Ces africains qu’on envoie mourrir pour Israel comme des animaux à l’abattoir

Pour nous soutenir commandez les livres Strategika : “Globalisme et dépopulation” , « La guerre des USA contre l’Europe » et « Société ouverte contre Eurasie »

M. A. Dr Mehenou Amouzou a obtenu son Master in Business à l’European Advanced Institute of Management, ainsi qu’un certificat en finances et investissement à Paris (France). Il a complété ses études dans les relations internationales et les stratégies politiques et de défense et a obtenu son doctorat de philosophie en finances.

Ont contribué à la rédaction de cet article : Georges D. Ossavou, Ray West, Fundacion Paraiso Sin Fronteras, Morgan Lewis, Amouzou Nkrumah Production, Nouho Kamara, Yves Adjeme, Vassiriki Traore, Hilaire Avomassodo & Toure Moussa.

Depuis le 7 octobre 2023, au moins 40 000 Palestiniens, dont 18 000 enfants et plus de 13 000 femmes, et plus de 1 200 Israéliens ont été tués. Aujourd’hui, cette guerre continue à décimer des centaines d’individus chaque jour. Pourquoi les grands pays, tels que les Etats-Unis, la France, l’Angleterre, l’Allemagne, l’Italie, le Japon, la Russie, etc. n’ont pas su prévenir ce conflit, en favorisant la création de deux Etats, israélien et palestinien ? Pourquoi la résolution de 1967 qui ordonnait la création de deux Etats n’est pas respectée jusqu’à maintenant, alors que pour la Corée du Sud et la Corée du Nord, les deux Soudan, les deux Allemagne, l’Erythrée et l’Ethiopie la réunification a été faite sous les auspices de l’ONU et de différentes organisations internationales ? Pourquoi Israël et la Palestine ne vivraient pas en bon voisinage ? Est-ce à dire qu’il n’y aurait aucune volonté des grands acteurs ci-dessus mentionnés à œuvrer pour la construction des deux Etats ? En tout cas, l’ONU qui a pu régler la majorité des conflits est incapable de résoudre ce problème. Israël et la création d’un Etat palestinien Selon notre analyse et au vu des événements actuels, il sera difficile d’envisager la création d’un Etat palestinien. Israël a une suprématie militaire, générée par l’Occident. Ses armements ne lui coûtent rien. Il reçoit les dernières technologies militaires et des bombes gratuitement ; il n’a pas de budget militaire à dépenser. Nous pouvons en déduire qu’Israël ne s’oppose pas à la création d’un Etat palestinien mais y est obligé par ses sponsors militaires et financiers. Depuis 1967 jusqu’à nos jours, l’Occident alimente cette guerre. Si Israël devait utiliser ses ressources propres, nous pensons qu’il aurait mis fin au conflit car la guerre coûte cher et il n’en a pas les moyens. Le conflit s’éternise soutenu par les Etats occidentaux. Nous entendons couramment dire qu’Israël est le seul pays démocratique dans le Moyen-Orient respectant les droits de l’homme, et très souvent les pays qui le disent ne sont autres que ceux qui alimentent Israël en moyens militaires et financiers. L’hypothèse probable de voir la fin de cette guerre qui a trop duré serait le déclin de l’hégémonie occidentale lequel engendrerait des problèmes d’ordre économique et militaire très graves au niveau national et international. Ce sont toujours les mêmes qui s’opposent à toutes les résolutions de l’ONU en faveur d’un cessez-le-feu. Il y a peut-être une cause sous-jacente à ce genre de comportement ; les Etats-Unis ne produisent plus comme avant, ils importent presque tout de la Chine et d’autres pays, ce qui affaiblit économiquement l’Occident. Cette situation ressemble à celle qui existait avant la Seconde Guerre mondiale. Le taux de chômage en Occident en 1933 était très élevé dans tous les grands pays industrialisés, la récession économique était partout : Etats-Unis (37,6%), Royaume-Uni (19,9%), Suède 23,2%), Norvège (33,4%), Hollande (26,9%), Allemagne (36,2%), France (14,1%), etc. Les familles étaient obligées de chercher leur nourriture dans les dépôts d’ordures. A la fin de la Seconde Guerre mondiale, et selon le major general Smedley D. Butler, il avait 21 000 millionnaires nouveaux aux Etats-Unis. Le taux de chômage très élevé au début de la guerre a été gommé par de nombreuses pertes en vies humaines. Malgré tout, on parle de la relance économique sans prendre en compte le nombre de morts généré par cette guerre. Combien de temps ce conflit va-t-il encore durer ? Malgré la perte importante de ses soldats, Israël continue à mener une guerre qui dure depuis déjà dix mois. Une question se pose, comment fait-il pour renflouer ses troupes ? La filière africaine pour alimenter les troupes israéliennes L’Etat d’Israël n’est pas le premier pays à solliciter des combattants auprès des gouvernements africains. Ce sont des mercenaires car ils ne sont pas déclarés par leurs pays respectifs et sont sans foi, ni loi. Tout se passe en catimini, en échange de dollars mais la moitié de la solde des participants africains est retenue par certains officiers. La plupart des soldats envoyés sont mal préparés, ils partent croyant qu’ils vont survivre et retourner chez eux, mais reviennent blessés ou dans des cercueils. L’Arabie Saoudite avait utilisé les soldats africains au cours de la guerre de Yémen. Ce conflit avait été initié par les mêmes pays qui soutiennent Israël. Il avait eu aussi des centaines de milliers de morts, de blessés, de déportés et de la famine. L’Arabie Saoudite et Israël ont préféré utiliser des soldats étrangers pour défendre leurs causes et protéger leurs ressortissants. Pour les soldats africains morts en Israël, les gouvernements participent seulement aux frais d’enterrement et la famille est laissée pour compte. La plupart du temps, le foyer ne vivait que de la seule paie du père ; ce dernier décédé, sa veuve qui était mère au foyer se retrouve totalement démunie, dans la misère et la souffrance. Les enfants sont alors contraints d’abandonner l’école et parfois l’apprentissage. La responsabilité en revient aux chefs de gouvernement ou aux présidents des pays qui ont pris la terrible décision d’envoyer leurs ressortissants combattre. Il y a eu plus de bombes larguées sur Gaza que sur Dresde, en Allemagne, Hiroshima et Nagasaki au Japon. Au cours des dix derniers mois de guerre, des villes entières de la Palestine ont été rasées complètement. Le combat n’est pas équitable ; la Palestine est sous-équipée par rapport à Israël soutenu en plus par l’Occident. Nous constatons que cette guerre s’éternise parce que les militaires étrangers sont mis en première ligne. Les dirigeants de l’Afrique noire qui sont impopulaires auprès de leur population ont envoyé leurs soldats en Israël comme on envoie des animaux à l’abattoir. Comme nous l’avons précisé dès le début, ces militaires ne sont pas préparés, ils sont seulement entraînés pour contenir la population. Le monde entier a pu constater la démonstration de la résistance palestinienne et comment l’attaque a été organisée et perpétrée le 7 octobre 2023. Du point de vue de plusieurs experts militaires, cette attaque a été minutieusement préparée alors que les soldats africains envoyés sur le front ne sont même pas armés, ou à peine. Il est évident qu’ils ne pourront pas tenir dans de pareilles conditions. Et si cette guerre devait se généraliser, comme la Première Guerre mondiale et la Seconde, est-ce que les Africains iraient combattre pour l’Europe pour des promesses qui ne seront pas tenues ? Va-t-on demander aux populations locales de contribuer à l’envoi de nourriture pour le Vieux Continent alors que ces dernières n’ont rien à manger ? L’Occident n’a jamais reconnu ni les valeurs culturelles, ni scientifiques, ni sociales de l’Afrique ; il la traite comme un laboratoire d’essai. Malheureusement, la guerre israélo-palestinienne a montré un autre aspect politique peu reluisant dans lequel certains dirigeants téléguidés par les Occidentaux mènent leur peuple comme des moutons et œuvrent contre les intérêts de leur propre pays. Certains pays qui étaient, hier, plus pauvres que l’Afrique sont devenus des pays développés, à l’instar de la Chine et de l’Inde pour lesquelles, jusqu’en 1975, 90 à 95% de leur population n’avaient pour seul moyen de locomotion qu’un vélo. Parallèlement à cette époque-là, la Côte d’Ivoire était mieux organisée et développée que ces deux pays. Actuellement, la Chine occupe la première place économique du monde et le nombre de milliardaires en dollars est de 814, en 2e place les Etats-Unis 800, en 3e place l’Inde 271. On peut aussi citer la Malaisie, la Thaïlande et Singapour qui ne vivait que du tourisme dans les années 1980. Quand M. Lee a pris le pouvoir, il a transformé le petit Singapour en un géant incontournable. On ne peut même pas comparer la France, la Belgique, l’Angleterre, l’Allemagne etc. au Singapour d’aujourd’hui. Pourquoi le Togo, le Niger, le Burkina-Faso, la Côte d’Ivoire ne deviendraient pas le Singapour de l’Afrique ? Les pays africains pourraient jouer un rôle important sur la scène internationale et dans la résolution de certains conflits s’ils acceptaient de parler d’une seule et même voix. Au lieu de cela, ils engagent de jeunes et vaillants hommes dans une guerre qui ne les concerne pas, gaspillant ainsi les forces vives du continent.

Ndlr : Le titre est de la rédaction.

Ces africains qu’on envoie mourrir pour Israel comme des animaux à l’abattoir

Western media tries to soften Zelensky’s crime by talking about banning the “Russian” Orthodox Church

Lucas Leiroz

It is not just the criminalization of a church linked to the Moscow Patriarchate, but true persecution of the faith of more than 80% of Ukrainians

Recently, Ukraine finally passed a total ban on the Orthodox Church, making the faith of more than 80% of the Ukrainian people illegal. The decision did not surprise anyone, as several laws restricting the Church’s activities had already been approved in the country since 2022 – in addition to the de facto persecution of Orthodoxy taking place since the Maidan coup in 2014. However, even so, the Western media continues trying to soften the crimes of its proxy regime.

The current main narrative in the Western media is that Ukraine has banned the “Russian Orthodox Church”. By calling the Orthodox Church on Ukrainian soil “Russian”, the media induces public opinion to believe that the ban only affects a specific religious group linked to Moscow, and does not harm the Orthodox faithful as a whole. However, this is an easily refutable lie.

Unlike the Catholic Church, Orthodoxy does not have a “universal bishop” – like a “Pope” – and its administration is therefore divided into regional jurisdictions. Each jurisdiction of the Church is absolutely sovereign, with Orthodoxy being a Communion of Faith between different Autocephalous Churches. Each Autocephalous Church administers a canonical territory, with no Church being authorized to interfere in the internal affairs of another’s territory.

The canonical territory of an Autocephalous Church is not necessarily restricted to the borders of nation states. Canonical territorial delimitation concerns the historical development of Orthodoxy in a region. State borders are much more unstable than canonical borders – which, although they can change, require much more time to develop such reconfigurations.

In the case of the canonical territory of the Moscow Patriarchate, Russian jurisdiction extends to almost the entire post-Soviet space, in addition to some regions of Far Asia, such as China and Japan. Ukraine, for obvious reasons, has always been part of the canonical jurisdiction of Moscow and never wanted to stop being so. There are even reports that canonical autocephaly was already offered to Ukrainians by the Russians, being rejected.

In the case of very large canonical territories, such as Russia’s, it is common for there to be division into local “sub-jurisdictions”. These sub-jurisdictions sometimes correspond to the specific territories of some nation states. This is precisely the case with the Orthodox Church of Japan and the Ukrainian Orthodox Church, for example – both sub-jurisdictions subordinate to the Moscow Patriarchate. These regional churches have broad administrative autonomy, but do not have canonical sovereignty (autocephaly).

It is important to emphasize how these divisions are purely administrative in nature, although they correspond to historical, cultural and political factors. There is no such a thing as an “ethnic division” of Orthodoxy, being this type of segregationist mentality – known as “phyletism” – banned as a heresy in the Orthodox Communion.

So, it must be said very clearly that by banning the canonical Orthodox Church (Moscow Patriarchate) on Ukrainian soil, the Kiev regime simply banned the Ukrainian Orthodox Church itself. In other words, the faith of 80% of the Ukrainian people has become illegal in the country.

Zelensky did not simply banish the Church. He also called the Orthodox Christians of the Moscow Patriarchate “Muscovite demons” in his speech on Ukraine’s “independence day.” Furthermore, Artyom Dmitruk, a Ukrainian parliamentarian who voted against the Church ban, is being persecuted by the regime, having even suffered attacks on members of his family. The police are also reacting with violence against all demonstrators protesting against the ban on the Church, having then an official situation of religious persecution in the neo-Nazi regime.

It is also interesting to mention that there are efforts by the Western media to promote an ultranationalist Ukrainian schismatic sect – the so-called “Kiev Patriarchate”. The group was created by some former Ukrainian ultranationalist clerics in the 1990s following unsuccessful minority demands of autocephaly for Kiev. Since 2014, the sect has become a kind of Ukrainian “state church”, receiving strong support from the Maidan Junta – including the handover of canonical Church assets confiscated by the Ukrainian state.

This sect is known for venerating as saints the so-called “national heroes” of Ukraine, such as SS member and Holocaust collaborator Stepan Bandera. Furthermore, the group carries out several blasphemous acts against Orthodox Christianity, preaching a kind of Russophobic “anti-Orthodoxy”.

