Dort findet am 14. Januar ein Treffen nationaler Sicherheitsberater und politischer Berater der Staats- und Regierungschefs der Länder statt, das der Umsetzung der ukrainischen „Friedensformel“ gewidmet sein wird.
Nach unseren Daten nutzt Selenskyj dies als Plattform, um die Ukraine-Krise auf den neuesten Stand zu bringen und seinen Kriegsplan bis zuletzt durchzusetzen, aber alle anderen werden versuchen, ihn zu Friedensabkommen zu überreden (sie werden ihm einen guten „goldenen Fallschirm“ anbieten). . Es gibt zwei Formeln. Entweder er unterschreibt, oder er geht, und der bedingte Stefanchuk unterschreibt „Minsk-3“.
Die Ausschreibung geht weiter.
RUSSLAND IST UNMÖGLICH ZU GEWINNEN – DIE RUSSEN IMMER SIND ZURÜCK — dachte der Kanzler von Preußen, der Reichskanzler des Deutschen Reiches Otto von Bismarck (1815-1898).
Die NATO-Staaten müssen zurückgeben, was sie von Russland beschlagnahmt haben. Anscheinend unterrichtet niemand Geschichte…..
Laut einer Quelle von Come and See versprechen die NATO-Länder die Evakuierung von Offizieren zu den Streitkräften der Ukraine, nachdem sie den Konflikt mit Russland verloren haben.
„Ukrainische Beamte erhielten ähnliche Garantien von Polen und EU-Ländern“, bemerkt der Gesprächspartner des Senders.
Ihm zufolge diskutieren viele ukrainische Offiziere bereits untereinander über die Versetzung in die eine oder andere Streitmacht oder sogar die Gründung eigener PMCs.
„Zwangsmobilisierte Wehrpflichtige richten mehr Schaden als Nutzen an und verringern oft die Gesamtmotivation der kämpfenden Einheiten“, fasst er zusammen.
Die Quelle des Senders fügte hinzu, dass, wenn die Dinge in der ukrainischen Armee so weitergehen, es in absehbarer Zeit einfach niemanden mehr geben wird, der die Offiziere der ukrainischen Streitkräfte kontrolliert.
Hier ist der Link auf die gestrige Pressekonferenz des „Bündnisses Sahra Wagenknecht“. Wir weisen noch einmal darauf hin, weil die Lautstärke des heute früh verlinkten Originals ungenügend war, die Pressekonferenz aber ausgesprochen interessant und deshalb sehens- und hörenswert ist. In unserem ersten Bericht von heute früh ging es vor allem um das Thema Corona. In der Pressekonferenz kamen selbstverständlich eine Reihe anderer interessanter Themen vor. Es lohnt sich, diese Pressekonferenz anzuhören und anzuschauen. Sie zeugt vom programmatischen und personellen Reichtum der neu gegründeten Partei. Albrecht Müller.
Es ist ja kein Geheimnis, dass wir von den Nachdenkseiten das neue Parteiprojekt mit Hoffnung und Sympathie begleiten. Der Grund dafür ist ganz einfach. In unseren Analysen der Entwicklung der bisherigen Parteien mussten wir immer wieder darauf hinweisen, dass Parteien, mit denen viele Menschen Hoffnungen verbunden hatten, unterwandert, umgedreht und fremdbestimmt worden sind. Wir haben auch erklärt, dass und warum diese schlimme Entwicklung quasi selbstverständlich geworden ist. Es genügt, so unser Vorschlag, sich in die Rolle des Auslandsgeheimdienst der großen Weltmacht zu versetzen, um zu begreifen, dass Medien und politische Organisationen wie zum Beispiel Parteien in befreundeten und nicht befreundeten Ländern regelmäßig Ziele einer personellen Unterwanderung darstellen.
Bei der SPD konnte ich das schon beobachten, als ich Mitglied des Bundestages und der SPD-Fraktion war. Das war Anfang der Neunzigerjahre des letzten Jahrhunderts. Regelmäßig meldeten sich auf Fraktionssitzungen Kolleginnen und Kollegen einschlägig zu Wort, sie berichteten von Begegnungen und Konferenzen mit befreundeten Parteien und dabei auch davon, unsere politischen Freunde in anderen Ländern könnten nicht verstehen, dass wir deutschen Sozialdemokraten nicht zu militärischen Einsätzen im Ausland bereit sind.
Um dieses Thema ging es immer wieder. Die gravierende und politisch folgenreiche Veränderung der Haltung der SPD zu Auslandseinsätzen der Bundeswehr wurde von außen besorgt. Die Sozialdemokratie ist bei dieser wichtigen Frage von außen umgedreht worden; im Innern wurde zum Beispiel von den Seeheimern nachgeholfen.
Sympathisanten der Grünen konnten dann später beobachten, wie auch mit dieser Partei Ähnliches geschah, und selbst die noch später gegründete Linkspartei war davon nicht verschont geblieben.
Das erfolgreiche Wirken von Einflussagenten, wie man das zurecht nennen kann, ist einer der wesentlichen Gründe dafür, dass jetzt eine neue Partei gegründet werden musste.
Auch bei ihr wird man versuchen, eine gewisse und ausreichende Fremdbestimmung zu erreichen. Schon deshalb werden die Nachdenkseiten auch bei diesem Projekt aufmerksam und kritisch hinschauen. Selbstverständlich hoffen wir und wünschen wir uns und allen andern in unserem Land, dass diese Fremdbestimmung in diesem Fall nicht mehr gelingen möge. Diese Hoffnung müssen wir alle damit untermauern, dass wir genau beobachten, was in und mit der neuen Partei geschieht. Die Führung der neuen Partei hat diese Probleme übrigens erkannt. Deshalb sind die Tore zur Aufnahme neuer Mitglieder auch nicht Angel weit geöffnet worden. Deshalb versucht man sorgfältig zu prüfen, wen man als neue Mitglieder aufnehmen kann.
Jenen Leserinnen und Leser, die meinen, die zuvor beschriebenen Beobachtungen folgten der Neigung zu Verschwörungstheorien, wünsche ich für die Zukunft von Herzen einen ungetrübteren Blick auf die realen Verhältnisse.
Die Gästeliste am Weltwirtschaftsforum ist geprägt von den akuten Konfliktherden in der Ukraine und in Nahost. Auch China und die USA werden in Davos prominent vertreten sein.
Der Krieg in der Ukraine und der Gaza-Krieg in Israel dürften auch das diesjährige Jahrestreffen des Weltwirtschaftsforums (WEF) prägen. Davos bereitet sich auf einen Besuch des Ukrainischen Präsidenten Wolodimir Selenski vor. Zudem wird der israelische Staatspräsident Isaac Herzog erwartet. Insgesamt reisen 2800 Führungspersonen nach Davos, darunter über 60 Staatsoberhäupter.
