadian International Development Agency (CIDA)
Visiting Professor, University of Papua New Guinea (UPNG), Department of Economics. Lecturer, School of Medicine and Health Sciences, UPNG, Port Moresby, 1985
Honorary Research Fellow, University of Hong Kong (1981-82), Centre of Asian Studies (CAS), Faculty of Social Sciences, Also Lecturer, HKU Economics Department, Lecturer, Department of Extra-Mural Studies (School of Professional and Continuing Education).
Carleton University, School of International Affairs, Ottawa, Part Time Lecturer (1977)
University of Sherbrooke, Quebec, Department of Economics, Part Time Lecturer (1979-80)
Visiting Professor, National University of Cordoba, Argentina (1976), Social Policy Institute. Under ILO-UNDP Contract
Visiting Scholar and Lecturer, Central University of Venezuela, Caracas (1976), Development Studies Centre (CENDES)
Research Scholar and Lecturer, UN African Institute for Economic and Social Planning (IDEP), Dakar. (1976)
Senior Economic Adviser to the Minister of State for Planning, and Research Director (Interdisciplinary project on poverty), Ministry of Planning (CORDIPLAN), Government of Venezuela, Caracas, 1975-76.
Catholic University of Peru, Department of Economics, Visiting Professor (1974)
Catholic University of Chile (1973), Institute of Economics, Visiting Professor and Teaching Fellow, Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy.
Teaching Assistant, Department of Economics, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, 1967-68.
Research Assistant, Applied Experimental Design Techniques and Nonlinear Programming, Department of Economics and Department of Mathematical Statistics, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, 1966-68
Consultancies
Consultant to the UNDP and the Government of Rwanda, Analysis of Rwanda’s External Debt, Kigali. Missions in 1996, 1997.
Consultant, African Development Bank (ADB), country-level missions, economic and social analysis, post evaluation of macro-economic reforms (1991-1995), missions to Kenya, Morocco, Guinea Bissau, Gambia, Botswana on behalf of ADB.
Consultant, North South Institute, Ottawa: research on country-level macro-economic reforms (Peru Research Project) on behalf of CIDA. 1990-1992.
Lecturer, World Bank, Economic Development Institute (EDI) Training Program, Workshop on Macro-Economic Reform, Harare, Zimbabwe, 1991
Consultant, United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA), Missions to Nigeria, Rwanda, Tanzania, 1988, 1989
Consultant, World Health Organization (WHO), Organization and Coordination of African Workshop on Health Planning, Lecturer, Dakar, Senegal. 1976
TV Ontario, Educational Television, Researcher and interviewer, Five part series on the Canadian Economy (1978-79) (interview with former PM Jean Chrétien)
Canadian International Development Agency (CIDA): Missions to Mali (1982-83), Peru, University Cooperation Programme (1977-79), Thailand 1986-88, Consultant to CIDA on Health and Development in Latin America, 1991, Lecturer, CIDA’s staff training programme, Economic Strategies and Development Policies, Ottawa, 1970s and 1980s.
He is a past president of the Canadian Association of Latin American and Caribbean Studies (ACELAC) and a former member of the Senate of the University of Ottawa.
Lectures and presentations at more than 100 universities, research institutions, parliamentary committees, etc.
Lecture, Committee of the European Parliament on the 9/11 Attacks, Brussels (2002), Testimony, Joint Senate-House of Commons Committee (Canada), Economic Affairs and International Trade Committee (December 1989), Testimony, Joint Senate-House of Commons Committee (Canada), Canada’s International Relations (1986), World Summit for Social Development (1995), Member of the Drafting Committee of “The Copenhagen Alternative Declaration” on behalf of 800 NGOs (1995), House of Representatives, Philippines, Testimony on the impacts of the 2008 Economic Crisis, (2009), Literaturhaus, Munich (2003), The Latin American Parliament, Caracas (2008), Belgrade Forum, (2000, 2009, 2022, 2024), Stanford, UNC, Wisconsin, Yale, University of Havana, The International Federation of Operational Research Societies (IFORS). Madrid, Operations Research Society of America (ORSA) New York, (1966-1967), etc.
Lectures at Foreign Correspondents Club of Japan (2013, 2017), Rosa Luxemburg Conference, Berlin (2014), Humboldt University (1999), Mexican Press Club, Malaysia Chamber of Commerce, Malaysia Academy of Sciences, Science for Peace Conference (2016), Perdana Global Peace Foundation (Kuala Lumpur) (several lectures, 2005-2017), Public Lecture chaired by Egypt’s Minister of Finance, Cairo (1991), Keynote Lecture, conference held at Korean Parliament (ROK), Seoul, Chinese Academy of Social Sciences (2012, 2019), Wuhan University (1982, 1984), Tsinghua University School of Journalism, Beijing, Media Conferences, People’s Daily (Beijing), Keynote Address. Firenze Peace Conference, No War, No NATO (2019). etc.