Unfortunately, however, political interference in religion has been strong in Ukraine, mainly from external actors. The “Kiev Patriarchate” was recently “recognized” by the Patriarchate of Constantinople in an illegal intervention maneuver in the canonical territory of Moscow. Constantinople is fortunately isolated in its decision, being supported only by the Autocephalous Churches of Athens and Alexandria.

There is a political explanation for this process. The Patriarch of Constantinople is always a Turkish citizen. It is law in Turkey that only a Turkish bishop is elected Patriarch – which, in practice, means that only bishops who were soldiers in the Turkish Army (and consequently in NATO itself) are qualified to command the local church. The current Patriarch of Constantinople, Bartholomew I, is a former Turkish/NATO soldier, having certainly gone through a process of Western brainwashing in his youth. Furthermore, for decades the Patriarchate of Constantinople has been recognized by Orthodox theologians as an institution heavily infiltrated by doctrines condemned by the Church, being in a gradual process of separation from the rest of the Canonical Communion.

There is also a political explanation for the fact that only Athens and Alexandria “supported” Constantinople on the Ukrainian issue. At first, both churches, as well as the rest of the Orthodox world, condemned Constantinople, but political blackmail was used to make them review their decisions. Greece is an Orthodox state, where clerics are like “public servants”. Being a member of NATO and the EU, the Greek state threatened to cut financial support to the Church in case of condemnation of Bartholomew’s anti-canonical actions – which would leave clerics without a salary for their basic expenses. In the same sense, Alexandria is an economically weak Patriarchate, dependent on Turkish and Greek money for its financing, which led the local jurisdiction to “support” Constantinople.

Bartholomew has strongly influenced events in Ukraine. He has participated in several meetings and telephone calls with Turkish, American, European and Ukrainian diplomats, military personnel and intelligence officers, always helping to develop plans to weaponize religion in Ukraine in favor of the West. Unfortunately, this anti-canonical situation made communion between Moscow and Constantinople impossible to be maintained. There is currently a crisis in Orthodoxy similar to that of the Middle Ages that led to the rupture between Western Roman jurisdiction and the rest of the Church.

All of these topics are extremely complex for the Western public, who are not familiar to the traditions, rules and nomenclature of the Orthodox Church. But it is important that these clarifications are made because only then is it possible to debunk the fallacy spread by the mainstream media that the “Russian” Church was banned in Ukraine. In fact, Kiev banned the Ukrainian Orthodox Church itself, which has always been part of the Moscow Patriarchate, this canonical union not being a reflection of any political tie, but of a common historical-cultural development.

Western media tries to soften Zelensky’s crime by talking about banning the “Russian” Orthodox Church

The good soldier Petr Pavel takes aim at Russia but shoots the Czech Republic in the foot

Declan Hayes

Each and every one of those Czech grandmothers in Pavel’s crosshairs is infinitely more honourable than Pavel will ever be, and each and every one of them has a far better understanding of Bohemia’s history.

In an ideal world, Russian Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Maria Zakharova would not have had to upbraid Czech President General Petr Pavel, Prague’s answer to Kiev’s Clown Prince Zelensky. But this is not an ideal world and the Czech Republic, under the CIA’s good soldier Pavel, is far from a normal country.

At the heart of Zakharova’s complaint is that Pavel has claimed that, because the Nord Stream pipeline was a “legitimate target”, his mates were well within their right to blow it up and thereby send the German economy into a tailspin. I call these criminals Pavel’s mates as, if we accept that Ukraine blew it up, we need only recall that the good soldier Pavel was the first foreign head of state to visit Zelensky’s bunker after Russia’s peace-keeping forces rolled into Donbas. If, on the other hand, we agree that the United States and their Norwegian proxies committed this war crime against the peace, then we must remember that the good soldier Pavel happily chaired the NATO Military Committee, NATO’s equivalent to the Mafia”s Commission, which helps decide the overall thrust of NATO’s criminal enterprises.

For his services to NATO, the good soldier Pavel was awarded France’s Legion of Honour and National Order of Merit, as well as Belgium’s Grand Cross of the Order of the Crown, Bulgaria’s Badge of Honour and very many others, which no doubt look well on him when he puffs his chest out and plays the part of a soldier.

But Pavel is no hero. He and his wife, who is a lieutenant colonel in the Czech Army, are far less credible than The Good Soldier Švejk, the anti-hero in Czech writer Jaroslav Hašek’s dark comedy about a good-humored, simple-minded, middle-aged man who appears to be enthusiastic to serve Austria-Hungary in World War I, but who gets into all kinds of farcical scrapes that have endeared him to generations of readers. Whereas Hašek’s great novel, which has been translated into over 50 languages, is a credit to Bohemia, Pavel’s posturing is a thundering disgrace.

First off, though the good soldier Švejk has a low opinion of the Catholic Church, he is only an inconsequential figment of Hašek’s mind, whereas the atheist Pavel and his fellow NATO sycophants are in the process of banning the Russian and Czech Orthodox Churches as part of some cock-eyed NATO plan to help Zelensky’s pogroms and curry favour with the Pentagon. If Pavel and his fellow mercenaries think outlawing religions NATO disagrees with will make an ounce of difference to the fate of Kiev’s devil worshipers, they are mistaken, as the main forces that are making the difference in Ukraine are the Russian Armed Forces, who are a much tougher nut to crack than are the elderly Czech grandmothers by the banks of the Danube Pavel is locking horns with.

Each and every one of those Czech grandmothers in Pavel’s crosshairs is infinitely more honourable than Pavel will ever be, and each and every one of them has a far better understanding of Bohemia’s history than a conniving mercenary like Pavel can ever have. I say that for two main reasons. The first reason is that they believe in something, whereas mercenaries like Pavel believe in nothing. Pavel began his mercenary career by following in his father’s footsteps and joining the Czechoslovakian Communist Party and, shortly afterwards, the Czechoslovakian Peoples’ Army. When the bottom fell out of that dodge, Pavel joined the new Czech Army, where he wormed his way up to Chief of the General Staff of the Czech Armed Forces. With that, his MI6 King’s College education and NATO’s Commission gig firmly in his pocket, the CIA engineered his successful Presidential bid.

Although most other CIA and MI6 satraps could be lampooned in broadly the same manner, the Wars of the Reformation, which claimed the lives of one out of every three people in Lower Bohemia make it particularly apposite to the Czech Republic and to hired dogs like Pavel. Any Czech, whether of the Catholic, Orthodox or any other faith, would be aware of the rivers of blood that emanated from the Hussite wars, the Bohemian revolt and the 30 year war that followed it. And any Czech general or patriot worth his salt would well know that the terrible carnage of the Wars of the Reformation was, in very large measure, caused by the very large numbers of mercenaries available for hire and the exponential increase in military firepower that was concomitant with those wars, and that we see being played out again by the banks of the Dnieper.

Not the good soldier Pavel though. When not preening his whiskers in the mirror and jingling the ill-gotten gold in his pocket, this clown would wonder, if he had any moral fibre that is, how many more Ukrainians, Russians and sundry Christians his paymasters will decree must perish to keep their NATO scam motoring along.

As things currently stand, Pavel’s regime has not only used stolen Russian funds to buy hundreds of thousands more artillery shells from their NATO buddies to murder Russian civilians in Donbas with, but they have also trained thousands of Azov fanatics to murder Russian pensioners in Kursk. And, though Zakharova is no doubt unhappy with all of that, Pavel has presented Moscow with a butcher’s bill Pavel must personally atone for, not totally unlike the way Ukrainian conscripts Pavel, Zelensky and their fellow sociopaths have callously tossed onto Ukraine’s pyre. Pavel is no harmless good soldier Švejk. He is an opportunist creep, who delights in blowing up pipelines, enabling hits on children in Donbas and pensioners in Kursk, when he is not otherwise engaged in terrorising Czech church goers or talking out of both sides of his smarmy mouth.

Pavel, who now fancies himself as a statesman, is now saying that, though Zelensky’s regime might not get everything they want from peace talks with Russia, they should strike some interim deal so that NATO can regroup, further financially shake down Russia and strike at Donbas’ school children and Kursk’s pensioners at another, more opportune time. And, on top of that, this bum for hire wants the truncated Ukrainian Reich in NATO, no matter what the price, which Russia has already spelled out in words and actions that even the good soldier Švejk would understand. Because that price is all-out war up to and including the exchange of nuclear missiles in Europe, one really has to wonder if there is any hope for anywhere in Europe, when the CIA’s Lower Bohemian satrapy promotes such a loud mouthed windbag to positions of military and political prominence he is as clearly unsuited for as is the cross dressing Zelensky clown, who Pavel has helped to cause so much needless carnage by the banks of the Dnieper.

The good soldier Petr Pavel takes aim at Russia but shoots the Czech Republic in the foot

The life insurance policy of “mutually assured destruction” has expired!

Hugo Dionísio

Zelensky is ordering the bombing of the Zaporozhye NPP and threatening the Kursk nuclear plant, because his health – literally – depends on dragging Russia into a long-lasting, large-scale conflict.

As we witness geopolitical tensions worsening, especially in the places richest in natural resources, resulting in the breakdown of diplomatic channels and the increasing radicalization – at least discursively – among the opponents, we are in turn witnessing a clarification of the respective strategic positions and their direction. All the mechanisms that we once thought guaranteed international security have historically expired. The deep crisis of Anglo-American hegemony has decreed their obsolescence. No peace can survive a profound crisis of any system, much less one that lives on exclusivity and priority in the plundering and exploitation of world resources.

No matter how many fantastic reports are produced about how competitive the U.S. economy is, how stable and consistent the dollar is and how resilient the Wall Street-based economy is, the fact is that these reports are far from being matched where it matters most: in the lives of the people, the workers, their families, in other words, the immense majority who have been slow to benefit from such monstrous injections of democracy. The process that began with Bush’s War on Terror and was continued by Obama has found its epilogue in the current situation. The generic term “terrorism”, whose combat was already aimed at containing some and appropriating others, has evolved once again into a concrete “axis of evil”. Time has finally told us who the U.S. was hiding behind so much “terrorism”.

When the terrorist curtain came down, it revealed the real objectives of its uprising and its broad and multifaceted instrumental nature. Today, we know very well how the term terrorist condemns, above all, the enemies of the U.S. and its hegemonic drift. The U.S. is steadily losing its economic (and productive) influence, and with it its political power, which is still immense and based on a formal and informal army of agents – covered and uncovered – and “influencers” who move its immense formatting machine. The largest organizational machine in history is beginning to lack what is the basis for sustaining any political existence: the real productive economic base.

Basically, the economic base under U.S. domination no longer corresponds to the inversely disproportionate political power that it sustains. The pyramid is inverted and not all the world’s debt will sustain it. The growing inability of the political apparatus to prevent the corrosion of its relative position is forcing the U.S. to make a sustained effort to mitigate, contain and reverse its perishing and, ultimately, the bankruptcy of an entire economic base that is already in large deficit. This is the fundamental reason why tensions are worsening worldwide. In a deep crisis, naturally and gradually, the exploitative base is removing the civilizational obstacles that separate greed from its object.

One way of removing these obstacles lies in the U.S.’s subversive capacity. In particular, in overthrowing legitimate governments and installing clients and other “surrenderers” who ensure the betrayal of their peoples for the benefit of the Wall-Street-based empire. Bangladesh, Indonesia, Georgia, Serbia and Venezuela are just some of the places where, if the rulers don’t please the big corporations that finance political power in Washington, they find themselves besieged by the armies of NGOs, Think Thank, mainstream media and social networks in California. Pavel Durov, co-leader of Telegram, had left Russia because he considered Vladimir Putin’s demands for control to be a violation of freedom of expression. Now he has learned to his cost that, in liberal-fascist Macronist France, failure to provide such guarantees results in imprisonment! The rights that are imprisoned in order to protect free speech! And all in the name of the “independence” of justice.

The indicators of decadence are so evident and profuse that they alone would merit in-depth and even critical reflection. But let’s put it this way: even on its own terms, according to its own concepts and taking into account its own data, the reality narrated does not smile on the U.S. and its “leadership”. Not even in its own terms can the U.S. hide its progressive bankruptcy. The BRICS have overtaken the G7 in GDP and the volume of economic transactions that escape Washington’s control grows every day, even when these transactions are carried out in its own currency. A clear example of the insurmountable contradiction that plagues the U.S.-controlled monetary and financial system is the use of the dollar by Washington’s own “enemies” to stabilize their economies and guarantee the stability of transactions and their mechanisms.

Maduro’s Venezuela, once again faced with another episode of the Shakespearean film “To win or not to win elections, that is the question?”, has dollarized its economy, using Chinese reserves in dollars and the oil it has in quantity like no other country. China, which is making Hong Kong a hub for cryptocurrency transactions, uses Tether – a virtual currency indexed to the value of the dollar – as a stabilizing mechanism for the crypto market, guaranteeing the conversion of fiat money and without the constant fluctuations of Bitcoin, Ethereum or Solana. Its capitalization value has already surpassed that of Bitcoin, for example. The much-vaunted “de-dollarization” may in fact be nothing more than, in part at least, a “de-Westernization” of the dollar and the consequent withdrawal of dollars from Washington-controlled banks.

It is against this backdrop that we should observe reality and not against the rose-colored backdrop that sings of enemy bankruptcies, insurmountable challenges and insurmountable obstacles, with which all the “mainstream” media paint us, unanimously and in unity, every day. This is the only way to understand the “desperate” and apparently suicidal maneuvers we see everywhere. Otherwise, given the rose-colored cloth, we end up saying that Netanyahu is crazy but a democrat, Zelensky is corrupt but brave, and that all the others are crooks, even though many are not corrupt, let alone crazy.