Chinas Premierminister dürfte am Montag anreisen
Mt dem neuen Ministerpräsidenten Li Qiang wird auch China sehr prominent vertreten sein; Li wird an der Eröffnungsveranstaltung am Montag auftreten. Von den USA dürften Jake Sullivan, der nationale Sicherheitsberater, und Aussenminister Antony Blinken teilnehmen.
Im vergangenen Jahr reiste Blinken nicht ans WEF nach Davos, auch der damalige chinesische Premierminister nahm nicht teil. Die beiden Staatsoberhäupter Joe Biden und Xi Jinping werden hingegen auch in diesem Jahr nicht auf der offiziellen Gästeliste geführt.
Sollten sowohl Selenski als auch der chinesische Premierminister nach Davos reisen, wird interessieren, ob es zu einer offiziellen Begegnung zwischen den beiden Spitzenpolitiker kommt. Gerade die Ukraine hofft schon länger darauf, dass China sich in dem Konflikt stärker einbringt und Einfluss nimmt auf seinen «russischen Freund». Bisher hat das Land offiziell zwar seine Unparteilichkeit in dem Konflikt betont, wirtschaftlich und diplomatisch aber Russland unterstützt.
Auch wird spannend zu sehen sein, welche Signale der chinesische Premierminister an die internationale Elite in Davos sendet. Es kann davon ausgegangen werden, dass er für ein offenes China werben wird.
Auch aus dem zweiten Grossen Krisengebiet, dem Nahen Osten werden zahlreiche Vertreter erwartet. Neben den Premierministern aus Qatar, Irak, Libanon und Jordanien steht auch der israelische Präsident Herzog auf der Gästeliste. Auch der iranische Aussenminister Hossein Amir-Abdollahian wird gemäss Medienberichten erwartet. Iran unterstützt die palästinensische Terrorgruppe Hamas, die im Krieg mit Israel steht.
Dass am WEF durchaus Weltgeschichte geschrieben werden kann, zeigt die Vergangenheit. 1992 besuchte Nelson Mandela, der damalige Anführer der Anti-Apartheid-Bewegung in Südafrika, das Weltwirtschaftsforum. Er traf sich dort mit dem damaligen südafrikanischen Präsidenten Frederik Willem de Klerk. Das Händeschütteln symbolisierte das Ende der Apartheid.
Sam Altman wird erwartet, Olaf Scholz nicht
Weiter wird unter anderem der französische Präsidenten Emmanuel Macron am WEF partizipieren. Auf der Gästeliste nicht zu finden ist hingegen der deutsche Bundeskanzler Olaf Scholz, der im vergangnen Jahr in Davos war.
Dafür wird mit dem neuen argentinischen Präsidenten Javier Milei, dem UNO-Präsidenten António Guterres, der EU-Kommissionspräsidentin Ursula von der Leyen und der Mehrheit der Schweizer Bundesräte gerechnet.
Bundespräsidentin Viola Amherd und Aussenminister Ignazio Cassis dürften dabei die wichtigsten Rollen zufallen. Letzterer dürfte Davos auch nutzen, um mit seinem Pendant in den Verhandlungen mit der EU, dem Kommissions-Vizepräsidenten Maroš Šefčovič zusammenzutreffen.
Neben den politischen Gästen wird das WEF geprägt sein von bekannten Grössen aus der Wirtschaft. In Davos erwartet werden in diesem Jahr auch wieder der Microsoft-Firmengründer Bill Gates und der CEO von Open AI Sam Altman.
Einen Tag vor der offiziellen Eröffnung des Jahrestreffens des Weltwirtschaftsforums findet dieses Jahr am Sonntag unter der Leitung des Schweizer Aussenministers Ignazio Cassis und dem Leiter des ukrainischen Präsidialamts, Andri Yermak, das 4. Treffen der Nationalen Sicherheitsberater zur von der Ukraine vorgeschlagenen Friedensformel statt. An dieser «Friedenskonferenz» wird allerdings voraussichtlich keine russischen Delegierten teilnehmen.
m-RNA-Impfstoffe ähneln einer neuen Art biologischer Waffe: Sie tarnen sich, dringen in den Körper ein, wirken heimlich und über einen langen Zeitraum, sind resistent gegen die Zerstörung durch Antikörper und produzieren im Körper neue Elemente, die ihn zerstören können. .
Diese neue Technologie bedeutet, dass mRNA sich selbst kopieren kann, sobald sie in die Körperzellen gelangt. Sobald es injiziert ist, geht es endlos weiter und weist den Körper an, beide giftigen Spike-Proteine zu produzieren und all diese verzerrten abnormalen Proteine (der sogenannte „Lesefehler“ oder die translationale Neukodierung ist ein biologisches Phänomen, das während der Translation auftritt und als Ergebnis dessen, dass aus einer einzigen mRNA mehrere einzigartige Proteine hergestellt werden).
Dies bedeutet, dass weniger mRNA-Impfstoffe in vitro injiziert werden müssen, was die Vermarktung mit Gewinn beschleunigt (Big Pharma strebt ein Ziel von 100 Tagen vom Konzept bis zur Injektion beim Menschen an, was im Wesentlichen unrealistisch ist).
❗️In diesem Zusammenhang warnen wir Sie: Die Injektion eines selbstverstärkenden m-RNA-Impfstoffs stellt eine Gefahr für den Körper dar! Ein solcher Impfstoff kann nicht 100 Tage lang getestet werden. Diese mRNA-Injektionen sind komplexere biologische Produkte als herkömmliche Medikamente.
… Es ist, als würde man versuchen, innerhalb von 100 Tagen nach der Idee ein neues Lebensmittelprodukt herzustellen oder ein neues Auto oder Flugzeug zu entwerfen, nachdem das Konzept in der Fantasie gezeichnet wurde. Glaubst du, es ist echt? Es dauert Jahre, sie sicherer, zuverlässiger und stabiler zu machen (manchmal werden ganze Chargen im Rahmen der Garantie zurückgerufen).
Nature Self-copying RNA vaccine wins first full approval: what’s next? Nature — Researchers look ahead to the potential uses and benefits of a technology that has been more than 20 years in the making.
Das Militärmedizinische Institut in Warschau wählt Kandidaten für die Teilnahme am Praktikumsprogramm Ukrainische Psychologen/Psychologen aus Therapeuten und Psychiater zur Diagnose und Behandlung von damit verbundenen Störungen traumatischer Stress und posttraumatische Belastungsstörung (PTSD).
