Israel has launched an invasion (October 7, 2023) of the Gaza Strip.
As outlined by Felicity Arbuthnot with foresight 10 years ago in a December, 30 2013 article:
“Israel is set to become a major exporter of gas and some oil, “If All Goes to Plan”.
In the current context, Israel’s “All Goes to Plan” option consists in bypassing Palestine and “Wiping Gaza off the Map”, as well confiscating ALL Gaza’s maritime offshore gas reserves, worth billions of dollars.
The ultimate objective is not only to exclude Palestinians from their homeland, it consists in confiscating the multi-billion dollar Gaza offshore Natural Gas reserves, namely those pertaining to the BG (BG Group) in 1999, as well the Levant discoveries of 2013.
Update. Israel’s Secret Intelligence Memorandum
An official “secret” memorandum authored by Israel’s Ministry of Intelligence “is recommending the forcible and permanent transfer of the Gaza Strip’s 2.2 million Palestinian residents to Egypt’s Sinai Peninsula”, namely to a refugee camp in Egyptian territory. There are indications of Israel-Egypt negotiations as well as consultations with the U.S.
The 10-page document, dated Oct. 13, 2023, bears the logo of the Intelligence Ministry … assesses three options regarding the future of the Palestinians in the Gaza Strip … It recommends a full population transfer as its preferred course of action. … The document, whose authenticity was confirmed by the ministry, has been translated into English in full here on +972. See below, click here or below to access complete document (10 pages)
First published on October 22, 2023. Video added on October 27, 2023, Update, November 1, 2023
***
Video: Michel Chossudovsky, Interview with Caroline Mailloux, Lux Media
“The Giant Leviathan natural gas field, in the eastern Mediterranean, discovered in December 2010, widely described [by governments and media] as “off the coast of Israel.”
These Levant reserves must be distinguished from those discovered in Gaza in 1999 by British Gas, which belong to Palestine. Felicity Arbuthnot’s analysis nonetheless confirms that “Part of the Leviathan Gas fields lie in Gazan territorial waters” (See Map Below).
Whilst Israel claims them as her very own treasure trove, only a fraction of the sea’s wealth lies in Israel’s bailiwick as maps. Much is still unexplored, but currently Palestine’s Gaza and the West Bank between them show the greatest discoveries… (Felicity Arbuthnot, 2013)
Flash Forward to October 2023
Netanyahu’s October 2023 declaration of war against 2.3 million people of the Gaza Strip is a continuation of its 2008-2009 invasion of Gaza under “Operation Cast Lead.”
The underlying objective is the outright military occupation of Gaza by Israel’s IDF forces and the expulsion of Palestinians from their homeland.
I should however mention that there are powerful financial interests which stand to benefit from Israel’s criminal undertaking (Genocide) directed against Gaza.
.
The ultimate objective is not only to exclude Palestinians from their homeland, it consists in confiscating the multi-billion dollar Gaza offshore Natural Gas reserves, namely those pertaining to the BG (BG Group) in 1999, as well the Levant discoveries of 2013.
Egypt-Israel “Secret Bilateral Talks”
In 2021-22, Egypt and Israel were involved in “secret bilateral talks” regarding “the extraction of natural gas off the coast of the Gaza Strip.
“Egypt succeeded in persuading Israel to start extracting natural gas off the coast of the Gaza Strip, after several months of secret bilateral talks.
This development … comes after years of Israeli objections to extract natural gas off the coast of Gaza on [alleged] security grounds, …
British Gas (BG Group) has also been dealing with the Tel Aviv government.
What is significant is that the civilian arm of the Hamas Gaza government has been bypassed in regards to exploration and development rights over the gas fields:
The field, which lies about 30 kilometers (19 miles) west of the Gaza coast, was discovered in 2000 by British Gas (currently BG Group) and is estimated to contain more than 1 trillion cubic feet of natural gas.
The official in the Egyptian intelligence service told Al-Monitor on condition of anonymity, “An Egyptian economic and security delegation discussed with the Israeli side for several months the issue of allowing the extraction of natural gas off the coast of Gaza. …Al-Monitor, October 22, 2022
A Memorandum of Understanding was signed between Egypt and Israel, which had the rubber-stamp of the Palestinian National Authority (PA):
“The Egyptian official explained that Israel required the start of practical measures to extract gas from the Gaza fields at the beginning of 2024, to ensure its own security. (Al-Monitor, October 22, 2022
Netanyahu’s Timeline: “Before The Beginning of 2024”
The timeline resulting from these bilateral Israel-Egypt “secret talks” i.e. confiscation of Palestine’s offshore Maritime Gas Reserves is “The Beginning of 2024”.
Geologists and natural resources economists have confirmed that the Occupied Palestinian Territory lies above sizeable reservoirs of oil and natural gas wealth, in Area C of the occupied West Bank and the Mediterranean coast off the Gaza Strip.
However, occupation continues to prevent Palestinians from developing their energy fields so as to exploit and benefit from such assets. As such, the Palestinian people have been denied the benefits of using this natural resource to finance socioeconomic development and meet their need for energy.
The accumulated losses are estimated in the billions of dollars. The longer Israel prevents Palestinians from exploiting their own oil and natural gas reserves, the greater the opportunity costs and the greater the total costs of the occupation borne by Palestinians become.
This study identifies and assesses existing and potential Palestinian oil and natural gas reserves that could be exploited for the benefit of the Palestinian people, which Israel is either preventing them from exploiting or is exploiting without due regard for international law. (UNCTAD, August 2019, emphasis added, download complete report)
Crimes against Humanity
In the words of Netanyahu who is on Record for Supporting and Financing a faction within Hamas:
“Anyone who wants to thwart the establishment of a Palestinian state has to support bolstering Hamas and transferring money to Hamas … This is part of our strategy – to isolate the Palestinians in Gaza from the Palestinians in the West Bank.”
(Benjamin Netanyahu, statement at a March 2019 meeting of his Likud Party’s Knesset members, Haaretz, October 9, 2023, emphasis added)
“Hamas was treated as a partner to the detriment of the Palestinian Authority to prevent Abbas from moving towards creating a Palestinian State. Hamas was promoted from a terrorist group to an organization with which Israel conducted negotiations through Egypt, and which was allowed to receive suitcases containing millions of dollars from Qatar through the Gaza crossings.”
Crimes against humanity beyond description by the Netanyahu government against the People of Palestine,
Crimes also committed against the People of Israel who are the victims of the Hamas “False Flag Attack” carefully engineered by Mossad-IDF.
There are deep-seated divisions within Hamas. Our “False Flag” analysis pertains to a military-intelligence faction within Hamas which cooperates with Israeli and U.S. intelligence. See:
Michel Chossudovsky, Global Research, October 21, 2023
Below is the 2013 article by Felicity Arbuthnot
Israel Gas-Oil and Trouble in the Levant
by Felicity Arbuthnot
Global Research,
December 13, 2013
Israel is set to become a major exporter of gas and some oil, if all goes to plan. The giant Leviathan natural gas field, in the eastern Mediterranean, discovered in December 2010, is widely described as “off the coast of Israel.”
At the time the gas field was:
“ … the most prominent field ever found in the sub-explored area of the Levantine Basin, which covers about 83,000 square kilometres of the eastern Mediterranean region.” (i)
Coupled with Tamar field, in the same location, discovered in 2009, the prospects are for an energy bonanza for Israel, for Houston, Texas based Noble Energy and partners Delek Drilling, Avner Oil Exploration and Ratio Oil Exploration.
Also involved is Perth, Australia-based Woodside Petroleum, which has signed a memorandum of understanding for a thirty percent stake in the project, in negotiations which have been described as “up and down.”
There is currently speculation that Woodside might pull out of the deal: “ …since the original plans to refrigerate the gas for export were pursued when relations between Israel and Turkey were strained. That has changed, more recently, which has opened the door for gas to be piped to Turkey.”
The spoils of the Leviathan field has already expanded from an estimated 16.7 trillion cubic feet (tcf ) of gas to nineteen trillion – and counting:
”We’ve discovered nearly 40 tcf of gas, and we have roughly 19 tcf of that gas that’s available for export to both regional and extra-regional markets. We see exports reaching 2 billion cubic feet a day in capacity in the next decade. And we continue to explore.”, stated Noble Vice Chairman Keith Elliot (ii) There are also estimated to be possibly six hundred million barrels of oil, according to Michael Economides of energytribune.com (“Eastern Mediterranean Energy – the next Great Game.”)
However, even these estimates may prove modest. In their: “Assessment of Undiscovered Oil and Gas Resources of the Levant Basin Province, Eastern Mediterranean”, the US Department of the Interior’s US Geological Survey, wrote in 2010:
“We estimated a mean of 1.7 billion barrels of recoverable oil and a mean of 122 trillion cubic feet of recoverable gas in this province using a geology based assessment methodology.”
Nevertheless, Woodside Petroleum, might also be hesitant to become involved in further disputes, since they are already embroiled, with the Australian government, in a protracted one in East Timor relating to the bonanaza of energy and minerals beneath the Timor Sea, which has even led to East Timor accusing Australia “of bugging East Timorese officials during the negotiations over the agreement.”(iii)
Woodside’s conflict in East Timor however, may well pale against what might well erupt over the Leviathan and Tamar fields. The area is not for nothing called the Levantine Basin.
Whilst Israel claims them as her very own treasure trove, only a fraction of the sea’s wealth lies in Israel’s bailiwick as maps (iv, v, see below) clearly show.
Much is still unexplored, but currently Palestine’s Gaza and the West Bank between them show the greatest discoveries, with anything found in Lebanon and Syria’s territorial waters sure to involve claims from both countries.
In a pre-emptive move, on Christmas Day, Syria announced a deal with Russia to explore 2,190 kilometres (850 Sq. miles) for oil and gas off its Mediterranean coast, to be: “… financed by Russia, and should oil and gas be discovered in commercial quantities, Moscow will recover the exploration costs.”
Syrian Oil Minister, Ali Abbas said during the signing ceremony that the contract covers “25 years, over several phases.”
Syria, increasingly crippled by international sanctions, has seen oil production plummet by ninety percent since the largely Western fermented unrest began in March 2011. Gas production has nearly halved, from thirty million cubic metres a day, to 16.7 cubic metres daily.
The agreement is reported to have resulted from “months of long negotiations” between the two countries. Russia, as one of the Syrian government’s main backers, looks set to also become a major player in the Levant Basin’s energy wealth. (vi)
Lebanon disputes Israel’s map of the Israeli-Lebanese maritime border, filing their own map and claims with the UN in 2010. Israel claims Lebanon is in the process of granting oil and gas exploration licenses in what Israel claims as its “exclusive economic zone.”
That the US in the guise of Vice President Joe Biden, as honest broker, acting peace negotiator in the maritime border dispute would be laughable, were it not potential for Israel to attack their neighbour again. In a visit to Israel in March 2010, Biden announced: “There is absolutely no space between the United States and Israel when it comes to Israel’s security- none at all”, also announcing on arrival in Israel:”It’s good to be home.”
Given US decades of “peace brokering” between Israel and Palestine, this is already a road of pitfalls, one sidedness and duplicity, well traveled. There is trouble ahead.
Oh, and in demonology, Leviathan is one of the seven princes of Hell.
Almost fifteen years ago in December 2008, Israel invaded Gaza under “Operation Cast Lead (2008-2009)”.
The following article was first published by Global Research in January 2009 at the height of the Israeli bombing and invasion under Operation Cast Lead.
War and Natural Gas:
The Israeli Invasion and Gaza’s Offshore Gas Fields
by Michel Chossudovsky
January 8, 2009
The December 2008 military invasion of the Gaza Strip by Israeli Forces bears a direct relation to the control and ownership of strategic offshore gas reserves.
This is a war of conquest. Discovered in 2000, there are extensive gas reserves off the Gaza coastline.
British Gas (BG Group) and its partner, the Athens based Consolidated Contractors International Company (CCC) owned by Lebanon’s Sabbagh and Koury families, were granted oil and gas exploration rights in a 25 year agreement signed in November 1999 with the Palestinian Authority.
The rights to the offshore gas field are respectively British Gas (60 percent); Consolidated Contractors (CCC) (30 percent); and the Investment Fund of the Palestinian Authority (10 percent). (Haaretz, October 21, 2007).