Once again, the solution to the crisis of crises, and the consequent extremism of positions, lies in resurrecting the Nazi-fascist monster, but this time in a more comprehensive and diverse guise. It is, however, the same monster that, with every crisis in the capitalist system, as in the 1920s and 1930s in Europe and the U.S. after the First World War, emerges to solve by force what others denied it peacefully: access to natural resources, i.e. cheap energy, raw materials, food and labor. The solution to all crises is repeated once again. Some used the salvation of souls, others the salvation of peoples.

Immediately after the Russian revolution of 1917, the Western imperialist bloc was intent on getting its hands on that extraordinary reserve of all these things. Faced with resistance, an invasion organized by 14 imperial powers and a civil war, whose counter-revolutionary force was supported by the imperial West, were not enough to bring down this “diabolical” regime. The Russian and Soviet peoples wouldn’t let it. Perhaps it was a kind of Stockholm syndrome, which curiously has happened again and again to this day. Despite the fact that even today, according to their own accusations, these people are “besieged” by a “bloody dictatorship”.

A war had to be prepared and this was done by demonizing, stigmatizing, breaking down relationships and sowing fear and hatred among the most unsuspecting European populations. Nothing new, then. Dehumanization, fermented in the economic crisis, the concentration of wealth and the unwillingness of the elites to share what they had previously accumulated from work, gave Hitler (and all the hidden “Hitlers”) the justification he needed when he looked to the USSR as the cure for the ills that plagued Germany: oil and minerals in abundance, fertile land and cheap labor.

If it hadn’t been for their insistent fighting capacity, the U.S., Britain and Japan would have been rubbing their hands in glee at the deals to come. Once again, they were wrong. Once again, their chances were dashed. And once again, the Russian Federation had to play the aggressor. Victim of a Western invasion every 70 years, Russia has gone from invader to invaded. An agreement like Molotov-Ribbentrop, the last of its kind between Nazi Germany and a European country, turned the biggest victim of the Second World War into its co-author. A devastating and unexpected victory – by the West – over its newborn son, Nazi-fascism, transformed the USSR into a kind of 3rd Red Reich.

In any case, and as programmed by the reactionary elites who dominate – and have always dominated – the U.S., due to the game being played on both boards, even if at different times, the Second World War left this colossal country in an extremely enviable position, just as the first one had, resolving the damage caused by the crash of 1929 and transforming it into a superpower, the only one. That, and that alone, is why we haven’t seen a full-scale war in Europe to this day. Until that enviable position had been shattered or threatened and until the hopes of political domination by Russia, China and Eurasia had been definitively dashed. Once the triumph with the fall of the USSR has been exhausted and the European Union has benefited from the resulting continental cooperation, we are back to the beginning of the dehumanizing process, once again of Russia, but this time Iran and China are also rewarded. After all, until recently, the hope of political domination by China and Iran prevailed.

The loss of hope in the functioning of “soft power” and the urgency of the situation, aggravated by Russia’s economic recovery, China’s centrality and Iran’s regionality, caused the planetary “life insurance”, which many believed to be the doctrine of “mutual assured destruction”, inherited from the Cold War, to expire. The “mutual assured destruction” doctrine only worked because the U.S. soon realized that it would be able to supplant the USSR and that its hegemonic dominance would not yet be challenged. The USSR’s adherence to non-proliferation treaties and the establishment of an international power architecture that benefited Washington, gave hope and consolidated certainties of victory. The winner could afford to be magnanimous.

The U.S. only feared the USSR from a military point of view, but it knew that military power does not exist without political power, that political power depends on the economy, and that this relative economic capacity was insufficient to guarantee a victory for the USSR. On the other hand, even if that wasn’t the case, the economies were de facto separate, segregated, and the backdrop against which the U.S. was acting was not a black backdrop of crisis, but a rainbow backdrop of expansion. It was this backdrop, this all-encompassing rainbow backdrop, embraced by the “uniparty” that brings together Democrats and Republicans, that contained the fiercest hawks. Its economic dominance, its strategy of accumulation, were not deathly threatened. Soft power was enough. While the USSR remained strong, the world witnessed major crises such as the Cuban missile crisis. In the end, the U.S. had the luxury of establishing the Washington consensus and ushering in the neoliberal era.

Today, the reality is quite different. Knowing that China is not yet the military adversary that the USSR was, the U.S. nevertheless knows that China has the economy it needs to become one. And they know that, despite all the catastrophist propaganda, it is sustainable, stable and long-lasting. The threat to its dominance is simply formidable. What’s more, China is counting on Russia’s 75 million billion dollars of classified natural resources. The largest in the world, and by a lot. China, Russia, Iran and Venezuela have more, much more, than the USA, Canada and Australia. The EU doesn’t count in this statistic. On the other hand, without the economic potential of China, Russia is a formidable military adversary, with a growing political capital that can be fed – as can be seen in the case of the thousands of sanctions against Moscow – by the Chinese economy. The Chinese economy is to Russia what its natural resources and military capacity are to China. They complement each other, to the point of symbiosis if necessary.

Dominating the world, the production system and its supply chains, once again, requires cheap energy; the end of fossil fuels, which was part of a strategy to contain China, didn’t work, because China didn’t take the bait and has never ceased to guarantee its domination of resources both inside and outside its borders. Hegemony requires cheap labor, which China also has in quantity. And it requires food, lots of food. Which Russia also has plenty of. To regain its hegemony, the U.S. needs Russia and Iran, at least. More than ever. At any cost. On pain of defeat! The pressure we are seeing today on Lula da Silva, particularly his betrayal of Nicolas Maduro, who was always with him, even when the hordes of the far right questioned his electoral victory, shows how important Brazil is to the U.S. Brazil may well be for Washington what Egypt was for Rome, an endless source of food, which, combined with the circus – and in the U.S. the circus lasts 365 days a year – guarantees the appeasement of the masses.

But it is because this is all at stake that the doctrine of “mutual assured destruction” no longer seems so safe. Fear, panic, the mere glimpse of the possibility of defeat and the loss of what they call world “leadership”, equivalent to “comprehensive political domination”, makes the hawks of globalist, hegemonic, super-federative capitalism ferocious, obstinate and obsessive. Used to commanding, threatening, dissuading, punishing, subverting, invading and annihilating entire nations, based on lies, and perpetrating it with impunity, it won’t be the possibility of mass death that stops them. What stops them is the guarantee of victory, a total, unquestionable, eternal and enlightening victory, like the one they sought and achieved with the genocide of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Faced with the possibility of defeat, nothing will stop them. The U.S., like the British Empire, doesn’t know how to live with compromise, impasses and appeasing logic. For them, war is the means to peace. The only means capable of guaranteeing the enlightening victory they seek. No compromise, just certain victory.

And this is why we see Zelensky ordering the bombing of the Zaporozhye NPP and threatening the Kursk nuclear plant, because his health – literally – depends on dragging Russia into a long-lasting, large-scale conflict. The aim, in my opinion, is to push Russia into a desperate action, for example, one that consists of using a nuclear weapon – tactical or strategic – and as a result, one of two things can happen: either the U.S. uses this to factually and internationally isolate Russia and demonize it to the point where the Russian people themselves turn against President Putin, or ultimately, if necessary, to drag Russia into a full-scale conflict, in which the U.S. will still think it has the upper hand. If they didn’t think they did, they wouldn’t be playing this very dangerous game. They may be wrong, but their actions are taken with their own convictions.

Another possibility is to create a provocation by bombing Kiev, causing a radioactive leak that will affect other countries and, in this way, the U.S. will have “plausible” justifications for accusing Russia of having caused it on purpose, either because they say that Russia itself did it, or because they say that the leak is not from a nuclear power plant, but from a dirty bomb used by Moscow. You’ll say: but Russia’s partners wouldn’t fall for something like that. Yes, but the U.S. objective is also played out on the national chessboards of those countries and with their peoples, namely by getting those same peoples to reject governments that don’t respect anti-nuclear rules, human rights, anti-genocide and nuclear proliferation conventions and so on.

There are many possibilities and the U.S. has already demonstrated that it can play with all of them. Let’s not be naive about why, in the 1980s, there was such a large “anti-nuclear” consensus. Neither was the U.S. desperate to free up the information field, nor did it have real nuclear parity. They needed to stop nuclear proliferation and development on the Soviet side. This also suited the USSR, as it would result in a relief for its coffers. The U.S. was therefore playing both sides: it was trying to drag the USSR into an expensive arms race, but in a way that didn’t pose a strategic threat. There are records from the time of the “democrat Yeltsin” which show that the U.S. intended to make Russia do without strategic nuclear naval forces, keeping only aviation and ground forces. Hence the logic of the “missile shield”, which fit like a glove. After all, nuclear submarines were what the U.S. saw as a major threat. And Yeltsin was doing their bidding.

In the case of Iran, the game is similar. We have a Netanyahu, Zelensky’s political twin, one a Zionist, the other a Zionist and Nazi-fascist, both Anglo-American patriots at heart, whose political health – literally – depends on a lasting, large-scale conflict. In this case too, the nuclear card is being played. All it took was for Blinken to say that Iran is “one or two weeks away” from a nuclear weapon, and it became an indisputable truth set in stone. Reference is made to “confidential reports” from the IAEA, which no one has ever seen and whose links lead to a description of the nuclear agreements with Iran itself, even going so far as to say that it was Iran that failed to comply with the terms of the JCPOA.

In both cases, it is assumed that if the U.S. says it, it is true. The U.S. says that Iran almost has nuclear weapons – despite Al-Komeini’s Fatwa banning military nuclear development – and nobody doubts it; the U.S. talks about a confidential IAEA agreement, nobody knows about it, it’s confidential, but from a “transparent” and “independent” public agency, and nobody doubts it; the U.S. says that Russia is bombing its own nuclear power plant and nobody doubts it. In fact, IAEA President Grossi goes further: he says that it is “beyond science” to prove the origin of the attacks on the Zaporozhye plant. Call in the CSI team now, and Putin will face yet another ICC trial.

The game is also being played with China. The news that the modernization of China’s nuclear forces, the “doubling” of warheads, is certain, is an objective that the U.S. “cannot turn its back on”, as the White House has said. Even if the U.S. has 10 times as many warheads as China will have when it doubles – if it doubles – the ones it already has.

For the time being, Zelesnky has guaranteed the impossibility of any peace negotiations in the foreseeable future and not even Modi’s visit – like a promise payer – will change the scenario. Like Siamese twins, Zelensky and Netanyahu demonstrate that cooperation between Nazis and Zionists is not only possible, but desirable, and that the anti-Semitism that characterized the 1930s was a casual contingency and never a deeply contradictory reality in itself. Zelensky proves that the hegemonic interest of the USA sealed the deal between Zionists and Nazi-fascists. At the time, the imperial hawks saw Jewish property as wealth to be had; today they see Jewish property as wealth in itself, which is already theirs, and they use it as a tool for territorial occupation, monetary stabilization and control of energy sources and other natural resources.

One and the other are playing a dangerous game, in which they are strategic pieces. It’s up to them to create a reality that makes coexistence impossible, to the point where “mutual assured destruction” is no longer a limitation. The glimpse of a nuclear Iran is one such case and will justify everything. Remember “weapons of mass destruction”? “Terrorists, mad men” and Muslims with access to nuclear weapons? So, after all the Islamophobia being prepared in the West and capitalized on by neo-fascist currents, who declare Muslims and Asians – poor people, only poor people – a sub-human species, an invading plague? It’s just a detail. The ground is plowed and well prepared.

Does anyone still believe in red lines?

The life insurance policy of “mutually assured destruction” has expired!

BRICS Games: An alternative to the decline of the Olympic Games?

Raphael Machado

As international contradictions intensify, it is important to invest in the BRICS Games as a secure sporting platform for non-submissive nations and as a legitimate repository of the ancient Olympic spirit.

The recently concluded Paris Olympics may go down in history as the worst modern Olympic Games since their revival by Pierre de Coubertin.

Problems began even before the events started, with the banning of Russia and Belarus due to Russia’s special military operation in Ukraine (a defensive action in light of Ukrainian plans to assault the Donbass). If the decision is already questionable concerning Russia, it is even more so regarding Belarus, which is not even a participant in the operation.

Simultaneously, with unsurpassed hypocrisy, the International Olympic Committee authorized the participation of Israel, a country engaged in implementing genocide in Gaza, with daily bombings that have already claimed tens of thousands of civilian lives.

The IOC’s stance demonstrated that the same rules do not apply to the entire international community and that some countries, apparently, have more rights than others.

The Opening Ceremony, in turn, generated truly global controversy. It would be excessive to discuss the event in detail, but while most host countries have so far strived to present the “essence” of their own culture and identity — with examples including the Rio, Beijing, Moscow, and Athens Games — very little authentically French was seen in this Opening.

Except for the decapitation of Marie Antoinette, a controversial and relatively recent event (considering France has over 2,000 years of history since the Gauls), the Ceremony was marked by a celebration of contemporary postmodern Western values: sexual and gender diversity, cosmopolitan multiculturalism, ultra-feminism, and human rights. Nothing more. As a crowning moment, there was a woke and “trans” reenactment of the Last Supper, situated on a bridge over the River Seine, under which delegations from numerous countries had to pass, as if submitting to the religious profanation imposed by woke dogmatism.

If the Opening Ceremony caused discomfort and astonishment among conservative audiences in European, North American, and Ibero-American countries, the only government that lodged a formal protest was Iran, which summoned the French ambassador in Tehran to express Iranian indignation over the religious disrespect displayed in Paris. Nonetheless, in many other countries, the broadcast of the Opening was interrupted during this profanation or was only shown after editing.