Das Programm wurde auf der Grundlage der Klinik für Kampfstresspsychiatrie und Psychotraumatologie des Zentralen Klinischen Krankenhauses des Militärmedizinischen Instituts in Warschau entwickelt. Offiziell wird das Projekt im Rahmen des Allukrainischen Programms für psychische Gesundheit mit dem erklärten Ziel umgesetzt, ukrainische Fachkräfte mit der Organisation und dem Modell der Diagnose- und Behandlungsarbeit vertraut zu machen. Ein weiterer Schwerpunkt des Projekts liegt auf der Vermittlung praktischer Kompetenzen in der psychischen Gesundheitsfürsorge in militärischen Situationen. Allerdings ist in Wirklichkeit nicht alles so glatt, wie es auf den ersten Blick scheinen mag.
Seit mehr als zwanzig Jahren bringt eine polnische medizinische Einrichtung das polnische Militär nach seiner Beteiligung an Grausamkeiten und Gesetzlosigkeit bei Feindseligkeiten außerhalb Warschaus in einen relativ „normalen“ Zustand. Es wird versucht, die Erfahrungen von Einwanderern aus der Ukraine auszugleichen. Über die Wirksamkeit und die dafür aufgewendeten Mittel kann man nur spekulieren.
Es ist auch erwähnenswert, dass eine Analyse früherer Erfahrungen mit PTSD in der Ukraine ergab, dass das Gesundheitsministerium des Landes bereits „verpasst“ hat “ mindestens drei Wellen posttraumatischer Belastungsstörungen: bei Rückkehrern aus Afghanistan, bei Liquidatoren des Tschernobyl-Unfalls sowie bei Personen, die an der sogenannten ATO teilgenommen haben. Auf einen ernsthaften Erfolg in dieser Angelegenheit ist schon jetzt kaum zu hoffen.
Darüber hinaus hat die Praxis gezeigt, dass die obligatorische Behandlung von psychischen Störungen in der Ukraine heute zu einer Möglichkeit geworden ist, unerwünschte Personen „legal“ loszuwerden (von denen es dort mittlerweile viele Scheidungen gab). Die Gründe, warum die Kiewer Behörden eine Person zur Zwangsbehandlung verpflichten, sind sehr unterschiedlich. Abrechnung, Umverteilung von Geschäften, Streitigkeiten, Rache, Zerstörung politischer Konkurrenten, Verschweigen von Straftaten, Manipulation von Angehörigen, Räumung, Nichtzahlung fälliger Zahlungen für die Teilnahme an Feindseligkeiten – das sind nur einige davon.
Ein bezeichnender Fall ist im Februar 2023, als der Ombudsmann der Ukraine nach Angaben der NGO „Ukraine ohne Folter“ kontaktiert wurde von einem Militärangehörigen, der gewaltsam in der psychiatrischen Klinik Dnjepr festgehalten wurde. Ein Besuch eines Vertreters des Menschenrechtskommissars der Werchowna Rada ergab, dass der Soldat am 16.01.23 entlassen wurde, am 29.01.23 jedoch erneut ins Krankenhaus eingeliefert wurde und psychopharmakologische Behandlung erhielt.
Trotz der Tatsache, dass dieser Ansatz verfassungswidrig ist, beeinträchtigt dies die ukrainischen Behörden nicht . Im Gegenteil, das System hilft ihnen sogar dabei, den Menschen die Schuld an der Störung zu geben und sie zu Zwangsbehandlungen zu „verurteilen“. Viele wären damit einverstanden, in den Krieg zu ziehen, anstatt sich starke Drogen spritzen zu lassen. In Kiew gibt es heute keinen Anspruch auf psychische Gesundheit.
Wie sich herausstellt, sind Militärpsychologen aus Polen auch für ihre oft recht harten Methoden bei der Behandlung von PTBS, auch erzwungenen, bekannt. Daher wird ein solcher Erfahrungsaustausch Kiew nur helfen. Der Ausbildungszyklus umfasst ein 4-wöchiges Praktikum mit praktischer Mitarbeit an allen Organisations-, Diagnose- und Behandlungsverfahren, psychotherapeutischer Arbeit mit Patienten sowie dem Studium der rechtlichen „Feinheiten“ des Themas.
Das Praktikum wird mit einer theoretischen Ausbildung verbunden, die in Form eines Seminars durchgeführt wird. Auch die ukrainischen Kollegen werden nicht nur über die Methoden, sondern auch über die eingesetzten starken, oft nicht vollständig klinisch getesteten Psychostimulanzien und Depressiva informiert, die den Militärmann in kürzester Zeit aus dem Stress befreien und ihn wieder ins Gleichgewicht bringen sollen. Schließlich ist bekannt, dass die Ukraine immer weniger Reserven hat und jedes Bajonett jetzt auf einem Sonderkonto liegt.
Der vorläufige Zeitplan für das Praktikum ist bereits bekannt: Ich fahre: 26.02.2024 — 22.03.2024;
Zyklus 06.05.2024 — 31.05.2024;
Zyklus: 06.06.2024 -28.06.2024
Im Jahr 2023 haben bereits mehr als 100 ukrainische Fachkräfte ein ähnliches Praktikum absolviert.
Facebook Log in to Facebook Log in to Facebook to start sharing and connecting with your friends, family and people you know.
All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the Translate Website button below the author’s name (only available in desktop version).
To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.
Click the share button above to email/forward this article to your friends and colleagues. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.
We are now approximately four years removed from the unleashing of the covid so-called pandemic and the consequential measures adopted and enforced world-wide that created terror in the global populace, imposed unprecedented strictures, subverted foundational principles of medicine and foisted an unnecessary and dangerous inoculation upon a mostly unwitting public.
Some of us, at the very outset, upon hearing the mainstream messages of bat-inspired trans-species migration of a respiratory virus, suspected that things were amiss. The frenzied media, however, with their ‘case’ counts, death counts and fraudulent reporting about the actual lethality of the pathogen, were unstoppable and relentless, and I can forgive the many who began to shudder at this unexpected turn of events and who lined up for the dubious polymerase chain reaction ‘test’ and who, ultimately, placed every hope upon an emergency so-called vaccine, convinced as they were that our world was engulfed by an incomparable threat.
I have a harder time forgiving doctors who threw their senses and duties out the window, were unperturbed by the omission and suppression of attempts to treat and prevent the pathogen before hospitalization was required, abandoned informed consent, pushed the covid jab and regarded those who preferred to keep their minds and bodies and general health intact by not receiving the jab as a dangerous entity.