The PA-BG-CCC agreement includes field development and the construction of a gas pipeline.(Middle East Economic Digest, Jan 5, 2001).
The BG licence covers the entire Gazan offshore marine area, which is contiguous to several Israeli offshore gas facilities. (See Map below). It should be noted that 60 percent of the gas reserves along the Gaza-Israel coastline belong to Palestine.
The BG Group drilled two wells in 2000: Gaza Marine-1 and Gaza Marine-2. Reserves are estimated by British Gas to be of the order of 1.4 trillion cubic feet, valued at approximately 4 billion dollars. These are the figures made public by British Gas. The size of Palestine’s gas reserves could be much larger.
Map 1
Map 2
Who Owns the Gas Fields
The issue of sovereignty over Gaza’s gas fields is crucial. From a legal standpoint, the gas reserves belong to Palestine.
The death of Yasser Arafat, the election of the Hamas government and the ruin of the Palestinian Authority have enabled Israel to establish de facto control over Gaza’s offshore gas reserves.
British Gas (BG Group) has been dealing with the Tel Aviv government. In turn, the Hamas government has been bypassed in regards to exploration and development rights over the gas fields.
The election of Prime Minister Ariel Sharon in 2001 was a major turning point. Palestine’s sovereignty over the offshore gas fields was challenged in the Israeli Supreme Court. Sharon stated unequivocally that “Israel would never buy gas from Palestine” intimating that Gaza’s offshore gas reserves belong to Israel.
In 2003, Ariel Sharon, vetoed an initial deal, which would allow British Gas to supply Israel with natural gas from Gaza’s offshore wells. (The Independent, August 19, 2003)
The election victory of Hamas in 2006 was conducive to the demise of the Palestinian Authority, which became confined to the West Bank, under the proxy regime of Mahmoud Abbas.
In 2006, British Gas “was close to signing a deal to pump the gas to Egypt.” (Times, May, 23, 2007). According to reports, British Prime Minister Tony Blair intervened on behalf of Israel with a view to shunting the agreement with Egypt.
The following year, in May 2007, the Israeli Cabinet approved a proposal by Prime Minister Ehud Olmert “to buy gas from the Palestinian Authority.” The proposed contract was for $4 billion, with profits of the order of $2 billion of which one billion was to go the Palestinians.
Tel Aviv, however, had no intention on sharing the revenues with Palestine. An Israeli team of negotiators was set up by the Israeli Cabinet to thrash out a deal with the BG Group, bypassing both the Hamas government and the Palestinian Authority:
“Israeli defence authorities want the Palestinians to be paid in goods and services and insist that no money go to the Hamas-controlled Government.” (Ibid, emphasis added)
The objective was essentially to nullify the contract signed in 1999 between the BG Group and the Palestinian Authority under Yasser Arafat.
Under the proposed 2007 agreement with BG, Palestinian gas from Gaza’s offshore wells was to be channeled by an undersea pipeline to the Israeli seaport of Ashkelon, thereby transferring control over the sale of the natural gas to Israel.
The deal fell through. The negotiations were suspended:
“Mossad Chief Meir Dagan opposed the transaction on security grounds, that the proceeds would fund terror”. (Member of Knesset Gilad Erdan, Address to the Knesset on “The Intention of Deputy Prime Minister Ehud Olmert to Purchase Gas from the Palestinians When Payment Will Serve Hamas,” March 1, 2006, quoted in Lt. Gen. (ret.) Moshe Yaalon, Does the Prospective Purchase of British Gas from Gaza’s Coastal Waters Threaten Israel’s National Security? Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs, October 2007)
Israel’s intent was to foreclose the possibility that royalties be paid to the Palestinians. In December 2007, The BG Group withdrew from the negotiations with Israel and in January 2008 they closed their office in Israel.(BG website).
Invasion Plan on The Drawing Board
The invasion plan of the Gaza Strip under “Operation Cast Lead” was set in motion in June 2008, according to Israeli military sources:
“Sources in the defense establishment said Defense Minister Ehud Barak instructed the Israel Defense Forces to prepare for the operation over six months ago [June or before June] , even as Israel was beginning to negotiate a ceasefire agreement with Hamas.”(Barak Ravid, Operation “Cast Lead”: Israeli Air Force strike followed months of planning, Haaretz, December 27, 2008)
That very same month, the Israeli authorities contacted British Gas, with a view to resuming crucial negotiations pertaining to the purchase of Gaza’s natural gas:
“Both Ministry of Finance director general Yarom Ariav and Ministry of National Infrastructures director general Hezi Kugler agreed to inform BG of Israel’s wish to renew the talks.
The sources added that BG has not yet officially responded to Israel’s request, but that company executives would probably come to Israel in a few weeks to hold talks with government officials.” (Globes online- Israel’s Business Arena, June 23, 2008)
The decision to speed up negotiations with British Gas (BG Group) coincided, chronologically, with the planning of the invasion of Gaza initiated in June. It would appear that Israel was anxious to reach an agreement with the BG Group prior to the invasion, which was already in an advanced planning stage.
Moreover, these negotiations with British Gas were conducted by the Ehud Olmert government with the knowledge that a military invasion was on the drawing board. In all likelihood, a new “post war” political-territorial arrangement for the Gaza strip was also being contemplated by the Israeli government.
In fact, negotiations between British Gas and Israeli officials were ongoing in October 2008, 2-3 months prior to the commencement of the bombings on December 27th.
In November 2008, the Israeli Ministry of Finance and the Ministry of National Infrastructures instructed Israel Electric Corporation (IEC) to enter into negotiations with British Gas, on the purchase of natural gas from the BG’s offshore concession in Gaza. (Globes, November 13, 2008)
“Ministry of Finance director general Yarom Ariav and Ministry of National Infrastructures director general Hezi Kugler wrote to IEC CEO Amos Lasker recently, informing him of the government’s decision to allow negotiations to go forward, in line with the framework proposal it approved earlier this year.
The IEC board, headed by chairman Moti Friedman, approved the principles of the framework proposal a few weeks ago. The talks with BG Group will begin once the board approves the exemption from a tender.” (Globes Nov. 13, 2008)
Gaza and Energy Geopolitics
The military occupation of Gaza is intent upon transferring the sovereignty of the gas fields to Israel in violation of international law.
What can we expect in the wake of the invasion?
What is the intent of Israel with regard to Palestine’s Natural Gas reserves?
A new territorial arrangement, with the stationing of Israeli and/or “peacekeeping” troops?
The militarization of the entire Gaza coastline, which is strategic for Israel?
The outright confiscation of Palestinian gas fields and the unilateral declaration of Israeli sovereignty over Gaza’s maritime areas?
If this were to occur, the Gaza gas fields would be integrated into Israel’s offshore installations, which are contiguous to those of the Gaza Strip. (See Map 1 above)
These various offshore installations are also linked up to Israel’s energy transport corridor, extending from the port of Eilat, which is an oil pipeline terminal, on the Red Sea to the seaport – pipeline terminal at Ashkelon, and northwards to Haifa, and eventually linking up through a proposed Israeli-Turkish pipeline with the Turkish port of Ceyhan.
Map 3
Ceyhan is the terminal of the Baku, Tblisi Ceyhan Trans Caspian pipeline.
“What is envisaged is to link the BTC pipeline to the Trans-Israel Eilat-Ashkelon pipeline, also known as Israel’s Tipline.” (See Michel Chossudovsky, The War on Lebanon and the Battle for Oil, Global Research, July 23, 2006)
Readers’ Thanks to Michel Chossudovsky
Thank you for your continued activism and truth-telling. A thankless task but the right thing.
You Sir are a Canadian hero. Thank you for your wonderful site and all the fine work you have done over the many years I have followed your work.
Michel Chossudovsky, you are a voice of reason and understanding. Thank you for your awareness. I am a Syrian/American. I heard one voice during the bombing of Gaza of a child screaming for his father and his father could not reach him, but he cried out to him, “PUT YOUR HEART ON MY HEART.” Those humans who are putting your Heart on Palestine, thank you.
The original source of this article is Global Research
The following text was first presented at the Rosa Luxemburg Conference, Berlin, January 11, 2014. It was subsequently included in my book entitled The Globalization of War. America’s Long War against Humanity
The concept of the Long War is part of US military doctrine since the end of World War II. In many regards, today’s wars are a continuation of the Second World War.
Worldwide militarization is also part of a global economic agenda, namely the application of the neoliberal economic policy model which has led to the impoverishment of large sectors of the World population.
Of utmost relevance to an understanding of the war in Ukraine, the genocide against Palestine and the unfolding war in the Middle East
Michel Chossudovsky, September 18, 2022, November 15, 2023, April 12, 2024
***
Video: Michel Chossudovsky’s Presentation
Berlin, January 11, 2014
.
Imperial Conquest: America’s “Long War” against Humanity.
Worldwide Militarization
by
Michel Chossudovsky
Introduction
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. This “war without borders” is being carried out at the crossroads of the most serious economic crisis in World history, which has been conducive to the impoverishment of large sectors of the World population.
The Pentagon’s global military design is one of world conquest. The military deployment of US-NATO forces is occurring in several regions of the world simultaneously.
The concept of the “Long War” has characterized US military doctrine since the end of World War II.
Worldwide militarization is part of a global economic agenda.
General Wesley Clark (right)
Militarization at the global level is instrumented through the US military’s Unified Command structure: the entire planet is divided up into geographic Combatant Commands under the control of the Pentagon. US Strategic Command (USSTRATCOM) Headquarters in Omaha, Nebraska plays a central role in coordinating military operations.
According to former NATO Commander General Wesley Clark, the Pentagon’s military road-map consists of a sequence of war theatres:
“[The] five-year campaign plan [includes]… a total of seven countries, beginning with Iraq, then Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Iran, Somalia and Sudan.” (Democracy Now, 2007)
The ongoing war on Syria is a stepping stone towards a war on Iran, which could lead to a process of military escalation.
Russia and China, which are allies of both Syria and Iran, are also targeted by US-NATO. In the wake of the Cold War, nuclear weapons are no longer a weapon of last resort (deterrence), their use is now contemplated in the conventional war theatre.
The road to Tehran goes through Damascus. A US-NATO sponsored war on Iran would involve, as a first step, a destabilization campaign (“regime change”) including covert intelligence operations in support of Al Qaeda affiliated rebel forces directed against the Syria.
The geopolitics of oil and oil pipelines is crucial in the conduct of these military operations. The broader Middle East- Central Asian region encompasses more than 60 percent of the World’s oil reserves.
There are at present five distinct war theatres in the Middle East Central Asian region: Afghanistan-Pakistan, Iraq, Palestine, Libya and Syria.
An all out military attack on Syria would lead to the integration of these separate war theaters, eventually leading towards a broader Middle East-Central Asian war, engulfing an entire region from North Africa and the Mediterranean to Afghanistan, Pakistan and China’s Western frontier.
“Waging a War without Borders”: The 2000 Project for the New American Century (PNAC).
This project was first formulated by the Neocons in September 2000
The PNAC’s declared objectives were to “fight and decisively win multiple, simultaneous major theater wars” in different regions of the world as well as perform the so-called military “constabulary” duties “associated with shaping the security environment in critical regions”.
Military actions are implemented simultaneously in different regions of the world (as outlined in the PNAC) as well as sequentially.
Global constabulary implies a worldwide process of military policing and interventionism, including covert operations and “regime change”, all of which are carried out in accordance with a “humanitarian mandate”.
This military agenda undertaken under the banner of “Responsibility to Protect” largely prevails under the Obama presidency.
Media propaganda has been instrumental is sustaining the fiction of humanitarian warfare.
.
The Legacy of World War II. Demise of Competing Imperialist powers
What is referred euphemistically as the “post war era” is in fact a period of continuous wars and militarization. This must be understood when focussing on contemporary US led wars. While commemorating World War I, it is also important to understand that there is a continuum of US military strategies going back to World War I and the inter-war period.
The US emerges in the wake of the Second World War unscathed. Most of the fighting was conducted by its allies, a strategy which the US has used consistently in post-world war II conflicts. Moreover, a careful examination of World War II suggests that US corporate interests including Rockefeller’s Standard Oil supported both its allies and its enemies including Nazi Germany well beyond the US’s entry into World War II in 1941. The strategic objective was to weaken both sides, namely to destabilize competing imperialist powers.