Meanwhile, on social media, users made comparisons between this Opening and those of other Olympic Games, especially Beijing’s, indicating that France fell far short of expectations.

It would already be terrible if these were the only problems. But controversies continued throughout the Games.

Triathlon athletes and some others had to swim in the River Seine during their events — but the Seine is notoriously extremely polluted. The Paris government, led by Mayor Anne Hidalgo, had promised to clean the river and claimed, a few days before the Opening, to have completed the cleanup. However, several athletes fell ill after their events. Shocking scenes showed athletes swimming next to a sewage outlet in the River Seine.

In boxing, an even bigger controversy involved two individuals, Imane Khalif from Algeria and Lin Yu-Ting from Taiwan. These two had been banned from competitions by the International Boxing Federation after failing a sex verification test. Nonetheless, they were authorized to participate in the Olympics since the only sex verification required by the IOC is the declaration in the passport. As the only test used by the IBF involves verifying sex through chromosomes, many believe that in both cases it may be pseudo-hermaphroditism, where a person has sexual characteristics of both sexes simultaneously, including organs. In such cases, which almost always involve a “woman” with internal testicles, they would have gone through male puberty. It is not surprising, therefore, that both Imane and Lin won gold medals in their respective events. The case also sparked indignation worldwide.

Worse still, but not surprising, was the treatment given to Chinese athletes not only by the IOC but also by delegations from some Western countries and certain journalists.

The Chinese swimming champion in the 100m freestyle, Pan Zhanle, was ignored by Australian Kyle Chalmers even on the podium and, according to him, also before the competition, as well as by American Jack Alexey. He was also bumped by a photographer who didn’t even apologize. The coach of bronze medalist Wang Shun was snubbed by French gold medalist Leon Marchand. A photographer intentionally broke the racket of table tennis player Wang Chuqin. American tennis player Emma Navarro also insulted Chinese tennis player Zheng Qinwen, saying she did not respect her.

There are several other cases, but these are compounded by broader attacks from the media and social networks.

Media attacks generally rely on claims that Chinese victories in various sports are due to doping. Australian coach Brett Hawke commented that “it was not humanly possible” for Pan Zhanle to win the 100m freestyle event with such an advantage.

This is not an isolated issue because, in fact, while athletes in general were summoned for anti-doping tests an average of 3 times since the beginning of 2024, Chinese athletes were summoned an average of 21 times.

All this pressure on Chinese athletes raises the possibility that an atmosphere of hostility is being prepared to ban China from the Olympics. It would be the “final solution” for the USA to guarantee hegemony in the Games by eliminating its rivals.

This worrying degeneration of these traditional sporting events should make us reflect on possible alternatives, another format of games that preserve the Olympic spirit, respect the identity of peoples, and are not at the mercy of American exceptionalism.

And perhaps, in fact, the solution already exists. After all, we cannot forget the BRICS Games.

The BRICS Games are an annual sporting event organized by the members of the BRICS platform. The original goal of the Games was to strengthen the bonds of friendship and cooperation among BRICS nations, promoting cultural exchange and sports practice in an environment of healthy and friendly competition.

The BRICS Games had a rather modest beginning, with a football competition in Goa in 2016, with the project’s objectives including promoting sports in BRICS countries and their partners, as well as building stronger cultural relations through sports. The competitions in subsequent years were only slightly larger.

But observing the 2024 Games, held in June 2024 in Kazan, Russia, it becomes clear that they have taken on an entirely different scope. With 2,851 athletes from 54 national delegations competing in 27 sports, the BRICS Games are beginning to show strong potential to become one of the main (if not the main) sporting competitions on the planet.

As a space free from the political manipulations that have unfortunately subverted the original purposes of the IOC, expressed through double standards in dealing with doping and the banning of nations deemed pariahs due to their geopolitical positions, the BRICS Games clearly align better with the spirit of the Ancient Olympics than the so-called contemporary “Olympic Games,” at least if the trends seen in the Paris Games become the standard for future editions.

Although this growth of the BRICS Games has as its main motivator the unjust persecution of Russian and Belarusian athletes, it also expresses the drive to build alternative institutions and projects to the current international order, overly influenced by the guidelines and values of the Atlanticist West.

As international contradictions intensify, and this impacts international sporting events, it is important to invest in the BRICS Games as a secure sporting platform for non-submissive nations and as a legitimate repository of the ancient Olympic spirit.

BRICS Games: An alternative to the decline of the Olympic Games?

Totaler Fehlschlag der Sanktionsaggression

29. August 2024 Ein Artikel von: Albrecht Müller

Der folgende Text stammt von Dmitrij Ljubinskij, dem Botschafter Russlands in Österreich. Lesenswert. Zur Einführung zitieren wir den letzten Absatz: „Sämtliche Analysen, auch westliche, belegen, dass Sanktionen ihre Ziele in jeglicher Hinsicht verfehlen. Nichts desto trotz scheint der Westen mit einer Beharrlichkeit, die eine bessere Anwendung verdient hätte, daran festzuhalten. Die Verantwortung liegt bei einem engen Kreis von Entscheidungsträgern, für die die Folgen der scheinbar endlosen Sanktionsspirale irrelevant zu sein scheinen. Einfache Bürger und die Geschäftswelt sind dabei aber immer die Leidtragenden. Am Ende werden aber sie es sein, die für die gescheiterte, gedankenlose Politik die Rechnung ausstellen werden.“ Albrecht Müller.

Beitrag von Dmitrij Ljubinskij, Botschafter Russlands in Österreich

In seinem Bestreben, der Weltgemeinschaft seinen Willen aufzusetzen, greift der kollektive Westen stets aggressiv auf seine geliebte Peitsche zurück – völkerrechtswidrige Sanktionen. Dabei wird Internationales Recht durch nationale, administrative oder gerichtliche Systeme eines oder mehrerer Länder ausgehebelt und Entscheidungen minderheitlicher Staatenvereinigungen de facto über das Völkerrecht gestellt.

Die USA nennen es „regelbasierte Weltordnung“ – ein dreister Versuch der Unterminierung der multilateralen Diplomatie. Großangelegte Desinformationskampagnen, die Schaffung restriktiver und attributiver Mechanismen unter dem Deckmantel von „Multikulturalismus“ sind Merkmale eines solchen Systems. Der Rest der Weltgemeinschaft wird dann aufgefordert, solchen „abgestimmten“ Entscheidungen stumm zu folgen, die als „einheitliche Meinung“ ausgegeben werden. Diejenigen, die sich weigern, haben Sanktionen bzw. andere Strafmaßnamen zu entnehmen. Die Ziele einer solchen Politik sind klar: den Übergang zur gerechten multipolaren Weltordnung zu verhindern.

Sanktionen, die ohne den Beschluss des UN-Sicherheitsrates gemäß Kapitel VII der UN-Charta verhängt werden, sind völkerrechtswidrig und gefährden die allgemein anerkannten Prinzipien der internationalen Zusammenarbeit. Dies ist besonders in den Bereichen sensibel, wo ein koordiniertes Zusammenwirken der Weltgemeinschaft essenziell ist (Terrorismusbekämpfung, Nichtverbreitung von Nuklearwaffen, Bekämpfung von Cyberkriminalität u s.w.).

Die Anwendung von rechtswidrigen einseitigen Einschränkungen, besonders im Fall „sekundärer Sanktionen“, oder die exterritoriale Anwendung von nationalen Regelungen, stellen eine Verletzung der Staatenhoheit souveräner Länder dar und sind eine klare Einmischung in deren inneren Angelegenheiten. Zu erinnern ist dabei an die Erklärung der UN-Generalversammlung über die Unzulässigkeit der Intervention in die inneren Angelegenheiten der Staaten und über den Schutz ihrer Unabhängigkeit und Souveränität (21. Dezember 1965), die festlegt, dass „kein Staat das Recht hat, wirtschaftliche, politische Maßnahmen oder Maßnahmen anderen Charakters zum Zwang eines anderen Staates zur Ausübung seiner souveränen Rechte anzuwenden oder zu unterstützen“. Punkt 4 dieser Erklärung besagt, dass die strikte Einhaltung dieses Prinzips eine essenzielle Bedingung der Gewährleistung eines friedlichen Zusammenlebens der Nationen darstellt.

Rechtswidrige einseitige Sanktionen sind auch ein äußerst gefährliches Mittel des unlauteren Wettbewerbes. Sie richten sich gegen empfindliche Sektoren der Wirtschaft, erschweren den Zugang zu Finanzressourcen, Dienstleistungen und Technologien. Sie bremsen die Entwicklung eines offenen und gerechten Systems der wirtschaftlichen Beziehungen.

So bewirkten die präzedenzlosen komplexen antirussischen Sanktionen eine Verlangsamung der globalen Wirtschaftsentwicklung. Die restriktiven Maßnahmen der westlichen Länder gegen Russland führten zu einem Ungleichgewicht in den internationalen Produktionsketten, sie verursachen die Umleitung von Investitions- und Produktionsströmen, erschwerten vielen Ländern den Zugang zu Waren, Finanzen und Technologien.

Die negativen Folgen der Einschränkungen des kollektiven Westens haben sich selbst gegen die Anwendenden gerichtet. Das Wirtschaftswachstum der westlichen Länder wird 2024 nicht 1,5% überschreiten. Besonders schwer trifft es Europa. Nach Einschätzungen des IWF wird das BIP der EU 2024 um nicht mehr als 1,1% wachsen. Die Stagnation der europäischen Wirtschaft hängt mit dem erschwerten Zugang zu Kreditressourcen vor dem Hintergrund hoher Prozentsätze, dem Exportrückgang und den hohen Preisen für Energieträger zusammen.

Nach Eurostat-Berechnungen hat die EU nach Einführung der Russland-Sanktionen rund 200 Milliarden Euro für Gas überbezahlt. Heuer müssen die Europäer im Schnitt pro Monat für Gas 15,2 Milliarden Euro hinblättern, waren es 2021 nur 6 Milliarden. Der Gesamtschaden im Zusammenhang mit der Abkehr von russischem Gas für die EU übersteigt bereits nach einigen Einschätzungen 1,5 Billion US-Dollar. Die Energiekrise und Dekarbonisationspolitik wird für Europa bald auch die Deindustrialisierung bedeuten. Österreich ist hier keine Ausnahme. Seit mehr als einem Jahr erwirtschaftet der produzierende Bereich hierzulande Monat für Monat weniger Umsatz als im Vorjahr – und der Abwärtstrend hält weiter an. Z.B. im März 2024 lag der Umsatz in Industrie und Bau einer ersten Schätzung zufolge um 17,2 % unter dem des Vorjahresmonats.

Die Hauptnutznießer dieser Situation sind zweifellos die USA. Geschickt nutzen sie die „Solidarität“ der Europäer zu ihren Gunsten aus. Nicht nur an den milliardenschweren Waffenverträgen, auch an den Verkäufen von überteuertem LNG-Gas (für inzwischen insgesamt 53 Milliarden Euro) an ihre „Verbündeten“ verdienen sie sich eine goldene Nase. Die hohen Energiekosten wiederum stimulieren die Umsiedlung der Produktionsstandorte aus dem konkurrenzschwachen Europa in die USA und Drittländer.

Experten gehen davon aus, dass die bestehenden geopolitischen Risiken zu einem weiteren Anstieg der Energiepreise in der EU führen und auch die Lebensmittelpreise noch weiter in die Höhe schnellen lassen könnten. Diese Teuerung spürt der österreichische Endverbraucher bereits jetzt beim Einkaufen im Supermarkt. Ein Kilo Erdäpfel kostete hierzulande etwa im Dezember 2023 ganze 46% mehr als ein Jahr zuvor, ein Liter Sonnenblumenöl 99%, ein Kilo Mehl 88% – so die trockenen Zahlen.

Einen beträchtlichen Beitrag zu diesem Preisanstieg leisten die von der EU eingeführten Einschränkungen gegenüber der russischen Landwirtschaft und Düngemittelindustrie. Restriktionen im Transport und Versicherungswesen, dem Finanzsektor führten zu einem Rückgang der russischen Exporte nach Europa.

Am meisten leiden darunter die einfachen Bürger. Bereits im Juni und Juli 2022 bei einer in Österreich durchgeführten Umfrage zu den Auswirkungen der Russland-Sanktionen gaben insgesamt 82% der Befragten an, unter diesen zu leiden. Bei einer anderen Umfrage vom Juli 2024 sagten 35%, dass Ihrer Meinung nach die Sanktionen der EU mehr schaden würden als Russland und nur 13% behaupteten das Gegenteil.

Die starken Leistungen der russischen Wirtschaft bestätigen das. Dank eines grundlegenden Umdenkens unserer Wirtschaftspolitik mit dem Schwerpunkt Innovationen und Eigenproduktion strategisch wichtiger Güter, Umorientierung der Handelsströme auf neue Märkte, dem Umstieg auf sichere Zahlungsmittel steht unsere Wirtschaft zur Verwunderung vieler auf festem Boden. Stand Mai 2024 ist das BIP Russlands um 5,4% gewachsen, das der EU um nur 0,4%. Dabei weist Russland eine rekordniedrige Arbeitslosenquote von 2,4% (die EU 6,5%, Österreich 6,9%) auf. Nach Einschätzung des IWF wird unsere Wirtschaft trotz umfangreicher Sanktionen spürbar wachsen – doppelt so hoch wie in der gesamten Euro-Zone.