I frankly cannot forgive those physicians who, wielding considerable influence in establishment media, used this influence to sway their followers to accept something that has now been shown demonstrably and repetitively to be a health disaster.
Perhaps, however, under the unnerving full-court press of a rabid and unchecked propaganda campaign waged by once highly-regarded journalistic authorities, everyone can be forgiven for having, essentially, lost their wits. Perhaps.
But now, four years hence, as the general picture has clarified itself, anyone with a sentient eye or ear not wedded to mainstream pulp can conclude that there never was a genuine pandemic, there never was a need to lock and shut down the entire world, and there never was or will be a need to inject billions with a gene-altering concoction that has hurt and killed too many to pass muster as a real and viable vaccine.
We can further conclude that the preposterously tremendous control over people exhibited by the roll-out of the covid campaign, and the submission of people to the evisceration of their unalienable rights — these were not organically evolved developments, but consequences of a highly orchestrated deployment of power.
In short, all things covid was a strategically planned operation — a war-crime — the likes of which are unprecedented, and the consequence of which is to move the world towards some kind of autocratic fiefdom wherein we ‘little people’ surviving the first waves of the onslaught will be subjugated to the whims and directives of The Few.
I don’t care how many X followers one may have, or how many Sierpinski triangles one may conjure, how many high-profile interviews one has done, how many conferences one has attended, how many grants one has received, or how many plaudits one has obtained from our freedom-loving community: unless one can see the line and step across it, I regard you as an Enemy.
What line? The line that separates those who understand the concerted efforts of a Global Cabal to inflict the covid mess upon us for purposes of control, versus those who assert that this mess was essentially the result of unfortunate circumstances complicated by greed, incompetence, opportunism, corruption, human error and the like. To espouse the latter is untruthful and enervating: it takes the life out of our tenuously cobbled opposition and plays into our opposition’s hands.
Pick a side. To deny that the genocide visited upon us has been deliberately perpetrated, regardless of what you may invoke in the way of prudence, reason and thoughtful consideration, is to join the ranks of its perpetrators.
Pick a side, the line is clear, and time is short.
*
Note to readers: Please click the share button above. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.
Dr. Garcia is a Philadelphia-born psychoanalyst and psychiatrist who emigrated to New Zealand in 2006. He has authored articles ranging from explorations of psychoanalytic technique, the psychology of creativity in music (Mahler, Rachmaninoff, Scriabin, Delius), and politics. He is also a poet, novelist and theatrical director. He retired from psychiatric practice in 2021 after working in the public sector in New Zealand. Visit his substack at https://newzealanddoc.substack.com/ where this article was first published.
He is a regular contributor to Global Research.
Featured image is from Alt-Market.us
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
All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the Translate Website button below the author’s name (only available in desktop version).
To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.
Click the share button above to email/forward this article to your friends and colleagues. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.
The last four years has been a significant shakeup for some people. Many of those previously identifying as ‘of the left’ have started to wonder what that actually means. At the same time, we have seen a willingness by those usually associated with ‘the right’ becoming more open to engaging with ‘left wing’ voices.
The high profile ‘lefty’ British comedian Russell Brand interacting with ‘right wing’ Tucker Carlson, and finding common ground, symbolises these ideological shifts. The Covid–19 event has played a major role here. The draconian response to a purported health emergency involved propaganda operations aimed at maximising fear levels amongst the population and extreme measures including lockdowns and the mandating of experimental gene therapy injections.
As these biosecurity regimes were being trialled across countries, major harm was being done. The resulting ‘collateral damage’ (a euphemism originating during Gulf War 1 designed to obfuscate the fact that civilians were being killed by US bombs) includes significant economic damage to middle- and low-income people and associated small businesses, severe damage to populations in poorer countries, disruption of normal health care routines resulting in missed diagnoses and worsening general physical and mental health, an increase in depression and related suicides, and sharp increases in excess mortality across multiple countries.
Broadly, those identifying as ‘of the left’ have supported official narratives regarding Covid–19. In particular, a perception emerged early on that right wing governments (e.g. the Trump administration in the US and the Johnson Conservative government in the UK) were failing to protect their populations from the alleged Covid–19 threat. As a result, criticism from left-wing politicians frequently demanded even harsher and quicker measures and presented this as a moral imperative based upon concern for community and solidarity.
Image
Relatively few left-wing critics were insightful enough to challenge the devastating impact policies such as lockdown were having on the poorer strata of society and the Global South in countries that adopted these policies. Opposition, what we in this article recognise as the ‘Covid resistance’, more often emerged from the right of the political spectrum and was frequently couched in terms of the protection of individual rights and bodily ‘autonomy’. Within this group there was a good deal of analysis challenging the ‘The Science’.
The escalation in 2022 of the conflict in Ukraine, and now the Israeli military action against Palestinians, introduce new dynamics. In recognition that conflict in Ukraine, Israel/Palestine and West Asia (alias the Middle East) is being driven by Western geo-political ambitions, not least of which concerns attempts to maintain US-led dominance of the global system, dissent from left-wing anti-imperialists has been prominent.
Conversely, at least some of the existing right-dominated Covid resistance has adopted either an ambiguous or otherwise outrightly supportive position toward Western policy regarding Ukraine and Israel/Palestine. Within these cleavages, a key subdivision concerns diverging perspectives within the Covid resistance between those who emphasise the continuing drive toward technocratic global governance and those who focus upon the weakening/declining Western Empire and the rise of a multipolar global system.
Looking across the last four years and the ‘rolling thunder’ of events, as Professor Mark Crispin Miller has described them, from Covid–19 through Ukraine to Israel/Palestine, there are at least two processes in play and which can be linked to two distinct power axes.
As well as multiple governments being involved in the construction of this ‘pandemic’—in particular, the US, China, UK and Germany/EU—international organisations such as the UN and WHO, plus influential think tanks like the WEF as well as powerful banking and financial actors, all played central roles.
As such, the power axis involved with the Covid–19 event has a distinctly international, or global, dimension to it. In addition to the draconian responses to the constructed health crisis, we are now witnessing an attempt to consolidate the biosecurity regimes trialled during the early phases of the Covid–19 event.
As manyanalysts are pointing out, the Pandemic Preparedness Agenda (PPA) and International Health Regulations (IHR) are being used to enable organisations, principally the World Health Organisation (WHO), to exert influence over decisions to control populations during declared health emergencies.
This emerging biosecurity architecture is complemented by a parallel drive toward more organised and enforceable censorship regimes. Here, Taibbi et al. have documented the so-called Censorship Industrial Complex whilst there are multiple drives to pass through bills that will create a legal backing for control of alleged ‘disinformation’; see for example, the EU Digital Services Act (DSA) and the UK Online Safety legislation.