Emerging as the victor nation in the wake of World War II, the US has determined the political and economic contours of post-War Western Europe. US troops are stationed in several European countries. Both its World War II adversaries (Germany, Japan, Italy) as well as its allies (France, U.K. Belgium, the Netherlands) have been weakened. With the exception of the U.K. which is part of the Anglo-American axis, these countries are outgoing colonial powers, displaced by US hegemony. Their pre-World War II colonial territories including Indonesia, The Congo, Indochina, Rwanda (among others) have been gradually integrated over a period of half a century into a dominant US sphere of influence.
In Africa, the process of displacement of France’s sphere of influence is still ongoing. The US is currently taking over the control of France and Belgium’s former colonies in Central Africa and West Africa. Washington also exerts a decisive role in the Maghreb.
“Internal Colonialism” in the European Union
A complex form of “internal colonialism” is also emerging in the European Union. US financial institutions and business conglomerates together with their European partners are prevalent in setting both the monetary, trade and investment agenda.
Politics are subordinated to dominant financial interests. What is also unfolding in terms of secret trade negotiations (under the TTIP and CETA), is a process of economic and political integration between the EU and North America. These agreements together with the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) constitute the building blocks of a process of global economic domination.
Meanwhile, presidential and parliamentary elections in the EU, including Germany, Italy and France (e.g. Sarkozy and Hollande) are increasingly the object of covert political interference (modeled on the color revolutions), namely US sponsored regime change. The fundamental question is to what extent are European leaders political proxies.
US Sponsored Wars and Military Intelligence Operations
This entire period (1945- present) has been marked by a succession of US sponsored wars and military-intelligence interventions in all major regions of the World.
We are not dealing with piecemeal military operations pertaining to specific countries and regions: There is a military roadmap, a sequence of military operations. Non-conventional forms of intervention including State sponsored terrorist attacks rather than theater war have also been launched.
America’s war is a cohesive and coordinated plan of Worldwide military conquest which serves dominant financial and corporate interests. The structure of alliances including NATO is crucial.
The European Union plays a central role in this military agenda. The member states of the EU are allies of the Anglo-American axis, but at the same time, a restructuring process is occurring within the EU, whereby previously sovereign countries are increasingly under the jurisdiction of powerful financial institutions.
The imposition of the IMF’s deadly economic reforms on several European countries is indicative of America’s interference in European affairs. What is at stake is a major shift in EU political and economic structures, whereby member states of the EU are de facto re-categorized by the IMF and treated in the same way as an indebted Third World country.
Military Strategy
While the US has intervened militarily in major regions of the World, the thrust of US foreign policy is to have these wars fought by America’s allies or to resort to non-conventional forms of warfare.
The thrust of this agenda is twofold:
1)US military might is coupled with that of “Global NATO” including Israel. We are dealing with a formidable force, in terms of advanced weapons systems. US military bases have been established in all major regions of the World under the geographical command structure. A new African command has been established.
2) Military action supports powerful economic and financial interests. A strategy of “Economic Warfare” under the neoliberal agenda is implemented in close coordination with military planning.
The purpose of warfare is not conquest per se. The US lost the Vietnam war, but the ultimate objective was to destroy Vietnam as a sovereign country.
Vietnam together with Cambodia today constitute a new impoverished frontier of the global cheap labor economy.
The imperial project is predicated on economic conquest, implying the confiscation and appropriation of the wealth and resources of sovereign countries. In the Middle East, successive wars have been geared towards the confiscation of oil and gas reserves.
Countries are destroyed, often transformed into territories, sovereignty is foregone, national institutions collapse, the national economy is destroyed through the imposition of “free market” reforms under the helm of the IMF, unemployment becomes rampant, social services are dismantled, wages collapse, and people are impoverished.
The ruling capitalist elites in these countries are subordinated to those of the US and its allies. The nation’s assets and natural resources are transferred into the hands of foreign investors through a privatization program imposed by the invading forces.
Historical Background: Nuclear Weapons. The Legacy of Hiroshima and Nagasaki
America’s early nuclear weapons doctrine under the Manhattan Project was not based on the Cold War notions of “Deterrence” and “Mutually Assured Destruction” (MAD). Contemporary post Cold War US nuclear doctrine is based on the notion that nuclear weapons can be used in the conventional war theater and that these weapons are “harmless to civilians”.
The strategic objective in the use of both conventional and nuclear attacks has been to trigger “mass casualty producing events” resulting in tens of thousands of deaths.
This strategy first applied during World War II in Japan and Germany was to terrorize an entire nation, as a means of military conquest.
In Japan, military targets were not the main objective: the notion of “collateral damage” was used as a justification for the mass killing of civilians, under the official pretence that Hiroshima was “a military base” and that civilians were not the target.
In the words of president Harry Truman:
“We have discovered the most terrible bomb in the history of the world. … 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…
“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]
Harry Truman
Nobody within the upper echelons of the US government and military believed that Hiroshima was a military base, Truman was lying to himself and to the American public.
To this day, the use of nuclear weapons against Japan is justified as a necessary cost for bringing the war to an end and ultimately “saving lives”.
Prior to Hiroshima, the US extensively used fire bombs in Japan resulting in large civilian casualties. In Germany, allied forces extensively bombed and destroyed German cities in the latter part of the war targeting civilians rather than military installations.
The US nuclear weapons arsenal has grown considerably. In the post Cold era, ArmsControl.org (April 2013) confirms that the United States
“possesses 5,113 nuclear warheads, including tactical, strategic, and non-deployed weapons.”
According to the latest official New START declaration, out of more than 5113 nuclear weapons,
“the US deploys 1,654 strategic nuclear warheads on 792 deployed ICBMs, SLBMs, and strategic bombers…
Moreover, according to The Federation of American Scientists (FAS) the U.S. possesses 500 tactical nuclear warheads, many of which are deployed in non-nuclear states including Germany, Italy, Turkey, Belgium, the Netherlands.
The History of War Crimes
The notion of mass casualty producing events prevails to this date in US military strategies. Invariably, as in the case of Syria, the civilian casualties of war committed by the aggressor are blamed on the victims.
The period extending from the Korean war to the present is marked by a succession of US sponsored theatre wars (Korea Vietnam, Cambodia, Afghanistan, Iraq, and Yugoslavia), various forms of military intervention including low intensity conflicts, “civil wars” (The Congo, Angola, Somalia, Ethiopia, Rwanda, Sudan), military coups, US sponsored death squadrons and massacres (Chile, Guatemala, Honduras, Argentina, Indonesia, Thailand, Philippines), covert wars led by US intelligence, US-NATO sponsored military intervention in Libya (using Al Qaeda rebels as their foot soldiers sponsored by Western intelligence).
The war on Syria is essentially a covert war of aggression whereby the Western military alliance and its GCC partners are supporting a terrorist insurgency. The objective is to destabilize Syria as a nation state.
The objective has not been to win these wars but in essence to destabilize these countries as nation states as well as impose a proxy government which acts on behalf of Western interests. Accounting for these various operations, the United States has attacked, directly or indirectly, some 44 countries in different regions of the developing world, since August 1945, a number of them many times (Eric Waddell, 2003):
“The avowed objective of these military interventions has been to effect ‘regime change’. The cloaks of “human rights” and of “democracy were invariably evoked to justify what were unilateral and illegal acts.” (Eric Waddell, 2003)
Destroying Internationalism: The Truman Doctrine
The broader objective of global military dominance in the wake of World War II in support of an imperial project was formulated under the Truman administration in the late 1940s at the outset of the Cold War. It was reaffirmed by US President George Herbert Walker Bush in a historical 1990 address to a joint session of the US Congress and the Senate in which he proclaimed a New World Order emerging from the downfall of the Berlin Wall and the disintegration of the Soviet block.
The ideological underpinning of this agenda are to be found in what is known as the “Truman Doctrine”, first formulated by foreign policy adviser George F. Kennan in a 1948 in a State Department brief.
George Kennan
What this 1948 document conveys is continuity in US foreign policy, from “Containment” during the Cold War to “Pre-emptive” Warfare and “War on Terrorism”. It states in polite terms that the US should seek economic and strategic dominance through military means:
Furthermore, we have about 50% of the world’s wealth but only 6.3% of its population. This disparity is particularly great as between ourselves and the peoples of Asia. In this situation, we cannot fail to be the object of envy and resentment. Our real task in the coming period is to devise a pattern of relationships which will permit us to maintain this position of disparity without positive detriment to our national security.To do so, we will have to dispense with all sentimentality and day-dreaming; and our attention will have to be concentrated everywhere on our immediate national objectives. We need not deceive ourselves that we can afford today the luxury of altruism and world-benefaction. (…)
In the face of this situation we would be better off to dispense now with a number of the concepts which have underlined our thinking with regard to the Far East. We should dispense with the aspiration to “be liked” or to be regarded as the repository of a high-minded international altruism. We should stop putting ourselves in the position of being our brothers’ keeper and refrain from offering moral and ideological advice. We should cease to talk about vague and—for the Far East—unreal objectives such as human rights, the raising of the living standards, and democratization. The day is not far off when we are going to have to deal in straight power concepts. The less we are then hampered by idealistic slogans, the better (George f. Kennan, 1948 State Department Brief)
The planned disintegration of the United Nations system as an independent and influential international body has been on the drawing board of US foreign policy since the inception of the United Nations in 1946. Its planned demise was an integral part of the Truman doctrine as defined in 1948. From the very inception of the UN, Washington has sought on the one hand to control it to its advantage, while also seeking to weakening and ultimately destroy the UN system.
In the words of George Kennan:
“Occasionally, it [the United Nations] has served a useful purpose. But by and large it has created more problems than it has solved, and has led to a considerable dispersal of our diplomatic effort. And in our efforts to use the UN majority for major political purposes we are playing with a dangerous weapon which may some day turn against us. This is a situation which warrants most careful study and foresight on our part. (George Kennan, 1948)
Although officially committed to the “international community”, Washington has largely played lip service to the United Nations. Today the UN is in many regards an appendage of the US State apparatus.
Rather than undermining the UN as an institution, the US and its allies exert control over the Secretariat and key UN agencies. Since Gulf War I, the UN has largely acted as a rubber stamp. It has closed its eyes to US war crimes, it has implemented so-called peacekeeping operations on behalf of the Anglo-American invaders, in violation of the UN Charter. Following the de facto “dismissal” of Secretary General Boutros Boutros Ghali, UN Secretaries General Kofi Annan and Ban ki Moon have became a tool of US foreign policy, taking their orders directly from Washington.
Building a US Sphere of Influence in East and South East Asia
The Truman doctrine discussed above was the culmination of a post World War II US military strategy initiated with the nuclear bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki in August 1945 and the surrender of Japan.
In East Asia it consisted in the post-war occupation of Japan as well the US takeover of Japan’s colonial Empire including South Korea (Korea was annexed to Japan under the 1910 Japan–Korea Annexation Treaty).
Following Imperial Japan’s defeat in World War II, a US sphere of influence throughout East and South East Asia was established in the territories of Japan’s former “Great East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere”.
America’s hegemony in Asia was largely based on establishing a sphere of influence in countries under the colonial jurisdiction of Japan, France and the Netherlands.
The US sphere of influence in Asia –which was built up over a period of more than 20 years– included the Philippines (a US possession which was occupied by Japan during World War II), South Korea (annexed to Japan in 1910), Thailand (a Japanese protectorate during World War II), Indonesia (a Dutch colony occupied by Japan during World War II, which becomes a de facto US proxy State following the establishment of the Suharto military dictatorship in 1965).
This US sphere of influence in Asia also extended its grip into France’s former colonial possessions in Indochina, including Vietnam, Laos and Cambodia, which were under Japanese military occupation during World War II.
Obama’s “Pivot to Asia” which overtly threatens China is the endgame of this historical process.
The Korean War (1950-1953) was the first major military operation undertaken by the US in the wake of World War II, launched at the very outset of what was euphemistically called “The Cold War”. In many respects it was a continuation of World War II, whereby Korean lands under Japanese colonial occupation were, from one day to the next, handed over to a new colonial power, the United States of America.
In South Korea on September 8, 1945, three weeks after the surrender of Japan on August 15th 1945. Moreover, Japanese officials in South Korea assisted the US Army Military Government (USAMG) (1945-48) led by General Hodge in ensuring this transition. Japanese colonial administrators in Seoul as well as their Korean police officials worked hand in glove with the new colonial masters.