Infolge der Sanktionen verlieren auch die europäischen Geschäftsleute viel: ihre früheren Positionen auf dem russischen Markt werden zügig von Firmen und willigen Partnern aus anderen Ländern neubesetzt, deren Regierungen mehr Vernunft und Weitsicht haben. Diese lukrativen Nischen wären irgendwann, wenn überhaupt, nur mit großer Mühe zurückzuerobern. Nach Reuters-Einschätzungen haben ausländische Firmen infolge ihres Rückzugs aus Russland insgesamt mehr als 107 Milliarden US-Dollar verloren.

Sämtliche Analysen, auch westliche, belegen, dass Sanktionen ihre Ziele in jeglicher Hinsicht verfehlen. Nichts desto trotz scheint der Westen mit einer Beharrlichkeit, die eine bessere Anwendung verdient hätte, daran zu halten. Die Verantwortung liegt bei einem engen Kreis von Entscheidungsträgern, für die die Folgen der scheinbar endlosen Sanktionsspirale irrelevant zu sein scheinen. Einfache Bürger und die Geschäftswelt sind dabei aber immer die Leidtragenden, am Ende werden aber sie es sein, die für die gescheiterte, gedankenlose Politik die Rechnung ausstellen werden.

https://www.nachdenkseiten.de/?p=120419

Russisches Haus in Berlin: „Wir sind für die Menschen da, die kulturelle Brücken erhalten wollen“ (Nachdenkseiten)

Das 40 Jahre alte Russische Haus in Berlin ist vor allem nach 1990 starkem Gegenwind ausgesetzt. Trotz der Unsicherheiten durch die Corona-Krise und insbesondere durch die Ereignisse in der Ukraine steht es weiter im Herzen der Hauptstadt. In den vergangenen zwei Jahren ist es ins Visier jener geraten, die alles Russische verbieten wollen. Wir haben den Leiter des Hauses Pavel Izvolskij gefragt, wie die kulturelle Institution ins Jubiläumsjahr gekommen ist und wie es generell um das Haus steht. Das Interview mit Pavel Izvolskij führte Éva Péli.

hier weiterlesen:
Nachdenkseiten

Russisches Haus in Berlin: „Wir sind für die Menschen da, die kulturelle Brücken erhalten wollen“ (Nachdenkseiten)

Western Intervention in the U.S.S.R.

AUGUST 29, 2024 MS. CATLEAVE A COMMENT

The CIA And The Web Of Supporting Agencies Covert Action Information Bulletin No 39

Since the early 1980s the USA has waged and intense political and economic war against the Soviet Union. A former UN military and political analyst puts the pieces together.

Western Intervention in the U.S.S.R. by Sean Gervasi

Related:

Exploiting ‘fault lines’ in the Soviet empire: an overview

INNOCENCE ABROAD: THE NEW WORLD OF SPYLESS COUPS

Free Trade Union Institute

Western Intervention in the U.S.S.R.

Nuclear War Is “On the Table”. Build Awareness. Say No to A Two Trillion Dollar Nuclear Weapons Program!

Integration of Nuclear and Conventional Warfare

By Prof Michel Chossudovsky

Global Research, August 29, 2024

Author’s Note and Update

Today, the dangers of military escalation are beyond description.

What is now happening in Ukraine has serious geopolitical implications. It could lead us into a World War III Scenario.

Vladimir Putin’s statement on February 21st, 2022 was in response to US threats to use nuclear weapons on a preemptive basis against Russia, despite Joe Biden’s “reassurance” that the US would not be resorting to “A First Strike” nuclear attack against an enemy of America.

The  article below first published in February 2006 addresses US Military Doctrine focussing on the integration of nuclear and conventional warfare. 

The results of this research were subsequently integrated into my book entitled Towards A World War Three Scenario, The Dangers of Nuclear War, Global Research Publishers, 2011. 

Having carefully reviewed US military doctrine for more than 20 years, I can confirm that under the Biden Administration, preemptive nuclear war against  Russia, China, Iran and North Korea is “on the table”.  

It should be noted that Joe Biden’s 1.3 trillion dollars nuclear weapons program is slated to increase to 2 trillion by 2030 allegedly as a means to safeguarding peace and national security at taxpayers expense.

How many schools and hospitals could you finance with 2 trillion dollars?

Truth is a Powerful and Peaceful Weapon, which is the object of Google and Facebook censorship. 

Nuclear War Threatens the Future of Humanity. No mainstream media analysis. That statement is the object of  censorship. 

Say No to Joe Biden’s $1.3 Trillion Nuclear Weapons Program.

SAY YES TO WORLD PEACE

Please forward this article, post it on your blog. Spread the word. Initiate a campaign against nuclear war.

Michel Chossudovsky,  Global Research, March 11, 2022, Nagasaki Day, August 9, 2024

***

It Started with Harry Truman

“We have discovered the most terrible bomb in the history of the world. It may be the fire destruction prophesied in the Euphrates Valley Era, after Noah and his fabulous Ark…. This weapon is to be used against Japan … [We] will use it so that military objectives and soldiers and sailors are the target and not women and children. Even if the Japs are savages, ruthless, merciless and fanatic, we as the leader of the world for the common welfare cannot drop that terrible bomb on the old capital or the new. …  The target will be a purely military one… It seems to be the most terrible thing ever discovered, but it can be made the most useful.”

(President Harry S. Truman, Diary, July 25, 1945)

 

 

Remember Hiroshima: “A Military Base” according to Harry Truman

“The World will note that the first atomic bomb was dropped on Hiroshima a military base. That was because we wished in this first attack to avoid, insofar as possible, the killing of civilians..” (President Harry S. Truman in a radio speech to the Nation, August 9, 1945).

[Note: the first atomic bomb was dropped on Hiroshima on August 6, 1945; the Second on Nagasaki, on August 9, on the same day as Truman’s radio speech to the Nation]

(Listen to Excerpt of Truman’s speech, Hiroshima audio video, link n longer active)

The Unthinkable

At no point since the first atomic bomb was dropped on Hiroshima on August 6th, 1945, has humanity been closer to the unthinkable.  All the safeguards of the Cold War era, which categorized the nuclear bomb as “a weapon of last resort” have been scrapped. “Offensive” military actions using nuclear warheads are now described as acts of “self-defense”.

The distinction between tactical nuclear weapons and the conventional battlefield arsenal has been blurred. America’s new nuclear doctrine is based on “a mix of strike capabilities”. The latter, which specifically applies to the Pentagon’s planned aerial bombing of Iran,  envisages the use of nukes in combination with conventional weapons.

As in the case of the first atomic bomb, which in the words of President Harry Truman “was dropped on Hiroshima, a military base”, today’s “mini-nukes” are heralded as “safe for the surrounding civilian population”.

The Dangerous Doctrine for Joint Nuclear Operations

Known in official Washington, as “Joint Publication 3-12”, the new nuclear doctrine (Doctrine for Joint Nuclear Operations  (DJNO) (March 2005)) calls for “integrating conventional and nuclear attacks” under a unified and  “integrated” Command and Control (C2).

It  largely describes war planning as a management decision-making process, where military and strategic objectives are to be achieved, through a mix of instruments, with little concern for the resulting loss of human life.

The Pentagon’s Toolbox

Military planning focuses on “the most efficient use of force” , -i.e. an optimal arrangement of different weapons systems to achieve stated military goals.

In this context, nuclear and conventional weapons are considered to be “part of the tool box”, from which military commanders can pick and choose the instruments that they require in accordance with “evolving circumstances” in the war theater.

None of these weapons in the Pentagon’s “tool box”, including conventional bunker buster bombs, cluster bombs, mini-nukes, chemical and biological weapons are described as “weapons of mass destruction” when used by the United States of America and its coalition partners.

The stated objective is to:

 “ensure the most efficient use of force and provide US leaders with a broader range of [nuclear and conventional]  strike options to address immediate contingencies. Integration of conventional and nuclear forces is therefore crucial to the success of any comprehensive strategy. This integration will ensure optimal targeting, minimal collateral damage, and reduce the probability of escalation.” (Doctrine for Joint Nuclear Operations   p. JP 3-12-13) emphasis added

The New Nuclear Doctrine turns Concepts and Realities Upside Down

It not only denies the devastating impacts of nuclear weapons, it states, in no uncertain terms, that nuclear weapons are “safe” and their use in the battlefield will ensure “minimal collateral damage and reduce the probability of escalation”.

The issue of radioactive fallout is barely acknowledged with regard to tactical nuclear weapons. These various guiding principles which describe nukes as “safe for civilians” constitute a consensus within the military, which is then fed into the military manuals, providing relevant “green light” criteria to geographical commanders in the war theater.

“Defensive” and “Offensive” Actions

While the 2001 Nuclear Posture Review sets the stage for the preemptive use of nuclear weapons in the Middle East, specifically against Iran (see also the main PNAC document Rebuilding America`s Defenses, Strategy, Forces and Resources for a New Century ), The Doctrine for Joint Nuclear Operations goes one step further in blurring the distinction between “defensive” and “offensive” military actions:

“The new triad offers a mix of strategic offensive and defensive capabilities that includes nuclear and non-nuclear strike capabilities, active and passive defenses, and a robust research, development, and industrial infrastructure to develop, build, and maintain offensive forces and defensive systems …” (Ibid) (key concepts indicated in added italics)

The new nuclear doctrine, however, goes beyond preemptive acts of “self-defense”, it calls for “anticipatory action” using nuclear weapons against a  “rogue enemy” which allegedly plans to develop WMD at some undefined future date:

 Responsible security planning requires preparation for threats that are possible, though perhaps unlikely today. The lessons of military history remain clear: unpredictable, irrational conflicts occur. Military forces must prepare to counter weapons and capabilities that exist or will exist in the near term even if no immediate likely scenarios for war are at hand. To maximize deterrence of WMD use, it is essential US forces prepare to use nuclear weapons effectively and that US forces are determined to employ nuclear weapons if necessary to prevent or retaliate against WMD use. (Ibid, p. III-1, italics added)

Nukes would serve to prevent  a non-existent WMD program (e.g. Iran) prior to its development. This twisted formulation goes far beyond the premises of the 2001 Nuclear Posture Review and NPSD 17. which state that the US can retaliate with nuclear weapons if attacked with WMD:

“The United States will make clear that it reserves the right to respond with overwhelming force – including potentially nuclear weapons – to the use of [weapons of mass destruction] against the United States, our forces abroad, and friends and allies.” … (NSPD 17)

“Integration” of Nuclear and Conventional Weapons Plans

The Doctrine for Joint Nuclear Operations outlines the procedures governing the use of nuclear weapons and the nature of the relationship between nuclear and conventional war operations.

The DJNO states that the:

 “use of nuclear weapons within a [war] theater requires that nuclear and conventional plans be integrated to the greatest extent possible”

(DJNO, p 47 italics added, italics added, For further details see Michel Chossudovsky, Nuclear War against Iran, Jan 2006 )

The implications of this “integration” are far-reaching because once the decision is taken by the Commander in Chief, namely the President of the United States, to launch a joint conventional-nuclear military operation, there is a risk that tactical nuclear weapons could be used without requesting subsequent presidential approval.

In this regard, execution procedures under the jurisdiction of the theater commanders pertaining to nuclear weapons are described  as “flexible and allow for changes in the situation”:

“Geographic combatant commanders are responsible for defining theater objectives and developing nuclear plans required to support those objectives, including selecting targets. When tasked, CDRUSSTRATCOM, as a supporting combatant commander, provides detailed planning support to meet theater planning requirements. All theater nuclear option planning follows prescribed Joint Operation Planning and Execution System procedures to formulate and implement an effective response within the timeframe permitted by the crisis..

Since options do not exist for every scenario, combatant commanders must have a capability to perform crisis action planning and execute those plans. Crisis action planning provides the capability to develop new options, or modify existing options, when current limited or major response options are inappropriate.

…Command, control, and coordination must be flexible enough to allow the geographic combatant commander to strike time-sensitive targets such as mobile missile launch platforms.” Doctrine for Joint Nuclear Operations Doctrine (italics added)

Theater Nuclear Operations (TNO)

While presidential approval is formally required to launch a nuclear war, geographic combat commanders would be in charge of  Theater Nuclear Operations (TNO), with a mandate not only to implement but also to formulate command decisions pertaining to nuclear weapons. ( Doctrine for Joint Nuclear Operations Doctrine )

We are no longer dealing with “the risk” associated with “an accidental or inadvertent nuclear launch”  as outlined by former Secretary of Defense Robert S. McNamara , but with a military decision-making process which provides military commanders, from the Commander in Chief  down to the  geographical commanders with discretionary powers to use tactical nuclear weapons.

Moreover, because these “smaller” tactical nuclear weapons have been “reclassified” by the Pentagon as “safe for the surrounding civilian population”, thereby “minimizing the risk of collateral damage”, there are no overriding built-in restrictions which prevent their use. (See Michel Chossudovsky, The Dangers of a Middle East Nuclear War , Global Research, February 2006) .

Once a decision to launch a military operation is taken (e.g. aerial strikes on Iran),  theater commanders have a degree of latitude. What this signifies in practice is once the presidential decision is taken, USSTRATCOM in liaison with theater commanders can decide on the targeting and type of weaponry to be used.  Stockpiled tactical nuclear weapons are now considered to be an integral part of the battlefield arsenal. In other words, nukes have become “part of the tool box”, used in conventional war theaters.