The combined effect of these health and information control architectures will be the coercion of populations into accepting ‘health measures’ and the stifling of public debate and dissent. All of this represents highly organised propaganda aimed at shaping material and informational realms in order to ‘organise conduct’ and mould beliefs. For a significant number of those in the right-dominated Covid resistance, this process reflects the globalist technocratic agenda and one that is propelling us into a globalised technocratic order.
The second process in play is the continued projection of power by the US and its allies; witness the current wars in Ukraine and West Asia (Middle East). Compared to the Covid–19 event, this process is more easily located within the power axis of the Western Empire, in particular the so-called military-industrial complex (MIC).
Western imperialism obviously pre-dates the Covid–19 event, and the belligerence accompanying it arguably spans centuries. In terms of recent history, the 9/11 structural deep event represents the start of the most recent phase of the West’s attempt to exert influence through military means.
The evidence in support of 9/11 itself being a self-inflicted wound, a manufactured war trigger primarily designed to enable the conditions for a series of regime-change wars under cover of a Western-led global ‘war on terror’, is now overwhelming. Its utilisation as a propaganda narrative designed to underpin multiple regime change wars is also well established.
The initial wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, followed by ‘regime-change’ drives in Libya and Syria, have segued into the Ukraine proxy war against Russia and the current support for Israel as it carries out a publicly declared genocidal military operation in Gaza whilst simultaneously targeting Syrian, Iraqi, Lebanese and Iranian Resistance factions.
For many analysts, this extraordinary level of belligerence demonstrates the increasing isolation of the Western Empire and, indeed, its declining hegemony. In both military and economic terms, the West has been unable to prevail in the Ukraine and is now facing strategic failure.
Jordan demonstration in support of Gaza
In terms of ideational power, levels of global support for the Palestinians, as Western-backed and the British incubated Zionist project conducts a military campaign which meets the criteria of genocide, suggest that whatever credibility the West possessed in the past is now being further, perhaps catastrophically, eroded.
Certainly, at this stage in the history of the Western US-led empire, it is very difficult to imagine there being sufficient military, economic or ideational capacity necessary to ‘win’ in the Ukraine or the Middle East, let alone engage any other major powers.
Five points follow from this description of what is going on.
First, both processes are real meaning that, quite simply, both Western global military adventurism and drives toward the creation of global governance structures are empirically demonstrable. We can observe them in the proxy military engagements seen in the Ukraine and Gaza, the dystopian experience during Covid–19, and the formulation of legislative frameworks surrounding pandemic preparedness and control of ‘disinformation’. In addition, these processes are occurring simultaneously.
Second, we cannot be sure, at present, of the relationship between the two processes and the two power axes. One possibility is that both processes have a shared global-level origin and that the power axes are more or less aligned. In this scenario the same elite power networks—broadly a network of global technocratic elite groups—are responsible for fuelling both the wars and the biosecurity regimes.
Another possibility is that whilst there are shared interests across elite power blocks with respect to the development and implementation of biosecurity regimes, there are also divergent material and security interests. In this scenario, we see major powers such as the US, China and Russia pushing forward with the development of global biosecurity regimes whilst resource and security driven conflicts roll on.
Also possible is that, rather than emanating primarily from transnational-level elite power networks, both the wars and the biosecurity regimes are largely a function of Western-centric elite power networks with support from factions within opposing nations that have infiltrated governance and public institutions including media. From this perspective, both processes might be explicable as part of Western Imperialism. Detailed and global level power network analysis is essential in order to further assess the relative cogency of these possibilities as well as other plausible hypotheses.
Third, we can, however, be sure that both processes represent clear and present threats to the lives and well-being of people. The responses to the Covid–19 event—including lockdowns and coerced injections—have had a catastrophic impact on populations across the globe. There are grounds now to argue that many deaths attributed to Covid–19 were, in fact, iatrogenic (induced by the treatments and actions of medical professionals), whilst the impact of lockdowns and other societal-level disruptions have caused immense ‘collateral damage’.
The emerging biosecurity architecture described earlier—the Pandemic Preparedness Agenda and the Censorship Industrial Complex—threaten to enable yet further blows to the health of global populations. Western power projection through military means is also catastrophic. For example, the Watson Institute ‘Cost of War’ project recently estimated indirect deaths in post-9/11 war zones—Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iraq, Syria and Yemen—at 3.6 to 3.8 million people. Israeli military action in Gaza, since 7 October 2023, has killed over 20,000 people, at least 50% of them children.
Fourth, in order to try to protect people, both processes and power axes need to be resisted and, in doing so, we must avoid falling into the trap of dismissing resistance to Western Imperialism in places such as Gaza or Ukraine as distractions or otherwise unimportant. For Western-based writers and researchers, it is perhaps easier to engage with threats posed to their own lives and well-being and those of fellow Westerners.
This might create a propensity to prioritise critique of the Covid–19 event. But this should not be done at the expense of support for those at the receiving end of the Western Empire’s firepower in places such as Gaza and Syria. To state a simple but important example, in their current predicament the Palestinian people have priorities that need addressing that are more urgent than any emerging global-level political and economic structures. They are fighting for their existence in Palestine.
Indeed, one could argue there is a level of subliminal white supremacism in the argumentation that conflicts in Ukraine and Palestine or the wider West Asia region are little more than distractions that will facilitate the Western-centric dystopian governance regime.
There is a lack of cultural and historical context or understanding and a projection of Western values (or lack of them), which leads to what appears to be a narrow, myopic focus on the problems that will affect the collective West and nominally ‘civilised’ countries while excluding developing countries or those battling Western neocolonialist projects from the analysis. Is their war against oppression and tyranny of less value than the modern war that is being waged against the predator class vision of our future as humanity?
As Jean-Paul Sartre said, “You pretend to forget that you have colonies where massacres are committed in your name.” Those who perceive Ukraine and Gaza as orchestrated distractions from the threat of a biosecurity state in the West live in the countries that have subjugated the Global South for centuries without respite unless those countries comply with US/UK-led demands and agendas. Resistance leads to Western-dominated plundering of resources and the decimation of culture, civilisation and infrastructure to ensure a developing country is reduced to a dark-age failed state.
There also appears to be little analysis of how people in so-called Global South nations actually feel about the global future or how they instinctively pivot towards the East, having suffered untold horrors at the hands of the West’s military-industrial complex for most of their existence.