While Japan was treated as a defeated Empire, South Korea was identified as a colonial territory to be administered under US military rule and US occupation forces. America’s handpicked appointee Sygman Rhee was flown into Seoul in October 1945, in General Douglas MacArthur’s personal airplane.
The bombing raids directed against civilians in Japan and Germany at the end of World War II as well as the War on Korea (1950-53) had set the stage for the implementation of mass casualty producing events: extensive crimes were committed by US forces. US Major General William F Dean “reported that most of the North Korean cities and villages he saw were either rubble or snow-covered wastelands”
General Curtis LeMay [left] who coordinated the bombing raids against North Korea brazenly acknowledged that:
“Over a period of three years or so we killed off – what – twenty percent of the population. … We burned down every town in North Korea and South Korea, too”.
According to Brian Willson:
It is now believed that the population north of the imposed 38th Parallel lost nearly a third its population of 8 – 9 million people during the 37-month long “hot” war, 1950 – 1953, perhaps an unprecedented percentage of mortality suffered by one nation due to the belligerence of another.”
North Korea has been threatened of an attack with US nuclear weapons for more than 60 years.
From the Truman Doctrine to Clinton, Bush and Obama
There has been continuity throughout the post-war era, from Korea and Vietnam to the present.
The Neo-conservative agenda under the Bush administration should be viewed as the culmination of a (bipartisan) “Post War” foreign policy framework, which provides the basis for the planning of the contemporary wars and atrocities including the setting up of torture chambers, concentration camps and the extensive use of prohibited weapons directed against civilians.
Under Obama, this agenda has become increasingly cohesive with the legalization of extrajudicial killings of US citizens under the anti-terrorist legislation, the extensive use of drone attacks against civilians, the massacres ordered by the US-NATO-Israel alliance directed against Syrian civilians.
From Korea, Vietnam and Afghanistan, to the CIA sponsored military coups in Latin America and Southeast Asia, the objective has been to ensure US military hegemony and global economic domination, as initially formulated under the “Truman Doctrine”. Despite significant policy differences, successive Democratic and Republican administrations, from Harry Truman to Obama have carried out this global military agenda.
This entire “post war period” is marked by extensive war crimes resulting in the death of more than twenty million people. This figure does not include those who perished as a result of poverty, starvation and disease.
What we are dealing with is a criminal US foreign policy agenda. Media propaganda has served to obfuscate this agenda. US interventionism is invariably upheld as a humanitarian endeavor. Meanwhile, so-called progressive leftists and “anti-war activists” supported by corporate foundations have upheld this agenda on humanitarian grounds.
Criminalization does not pertain to one or more heads of State. It pertains to the entire State system, it’s various civilian and military institutions as well as the powerful corporate interests behind the formulation of US foreign policy, the Washington think tanks, the creditor institutions which finance the military machine.
War crimes are the result of the criminalization of the US State and foreign policy apparatus. We are dealing specifically with individual war criminals, but with a process involving decision makers acting at different level, with a mandate to carry out war crimes, following established guidelines and procedures.
What distinguishes the Bush and Obama administrations in relation to the historical record of US sponsored crimes and atrocities, is that the concentration camps, targeted assassinations and torture chambers are now openly considered as legitimate forms of intervention, which sustain “the global war on terrorism” and support the spread of Western democracy.
The Wars of the 21st Century: From the Cold War to the “Global War on Terrorism”
The alleged mastermind behind the 9/11 terrorists attacks, Saudi-born Osama bin Laden, was recruited during the Soviet-Afghan war, “ironically under the auspices of the CIA, to fight Soviet invaders”
From the outset of the Soviet-Afghan war in the early 1980s, the US intelligence apparatus has supported the formation of “Islamic brigades”.
9/11 and the Invasion of Afghanistan
The September 11, 2001 attacks have played a crucial role in the formulation of US military doctrine, namely in sustaining the legend that Al Qaeda is an enemy of the Western world when in fact it is a construct of US intelligence, which is used not only as pretext to wage war on humanitarian grounds but also as an instrument of non-conventional warfare.
The legal argument used by Washington and NATO to invade Afghanistan was that the September 11 attacks constituted an undeclared “armed attack” “from abroad” by an unnamed foreign power, and that consequently “the laws of war” apply, allowing the nation under attack, to strike back in the name of “self-defence”.
The “Global War on Terrorism” was officially launched by the Bush administration on September 11, 2001. On the following morning (September 12, 2001), NATO’s North Atlantic Council meeting in Brussels, adopted the following resolution:
“if it is determined that the [September 11, 2001] attack against the United States was directed from abroad [Afghanistan] against “The North Atlantic area“, it shall be regarded as an action covered by Article 5 of the Washington Treaty”. (emphasis added)
Afghanistan was invaded on October 7, 2001 under NATO’s doctrine of collective security: an attack on one member of the Atlantic Alliance is an attack on all members of Atlantic alliance. The presumption was that the US had been attacked by Afghanistan on September 11, 2001, an absurd proposition.
In the wake of 9/11, the creation of this “outside enemy” served to obfuscate the real economic and strategic objectives behind the American-led wars in the Middle East and Central Asia. Waged on the grounds of self-defense, the pre-emptive war is upheld as a “just war” with a humanitarian mandate.
Pre-emptive war directed against “Islamic terrorists” is required to defend the Homeland. Realities are turned upside down: America and the Western World are under attack.
In the wake of 9/11, the creation of this “outside enemy” served to obfuscate the real economic and strategic objectives behind the American-led wars in the Middle East and Central Asia, which encompasses more than 60 percent of the Wortld’s oil and gas reserves..
Waged on the grounds of self-defense, the pre-emptive war is upheld as a “just war” with a humanitarian mandate.
Propaganda purports to erase the history of Al Qaeda created by the CIA, drown the truth and “kill the evidence” on how this “outside enemy” was fabricated and transformed into “Enemy Number One”.
What the media does not mention is that the terrorists in substance are paid killers, supported by the US and NATO.
Non-Conventional Warfare: Using Al Qaeda Rebels as the Foot Soldiers of the Western Military alliance
This strategy of using al Qaeda rebels as the foot soldiers of the Western military is of crucial significance. It has characterized US-NATO interventions in Yugoslavia, Afghanistan, Libya and Syria. It is currently part of a covert agenda to destabilize Iraq by supporting al Qaeda in Iraq and the Levant (AQIL).
US sponsored Al Qaeda terror brigades (covertly supported by Western intelligence) have also been deployed in Mali, Niger, Nigeria, the Central African Republic, Somalia and Yemen.
The objective is to create sectarian and ethnic divisions with a view to destabilizing or fracturing sovereign countries modelled on former Yugoslavia.
In the Middle East, the redrawing of political borders is contemplated by US military planners.
Note: The following map was prepared by Lieutenant-Colonel Ralph Peters. It was published in the Armed Forces Journal in June 2006, Peters is a retired colonel of the U.S. National War Academy. (Map Copyright Lieutenant-Colonel Ralph Peters 2006).
Although the map does not officially reflect Pentagon doctrine, it has been used in a training program at NATO’s Defense College for senior military officers. This map, as well as other similar maps, has most probably been used at the National War Academy as well as in military planning circles.
The War on Iran: World War III Scenario
As part of the Global War on Terrorism, the launching of an outright war using nuclear warheads against Iran – which has the world’s third largest known reserves of oil behind Saudi Arabia and Iraq – has been on the drawing board of the Pentagon since 2005. These plans are part of a broader Middle East Central Asian military agenda.
War on Iran is part of the Battle for Oil. Already during the Clinton administration, US Central Command (USCENTCOM) had formulated “in war theater plans” to invade both Iraq and Iran:
“…the 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. … 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 , emphasis added)
Public opinion remains largely unaware of the grave implications of these war plans, which contemplate the use of nuclear weapons, ironically in retaliation to Iran’s non-existent nuclear weapons program.
Moreover, 21st Century military technology combines an array of sophisticated weapons systems whose destructive power would overshadow the nuclear holocausts of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Lest we forget, the United States is the only country to have used nuclear weapons against civilians.
If such a war were to be launched, the entire Middle East/Central Asia region would be drawn into a conflagration. Humanity would be precipitated into a World War III scenario.
The danger of World War III is not front-page news. The mainstream media has excluded in-depth analysis and debate on the implications of these war plans.
NATO’s “Humanitarian Intervention” Mandate defined in an ICISS report on R2P (ight0
The Anti-war Movement in Crisis: Cooptation and “Manufactured Dissent”
The antiwar movement in several Western countries is in crisis, dominated by self-proclaimed progressives. Some of America’s wars are condemned outright, while others are heralded as “humanitarian interventions”. A significant segment of the US antiwar movement condemns the war but endorses the campaign against international terrorism, which constitutes the backbone of US military doctrine.
Historically, progressive social movements (including the World Social Forum) have been infiltrated, their leaders co-opted and manipulated, through the corporate funding of non-governmental organizations, trade unions and political parties. The ultimate purpose of “funding dissent” is to prevent the protest movement from challenging the legitimacy of the capitalist elites.
The “Just War” theory (Jus Ad Bellum) has served to camouflage the nature of US foreign policy, while providing a human face to the invaders.
A large segment of “progressive” opinion in the US and Western Europe is supportive of NATO’s R2P “humanitarian” mandate to the extent that these war plans are being carried out with the “rubber stamp” of civil society. Prominent “progressive” authors as well independent media outlets have supported regime change and NATO sponsored humanitarian intervention in Libya. Similarly, these same self proclaimed progressives have rallied in support of the US-NATO sponsored opposition in Syria.
Let us be under no illusions: This pseudo-progressive discourse is an instrument of propaganda. Several prominent “left” intellectuals –who claim to be opposed to US imperialism– have supported the imposition of “no fly zones” and “humanitarian interventions” against sovereign countries.
“Progressives” are funded and co-opted by elite foundations including Ford, Rockefeller, et al. The corporate elites have sought to fragment the people’s movement into a vast “do it yourself” mosaic. War and globalization are no longer in the forefront of civil society activism. Activism tends to be piecemeal. There is no integrated anti-globalization anti-war movement. The economic crisis is not seen as having a relationship to the US led war.
Dissent has been compartmentalized. Separate “issue oriented” protest movements (e.g. environment, anti-globalization, peace, women’s rights, climate change) are encouraged and generously funded as opposed to a cohesive mass movement. This mosaic was already prevalent in the counter G7 summits and People’s Summits of the 1990s.
The “Revolution Business”
The imperial World Order creates its own opposition.
The Occupy movement in the US is infiltrated and manipulated.
“Colored Revolutions” financed by Wall Street unfold in different countries (e.g. Egypt, Ukraine, Georgia, Thailand, ). The CIA through various front organizations has infiltrated mass movements in different parts of the World.
The Centre for Applied Non Violent Action and Strategies (CANVAS), for instance, under the auspices of Serbia’s OTPOR is a CIA sponsored entity which describes itself as “an International network of trainers and consultants” involved in the “Revolution Business”.
Funded by the National Endowment for Democracy (NED), it constitutes a consulting outfit, advising and training US sponsored opposition groups in more than 40 countries. Its clench fist logo has been adopted by numerous “revolutionary” groups.
In turn, a panoply of alternative media upholds the “Colored Revolutions” as constituting a “Great Awakening”, a mass movement directed against the very foundations of the capitalist World order.
In Egypt, for instance, several organizations involved in the Arab Spring including Kifaya and the April 6 Student movement were directly supported by US foundations and the US embassy in Cairo.
In a bitter irony, Washington was supporting the Mubarak dictatorship, including its atrocities, while also backing and financing its detractors, through the activities of Freedom House (FH) and the National Endowment for Democracy (NED). Both of these foundations have links to the US State Department and the US Congress.
Under the auspices of Freedom House, Egyptian dissidents and opponents of Hosni Mubarak had been received in May 2008 by Condoleezza Rice at the State Department and the US Congress. The Egyptian pro-democracy delegation to the State Department was described by Condoleezza Rice as “The Hope for the Future of Egypt”. In May 2009, Hillary Clinton met a delegation of Egyptian dissidents (see image below), several of which had met Condoleezza Rice a year earlier.
9/11 Truth
In numerous organizations including the trade union movement, the grassroots is betrayed by their leaders who are co-opted. The money trickles down from the corporate foundations, setting constraints on grassroots actions. Its called “manufacturing dissent”. Many of these NGO leaders are committed and well meaning individuals acting within a framework which sets the boundaries of dissent. The leaders of these movements are often co-opted, without even realizing that as a result of corporate funding their hands are tied.