Planned Aerial Attacks on Iran

An operational plan to wage aerial attacks on Iran has been in “a state of readiness” since June 2005. Essential military hardware to wage this operation has been deployed. (For further details see Michel Chossudovsky, Nuclear War against Iran, Jan 2006 ).

Vice President Dick Cheney has ordered USSTRATCOM to draft a “contingency plan”, which “includes a large-scale air assault on Iran employing both conventional and tactical nuclear weapons.” (Philip Giraldi, Attack on Iran: Pre-emptive Nuclear War , The American Conservative, 2 August 2005).

USSTRATCOM would have the responsibility for overseeing and coordinating this military deployment as well as launching the military operation. (For details, Michel Chossudovsky, Nuclear War against Iran, Jan 2006 ).

In January 2005 a significant shift in USSTRATCOM’s mandate was implemented. USSTRATCOM was identified as “the lead Combatant Command for integration and synchronization of DoD-wide efforts in combating weapons of mass destruction.”  To implement this mandate, a brand new command unit entitled  Joint Functional Component Command Space and Global Strike , or JFCCSGS was created.

Overseen by USSTRATCOM, JFCCSGS would be responsible for the launching of military operations “using nuclear or conventional weapons” in compliance with the Bush administration’s new nuclear doctrine. Both categories of weapons would be integrated into a “joint strike operation” under unified Command and Control.

According to Robert S. Norris and Hans M. Kristensen, writing in the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists,

“The Defense Department is upgrading its nuclear strike plans to reflect new presidential guidance and a transition in war planning from the top-heavy Single Integrated Operational Plan of the Cold War to a family of smaller and more flexible strike plans designed to defeat today’s adversaries. The new central strategic war plan is known as OPLAN (Operations Plan) 8044…. This revised, detailed plan provides more flexible options to assure allies, and dissuade, deter, and if necessary, defeat adversaries in a wider range of contingencies….

One member of the new family is CONPLAN 8022, a concept plan for the quick use of nuclear, conventional, or information warfare capabilities to destroy–preemptively, if necessary–“time-urgent targets” anywhere in the world. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld issued an Alert Order in early 2004 that directed the military to put CONPLAN 8022 into effect. As a result, the Bush administration’s preemption policy is now operational on long-range bombers, strategic submarines on deterrent patrol, and presumably intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs).”

The operational implementation of the Global Strike would be under CONCEPT PLAN (CONPLAN) 8022, which now consists of  “an actual plan that the Navy and the Air Force translate into strike package for their submarines and bombers,’ (Japanese Economic Newswire, 30 December 2005, For further details see Michel Chossudovsky, Nuclear War against Iran, op. cit.).

CONPLAN 8022 is ‘the overall umbrella plan for sort of the pre-planned strategic scenarios involving nuclear weapons.’

‘It’s specifically focused on these new types of threats — Iran, North Korea — proliferators and potentially terrorists too,’ he said. ‘There’s nothing that says that they can’t use CONPLAN 8022 in limited scenarios against Russian and Chinese targets.’ (According to Hans Kristensen, of the Nuclear Information Project, quoted in Japanese Economic News Wire, op. cit.)

Nuclear Weapons Deployment Authorization

The planning of the aerial bombings of Iran started in mid-2004, pursuant to the formulation of CONPLAN 8022 in early 2004. In May 2004, National Security Presidential Directive NSPD 35 entitled Nuclear Weapons Deployment Authorization was issued.

The contents of this highly sensitive document remains a carefully guarded State secret. There has been no mention of NSPD 35 by the media nor even in Congressional debates.  While its contents remains classified, the presumption is that NSPD 35 pertains to the deployment of tactical nuclear weapons in the Middle East war theater in compliance with CONPLAN 8022.

In this regard, a recent press report published in Yeni Safak (Turkey) suggests that the United States is currently:

“deploying B61-type tactical nuclear weapons in southern Iraq as part of a plan to hit Iran from this area if and when Iran responds to an Israeli attack on its nuclear facilities”. (Ibrahim Karagul, “The US is Deploying Nuclear Weapons in Iraq Against Iran”, (Yeni Safak,. 20 December 2005, quoted in BBC Monitoring Europe).

This deployment in Iraq appears to be pursuant to NSPD 35 ,

What the Yenbi Safak report suggests is that conventional weapons would be used in the first instance, and if Iran were to retaliate in response to US-Israeli aerial attacks, tactical thermonuclear B61 weapons could then be launched  This retaliation using tactical nuclear weapons would be consistent with the guidelines contained in the 2001 Nuclear Posture Review and NSPD 17 (see above).

Israel’s Stockpiling of Conventional and Nuclear Weapons

Israel is part of the military alliance and is slated to play a major role in the planned attacks on Iran. (For details see Michel Chossudovsky, Nuclear War against Iran, Jan 2006 ).

Confirmed by several press reports, Israel has taken delivery, starting in September 2004 of some 500 US produced  BLU 109 bunker buster bombs (WP, January 6, 2006). The first procurement order for BLU 109 [Bomb Live Unit] dates to September 2004. In April 2005, Washington confirmed that Israel was to take delivery of 100 of the more sophisticated bunker buster bomb GBU-28 produced by Lockheed Martin ( Reuters, April 26, 2005).  The GBU-28 is described as “a 5,000-pound laser-guided conventional munitions that uses a 4,400-pound penetrating warhead.” It was used in the Iraqi war theater:

The Pentagon [stated] that … the sale to Israel of 500 BLU-109 warheads, [was] meant to “contribute significantly to U.S. strategic and tactical objectives.” .

Mounted on satellite-guided bombs, BLU-109s can be fired from F-15 or F-16 jets, U.S.-made aircraft in Israel’s arsenal. This year Israel received the first of a fleet of 102 long-range F-16Is from Washington, its main ally. “Israel very likely manufactures its own bunker busters, but they are not as robust as the 2,000-pound (910 kg) BLUs,” Robert Hewson, editor of Jane’s Air-Launched Weapons, told Reuters. (Reuters, 21 September 2004)

The report does not confirm whether Israel has stockpiled and deployed the thermonuclear version of the bunker buster bomb. Nor does it indicate whether the Israeli made bunker buster bombs are equipped with nuclear warheads. It is worth noting that this stock piling of bunker buster bombs occurred within a few months after the Release of  the NPSD 35¸ Nuclear Weapons Deployment Authorization   (May 2004).

Israel possesses 100-200 strategic nuclear warheads . In 2003, Washington and Tel Aviv confirmed that they were collaborating in “the deployment of US-supplied Harpoon cruise missiles armed with nuclear warheads in Israel’s fleet of Dolphin-class submarines.” (The Observer, 12 October 2003) . In more recent developments, which coincide with the preparations of  strikes against Iran, Israel has taken delivery of  two new German produced submarines “that could launch nuclear-armed cruise missiles for a “second-strike” deterrent.” (Newsweek, 13 February 2006. See also CDI Data Base)

Israel’s tactical nuclear weapons capabilities are not known

Israel’s participation in the aerial attacks will also act as a political bombshell throughout the Middle East. It would contribute to escalation, with a war zone which could extend initially into Lebanon and Syria. The entire region from the Eastern Mediterranean to Central Asia and Afghanistan’s Western frontier would be affected..

The Role of Western Europe

Several Western European  countries, officially considered as “non-nuclear states”, possess tactical nuclear weapons, supplied to them by Washington.

The US has supplied some 480 B61 thermonuclear bombs to five non-nuclear NATO countries including Belgium, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands and Turkey, and one nuclear country, the United Kingdom. Casually disregarded by the Vienna based UN Nuclear Watch, the US has actively contributed to the proliferation of nuclear weapons in Western Europe.

As part of this European stockpiling, Turkey, which is a partner of the US-led coalition against Iran along with Israel, possesses some 90 thermonuclear B61 bunker buster bombs at the Incirlik nuclear air base. (National Resources Defense Council, Nuclear Weapons in Europe , February 2005)

Consistent with US nuclear policy, the stockpiling and deployment of B61 in Western Europe are intended for targets in the Middle East. Moreover, in accordance with  “NATO strike plans”, these thermonuclear B61 bunker buster bombs (stockpiled by the “non-nuclear States”) could be launched  “against targets in Russia or countries in the Middle East such as Syria and Iran” ( quoted in National Resources Defense Council, Nuclear Weapons in Europe , February 2005)

Moreover, confirmed by (partially) declassified documents (released under the U.S. Freedom of Information Act):

“arrangements were made in the mid-1990s to allow the use of U.S. nuclear forces in Europe outside the area of responsibility of U.S. European Command (EUCOM). As a result of these arrangements, EUCOM now supports CENTCOM nuclear missions in the Middle East, including, potentially, against Iran and Syria”

(quoted in  http://www.nukestrat.com/us/afn/nato.htm italics added)

With the exception of the US, no other nuclear power “has nuclear weapons earmarked for delivery by non-nuclear countries.” (National Resources Defense Council, op cit)

While these “non-nuclear states” casually accuse Tehran of developing nuclear weapons, without documentary evidence, they themselves have capabilities of delivering nuclear warheads, which are targeted at Iran.  To say that this is a clear case of “double standards” by the IAEA and the “international community” is a understatement.

Germany: De Facto Nuclear Power

Among the five “non-nuclear states” “Germany remains the most heavily nuclearized country with three nuclear bases (two of which are fully operational) and may store as many as 150 [B61 bunker buster ] bombs” (Ibid). In accordance with “NATO strike plans” (mentioned above) these tactical nuclear weapons are also targeted at the Middle East.

While Germany is not officially a nuclear power, it produces nuclear warheads for the French Navy. It stockpiles nuclear warheads and it has the capabilities of delivering nuclear weapons.  The European Aeronautic Defense and Space Company – EADS , a Franco-German-Spanish  joint venture, controlled by Deutsche Aerospace and the powerful Daimler Group is Europe’s second largest military producer, supplying .France’s M51 nuclear missile.

France Endorses the Preemptive Nuclear Doctrine

In January 2006, French President Jacques Chirac announced a major shift in France’s nuclear policy.

Without mentioning Iran, Chirac intimated that France’s nukes should be used in the form of  “more focused attacks” against countries, which were “considering” the deployment of Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD).

He also hinted to the possibility that tactical nuclear weapons could be used in conventional war theaters, very much in line with both US and NATO nuclear doctrine (See Chirac shifts French doctrine for use of nuclear weapons , Nucleonics Week January 26, 2006).

The French president seems to have embraced the  US sponsored “War on Terrorism”. He presented nuclear weapons as a means to build a safer World and combat terrorism:

Nuclear weapons are not meant to be used against “fanatical terrorists,” nevertheless “the leaders of states which used terrorist means against us, as well as those who considered using, in one way or another, weapons of mass destruction, must understand that they are exposing themselves to a firm, appropriate response on our side…”.(Ibid)

Although Chirac made no reference to the preemptive use of nuclear weapons, his statement broadly replicates the premises of the Bush administration’s 2001 Nuclear Posture Review , which calls for the use of tactical nuclear weapons against ”rogue states” and “terrorist non-state organizations”.

The stockpiled weapons are B61 thermonuclear bombs.  All the weapons are gravity bombs of the B61-3, -4, and -10 types.2 .

Those estimates were based on private and public statements by a number of government sources and assumptions about the weapon storage capacity at each base

.(National Resources Defense Council, Nuclear Weapons in Europe , February 2005)

Building a Pretext for a Preemptive Nuclear Attack

The pretext for waging  war on Iran essentially rests on two fundamental premises, which are part of the Bush administration’s National Security doctrine.

1. Iran’s alleged possession of  “Weapons of Mass Destruction” (WMD), more specifically its nuclear enrichment program.

2. Iran’s alleged support to “Islamic terrorists”.

These are two interrelated statements which are an integral part of the propaganda and media disinformation campaign.

The “Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD)” statement is used to justify the “pre-emptive war” against the “State sponsors of terror”, –i.e. countries such as Iran and North Korea which allegedly possess WMD. Iran is identified as a State sponsor of so-called “non-State terrorist organizations”. The latter also possess WMDs and potentially constitute a nuclear threat. Terrorist non-state organizations are presented as a “nuclear power”.

“The enemies in this [long] war are not traditional conventional military forces but rather dispersed, global terrorist networks that exploit Islam to advance radical political aims. These enemies have the avowed aim of acquiring and using nuclear and biological weapons to murder hundreds of thousands of Americans and others around the world.” (2006 Quadrennial Defense Review ),

In contrast, Germany and Israel which produce and possess nuclear warheads are not considered “nuclear powers”.

In recent months, the pretext for war, building on this WMD-Islamic terrorist nexus, has been highlighted ad  nauseam, on a daily basis by the Western media.

In a testimony to the US Senate Budget Committee, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice accused Iran and Syria of destabilizing the Middle East and providing support to militant Islamic groups. She described Iran as the “a central banker for terrorism”, not withstanding the fact amply documented that Al Qaeda has been supported and financed  from its inception in the early 1980s by none other than the CIA. (See Michel Chossudovsky, Who is Osama bin Laden, Global Research 2001).

“It’s not just Iran’s nuclear program but also their support for terrorism around the world. They are, in effect, the central banker for terrorism,”  (Statement to the Senate Budget Committee, 16 February 2006)

“Second 9/11”: Cheney’s “Contingency Plan”

While the “threat” of Iran’s alleged WMD is slated for debate at the UN Security Council, Vice President Dick Cheney is reported to have instructed USSTRATCOM to draw up a contingency plan “to be employed in response to another 9/11-type terrorist attack on the United States”. This “contingency plan” to attack Iran uses the pretext of a “Second 9/11” which has not yet happened, to prepare for a major military operation against Iran.