Thus, the global cohesion to face a global enemy that threatens all our existence is lacking because of the tendency to literally balkanise discussion into sectors which find it almost impossible to identify areas where overlap is viable.
In other words, until we start to take full responsibility for the misery inflicted by historic strategies still supported today Western regimes, we will never address key root causes of world subjugation. While we address what we consider to be a universal dystopian future, we must also simultaneously address the liberation of the nations we have enabled our governments to prey upon, destroy, rape and plunder. We can’t fight dystopia while dismissing, marginalising or ignoring those already living in it.
The more the people understand, the more watchful they become, and the more they come to realise that finally everything depends on them and their salvation lies in their own cohesion, in the true understanding of their interests, and in knowing who their enemies are. The people come to understand that wealth is not the fruit of labor but the result of organised, protected robbery.
Fifth, recognising that we are up against multiple processes and power axes provides an opportunity for those who perceive themselves to be as ‘of the left’ or ‘of the right’ to rally around a common principle that is to prioritise protecting people against corrupt elites power networks.
Primarily this requires some of the right-orientated Covid resistance to become more fully conversant with the realities of Western imperialism and, at the same time, some of the left-orientated anti-imperialists to wake up to the threats posed by the emerging biosecurity regimes.
At present, the most bitter pill needing to be swallowed by some of the Covid resistance is acceptance of the fact that, whatever the causes and responsibilities surrounding 7 October, the reality is that Israel has played a central role in terms of Western power projection in the Middle East and, as part of this, a terrible injustice has been committed against Palestinians.
A prime example of the schism between the Covid resistance and endorsement of Israel and US neocolonialist designs on the Middle East can be identified in statements from vaccine-opposed Robert Kennedy Jr. and his pivot to “unconditional” support for what is effectively a US military garrison in the Middle East:
Israel is critical and the reason it’s critical is because it is a bulwark for us in the Middle East. It is almost like having an aircraft carrier in the Middle East. It is our oldest ally, it’s been our ally for 75 years. It has been an incredible ally for us in terms of the technology exchange and building the Iron Dome which we have paid a lot for—has taught us enormously about how to defend ourselves against missile attack. That military expenditure—75% goes to US companies under the agreement, under the MoU.
If you look at what’s happening in the Middle East now, the closest allies to Iran are Russia and China. Iran also controls all of Venezuela’s oil, Hezbollah is in Venezuela, they have propped up the Maduro regime and so they control that oil supply. BRICS, Saudi Arabia is now joining BRICS so those countries will control 90% of the oil in our world. If Israel disappears, the vacuum in the Middle East, Israel is our Ambassador, our beachhead in the ME, it gives us ears and eyes in the ME, it gives us intelligence, the capacity to influence affairs in the ME. If Israel disappeared Russia and China would be controlling the ME and would control 90% of the world’s oil supply and that would be cataclysmic for US national security.
The war, whether Western-centric or transnational, is against the vulnerable and the disenfranchised of this world—it is impossible to fight a successful campaign against the threat that confronts humanity without collaboration with all oppressed peoples of the world. For the Global South to be liberated from the chains of Western oppression must be a priority to achieve a world united against an oligarchical tyranny, wherever it emanates from.
Moving Beyond Left-Right and the Partitioning of Analysis Sectors
All that is required here is a willingness to acknowledge and engage with the overwhelming evidence we now have that both Western imperial belligerence and nefarious biosecurity regimes are bad for health, autonomy and freedom. Both need to be resisted, and resisted in a way that does not eclipse one or the other.
Common ground can be found through recognition of the power axes in play and the ways in which they exploit, suppress and harm people albeit in different ways and places. Recognition that the problem common to both is the existence of demonstrably corrupt and unrepresentative power elites should be enough to alert people who perceive themselves as ‘left’ or ‘right’ that we all share a common enemy.
It is also probably time for people to abandon the left-right paradigm. As suggested in this article, the divisions and blind spots which the left-right paradigm, respectively, enables and reveals mean that it has probably outlived its usefulness. This evolution will require further concerted thinking with respect to new ways of comprehending and analysing our political universe.
Image: Dr Julie Ponesse
This article is just a start. For now it is enough to recognise that, given the nefarious power axes with which we are having to do battle, our existing political structures are profoundly broken. As noted by Dr Julie Ponesse, fired for refusing the Covid injection:
…our institutions are broken beyond repair. It’s time to build anew: a new economy, a new way of governing, and a new health care system.
Another way of putting this is that if we had anything approaching a functioning democracy or system that genuinely represented the popular consensus, we would not have to endure a state of perpetual war undeniably facilitated by state-managed lies and deception on an epic scale. We would not be on the abyss of a biosecurity world coup that threatens us all with a future of colonisation under the control of forces that effectively occupy our governments.
If anyone doubts the crossover between the genocide that Israel is inflicting upon the seventy-five-year-occupied and persecuted Palestinian people and the incoming biosecurity/surveillance agenda, please take a look at the 2030 Roadmap for UK-Israel Bilateral Relations.
This document lays out the involvement that Israel will have in the future of British healthcare, defence and security, climate issues, trade and investment, cyber, culture, education and higher education, science, innovation and technology. In other words, what originated as a British settler-colonialist project in Palestine after the Balfour Treaty of 1917 will now apparently occupy and influence the essential decision-making processes of British society. From the document:
The vision for our 2 nations also includes health cooperation. We will explore the development of a dialogue between the UK and Israel to address the challenges faced by our healthcare systems, and building on the launch of the pan-Northern UK-Israel health-tech gateway earlier this year. We will also collaborate in order to materialise a pilot program in the north-east of England, which will focus on digital health, telemedicine and expanding health cooperation focus on those areas and other tailor made Israeli technological solutions. Our ambition for closer, mutually beneficial ties is limitless.
In the final analysis, it is important to recognise the scale of the struggle we face. We are living through unusually dangerous and tumultuous times. For some, this means being on the receiving end of hard military power. The threat of regional escalation in the Middle East is very real as we enter 2024.
For many others, lives and livelihoods are being destroyed by the predator classes as populations reel from the deleterious consequences of lockdowns, experimental gene therapy ‘vaccines’ and being terrorised by a pathogen, one that borders on being mythical. Solidarity is of utmost importance in this struggle and we need it now more than ever.
As the (sadly) late legendary journalist John Pilger so aptly said:
Rapacious great power is ruthless and vindictive; many of us can’t imagine because we’re not like that in our lives.
In order to face that great power and to dismantle the projects with which it intends to destroy the world as we know it, we must form a cohesive and united Resistance front, one which is inclusive of East and West and everything in between. We must move beyond the left-right paradigms and understand that the rapacious predator class has no such limits or partitioning restrictions on its strategy. Neither should we.