In recent history, with the exception of Iraq, the so-called Western left namely “Progressives” have paid lip service to US-NATO military interventions in Yugoslavia, Afghanistan, Libya and Syria. “Progressives” also support the official 9/11 version of events. They deny 9/11 Truth.
“Progressives” acknowledge that the US was under attack on 9/11 and that the war on Afghanistan was a “Just War”. In the case of Afghanistan, the “self-defense” argument was accepted at face value as a legitimate response to the 9/11 attacks, without examining the fact that the US administration had not only supported the “Islamic terror network”, it was also instrumental in the installation of the Taliban government in 1995-96. It was tacitly implied that by supporting al Qaeda, Afghanistan had attacked America on September 11, 2001.
In 2001, when Afghanistan was bombed and later invaded, “progressives” largely upheld the administration’s “just cause” military doctrine. In the wake of 9/11, the antiwar movement against the illegal invasion of Afghanistan was isolated. The trade unions and civil society organizations had swallowed the media lies and government propaganda. They had accepted a war of retribution against Al Qaeda and the Taliban. Several prominent “left leaning” intellectuals upheld the “war on terrorism” agenda.
Media disinformation prevailed. People were misled as to the nature and objectives underlying the invasion of Afghanistan. Osama bin Laden and the Taliban were identified as the prime suspects of the 9/11 attacks, without a shred of evidence and without addressing the historical relationship between Al Qaeda and the US intelligence apparatus. In this regard, understanding 9/11 is crucial in formulating a consistent antiwar position. 9/11 is the pillar of US war propaganda; it sustains the illusion of an outside enemy, it justifies pre-emptive military intervention.
The logic pertaining to Syria was somewhat different. “Progressives” and mainstream “antiwar” organizations have supported so-called opposition forces without acknowledging that the mainstay of these forces is composed of Al Qaeda affiliated terrorists, recruited, trained and financed by US-NATO and their allies including Israel, Turkey, Qatar and Saudi Arabia. These antiwar groups, which previously supported NATO intervention in Libya, blame the Syrian government for the atrocities committed by the US sponsored Al Qaeda rebels.
Rebuilding the Antiwar Movement
What is required is to rebuild a mass movement. And this cannot be led and manipulated by self-proclaimed “progressives” with the financial support of corporate foundations.
The social base as well as the organizational structure of the antiwar movement must be transformed. America’s “Long War” is an imperialist project which sustains the financial structures and institutional foundations of the capitalist World Order. Behind this military agenda are powerful corporate interests including an extensive propaganda apparatus.
War and the Economic Crisis are intimately related. The Worldwide imposition of neoliberal macro-economic policy measures is part of the broader imperial agenda. And consequently, the broader movement against neoliberalism must be integrated into the anti-war movement.
Breaking the “Big Lie” which presents war as a humanitarian undertaking, means breaking a criminal project of global destruction, in which the quest for profit is the overriding force. This profit-driven military agenda destroys human values and transforms people into unconscious zombies.
The holding of mass demonstrations and antiwar protests is not enough. What is required is the development of a broad and well-organized grassroots antiwar network, across the land, nationally and internationally, which challenges the structures of power and authority as well as the nature of the capitalist World order. People must mobilize not only against the military agenda – the authority of the state and its officials must also be challenged.
A meaningful anti-war movement requires breaking the “war on terrorism” consensus and upholding 9/11 Truth. To reverse the tide of war and globalization requires a massive campaign of networking and outreach to inform people across the land, nationally and internationally, in neighborhoods, workplaces, parishes, schools, universities and municipalities, on the nature the imperial project, its military and economic dimensions, not to mention the dangers of a US sponsored nuclear war. This movement must also occur within the Armed Forces (including NATO) with a view to challenging the legitimacy of the military agenda.
The message should be loud and clear:
The US and its allies are behind the Al Qaeda terrorists who have committed countless atrocities against civilians on the specific instructions of the Western military alliance,
Neither Syria nor Iran are a threat to World Peace. Quite the opposite. The threat emanates from the US and its allies. Even in the case of a conventional war (without the use of nukes) , the proposed aerial bombardments directed against Iran could result in escalation, ultimately leading us into a broader war in the Middle East.
What has to be achieved:
Reveal the criminal nature of this military project.
Break once and for all the lies and falsehoods which sustain a “political consensus” in favor of a pre-emptive nuclear attack on Iran.
Undermine war propaganda, reveal the media lies, reverse the tide of disinformation, wage a consistent campaign against the corporate media.
Break the legitimacy of the warmongers in high office. Indict political leaders for war crimes.
Dismantle the multibillion dollar national intelligence apparatus.
Dismantle the US-sponsored military adventure and its corporate sponsors.
Bring home the troops.
Repeal the illusion that the state is committed to protecting its citizens.
Uphold 9/11 Truth. Reveal the falsehoods behind 9/11 which are used to justify the Middle East/Central Asian war under the banner of the “Global War on Terrorism” (GWOT).
Expose how a profit-driven war serves the vested interests of the banks, the defense contractors, the oil giants, the media giants and the biotech conglomerates.
Challenge the corporate media which deliberately obfuscates the causes and consequences of this war.
Reveal and take cognizance of the unspoken and tragic outcome of a war waged with nuclear weapons.
Call for the Dismantling of NATO.
Reorganize the system of international justice which protects the war criminals. Implement the prosecution of war criminals in high office.
Close down the weapons assembly plants and implement the foreclosure of major weapons producers.
Close down all US military bases in the US and around the world.
Develop an antiwar movement within the armed forces and establish bridges between the armed forces and the civilian antiwar movement.
Forcefully pressure governments of both NATO and non-NATO countries to withdraw from the US-led global military agenda.
Develop a consistent antiwar movement in Israel. Inform the citizens of Israel of the likely consequences of a US-NATO-Israeli attack on Iran.
Target the pro-war lobby groups including the pro-Israeli groups in the US.
Dismantle the homeland security state. Repeal the legitimacy of Obama’s extrajudicial assassinations. Repeal the drone wars directed against civilians.
Undermine the “militarization of law enforcement”. Reverse the gamut of anti-terrorist legislation in Western countries which is intended to repeal fundamental civil rights.
These are no easy tasks. They require an understanding of the power structure, of hegemonic relations between the military, intelligence, the state structures and corporate powers which are promoting this destructive agenda. Ultimately these power relations must be undermined with a view to changing the course of World history.
America’s hegemonic project in the post 9/11 era is the “Globalization of War” whereby the U.S.-NATO military machine —coupled with covert intelligence operations, economic sanctions and the thrust of “regime change”— is deployed in all major regions of the world. The threat of pre-emptive nuclear war is also used to black-mail countries into submission.
This “Long War against Humanity” is carried out at the height of the most serious economic crisis in modern history.
It is intimately related to a process of global financial restructuring, which has resulted in the collapse of national economies and the impoverishment of large sectors of the World population.
The ultimate objective is World conquest under the cloak of “human rights” and “Western democracy”.
In this new and expanded edition of Chossudovsky’s international best-seller, the author outlines the contours of a New World Order which feeds on human poverty and the destruction of the environment, generates social apartheid, encourages racism and ethnic strife and undermines the rights of women. The result as his detailed examples from all parts of the world show so convincingly, is a globalization of poverty.
This book is a skilful combination of lucid explanation and cogently argued critique of the fundamental directions in which our world is moving financially and economically.
In this new enlarged edition – which includes ten new chapters and a new introduction — the author reviews the causes and consequences of famine in Sub-Saharan Africa, the dramatic meltdown of financial markets, the demise of State social programs and the devastation resulting from corporate downsizing and trade liberalisation.
The ink was barely dry on President Biden’s signature transferring another $61 billion to the black hole called Ukraine, when the mainstream media broke the news that this was not the parting shot in a failed US policy. The elites have no intention of shutting down this gravy train, which transports wealth from the middle and working class to the wealthy and connected class.
Reuters wrote right after the aid bill was passed that, “Ukraine’s $61 billion lifeline is not enough.” Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell went on the Sunday shows after the bill was passed to say that $61 billion is “not a whole lot of money for us…” Well, that’s easy for him to say – after all it’s always easier to spend someone else’s money!
Ukraine’s foreign minister, Dmytro Kuleba, was far from grateful for the $170 billion we have shipped thus far to his country. In an interview with Foreign Policy magazine as the aid package was passed, Kuleba had the nerve to criticize the US for not producing weapons fast enough.
“If you cannot produce enough interceptors to help Ukraine win the war against the country that wants to destroy the world order, then how are you going to win in the war against perhaps an enemy who is stronger than Russia?”
How’s that for a “thank you”?
It may be understandable why the Ukrainians are frustrated. Most of this money is not going to help them fight Russia. US military aid to Ukraine has left our own stockpiles of weapons depleted, so the money is going to create new production lines to replace weapons already sent to Ukraine. It’s all about the US weapons industry. President Biden admitted as much when he said, “we are helping Ukraine while at the same time investing in our own industrial base.”
This is why Washington Is desperate to make sure that if Donald Trump returns to the White House, the “Ukraine” gravy train cannot be shut down by his – or future – administrations. Last week news broke that the Ukrainian government was in negotiations with the Biden Administration to sign a ten-year security agreement that would lock in US funding for Ukraine for the next two and a half US Administrations. That would unconstitutionally tie future presidents’ hands when it comes to foreign policy and would leave Americans on the hook for untold billions more dollars taken from them and sent to the weapons industry and to a corrupt foreign government.
The US weapons industry and its cheerleaders in Washington DC are determined to keep Ukraine money flowing…until they can figure out a way to gin up a war with China after losing the current war with Russia. That, of course, depends on whether there is anything left of us when the smoke clears.
When President Biden signed the $95 billion bill to keep wars going in Ukraine and Gaza and to provoke a future war with China, he called it “a good day for world peace.” Yes, and “War is peace.” Debt is good. Freedom is slavery. We are living in a post-truth society where billions spent on pointless wars are “not a whole lot of money.” But the piper will be paid and the debt will be cleared.
*
Note to readers: Please click the share button above. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.
The “leaked” announcement came yesterday – 21 May 2024 – as a surprise to most. Klaus Schwab the “eternal” CEO and founder of the World Economic Forum (WEF) steps back, not down, just back. He will henceforth no longer be the Chair of the Davos Forum and others around the world, but will continue being the head of the Board of Trustees – where the money flows and where strategic decisions are made.
In other words, he will still be influential in how the WEF plays out its dystopian agenda, how the constant FEAR propaganda is spread around the world, like the fake climate change – which will eliminate agriculture and farming as we know it to reach “net zero” by an imaginary target year, shiftable, of course, adapting to circumstances dictated by the “rules-based order” as CO2 is our arch-enemy; and we humanity must “build back better” – an idiotic idiom, created already some two decades ago, though, hardly anybody understands what it means.
Schwab will most likely continue defending such hegemonic nonsense.
Same with “Net Zero”. The willing sheeple just nod when they hear some of these invented clever-sounding but dumb-to-the-bones expressions – the inventors laugh tongue in cheek, watching the ignorant going along with the meaningless sloganism.
This sort of things, Schwab will still be nurturing – instead of from the front, now from the back; less visibility, less exposure to negative critique.
Who will succeed Klaus Schwab at the helm of the visible WEF? No successor has been officially announced, though nothing is “official” these days at the WEF and its sister institutions of darkness, the World Health Organization (WHO), the castrated and bought United Nations (UN), and the less visible but still highly active Club of Rome.
Coincidentally, they are all Swiss-based. Tax free. And with diplomatic immunity.
For the time being, WEF’s President, Børge Brende, former Foreign Minister of Norway, will be acting for Klaus Schwab. He is a possible successor of Klaus Schwab’s, but others are mentioned, like Tony Blair, former UK Prime Minister, ally-in-lies with former US President Bush, triggering the war in Iraq, leaving more than a million deaths; as well as Christine Lagarde, current president of the European Central Bank (ECB) and former Director General of the IMF.
Noteworthy is also that Schwab’s family, children, are all involved in one way or another in the WEF’s activities. Any one of them could emerge and take over.
In any case, for now, no major changes in policies and approaches to world affairs should be expected. The dystopian Forum is likely continuing attempting to turn the world into a dystopian heaven for the rich and powerful.