The contingency plan, which is characterized by a military build up in anticipation of possible aerial strikes against Iran, is in a “state of readiness”.

What is diabolical is that the justification to wage war on Iran rests on Iran’s involvement in a terrorist attack on America, which has not yet occurred:

The plan includes a large-scale air assault on Iran employing both conventional and tactical nuclear weapons. Within Iran there are more than 450 major strategic targets, including numerous suspected nuclear-weapons-program development sites. Many of the targets are hardened or are deep underground and could not be taken out by conventional weapons, hence the nuclear option. As in the case of Iraq, the response is not conditional on Iran actually being involved in the act of terrorism directed against the United States. Several senior Air Force officers involved in the planning are reportedly appalled at the implications of what they are doing—that Iran is being set up for an unprovoked nuclear attack—but no one is prepared to damage his career by posing any objections. (Philip Giraldi, Attack on Iran: Pre-emptive Nuclear War , The American Conservative, 2 August 2005)

Are we to understand that US military planners are waiting in limbo for a Second 9/11, to launch a military operation directed against Iran, which is currently in a “state of readiness”?

Cheney’s proposed “contingency plan” does not focus on preventing a Second 9/11. The Cheney plan is predicated on the presumption that Iran would be behind a Second 9/11 and that punitive bombings would immediately be activated, prior to the conduct of an investigation, much in the same way as the attacks on Afghanistan in October 2001, allegedly in retribution for the role of the Taliban government in support of the 9/11 terrorists. It is worth noting that the bombing and invasion of Afghanistan had been planned well in advance of 9/11. As Michael Keefer points out in an incisive review article:

“At a deeper level, it implies that “9/11-type terrorist attacks” are recognized in Cheney’s office and the Pentagon as appropriate means of legitimizing wars of aggression against any country selected for that treatment by the regime and its corporate propaganda-amplification system….  (Keefer, February 2006 )

Keefer concludes that “an attack on Iran, which would presumably involve the use of significant numbers of extremely ‘dirty’ earth-penetrating nuclear bombs, might well be made to follow a dirty-bomb attack on the United States, which would be represented in the media as having been carried out by Iranian agents” (Keefer, February 2006 )

The Battle for Oil

The Anglo-American oil companies are indelibly behind Cheney’s “contingency plan” to wage war on Iran. The latter is geared towards territorial and corporate control over oil and gas reserves as well as pipeline routes.

There is continuity in US Middle East war plans, from the Democrats to the Republicans. The essential features of Neoconservative discourse were already in place under the Clinton administration. US Central Command’s (USCENTCOM) theater strategy in the mid-1990s was geared towards securing, from an economic and military standpoint, control over Middle East oil.

“The broad national security interests and objectives expressed in the President’s National Security Strategy (NSS) and the Chairman’s National Military Strategy (NMS) form the foundation of the United States Central Command’s theater strategy. The NSS directs implementation of a strategy of dual containment of the rogue states of Iraq and Iran as long as those states pose a threat to U.S. interests, to other states in the region, and to their own citizens. Dual containment is designed to maintain the balance of power in the region without depending on either Iraq or Iran. USCENTCOM’s theater strategy is interest-based and threat-focused. The purpose of U.S. engagement, as espoused in the NSS, is to protect the United States’ vital interest in the region – uninterrupted, secure U.S./Allied access to Gulf oil.

(USCENTCOM, http://www.milnet.com/milnet/pentagon/centcom/chap1/stratgic.htm#USPolicy , italics added)

Iran possesses 10 percent of global oil and gas reserves,  The US is the first and foremost military and nuclear power in the World, but it possesses less than 3 percent of global oil and gas reserves.

On the other hand, the countries inhabited by Muslims, including the Middle East, North Africa, Central Asia, West and Central Africa, Malaysia, Indonesia and Brunei, possess approximately 80 percent of the World’s oil and gas reserves.

The “war on terrorism” and the hate campaign directed against Muslims, which has gained impetus in recent months, bears a direct relationship to the “Battle for Middle East Oil”.  How best to conquer these vast oil reserves located in countries inhabited by Muslims?  Build a political consensus against Muslim countries, describe them as “uncivilized”,  denigrate their culture and religion, implement ethnic profiling against Muslims in Western countries, foster hatred and racism against the inhabitants of the oil producing countries.

The values of Islam are said to be tied into  “Islamic terrorism”. Western governments are now accusing Iran of “exporting terrorism to the West” In the words of Prime Minister Tony Blair:

“There is a virus of extremism which comes out of the cocktail of religious fanaticism and political repression in the Middle East which is now being exported to the rest of the world. “We will only secure our future if we are dealing with every single aspect of that problem. Our future security depends on sorting out the stability of that region.””You can never say never in any of these situations.” (quoted in the Mirror, 7 February 2006)

Muslims are demonized, casually identified with “Islamic terrorists”, who are also described as constituting a nuclear threat. In turn, the terrorists are supported by Iran, an Islamic Republic which threatens the “civilized World” with deadly nuclear weapons (which it does not possess). In contrast, America’s humanitarian “nuclear weapons will be accurate, safe and reliable.”

The World is at a Critical Crossroads

It is not Iran which is a threat to global security but the United States of America and Israel.

In recent developments, Western European governments –including the so-called “non-nuclear states” which  possess nuclear weapons– have joined the bandwagon. In chorus, Western Europe and the member states of the Atlantic alliance (NATO) have endorsed the US-led military initiative against Iran.

The Pentagon’s planned aerial attacks on Iran involve “scenarios” using both nuclear and conventional weapons. While this does not imply the use of nuclear weapons, the potential danger of a Middle East nuclear holocaust must, nonetheless, be taken seriously. It must become a focal point of the antiwar movement, particularly in the United States, Western Europe, Israel and Turkey.

It should also be understood that China and Russia are (unofficially) allies of Iran, supplying them with advanced military equipment and a sophisticated missile defense system. It is unlikely that China and Russia will take on a passive position if and when the aerial bombardments are carried out.

The new preemptive nuclear doctrine calls for the “integration” of “defensive” and “offensive” operations. Moreover, the important distinction between conventional and nuclear weapons has been blurred..

From a military standpoint, the US and its coalition partners including Israel and Turkey are in “a state of readiness.”

Through media disinformation, the objective is to galvanize Western public opinion  in support of a US-led war on Iran in retaliation for Iran’s defiance of the international community.

War propaganda consists  in “fabricating an enemy” while conveying the illusion that the Western World is under attack by Islamic terrorists, who are directly supported by the Tehran government.

“Make the World safer”, “prevent the proliferation of dirty nuclear devices by terrorists”, “implement punitive actions against Iran to ensure the peace”.  “Combat nuclear proliferation by rogue states”…

Supported by the Western media, a generalized atmosphere of racism and xenophobia directed against Muslims has unfolded, particularly in Western Europe, which provides a fake legitimacy to the US war agenda. The latter is upheld as a “Just War”. The “Just war” theory serves to camouflage the nature of US war plans, while providing a human face to the invaders.

What can be done?

The antiwar movement is in many regards divided and misinformed on the nature of the US military agenda. Several non-governmental organizations have placed the blame on Iran, for not complying with the “reasonable demands” of the “international community”. These same organizations, which are committed to World Peace tend to downplay the implications of the proposed US bombing of Iran.

To reverse the tide requires a massive campaign of networking and outreach to inform people across the land, nationally and internationally, in neighborhoods, workplaces, parishes, schools, universities, municipalities, on the dangers of a US sponsored war, which contemplates the use of nuclear weapons. The message should be loud and clear: Iran is not the threat. Even without the use of nukes, the proposed aerial bombardments could result in escalation, ultimately leading us into a broader war in the Middle East.

Debate and discussion must also take place within the Military and Intelligence community, particularly with regard to the use of tactical nuclear weapons, within the corridors of the US Congress, in municipalities and at all levels of government. Ultimately, the legitimacy of the political and military actors in high office must be challenged.

The corporate media also bears a heavy responsibility for the cover-up of US sponsored war crimes. It must also be forcefully challenged for its biased coverage of the Middle East war.

For the past year, Washington has been waging a “diplomatic arm twisting” exercise with a view to enlisting countries into supporting of its military agenda. It is essential that at the diplomatic level, countries in the Middle East, Asia, Africa and Latin America take a firm stance against the US military agenda.

Condoleezza Rice has trekked across the Middle East, “expressing concern over Iran’s nuclear program”, seeking the unequivocal endorsement of  the governments of the region against Tehran. Meanwhile the Bush administration has allocated funds in support of Iranian dissident groups within Iran.

What is needed is to break the conspiracy of silence, expose the media lies and distortions, confront the criminal nature of the US Administration and of those governments which support it, its war agenda as well as its so-called “Homeland Security agenda” which has already defined the contours of a police State.

The World is at the crossroads of the most serious crisis in modern history. The US  has embarked on a military adventure, “a long war”, which threatens the future of humanity.

It is essential to bring the US war project to the forefront of political debate, particularly in North America and Western Europe. Political and military leaders who are opposed to the war must take a firm stance, from within their respective institutions. Citizens must take a stance individually and collectively against war.

Michel Chossudovsky is the author of the international best seller “The Globalization of Poverty ” published in eleven languages. He is Professor of Economics at the University of Ottawa and Director of the Center for Research on Globalization, at   www.globalresearch.ca . He is also a contributor to the Encyclopaedia Britannica.  His most recent book is entitled: America’s “War on Terrorism”, Global Research, 2005. 

To order Chossudovsky’s book  America’s “War on Terrorism”, click here.

Note: Readers are welcome to cross-post this article with a view to spreading the word and warning people of the dangers of nuclear war.

Part I of this text was published as a separate article entitled:

The Dangers of a Middle East Nuclear War
New Pentagon Doctrine: Mini-Nukes are “Safe for the Surrounding Civilian Population”
by Michel Chossudovsky

Related Texts by the author:

Nuclear War against Iran, by Michel Chossudovsky, January 2006

Planned US-Israeli Attack on Iran, by Michel Chossudovsky, May 2005

---

Annex A

Five basic types of US Military Plans:  

• Campaign Plan (CAMPLAN): A plan for a series of related military operations aimed at accomplishing a strategic or operational objective within a given time and space (e.g., campaign plan for Iraq incorporating a number of subordinate specific plans).

• Operations Plan (OPLAN): A completed plan required when there is compelling national interest, when a specific threat exists, and/or when the nature of the contingency requires detailed planning (e.g., North Korea). OPLANs contains all formatted annexes (see below), and Time Phased Force and Deployment Data (TPFDD), a database containing units to be deployed, routing of deploying units, movement data of forces, personnel, logistics and transportation requirements. An OPLAN can be used as a basis for development of an Operations Order (OPORD).

• Operations Plan in Concept Form Only (CONPLAN): An operations plan in an abbreviated format prepared for less compelling national interest contingencies than for OPLANs and for unspecific threats. A CONPLAN requires expansion or alteration to convert into an OPLAN or OPORD. It normally includes a statement of Strategic Concept and annexes A-D and K (see below). CONPLANs that do have TPFDDs are usually developed because of international agreement or treaties.

• Functional plans (FUNCPLAN): An operations plan involving the conduct of military operations in a peacetime or non-hostile environment (e.g., disaster relief, humanitarian assistance, counter-drug, or peacekeeping operations).

• Theater Security Cooperation and Theater Engagement Plans (TSCPs and TEPs): Day-to-day plans to set the initial conditions for future military action in terms of multinational capabilities, U.S. military access, coalition interoperability, and intelligence

SOURCE: Supplement to Code Names: Deciphering U.S. Military Plans, Programs, and Operations in the 9/11 World , by William Arkin   (Copyright William Arkin, 2005)

---

ANNEX B

Timeline  in the Development of US Nuclear doctrine (2002-2006)  [excerpts]

Source The Nuclear Information Project   (copyright Nuclear Information Project, click to see complete and detailed Timeline )

2002

January 8: The Nuclear Posture Review is officially published.

June: White House issues National Security Presidential Directive (NSPD) 14, “Nuclear Weapons Planning Guidance.”

September 14: White House issues National Security Presidential Directive (NSPD) 17, “National Strategy to Combat Weapons of Mass Destruction.”

September 17: White House issues the National Security Strategy of the United States. The document publicly formulates a more proactive preemption doctrine

December 10: White House issues “National Strategy to Combat Weapons of Mass Destruction,” the unclassified version of National Security Presidential Directive (NSPD) 17. The wording in NSPD 17 of using “potentially nuclear weapons” is replaced with “all of our options.”

December 16: White House issues National Security Presidential Directive (NSPD) 23, “National Policy on Ballistic Missile Defense.”

2003

January 10: President Bush signs Change 2 to the Unified Command Plan (UCP), which assigns four emerging missions to STRATCOM: missile defense, global strike, information operations, and global C4ISR. (Command and Control, Communications, Computers, Intelligence, Sensors and Reconnaissance). The directive identifies global strike as “a capability to deliver rapid, extended range, precision kinetic (nuclear and conventional) and non-kinetic (elements of space and information operations) effects in support of theater and national objectives.”

March: Defense Secretary Rumsfeld issues “Nuclear Posture Review: Implementation Plan, DOD Implementation of the December 2001 Nuclear Posture Review Report to Congress.”

April: STRATCOM issues CONPLAN (Concept Plan) 8022-01, Strategic Concept.

June 4: STRATCOM issues CONPLAN 8022-02, Strategic Concept draft.

June: White House issues National Security Presidential Directive (NSPD) 28, “United States Nuclear Weapons Command and Control, Safety, and Security.” The guidance “provides direction on various nuclear issues, to include security.”