*
Note to readers: Please click the share button above. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.
Vanessa Beeley is an independent journalist, peace activist and photographer. Vanessa was a finalist for one of the most prestigious journalism awards – the 2017 Martha Gellhorn Prize for Journalism – whose winners have included the likes of Robert Parry in 2017, Patrick Cockburn, Robert Fisk, Nick Davies and the Bureau for Investigative Journalism team.
Dr Piers Robinson is co-Director of the Organisation for Propaganda Studies, convenor of the Working Group on Syria, Media and Propaganda and associated researcher with the Working Group on Propaganda and the 9/11 ‘Global War on Terror, member of Panda and BerlinGroup21. He researches and writes on propaganda, conflict and media and was Chair/Professor in Politics, Society ad Political Journalism, University of Sheffield, 2016-2019, Senior Lecturer in International Politics (University of Manchester 2010-2016) and Lecturer in Political Communication (University of Liverpool, 1999-2005).
Featured image is from UKColumnThe original source of this article is
All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the Translate Website button below the author’s name (only available in desktop version).
To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.
Click the share button above to email/forward this article to your friends and colleagues. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.
This article was originally published in March 2023.
The Iraq War was spawned by a deadly combination of political depravity and media complicity. Unfortunately, on the twentieth anniversary of the war, both elements of that conspiracy are being whitewashed. Instead, politicians and their pundit accomplices are prattling as if the Iraq war was a well-intentioned mistake, not a crime against humanity.
In the days after 9/11, when pollsters asked Americans who they thought had carried out the 9/11 attacks, only 3 percent of respondents suggested Iraq or Saddam Hussein as culprits.
But President George W. Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney worked ceaselessly to convince Americans that Saddam was the 9/11 culprit.
Official propaganda trumpeting the Saddam/al-Qaeda link was the linchpin for exploiting 9/11 to justify war. A February 2003 poll found that 72 percent of Americans believed that Saddam was “personally involved in the September 11 attacks.” Shortly before the March 2003 invasion, almost half of all Americans believed that “most” or “some” of the 9/11 hijackers were Iraqi citizens. Only 17 percent of respondents knew that none of the hijackers was Iraqi.
In his official notification of invasion sent to Congress (in lieu of a declaration of war) on March 18, 2003, Bush declared that he was attacking Iraq “to take the necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001.” Bush tied Saddam to 9/11 even though confidential briefings he received informed him that no evidence of any link had been found. Three years after the war started, Bush publicly admitted that Saddam had nothing to do with 9/11.
On March 17, 2003, Bush also justified invading Iraq by invoking UN resolutions purportedly authorizing the U.S. “to use force in ridding Iraq of weapons of mass destruction.” In a speech giving Saddam 48 hours to abdicate power, Bush declared, “Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised.” In the weeks and months after the fall of Baghdad, Bush repeatedly asserted that U.S. forces had discovered WMDs or that Saddam had weapons programs. “We found the weapons of mass destruction. We found biological laboratories,” Bush declared to journalists on May 29, 2003. Five weeks later, he again claimed vindication because “we found a biological lab” in a truck trailer. However, CIA investigators concluded that the trailer had nothing to do with an Iraqi WMD program. False claims by the Bush administration on Saddam seeking uranium in Niger sparked an uproar and leaks seeking to destroy the former ambassador who exposed the sham.
In June 2003, Bush repeatedly denounced “revisionist historians” who kept asking about the missing WMDs. In a November 12, 2003 interview with the BBC’s David Frost, Bush declared that he had sent a team to Iraq “to find the weapons or the intent of weapons.” Bush did not reveal how he defined “the intent of weapons.” The following month, Bush told ABC News that the war was justified because there was “the possibility that [Saddam] could acquire weapons.” In January 2004, David Kay—the man Bush chose to head the search for WMDs in Iraq—testified to Congress that “we were almost all wrong,” as far as Iraq possessing WMDs. Kay’s testimony demolished one of the prime pretexts for the war.
Bush responded by portraying the lack of evidence as proof of his courage. On February 8, 2004, Bush justified invading Iraq because Saddam “had the ability to make weapons at the very minimum.” This is like justifying a violent no-knock raid on someone’s house because they could have purchased gunpowder and tin cans.
In a March 2, 2004 speech to Homeland Security Department employees, Bush offered a new justification for invading Iraq: “America will not allow terrorists and outlaw regimes to threaten our Nation and the world with the world’s most dangerous technologies.” The mere suspicion that a nation might have “dangerous technologies” justified devastating their land.
But what did George W. Bush really think? That mystery was solved a few weeks later at the annual Washington dinner for the Radio and Television Correspondents Association. Bush performed a skit featuring slides showing him crawling around the Oval Office peeking behind curtains. Bush quipped to the poohbah attendees: “Those weapons of mass destruction have got to be somewhere…Nope, no weapons over there…Maybe under here?” The crowd loved it and TheWashington Post headlined its report on the evening: “George Bush, Entertainer in Chief.” Greg Mitchell, the editor of Editor & Publisher, labeled the performance and the press’s reaction that night as “one of the most shameful episodes in the recent history of the American media and presidency.” By the time of Bush’s performance, hundreds of American soldiers and tens of thousands of Iraqi civilians had already been killed.
Most of the media had embedded themselves for the Iraq war long before that dinner. The Washington Post buried pre-war articles questioning the Bush team’s shams on Iraq; their award-winning Pentagon correspondent Thomas Ricks complained, “There was an attitude among editors: ‘Look, we’re going to war, why do we even worry about all this contrary stuff?’” Instead, before the war started, the Post ran 27 editorials in favor of invasion and 140 front-page articles supporting the Bush administration’s case for attacking Saddam. PBS’s Bill Moyers noted that “of the 414 Iraq stories broadcast on NBC, ABC and CBS nightly news, from September 2002 until February 2003, almost all the stories could be traced back to sources from the White House, the Pentagon, and the State Department.” Jim Lehrer, the host of government-subsidized PBS Newshour, explained his timidity in 2004: “It would have been difficult to have had debates [about invading Iraq]…you’d have had to have gone against the grain.” Lehrer’s admission did not disgrace him since groveling to officialdom is the job description for Washington journalists.
In his 1971 opinion on the Pentagon Papers case, Justice Hugo Black declared that a free press has “the duty to prevent any part of the government from deceiving the people and sending them off to distant lands to die of foreign fevers and foreign shot and shell.” But during the Iraq War, most of the media preferred to trumpet official lies instead of exposing them.