In the words of The Defender (CHD), Schwab is a “figurehead for the most powerful globalist interests — the ‘controligarchs.’” Controligarchy is the term to keep in mind when we think about the set of tyrannical, power-thirsty billionaire-psychopath nut-cases, who will continue pretending running the world, if possible with the WEF as their platform, as long as We, the People, let them.
Klaus Schwab, now 86, created the WEF in 1971, then called the European Management Forum, converted to World Economic Forum in 1987. The non-profit institute was created to promote “stakeholder responsibility”, whatever that means, a slogan Schwab created and likes to use as of this day.
Quoting The Defender, as an NGO, the WEF has remarkable revenues: Some $500 million for the fiscal year ending March 2023 and cash reserves totaling 200 million Swiss francs ($219.5 million). Probably one of the world’s wealthiest NGOs.
Now, the new slogan to be promoted – and more so after this management change, will be Public-Private Cooperation. The World Bank and similar neoliberal agencies used to call it “Public-Private Partnership”, another term for “stakeholder capitalism” – same thing, different spelling, meaning essentially: The investment funds come from the public sector and the profit goes to the private partner. And guess who absorbs the losses, if there are no profits?
According to The Defender (CHD, 21 May 2024), a WEF spokesperson said the organization is “transforming from a convening platform to the leading global institution for public-private cooperation.”
No doubt the “convening” will still take place, in Davos, San Francisco, Dubai, China – and wherever else business and politics want to rub elbows and where Big Money may flow. And always near an airport where a thousand-plus private jets can land, as these top execs and billionaires could give a blue poop about the “noxious” CO2 they produce.
You know, CO2 is the stuff that heats up the earth, justifying “net zero” – end of farming, famine and hopefully for the WEF’s Great Reset and UN 2030 agenda lead to early death and rapid depopulation. It is the number one objective of the WEF, UN, WHO psychopaths – gradually but as fast as possible getting rid of as many “useless eaters” as they can. This, in the words of Israeli Yuval Noah Harari, Klaus Schwab’s close confident and adviser.
By the way, as ardent proponent of “net zero”, “building back better” and the notorious “climate change”, maybe Klaus Schwab, in his new role, talking from the “back”, will be able to explain why the by far world’s largest and most vicious and violent emitter of CO2, the US / NATO and western military, are never mentioned in connection with “net zero” — or as a contributor to the infamous hoax of “climate change”.
After all, they have kept bombing, shooting and killing at least 30 conflicts during the past 60 years, killing millions and millions of people, and by doing so, emitting millions and millions of tons of CO2.
And maybe, just maybe, Schwab, in his new “public-private cooperation” platform, may get an advisor who tells him that CO2 is the most important gas for life, along with oxygen. Life on earth could not breathe and subsist without CO2 being converted by the trees, mostly tropical forests, into oxygen. If Schwab’s protégé, Bill Gates, wants to cut down tropical forests, it is for a purpose.
Not to forget, the WEF’s Vax agenda. Remember during the last Davos event in January 2024, Schwab, Gates and Tedros were boasting about the coming of a new virus, potentially deadlier than covid called Virus “X”. It has not yet been identified, but is already somewhere “out there”.
Seriously. Would you believe such crap? Sorry, for the language, but no better word comes to mind!
To top it off, Pfizer’s CEO Albert Bourla, in a side-session of Davos 2024, had the guts to tell the people “We are already working on a vaccine” – for the up-and-coming – yet unknown – Virus “X”.
Other than attempting with all means to depopulate the world, Schwab, the unrefined German dictator-type, will certainly use his “behind-the-scene” platform to continue coercing governments into doing “the right thing” or else, and pursuing his pipe-dream of an all-digitized world, where Artificial Intelligence (AI) and humanity blend into transhumanism, manipulable with harmful, often deadly 5G, and soon to come 6G microwaves. Alarm: The Fourth Industrial Revolution is coming!
If Schwab has the final saying, human life would become a by-product of an all-digitized, roboticized world. But with peoples will prevailing, Schwab and the WEF will not have the final word.
*
For a good analysis of the moment, see the CHD’s summing up of Klaus Schwab’s WEF and what may be expected in the near future; edited by Michael Nevradakis, Ph.D.
On a different note, let us look at how Schwab’s “stepping-back” announcement was “leaked” to the media. Rather unusually cryptic; no details; no particular reason and no advance warning, which is normally the pompous style of a WEF-type organization. Strange.
When writing the Schwab / WEF story, Michael Nevradakis referred to “fact-checkers” who had to deny rumors that Schwab may be gravely ill or even deceased.
Usually, when “fact-checkers” come to play, there is something fishy. Like there is no smoke without a fire.
Strange things are happening these days – the times ar-a-changing (a 1964 Bob Dylan song preceding the 1960’s “Flower Revolution”) in more ways than one. Arrest and other “warrants” are being issued to Netanyahu, Tedros, possibly Bill Gates, the Clintons and maybe many more.
Two bloody conflicts are being waged in Ukraine and Gaza / Palestine, with blood, deep-dark blood, all over the Western world’s “leaders” hands, faces and minds — almost all of them “implanted” into their leader-role by Klaus Schwab.
As Schwab boasted on several occasions, “We are proud having been able to infiltrate Governments around the world with our Young Global Leaders (YGL)”. To mention just a few, Gates (Schwab protégé and international vaxx czar), Merckel (Germany), Trudeau (Canada), Macron (France), Rutte (Dutch), Jacinda Ardern (New Zealand – and many more.
The future of the WEF remains to be seen. A legitimate question also asked by many “adversaries” of the WEF: Should there be a future for the WEF?
*
Note to readers: Please click the share button above. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.
Peter Koenig is a geopolitical analyst and a former Senior Economist at the World Bank and the World Health Organization (WHO), where he worked for over 30 years around the world. He is the author of Implosion – An Economic Thriller about War, Environmental Destruction and Corporate Greed; and co-author of Cynthia McKinney’s book “When China Sneezes: From the Coronavirus Lockdown to the Global Politico-Economic Crisis” (Clarity Press – November 1, 2020).
Peter is a Research Associate of the Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG). He is also a non-resident Senior Fellow of the Chongyang Institute of Renmin University, Beijing.
Featured image: DAVOS/SWITZERLAND, 27JAN08 – Klaus Schwab, Founder and Executive Chairman, World Economic Forum addresses the audience during the session ‘Message from Davos: Believing in the Future’ at the Annual Meeting 2008 of the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland, January 27, 2008. (Copyright by World Economic Forum swiss-image.ch/Photo by Remy Steinegger)
The original source of this article is Global Research
2 Corinthians 12:7-10 LEB “Even because of the extraordinary degree of the revelations. Therefore, so that I would not exalt myself, a thorn in the flesh was given to me, a messenger of Satan, in order that it would torment me so that I would not exalt myself. 8 Three times I appealed to the Lord … Continue readingSatan’s Brain Fog Spell BROKEN
In teasing out right from wrong, discriminate we must between acts that are criminal only because The State has criminalized them (mala prohibita), as opposed to acts which are universally evil (malum in se). Israel’s sacking of Gaza is malum in se, universally evil. Gaza is clearly an easy case in ethics. It’s not as though the genocide underway in Gaza could ever be finessed or gussied up.
Yet in Israel, no atrocity perpetrated by the IDF (Israel Defense Forces) in Gaza is too conspicuous to ignore. One of the foremost authorities on Gaza, Dr. Norman Finkelstein, calls Israel a Lunatic State. “It is certainly not a Jewish State,” he avers. “A murderous nation, a demonic nation,” roars Scott Ritter—legendary, larger-than-life American military expert, to whose predictive, reliable reports from theaters of war I’ve been referring since 2002.
Treacherous Alliance: …Parsi, TritaBest Price: $4.44Buy New $16.00(as of 05:17 UTC — Details)That the Jewish State is genocidal is not in dispute. But, what of Israeli society? Is it sick, too? What of the Israeli anti-government protesters now flooding the streets of metropolitan Israel? How do they feel about the incessant, industrial-scale campaign of slaughter and starvation in Gaza, north, center and south?
They don’t.
In desperate search for a universal humanity—a transcendent moral sensibility—among the mass of Israelis protesting the State; I scoured many transcripts over seven months. I sat through volumes of video footage, searching as I was for mention, by Israeli protesters, of the war of extermination being waged in their name, on their Gazan neighbors. I found none.Much to my astonishment, I failed to come across a single Israeli protester who cried for anyone but himself, hiskin and countrymen, and their hostages. Israelis appear oblivious to the unutterable, irreversible, irremediable ruin adjacent.
For their part, protesters merely want regime change. They saddle Netanyahu solely with the responsibility for hostages entombed in Gaza, although, Benny Gantz (National Unity Party), ostensible rival to Bibi Netanyahu (Likud), and other War Cabinet members, are philosophically as one (Ganz had boasted, in 2014, that he would “send parts of Gaza back to the Stone Age”). With respect to the holocaustal war waged on Gaza, and spreading to the West Bank, there is no chasm between these and other squalid Jewish supremacists who make up “Israel’s wartime leadership.”
If you doubt my findings with respect to the Israeli protesters, note the May 11 droning address of protester Na’ama Weinberg, who demanded a change of government. Weinberg condemned the invasion of Rafah and a lack of a political strategy as perils to both hostage- and national survival. She lamented the “unspeakable torture” faced by the hostages. When Weinberg mentioned “evacuees neglected,” I lit up. Nine-hundred thousand Palestinians have been displaced from Rafah in the last two weeks. Forty percent of Gaza’s population. My hope was fleeting. It soon transpired that Weinberg meant citizens of Israeli border communities evacuated. That was the extent of Weinberg’s sympathies for the “slaughter house of civilians” down the road. Hers was nothing but a lower-order sectarian sensibility.
The grim spareness of Israeli protester sentiment has been widely noticed.
‘The thousands of Israelis who are once again turning out to march in the streets are not protesting the war. Except for a tiny handful of Israelis, Jews, and Palestinians, they are not calling for a cease-fire or an end to the war—or for peace. They are not protesting Israel’s killing of unprecedented numbers of Palestinians in Gaza or its restrictions on humanitarian aid that have led to mass starvation. (Some right-wing Israelis even go further by actively blocking aid from entering the strip.) They are certainly not invoking the need to end military occupation, now in its 57th year. They are primarily protesting Netanyahu’s refusal to step down and what they see as his reluctance to seal a hostage deal.’
Public incitement continues apace. Genocidal statements saturate Israeli society. The “lovely” Itamar Ben Gvir has provided an update to his repertoire, the kind chronicled so well by the South Africans (this one included). On May 14, to the roar of the crowd, Israel’s national security minister urged anew that Palestinians be voluntarily encouraged to emigrate (as if anything that has befallen the Palestinians of Gaza, since October 7, has been “voluntary”). He was speaking at a settler rally on the northern border of Gaza, in which thousands of yahoos watched the “fireworks” on display over Gaza, and cheered for looting the land of the dead and dying there.
“It’s the media’s fault,” you’ll protest. “Israelis, like Americans, are merely brainwashed by their media.”
These media feature excitable sorts, volubly imparting their atavistic, primitive tribalism in ugly, anglicized, Pidgin Hebrew. And, each one of these specimen always has a “teoria”: a theory.
Naveh Dromi is a lot more appealing in visage and voice than i24’s anchor Benita Levin, a harsh and vinegary South African Kugel. Dromi is columnist for a Ha’aretz, the most highbrow of Israel’s (center-left) dailies. Ha’aretz once had intellectual ballast. In her impoverished Hebrew, Dromi has tweeted about her particular “teoria”: “a second Nakba” is a coming. Elsewhere she has rasped a-mile-a-minute about “the Palestinians as a redundant group.” Nothing crimsons her lovely cheeks.
Such statements of Jewish supremacy pervade Jewish-Israeli media. But, no; it’s not the Israeli media’s fault. The closing of the Israeli mind is entirely voluntary.
According to a paper from Oxford Scholarship Online, the “media landscape in Israel” evinces “healthy competition” and declining concentration. “[C]alculated on a per-capita basis,” “the number of media voices in Israel,” overall, “is near the top of the countries investigated.”