Interviews/Conversations with (former) heads of State, heads of government: Jean Chrétien (Canada), Luis Inacio da Silva (Brazil), Fernando Enrique Cardoso (Brazil), Manmohan Singh (India),Pasteur Bizimungu (Rwanda), Fidel Castro Ruz (Cuba), Ricardo Alarcon (Cuba), Tun Dr. Mahathir Mohamad (Malaysia),Atef Ebeid (Egypt), Hugo Chavez (Venezuela), Victor Haya de la Torre, APRA (Peru), Georgios Papandreou (Greece).
Publications
He is the author of:
Thirteen books including several international best-sellers
Is the Canadian Economy Closing Down, (1979) (co-author),
Towards Capitalist Restoration? Chinese Socialism after Mao (1986), London, Macmillan
The Globalization of Poverty and The New World Order (1997, 2003) (published in 13 languages),
America’s “War on Terrorism” (2005) (published in 10 languages),
The Global Economic Crisis, The Great Depression of the Twenty-first Century (2009) (Editor),
Towards a World War III Scenario: The Dangers of Nuclear War (2011) (published in 4 languages),
The Globalization of War, America’s Long War against Humanity (2015) (published in 4 languages)
The US-NATO War of Aggression against Yugoslavia (2021), Belgrade. (published in Serbian and English)
The Worldwide Corona Crisis: Global Coup d’État against Humanity. (2022), E-Book pdf format. Print version forthcoming. Also published (print) in Japanese (2022)
The 2015 Kuala Lumpur launching by Tun Dr. Mahathir Mohamad, Former PM of Malaysia of Michel Chossudovsky’s book entitled The Globalization of War
Chapters in Books. Reports published by national and international organizations (ADB, UNFPA, UNDP, CIDA, UNECLAC, North-South Institute, Royal Thai Government).
Conversations with Fidel Castro Ruz: The Dangers of Nuclear War, (October 11-15, 2010, available in several languages in print and online, chapter in book).
Chossudovsky’s writings have also appeared in Le monde diplomatique (Paris), The Journal of International Affairs (New York), the International Herald Tribune and New York Times, Third World Resurgence, The Ecologist (London UK), the South China Morning Post (Hong Kong), The Nation (Bangkok), Dagens Nyheter (Stockholm), La Presse (Montreal), Junge Welt (Berlin), Hankoreh (Seoul, ROK), Cuba Debate (Havana), Global Times (Beijing), People’s Daily (Beijing), Frontline (Chennai), Comercio Exterior (Mexico), Economic and Political Weekly (Mumbai), World Affairs (New Delhi), GeoPolitica (Bucharest), Peace Magazine (Toronto), etc.
Press interviews and TV interviews with (among others) CTV, CBC, RT, BBC, TVO, CCTV (Beijing), Global, Radio Canada, Tele Quebec, TV Ontario (Education TV) (five part series on the Canadian Economy), CNN, TV France 5, RTBF (Belgium), Press TV, TeleSur, MBC (ROK, Seoul), Malaysian TV, Peru TV, Portugal TV, Havana TV, Nicaragua National TV, Pacifica, WBAI, Community radio in US, Canada, etc.
His writings have been published in more than twenty languages.
Kuala Lumpur War Crimes Commission
Michel Chossudovsky is a signatory of the 2005 Kuala Lumpur Declaration to Criminalize War under the helm of Tun Dr. Mahathir Mohamad, former Prime Minister of Malaysia
Signatories of the 2005 Kuala Lumpur Declaration. From Left to Right: Francis A.Boyle, Helen Caldicott, Denis J. Halliday, Tun Dr. Mahathir Mohamad, Hans-Christof Von Sponeck, Michel Chossudovsky, Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf
Michel Chossudovsky was a member of the Kuala Lumpur War Crimes Commission (KLWCC) (2007- 2018) under the helm of Dr. Mahathir Mohamad, former PM of Malaysia.
Project Censored Award, State University of Sonoma, California, (1999- 2015, 10 awards).
Professor of the Year Award, University of Ottawa, Faculty of Social Sciences (2001). Excellence in Teaching Award
Mexican Press Club award to Michel Chossudovsky and Global Research, “Primer Premio de Periodismo”: “Premio Internacional de Periodismo por el Mejor Portal de Investigación Internacional.” “First National Prize for the best research website at the international level” (2008).
From Left to Right Prof. Y Dissou Chairman, Economics Department, HE Serbia’s Ambassador Mihailo Papazoglu, Prof. Michel Chossudovsky, Prof. Marcel Merette, Dean, Faculty of Social Sciences, University of Ottawa (2014)
Doctor Honoris Causa in Humanities, National Autonomous University of Nicaragua (UNAN), Managua (2016)
National Autonomous University, Managua, Nicaragua, 2016
Fellowships and Research Grants:
Research Fellowship, International Development Research Centre (IDRC), Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada (SSHRC) awards. Canada Council award, Fellowship of the Netherlands University Foundation for International Cooperation (NUFFIC), Latin American Teaching Fellowship of the Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy and Fellow of Tufts University. University of Ottawa Faculty of Social Sciences Research Grants. Research grant from SSHRC- Chinese Academy of Social Sciences (CASS), field research in China, Conference Board of Canada -Chinese Academy of Social Sciences (CASS), Collaborative Field Research in China with CASS Institute of Quantitative Economics.
The Worldwide Corona Crisis, Global Coup d’Etat Against Humanity
“