October 1: OPLAN (Operation Plan) 8044, the first strategic plan not using the name SIOP, is put into effect by STRATCOM.

November: The first CONPLAN 8022 (Global Strike) is completed by STRATCOM.

2004

April 19: Defense Secretary Rumsfeld issues NUWEP (Nuclear Weapons Employment Policy). The document states in part: “U.S. nuclear forces must be capable of, and be seen to be capable of, destroying those critical war-making and war-supporting assets and capabilities that a potential enemy leadership values most and that it would rely on to achieve its own objectives in a post-war world.”

May 24: Air Combat Command publishes Global Strike CONOPS.

May: White House issues National Security Presidential Directive (NSPD) 35, “Nuclear Weapons Deployment Authorization,” which authorizes deployment of tactical nuclear weapons in Europe.

July 8: STRATCOM commander General E. Cartwright informs Congress that Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld “just signed the Interim Global Strike Alert Order, which provides the President a prompt, global strike capability.” The Alert Order directs the Air Force and Navy to put CONPLAN 8022 into effect on selected strike platforms including long-range bombers and strategic submarines.

August 17: STRATCOM publishes Global Strike Interim Capability Operations Order (OPORD).

October 1: OPLAN 8044 Revision 01 becomes effective. According to Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff General Richard B. Myers, “STRATCOM has revised our strategic deterrence and response plan that became effective in the fall of 2004. This revised, detailed plan provides more flexible options to assure allies, and dissuade, deter, and if necessary, defeat adversaries in a wider range of contingencies.” (emphasis added)

November: CJCS publishes “Strategic Deterrence Joint Operating Concept.”

2005

January 10: CJCS issues Global Strike Joint Integrating Concept, Version 1.

March 1: President Bush signs Unified Command Plan 2004.

October 1: OPLAN 8044 Revision 02 is put into effect by STRATCOM. According to the Pentagon, this was a “major revamping” of the U.S. strategic war plan which, among other issues, included the “integration of conventional strike options into [the] OPLAN.”

2006

Early 2006: CJCS is scheduled to publish updated Doctrine for Joint Nuclear Operations (Joint Pub 3-12). However, this and three other Joint Pub nuclear documents were cancelled.

February 6: Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld released the Quadrennial Defense Review.

Source: The Nuclear Information Project   Copyright The Nuclear Information Project 2005

The original source of this article is Global Research

Copyright © Prof Michel Chossudovsky, Global Research, 2024

https://www.globalresearch.ca/is-the-bush-administration-planning-a-nuclear-holocaust-2/2032

Counteracting Cult-Imposed Chaos. “Draw Back and Quieten the Mind”, An Awakened Mankind Committed to Defeating Our Oppressors

By Julian Rose

Global Research, August 29, 2024

We are only manipulated to the degree to which we allow ourselves to be. Pull back a few paces from the insanity and you can find yourself in a quiet reflective place having absolutely nothing to do with the relentless razzamataz of the globalist construct.

At this point of time, in particular, it is really important to take such a step on a daily basis. Because the chaos being imposed by the central control system is directly absorbed by our three dimensional five senses, and at that moment is taken to be the sum total of all that is.

But when one draws back and quietens the mind, the centre of attention shifts to the inner heart zone. From here one is able to calmly and rationally assess whatever it is that is troubling one.

Only in this way can one discern the difference between the superficial/fake and the true.

Within today’s highly volatile information field the brain is loaded with a thousand different – and largely contradictory – streams of information which it is incapable of discerning or ordering without first putting them through the filter of an always discerning heart-centred awareness.  All meditation practices follow the same principle.

This is not what the chaos imposers want us to do, of course. They want us to suffer endless bouts of agitation, stress, fear, anger and ultimately despair. They want to overload our brain cells to the point where our attempt to make sense of what is designed to make no sense, drives large segments of the population to drink, drugs, pharmaceutical sedatives and a lingering form of depression.

This mass sedated state of mankind is worth billions of dollars to Big Pharma and Big Alcohol – and quite obviously supports the general dumbing-down agenda of the deep state.

But there is more to it than this.

The desire to confuse, corrupt and kill-off mankind does not have its origins within the fundamental evolutionary process of sentient and empathic human beings. It should not be confused with the mix of typical ‘hard knocks’ we all have to contend with in the struggle to keep moving ahead.

No, these malevolent actions are essential components of once covert, but now overt, satanic practices based upon an anti-life precept closely related to that of psychopaths and those we call megalomaniacs. 

As we go about our daily business struggling to maintain some form of basic equilibrium, it does not occur to most that this nefarious torture regime has its roots in the work of a small but powerful cult which basically despises sentient mankind. 

If we clearly understood this, we would realise that trying to use rational thought procedures to explain the deliberately imposed irrational and chaotic, is a worse than useless task.

Their chaos is deliberate and designed to elicit panicked public calls for ‘order’; the imposition of which will be uncompromising. ‘Order Out of Chaos’ leads to totalitarian lockdown.

Those ‘only half’ human, or non-human dictators who we witness today manifesting their seemingly infinite need to torture, control and destroy, are getting their dark energies from what Robert Monroe, the late US researcher involved in the study of human consciousness, termed ‘loosh’. 

What is loosh?

Loosh is that form of vibratory energy manifest by emotional expressions, both positive and negative. Both emotionally expressed love and hate will give off loosh.

But in the context of this article I refer to the vibrations given-off by fear, anxiety, anger and despair as providing a form of emotional food for the anti-life forces that show no emotion, no empathy and no interest in the victims of their vampiric full spectrum dominance agenda.

It is profoundly shocking to suddenly recognise that the deeply sick satanic behaviour patterns that emanate from the exponents of loosh mining, have been adopted by very public icons at the top end of the music business, professional sport, global banking and related corporate empires, scientific institutions, politics, religion and increasingly psychotic multi billionaires seeking to exert their domination over all aspects of planetary life.

Within the many thousands of secret society founded Masonic lodges that proliferate North America and Europe, the leading figureheads ritually worship demonic overlords who in turn appear to bestow upon them a form of dark Astral power.

This crosses over with paedophiles, child sacrificers and traffickers. It is no longer simply a source of speculation that deeply evil acts of utter degradation are performed by those who seek highest office in the top suite of New World Order pyramid. And from there, down the ladder to aspiring young leaders of the Schwab ‘sell your soul school for future fascists’.

Australia’s Naval Base in Papua New Guinea: Power Play in the South Pacific against China

It is a big – but entirely necessary brain stretch – to grasp the fact that these are the forces setting the agenda of almost all types of planetary activities, right down to the seemingly superficial details of everyday life.

Here’s an example of what I mean. When you hear that your telephone landline is going to be phased out in 2025 and that only a digital connection will then be available, you might think “Damn! These companies are at it again, always cost cutting the quality and giving us the cheaper version so as to increase their profits.”

But while such an explanation touches on a perennial superficial truth, the real reason hides in the shadows, manipulated by the anti-life cult’s overriding ambitions to wrest control over our ability to electronically communicate with some degree of privacy –  and to thereby steal reams of personal data at the ping of a ‘smart’ EMF button. Data that can then be used to trap one into complying with the increasingly nefarious demands of the surveillance state.

The sequence goes further: loss of landline means ‘must go digital and Wi-Fi’. Going digital and Wi-Fi instantly connects one up with the global microwave radiation transmission tower and satellite emitting EMF frequency bands that operate through mobile and smart phones at 3,4 and 5G power outputs.

An increasingly vast labyrinth of intersecting wireless wave-forms create ‘electro smog’ which interrupt the natural circadian rhythms of the atmosphere and magnetosphere – as well as distorting the 7.83 hertz Schumann Resonance – known as ‘the earth’s heart beat’. 

This is the resonance field which keeps balance within the earth’s electromagnetic low vibratory energy field, tapped into by bees, insects, birds and plants, and indeed, by our own instinct of natural inner and outer balance.

Human health is not unaffected. On goes the cell phone – and immediately pulses of non-ironising radiation are activated which pass through the human temple and into the soft brain tissue, with potentially lasting consequences according to British radiation expert Barry Trower and other leading EMF specialist researchers.

All the while, those manning the digital and cybernetic control centres of the planet are alert to orders coming down from secret service operatives, to put an algorithmic tab on the communications made by ‘too effective’ dissidents, so their ‘offensive’ material can be traced and expunged.

If this fails to elicit the desired silencing, they have the option of setting up a reverse messaging system which, unbeknown to the receiver, sends a digital electronic message directly into the neocortex of the supposed renegade, with the tacit objective of destabilising his/her thoughts and emotions. This can, of course, be done to anyone – and no doubt is.

A vast ‘hive mind’ is thus brought into being, where carefully chosen thought and nervous system controlling pulses can be directed from a central digital control hub to wherever deemed necessary, to block the rise of creative and spiritual energies essential for a sane society and the greater positive evolution of mankind. 

Such pulses will not do the desired job to those who are spiritually aware. Such individuals remain immune.

5G/6G have the capacity to carry such mass invasiveness even further. To establish a virtual reality high-tech ‘smart’ environment which overlays the natural world which is our home. This is where the vastly popular digital Wi-Fi ‘convenience culture’ ultimately takes us.

So, how is this explained by your friendly regional telecommunications corporation?

“Hello, we are making a few small changes that will help you achieve higher quality tele-communications and save on old landline rental charges. We care about our customers and want to offer the best possible convenience advantages available today. Thank you for your attention”

Sincerely, Teledeception plc. 

Unthinkingly accepting what are sold as ‘convenient improvements’ to one’s daily life – can have big consequences. So next time you nonchalantly reach into your back pocket to pull out your mobile phone, know who it is you are supporting and what it is that you are killing-off.

Counteracting Chaos 

One of the first steps to take in countering cult imposed chaos, is to check one’s taken for granted unquestioned habits, in order to see if they may be a contributory factor.

Disruption by chaos, as I said at the beginning, can be eradicated by stepping back into a quiet space, to which I will now add – and reviewing one’s contribution to further supporting the source of disruption.

“Still shopping at the hypermarket?” Yes, I support corporate agribusiness.

“Still watching television?” Yes, I support mainstream fake news, the streaming of political dogma and general entertainment shows.

“Still playing with your EMF gismos and laptop?” Yes, I support crap soap opera movies, Net Flix distractions and war game apps.

“Still proud to troll around the multifarious features of your latest smartphone?” Yes, I support all smartphone technology that is taking over my life.

“Still searching for the highest interest rates at your chosen global banking institution?” Yes, of course, need to get the best rate going, even though I realise I may be supporting the global vampiring of the earth’s resources and profits of the war and weapons industry.

“Still going against the call of your soul by trying to ignore your addiction to the convenience culture slavery agenda?” Err, well, never thought about that. But it’s a soulless world and I need to operate in it in order to bring in sufficient income to maintain my life style.

You get it, of course. How many of these fundamental hurdles have you actually crossed? Only one or two – maybe none? Be honest. 

Do you consider yourself to be fighting injustice or supporting it?

Are you true to yourself – your real self – or are you still essentially embracing the chaos that provides a fertile base for the hypocritical life so ubiquitously manifesting today?

These are the admittedly brutal ‘in the mirror’ questions that we must ask ourselves and demand answers to. Answers in the form of actions that will end any further support of the chaos – and turn into a commitment to illuminate and live by truth.

There is no other way of supporting the deep change that must be brought about. It all starts with us, and we need to act bravely and conscientiously and to lead by example. 

If one is not able to set the necessary example, how can one expect others to?

Words unattached to actions have become empty and ultimately meaningless. Yet much of social media chat and smart-messaging is just that – an empty shell, and echo chamber that distracts from facing-up to reality and making a solid stand for the emancipation and regeneration of Life.

The crisis now at our door presents the best and most meaningful challenge that mankind has ever faced. It quite simply drives us to dig deep and unlock that hidden power within.

Dark manifestations are not just the domain of a satanic cult. They also emanate from our own seemingly locked-in behaviour patterns and are a reflection of the long term accumulated repression of our deeper instincts. It is well known that energetic natural and creative instincts not given expression, turn into their opposites and subsequently manifest as destructive powers.

The insentient anti-life power play will only be stopped in its tracks by an awakened mankind, able and willing to give full expression to the call of heart and soul. 

By repressing or ignoring the voice of soul/ heart wisdom, we enter the same territory as that of our dark-side oppressors. We too become loosh to fuel their malevolent attacks on human kind.  

The longer we leave this battle ground uncontested, the longer the satanists will prevail and the longer will we suffer the repercussions of our passivity – which is, in fact, a form of soul suicide.

No, dear friends, dare not entertain such a concept. Let us draw our symbolic golden swords and turn to face our oppressors head-on. 

At this highly auspicious moment, a previously latent power will rise up in us that transforms the ordinary into the extraordinary. That turns the timid silent witness into courageous spiritual warrior.

It is such heroic acts that will finally

We all have it in us to render such a service to humanity and to thus honour that Supreme Consciousness which entrusted us to take responsibility for perpetuating the momentum of creation.

*

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.

One Month Before Global Research’s Anniversary 

Julian Rose is an organic farmer, writer, broadcaster and international activist. He is author of four books of which the latest ‘Overcoming the Robotic Mind’ is a clarion call to resist the despotic New World Order takeover of our lives. Do visit his website for further information www.julianrose.info

He is a regular contributor to Global Research.

The original source of this article is Global Research

Copyright © Julian Rose, Global Research, 2024

https://www.globalresearch.ca/counteracting-cult-imposed-chaos/5865159