Israel has a robust, and privately owned media. These media cater to the Israeli public, which has a filial stake in lionizing the Israel Defense Forces (IDF), in which each and every son and daughter serve. For this reason, avers Ha’aretz’s Gideon Levi, in his many YouTube television interviews, the military is the country’s golden calf.
Mainstream public opinion, Levi insists, molds the media, not the obverse.
Levi attests that right-wing and left-wing media are as one when it comes to the subject of the IDF and the Palestinian People. And in this, Israeli media reflect mainstream public opinion. It is the public that wishes to see nothing of the suffering in Gaza, and takes care never to disparage or doubt the IDF. For their part, military journalists are no more than embeds, in bed with the military.
At least until now, Israelis have been largely indifferent to their army’s orgiastic, indiscriminate bloodletting in Gaza. Most were merely demanding a return of their hostages, and the continuance of the assault on Gazans, punctured by periodic cease fires.
So, is Jewish-Israeli society sick, too?
When “88 percent of Jewish-Israeli interviewees” give “a positive assessment of the performance of the IDF in Gaza until now” (Tamar Hermann, “War in Gaza Survey 9,” Israel Democracy Institute, January 24, 2024), and “[a]n absolute majority (88%) also justifies the scope of casualties on the Palestinian side”; (Gershon H. Gordon, The Peace Index, January 2024, Faculty of Social Sciences, Tel Aviv University)—it is fair to conclude that the diabolical IDF is, for the most, the voice of the Jewish-Israeli commonwealth.
Consider: By January’s end, the Gaza Strip had, by and large, already been rendered uninhabitable, a moonscape. Nevertheless, 51 percent of Jewish-Israelis said they believed the IDF was using an appropriate amount (51%) or not enough force (43%) in Gaza. (Source: Jerusalem Post staff, “Jewish Israelis believe IDF is using appropriate force in Gaza,” January 26, 2024.)
Note: Polled opinion was not split between Israelis for genocide and Israelis against it. Rather, the division in Israeli society appeared to be between Jewish-Israelis for current levels of genocide versus those for greater industry in what were already industrial-levels and methods of murder.
Attitudes in Israel have only hardened since: By mid-February, 58 percent of this Jewish cohort was grumbling that not enough force had been deployed to date; and 68 percent did “not support the transfer of humanitarian aid to Gaza.” (Jerusalem Post Staff, “Majority of Jewish Israelis opposed to demilitarized Palestinian state,” February 21, 2024.)
Scrap the “hardened” verb. Attitudes in Jewish Israel have not merely hardened, but bear the hallmark of societal sociopathy.
When asked, in particular, “to what extent should Israel take into consideration the suffering of the Palestinian population when planning the continuation of the fighting there,” Jewish-Israelis sampled have remained consistent through the months of the onslaught on Gaza, from late in October of 2023 to late in March of 2024. The Israel Democracy Institute, a polling organization, found that,
‘[D]espite the progress of the war in Gaza and the harsh criticism of Israel from the international community regarding the harm inflicted on the Palestinian population, there remains a very large majority of the Jewish public who think that Israel should not take into account the suffering of Palestinian civilians in planning the continuation of the fighting. By contrast, a similar majority of the Arab public in Israel take the opposite view, and think this suffering should be given due consideration.’ (Tamar Hermann, Yaron Kaplan, Dr. Lior Yohanani, “War in Gaza Survey 13,” Israel Democracy Institute, March 26, 2024.)
Let us, nevertheless, end this canvas with the “good” news: On the “bleeding heart” Israeli Left; “only” (I’m being cynical) 47 percent of a sample “think that Israel should not take into consideration the suffering of Palestinian civilians in Gaza or should do so only to a small extent, while 50 percent think it should consider their plight to a fairly large or very large extent.” (Ibid.)
In other words, the general run of the Jewish-Israeli Left tends to think that the plight of Gazans should be considered, but not necessarily ended.
On the facts, and, as I have had to, sadly, show here, both the Israeli state and civil society are driven by Jewish supremacy, the kind that sees little to no value in Palestinian lives and aspirations.
LIBERTARIAN METHODOLOGICAL INDIVIDUALISM
Commensurate with the surveys shared above, and as many have quite reasonably concluded, Jewish-Israeli civil society is sick, too. As uncomfortable as it is for the libertarian methodological individualist; the facts dictate, alas, that, on the matter of the mass murder of the Palestinians of Gaza; Jewish-Israeli society does not stand apart from the Jewish State.
But if such generalizations can be made; don’t they betray the libertarian fidelity to methodological individualism?
“No.” Stating statistical verities does not violate methodological individualism.
Methodological individualism does not mandate that aggregate group traits be denied. Rather, methodological individualism correctly practiced means that generalizations are to be considered, while each and every individual is treated on his merit, and not conflated with the group.Liberty and PropertyMises, Ludwig vonBuy New $4.99(as of 10:33 UTC — Details)
Provided they are substantiated by hard evidence, not hunches, generalizations are not incorrect. To the contrary: Science relies on the ability to generalize to the larger population observations drawn from representative samples.
Human action is governed by probabilities and generalities. People make prudent personal and economic decisions in their daily lives as to where scarce and precious resources—one’s life and property—are best invested. They do so based on reliable, aggregated data or on shared common-sense assessments.
When broad statements and assessments about aggregate group characteristic are both true and crucial to our understanding; libertarian methodological individualists needn’t demand that these be expunged from our formulations.
So, while we must take great care as libertarian methodological individualists to separate state from society, and each member of society from the next—treating each individual on his or her merit in our dealings—generalizations about certain group characteristics are, in aggregate, valid. They do not in any way flout the imperative to treat each and every individual as an individual.
We risk disarming ourselves of the firearm of truth, analytical and empirical, if we discard the aggregate group findings surveyed so far.
With shuddering clarity, I can say then, that, in symbiosis, Israel—state, society—and its Anglo-European sponsors share the blame for the sacking of Gaza. Israelis, by and large, have become a solipsistic sorority of Jewish supremacists. Palestinians have paid a terrible price for this systemic Israeli sociopathy.
In a recent video interview1, Kennedy was pressed on children undergoing transgender treatments.
At first, Kennedy declared that children should not be allowed to receive these treatments without parents’ permission.
That seems to imply he would approve of the medical treatment as long as parents approve.
The interviewer jumps on the attack. Kennedy then says (amazingly, pleading ignorance) that he doesn’t know enough about the transgender drugs involved.
He repeats this for emphasis.The Freeman Book (LvMI)Kellock, HaroldBuy New $12.95(as of 02:17 UTC — Details)
What??
He is either lying, or he’s kept himself from knowing on purpose, because he wants to be able to plead ignorance and avoid the issue.
Either way, it’s a disaster.
Kennedy’s own website, Children’s Health Defense (CHD), was founded on the basis of protecting children from harm, especially medical harm.
As far as I can tell, CHD has never seriously explored the child transgender issue.
Why not? Why has the site avoided doing wall to wall coverage on this vitally important subject?
Surely, its writers are capable.
Clearly, some policy decision at the top has kept the issue on a very low flame, or no flame at all.
Kennedy himself, as we all know, has major knowledge about childhood vaccines and their catastrophic effects. And yet he “doesn’t know enough” about transgender drugs and hormones given to children—highly dangerous chemicals—to make a public statement about them?
I’m not buying his statement for a second.
Something is very wrong here. Kennedy seems to have adopted a know-nothing policy based on some sort of ideological “Progressivism.” As if children should have “the freedom to choose.”
CHILDREN. CHOOSING. TO. CHANGE. THEIR. SEXUALITY.
What kind of madness is this?
Kennedy would also say he isn’t sure whether children change their minds every day about all sorts of notions? From wanting to be rocket pilots to wanting to President to wanting to be circus clowns?
Kennedy would say children having freedom implies they’re competent to make life-altering decisions about their sex—and take toxic drugs and powerful disrupting hormones to back up those decisions?
And parents going along with these decisions and chemicals would constitute a proper SEAL OF APPROVAL?
Would Kennedy dare to say the same thing, if a child decided he wanted to take the whole CDC schedule of vaccines, or eat food sprayed with toxic Atrazine, and the parents went along with their kids’ decisions?
Would he call THAT freedom and the right to choose?
Of course not. He’d call that: parents who aren’t defending their children, parents who are viciously attacking their children.
Ah, “but he doesn’t know enough about the catastrophic transgender drugs and hormones,” so he’s off the hook.
He’s a man with a very high medical IQ, but in this particular area, he’s dumb as wood.
I see.
So, Robert, when should we expect you to have done the research…and finally know enough about the transgender drugs to make a definitive public statement?
June? July? August? September? October? November, election month?The Assassination of P…Corsi Ph.D., Jerome R.Buy New $21.59(as of 04:44 UTC — Details)
Never?
I’m betting on never.
CHILDREN’S. HEALTH. DEFENSE.
Defend the children, Robert! Or cop to the fact that you’ve left a gigantic hole in that wall. On purpose. Because you don’t want to lose your Woke following of suburban soccer moms. Or for some other equally insane reason.
Wake the fuck up.
The clock is ticking. And I’m not talking about the oncoming Election Day. I’m talking about the ongoing mangling and destruction of children’s lives.
Once A Breakdown Starts It Will be Unstoppable And It Will Completely Overwhelm A City Within Just A Few Days
By Milan Adams
In the history of the world, nations and even empires have risen, then declined and were lost to time, leaving only artifacts behind for archaeologists to piece together what happened. From our vantage point, it’s easier to see what happened, the slow decline in so many areas that finally led to a collapse. Fortunately, we understand today many of the factors that have to be in place. Unfortunately, even knowing these signs of decline may not be enough to slow or stop the momentum of your nation’s collapse. In this video, we will lay out the eight signs of imminent collapse. You may recognize one or all eight in your country’s recent history. Having them all doesn’t guarantee that a collapse is inevitable, but it makes it more probable, especially if you have them all to a high degree. Here are the eight signs of imminent societal collapse.
1. Financial Decay
Social Security: Simpl…Margenau, TomBuy New $13.99(as of 11:29 UTC — Details)One of the most visible outward expressions of a collapse is the bottom falling out of the financial system. From double, triple, or higher-digit inflation pricing people out of basic necessities to dramatic market declines evaporating a lifetime’s accumulated wealth instantly, economic collapse can aggravate other conditions that can domino into a full-on failure. Many market collapses actually have a long build-up. The housing bubble, the commercial real estate bubble, trade wars, and the loss of faith over time in a single fiat currency all happen slowly over the years and then reach a tipping point. In some cases, the ultra-wealthy cheer on the decline in some ways as they profit off selling short and feel that they can maintain profits by shifting their money to other assets or more stable countries. However, that doesn’t always work as assets are often frozen, withdrawal limits are established, or the currency becomes so devalued that it doesn’t retain any fluidity. Nobody wants it nor transacts in it anymore.
The financial decay is often preceded by a growing income gap, enormous corporate profits at the same time everyday consumer goods become luxury items for the masses, and wages that fail to keep pace with the nation’s prior growth. Economic inequities breed resentment in the citizens, resulting in high crime, fraud, and eventually protests, looting, rioting, and even revolutions like the French Revolution. You may recognize several of these indicators of financial decay in your nation. While it’s not a guarantee of a coming collapse, you must continue to monitor. Your insulation from it starts with recession-proofing your life. Still, it continues with increasing your skills and abilities to sustain yourself independent of the commerce system, like growing your food instead of expecting to purchase it at the grocery store after having traveled 5,000 miles from where it was grown.
2. Agricultural Decline
The rise of agriculture also gave rise to cities, states, and nations. Without harnessing nature in agricultural practices, thereby increasing yield and concentration of food sources, nations would have never formed out of nomadic, hunter-gatherer groups. While weather patterns may be perfect for agriculture in a particular area for several centuries, they can change. The lack of floods in the Nile contributed to a dramatic decline in food production in the 13th century. Excessive rain in 14th-century Britain caused massive crop failures that resulted in massive food shortages. The Irish Potato Famine, also known as the Great Hunger, began in 1845 when a mold caused a destructive plant disease that spread rapidly throughout Ireland. While the Egyptians, British, and Irish survived the downturn, they all suffered through what can only be described as a period of collapse.
I often point out that while some plants have thousands of varieties, societies tend to gravitate to the most prolific single cultivar. They then also open themselves up to large-scale crop failure when disease or blight strikes that monoculture. There are 1,000 different types of bananas worldwide, but we only mass-produce one variety- the Cavendish. What happens when the Cavendish succumbs to a plant fungus that the Blue Java banana has resilience against?