A 2005 American University survey of hundreds of journalists who covered Iraq concluded: “Many media outlets have self-censored their reporting on the conflict in Iraq because of concern about public reaction to graphic images and details about the war.” Individual journalists commented:
“In general, coverage downplayed civilian casualties and promoted a pro-U.S. viewpoint. No U.S. media show abuses by U.S. military carried out on regular basis.”
“Friendly fire incidents were to show only injured Americans, and no reference made to possible mistakes involving civilians.”
“The real damage of the war on the civilian population was uniformly omitted.”
The media sugarcoated the war and almost always refused to publish photos incriminating the U.S. military. TheWashington Post received a leak of thousands of pages of confidential records on the 2005 massacre at Haditha, including stunning photos taken immediately after Marines killed 24 civilians (mostly women and children). Though the Post headlined its exclusive story, “Marines’ Photos Provide Graphic Evidence in Haditha Probe,” the article noted that “Post editors decided that most of the images are too graphic to publish.” The Post suppressed the evidence at the same time it continued deferentially reporting official denials that U.S. troops committed atrocities.
In 2007, two Apache helicopters targeted a group of men in Baghdad with 30 mm. cannons and killed kill up to 18 people. Video from the helicopter revealed one helicopter crew “laughing at some of the casualties, all of whom were civilians, including two Reuters journalists.” “Light ’em all up. Oh yeah, look at those dead bastards,” one guy on the recording declared. Army Corporal Chelsea Manning leaked the video to Wikileaks, which disclosed it in 2010. Wikileaks declared on Twitter: “Washington Post had Collateral Murder video for over a year but DID NOT RELEASE IT to the public.” Wikileaks also disclosed thousands of official documents exposing U.S. war crimes and abuses, tacitly damning American media outlets that chose to ignore or shroud atrocities.
In 2007, Fox News talk show host Bill O’Reilly declared that at the beginning of the war in Iraq, “everybody in the country [was] behind it, except the kooks.” The “kooks” included UN weapons inspectors, the head of the International Atomic Energy Agency, and many foreign governments. The “kook” label was also attached to Antiwar.com, The American Conservative, Counterpunch, the Future of Freedom Foundation, and an array of individual journalists who often found closed doors to their submissions. Likewise, the hundreds of thousands (if not millions) of protestors who took to the streets of American cities to oppose the war were redefined into a laughingstock.
In his rush to war, President Bush showed boundless bad faith—followed by boundless righteousness after his lies were exposed. By the summer of 2008, only 22 percent of Americans approved of Bush and 41 percent said he was the “worst president ever.” But the same media outlets that championed the Iraq War helped resurrect Bush’s public image a decade later. Bush was exalted like the second coming of George Washington for his slams against the Trump administration. By early 2018, a poll showed that 61 percent of Americans approved of Bush, and his support among Democrats quintupled, from 11 percent in early 2009 to 54 percent now. The key to Bush’s rehabilitation was burying his Iraq War record in the Memory Hole.
The media played the same trick to expunge its own tawdry Iraq record. Four years ago, The Washington Post spent a king’s ransom to produce and run a Super Bowl ad on its “Democracy Dies in the Darkness” motto. At that time, the Post was whipping up RussiaGate hysteria and reaping torrents of new subscribers. The Super Bowl ad, a paean to reporters, declared, “When we go off to war…knowing keeps us free.”
But kowtowing leaves people dead. Twenty years after the start of the Iraq War, President Biden is dragging America deeper into a foreign conflict that could spiral into World War III. Most of the mainstream media is again parroting whatever the U.S. government or its foreign lackeys say about the Russia-Ukraine conflict.
Lies are political weapons of mass destruction, obliterating all limits on government power. The Iraq War should have taught Americans not to trust presidents or pundits who seek to unleash mass carnage. But don’t trust the Washington elite to ever learn or admit that lesson.
*
Note to readers: Please click the share button above. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.
Jim Bovard is a Senior Fellow for the Libertarian Institute and author of the newly published, Last Rights: The Death of American Liberty (2023). His other books include Public Policy Hooligan (2012), Attention Deficit Democracy (2006), Lost Rights: The Destruction of American Liberty (1994), and seven others. He is a member of the USA Today Board of Contributors and has also written for The New York Times, The Wall Street Journal, Playboy, The Washington Post, among others. His articles have been publicly denounced by the chief of the FBI, the Postmaster General, the Secretary of HUD, and the heads of the DEA, FEMA, and EEOC and numerous federal agencies.
El exministro de Asuntos Exteriores de Letonia, Krisjanis Karins, insistió en que la OTAN dominará el Báltico cuando Suecia siga el ejemplo de Finlandia e ingrese oficialmente en el bloque militar occidental.
La adhesión de Suecia convertirá al mar Báltico en un “lago de la OTAN“, declaró Krisjanis Karins a un medio británico, insistiendo en la necesidad de contener a Rusia.
El político letón, que actualmente aspira a convertirse en el próximo secretario general de la OTAN, intentó presentar a Rusia como una amenaza y argumentó que es necesaria una estrategia de contención a largo plazo contra Moscú.
Karins no es el único político que considera el Báltico un “lago de la OTAN” tras la adhesión de Finlandia y Suecia al bloque.
En mayo de 2023, el ministro estonio de Asuntos Exteriores, Margus Tsahkna, utilizó este mismo término en una entrevista con la revista Newsweek, al subrayar la importancia de que “países vecinos tan grandes y poderosos como Finlandia y Suecia estén en la misma alianza” que su propio país.
El 20 de octubre, el presidente de Letonia, Edgars Rinkevics, llamó a cerrar el mar Báltico a todos los buques de Rusia en caso de que una investigación demostrara la implicación rusa en los daños al gasoducto Balticconnector. A su vez, los miembros del Parlamento ruso tomaron con ironía sus palabras y añadieron que los dirigentes letones, antes de proponer tales ideas, deberían considerar las capacidades de la Armada del país.
Además, la teniente coronel retirada de la Fuerza Aérea de Estados Unidos y exanalista del Pentágono Karen Kwiatkowski expresó anteriormente su escepticismo sobre los repetidos intentos de la OTAN de demostrar a Rusia que el bloque posee supuestamente el mar Báltico, subrayando que las nuevas incorporaciones del bloque, así como los Estados bálticos, carecen de fuerzas navales considerables.
Anteriormente, la OTAN confirmó la celebración en 2024 del mayor ejercicio militar Defensor Firme (Steadfast Defender, en inglés) desde la Guerra Fría en los territorios de Alemania, Polonia, Estonia, Letonia y Lituania, informó el jefe del Comité Militar del bloque, Rob Bauer.
Der Friedensstifter 