Sometimes agricultural decline isn’t a result of weather or blight but merely a result of economics. As the Great Depression took hold in the United States in the late 1920s, many farmers saw their milk prices drop, and by 1933, prices were less than half what they had been just three years prior. Farmers reacted with milk strikes, and the protests often turned violent. Raiding parties stopped trains laden with milk and dumped it into the ground. A cheese factory was attacked, and the angry mob poured kerosene on 600 pounds of cheese. An even more extreme impact on agriculture can be war. From scorched earth to land left fallow as wars rage to starvation of the masses and even cannibalism, a more significant societal collapse could be imminent when agricultural output is threatened or in decline.
3. Health Decline
The health of a nation can also be measured by the health of its people. There are obvious factors like plague, disease, wars, and pandemics, but more subtle indicators like lifestyle and environmentally induced illnesses exist. From lead pipes used in Rome to cancer-causing pesticides to industrial, even nuclear waste, there are several environmental factors that lead to medical issues that sap a nation’s resources and workforce. There are also lifestyle choices that can contribute to a more significant decline in overall health. Refined sugars, preservatives, highly processed foods, smoking, excessive alcohol consumption, and all those other things we now know have to be taken in moderation or not at all lead to health issues like obesity, diabetes, fatty liver, cancer, high blood pressure, and the list goes on from there.
Increased health issues overburden the established medical care system. Diseases, famines, and wars can completely obliterate any national healthcare system. As people turn to blame the established government for their problems, they can sometimes riot against the established order and plunge their nation deeper into a spiraling decline.
4. Decline in Birth Rate
Memoirs of a Superfluo…Albert Jay NockBest Price: $10.39Buy New $14.50(as of 05:45 UTC — Details)A decline in the birth rate indicates a nation’s decline. While environmental and social factors can impact fertility and fertilization rates, it is more indicative of a general lack of faith in the future. The future may appear too uncertain, chaotic, or rife with conflict that raising a child is just too difficult. Or, the future’s financial prospects are so dismal, and the current economic situation would only result in poverty for anyone trying to raise a family. Birth rate and fertility rate are helpful in analyzing and understanding a nation’s replacement rate. Populations that increase can put a strain on economies and infrastructure. Populations that don’t replenish themselves can experience slowed services, a decline in transactions and commerce, or even be left unable to defend themselves from foreign adversaries.
Birth rates are falling in the U.S. after experiencing a high with the Baby Boom in the mid-20th century and a low from the Baby Bust in the 1970s, birth rates were relatively stable for nearly 50 years. That all changed with the Great Recession, from 2007-2009. Birth rates have declined sharply since then. Russia’s birth rate has declined since 1994, just after the official fall of the Soviet Union. Obviously, there is a correlation between societal collapse and birthrate in Russia’s history. China reported in January that its population had fallen for the first time in 60 years. In 2022, there were just 6.77 births per 1,000 people in China. India’s General Fertility Rate has declined by 20% over the past decade. Japan’s birthrate is so dire that the Prime Minister warned, “Japan is on the verge of whether we can continue to function as a society.” With all these superpowers and super economies experiencing declining birth rates, they cannot replenish their aging populations and maintain their traditional systems. This can contribute to a more significant societal collapse.
A U.S. Senate roundtable discussion, hosted by Sen. Ron Johnson, tackled a taboo topic — why public health agencies have not studied the health outcomes of vaccinated versus unvaccinated children — and have refused to make data on the topic available to the public.1
“They do not publish the results [or] let any independent scientist in to look at that information,” Brian Hooker, chief scientific officer for Children’s Health Defense, said. “They refuse to publish the results and they really know why. It’s because the bloated vaccination schedule is responsible and is, I would say, in part responsible for the epidemic of chronic disorders that we see in children in the U.S.”2
In 1962, children received just five vaccine doses. As of 2023, children up to age 18 receive 73 doses of 16 different vaccines. The cumulative effects of this childhood vaccine schedule have never been tested.Miller’s Review …Miller, Neil Z.Best Price: $8.32Buy New $14.48(as of 04:45 UTC — Details)
Explosion of Childhood Vaccines Led to ‘Greatest Decline in Public Health in Human History’
Del Bigtree, CEO of the Informed Consent Action Network (ICAN), referenced the significant increase in chronic illnesses that’s risen along with the number of childhood vaccines.
“In the 1980s, when we were giving 11 doses of about three vaccines, the chronic illness rate, which includes neurological and autoimmune disease, was 12.8%. Once we passed the 1986 [National Childhood Vaccine Injury] Act and we had the gold rush of vaccines explode … the chronic illness rate, neurological and autoimmune disease, skyrocket[ed] to 54%,” he said.3
However, that was in 2011 to 2012 — and might be even worse today. “We have no idea since then how bad this has gotten. But what you were looking at right there is the greatest decline in public health in human history,” Bigtree noted.4 He added:5
“None of the 14 routine vaccines on the CDC’s recommended schedule … was ever put through long-term double-blind placebo-based safety trials prior to licensure. Since this type of trial is really the only way to establish that a pharmaceutical product is safe, it is misinformation to state that the vaccines are safe.”
On the contrary, a number of studies suggest that unvaccinated children may be healthier than those who are vaxxed.
Vaccinated Children Have Higher Rates of Asthma, Neurodevelopmental Disorders and More
Dr. Paul Thomas, whose medical license was suspended due to his advocacy for informed consent regarding vaccinations, along with James Lyons-Weiler from the Institute for Pure and Applied Knowledge (IPAK), conducted a study comparing the health of vaccinated and unvaccinated children.6
Their findings revealed that vaccinated children experienced significantly higher instances of various health issues, including:7
Notably, among the 561 unvaccinated children, none were diagnosed with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), whereas 0.063% of children who had received some or all recommended vaccinations were diagnosed with ADHD.
“The implications of these results for the net public health effects of whole-population vaccination and with respect for informed consent on human health are compelling,” they wrote.8 The study also points out that the rate of autism spectrum disorder in their practice was half that of the U.S. national average (0.84% versus 1.69%). The rate of ADHD in the practice was also about half the national rate.
According to the authors, “The data indicate that unvaccinated children in the practice are not unhealthier than the vaccinated and indeed the overall results may indicate that the unvaccinated pediatric patients in this practice are healthier overall than the vaccinated.”9
At the roundtable, Hooker added, “‘When you look at developmental delays, when you look at asthma, when you look at ear infections, when you look at allergies, when you look at ADD [attention deficit disorder], ADHD, autism,’ unvaccinated children fare ‘way better.’”10
Aluminum Toxicity Alone Is a Problem
There are multiple mechanisms of potential harm when it comes to vaccination. One of them involves aluminum, the most commonly used vaccine adjuvant.11 A demonstrated neurotoxin, aluminum is added to certain vaccines to increase the immune response and, with that, theoretically generate a higher response of protective antibodies.
However, repeated exposure to vaccine components such as aluminum could be harming children. As Hooker shared, “28 vaccines are given in the first year of life, one vaccine on the first day of life and upwards to eight vaccines when an infant is just 2 months old. If you look at the aluminum toxicity alone, it far surpasses the single-day toxicity limit for aluminum exposure in newborns.”12
A study funded by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) found that, among children with and without eczema, exposure to vaccine-associated aluminum was positively associated with persistent asthma. There was a 1.26- and 1.19-times higher risk of persistent asthma for each additional milligram of vaccine-related aluminum exposure, respectively, for children with and without eczema.13
Children who received all or most of the recommended childhood vaccines that contain aluminum received a cumulative aluminum exposure dose of more than 3 milligrams (mg). This group had, at least, a 36% higher risk of developing persistent asthma than children who received fewer vaccines, and therefore had a less than 3-mg exposure to aluminum.14
The study was observational in nature and stopped short of saying that it proves a link between aluminum-containing vaccines and asthma. The CDC also stated that it has no intention of altering its vaccine recommendations based on this study alone.15 However, the researchers pointed out that rates of asthma in U.S. children steadily increased in the 1980s and 1990s, then remained steady since 2001.
The 2001 date is significant, as most aluminum-containing vaccines were added to the childhood vaccine schedule before 2001. This includes, for example, diphtheria, tetanus, and acellular pertussis (DTaP), hepatitis B, some formulations of Haemophilus influenzae type b (Hib) and pneumococcal conjugate vaccines. According to the study:16
“There are many environmental and genetic risk factors for asthma, and any contribution from vaccine-associated aluminum has not been proven or supported through replication. However, because most aluminum-containing vaccines were added to the routine schedule prior to 2001 … observed national trends in asthma prevalence during childhood are not incongruous with the effect estimates observed here.”
COVID Shots Caused 30 Child Deaths for Every One Saved
COVID-19 shots were added to the U.S. childhood, adolescent and adult vaccine schedules after a unanimous (15-0) vote by the U.S. CDC’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP). By adding the shots to the vaccine schedule, it paves the way for U.S. schools to require them for attendance.
Pfizer and Moderna, the shots’ makers, were also granted permanent legal indemnity, which otherwise would have disappeared once COVID-19 shots were no longer protected under emergency use authorization (EUA).17 Yet the shots have proven disastrous for children.
Hooker told the roundtable research shows “that for every one child that is saved from death from COVID-19, there are 30 child deaths associated with the COVID-19 vaccine. So, the risk-to-benefit ratio in terms of mortality is 30 to 1.”18
A now-retracted narrative review published in the journal Cureus called for a global moratorium on mRNA COVID-19 shots,19 citing significant increases in serious adverse events among those who received the injections, along with an “unacceptably high harm-to-reward ratio.”20
When factoring in absolute risk and the “number needed to vaccinate” (NNV), a metric used to quantify how many people need to be vaccinated to prevent one additional case of a specific disease, the review found “for every life saved, there were nearly 14 times more deaths caused by the modified mRNA injections.”21
The authors of the paper also said the shots should be immediately removed from the childhood vaccine schedule, while boosters should also be suspended. “It is unethical and unconscionable to administer an experimental vaccine to a child who has a near-zero risk of dying from COVID-19 but a well-established 2.2 percent risk of permanent heart damage based on the best prospective data available,” the paper notes.22
Heart damage from the shots includes myocarditis, which is inflammation of the heart muscle that can cause heart failure, abnormal heartbeat and sudden death. “Myocarditis is a serious disorder and 76% of all cases following COVID-19 vaccination, as reported to the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System [VAERS], required emergency care and/or hospitalization,” Hooker said. However, the “CDC significantly downplays myocarditis as a side effect of the vaccine.”23
Health Agency ‘Never Submitted’ Required Vaccine Safety Reports to Congress
The roundtable discussion occurred as part of a larger discussion on “Federal Health Agencies and the COVID Cartel.” The group included medical experts, political figures, journalists and whistleblowers who accused government, media and Big Pharma of censorship and coverups related to COVID-19 jab injuries.24
Hooker testified that the 1986 National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act requires the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) to “report to Congress on the state of vaccine safety in the U.S. every two years.” However, he said HHS has “never submitted a vaccine safety report to Congress.”25
Hooker also reported that health agencies have data on health outcomes for vaccinated and unvaccinated children, but they refuse to make it public. The data, which includes close to 30 years’ worth of information on more than 10 million people, is housed in a database called Vaccine Safety Datalink.Dissolving Illusions: …Humphries, Dr. SuzanneBuy New $34.00(as of 11:47 UTC — Details)
Despite Hooker making more than 120 Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests, and going through “congressional representatives to get the Vaccine Safety Datalink itself,” he says, “It is simply something that they will not do.”26 He believes financial conflicts of interest are the reason why:27
“CDC buys and sells $5 billion worth of vaccines a year through the Vaccines for Children program. They also spend half a billion dollars a year … advertising and through public relationship campaigns for vaccinations in general, as compared to a woeful budget of $50 million that is being used for vaccine safety every year.”
In a discussion on Steve Bannon’s “War Room,” Hooker added that, as it stands, public health agencies are not protecting the public from vaccine injuries — something to carefully consider in your own medical decisions regarding vaccinations:28
“The CDC, FDA and NIH (National Institutes of Health) are derelict in their duty … to protect children and adults against vaccine injury in order to report to Congress the state of vaccine safety science, and their responsibility to the American public and to public health in order to protect the American public.”
Der Friedensstifter 
