Yesterday, in London, I witnessed an eerie, chilling sight: I saw a death cult holding a ceremony in public.
The men and women gathered outside King’s Cross station and formed a circle. They swayed and chanted. They preached about End Times. ‘What will you do when the world gets hot, what, what?’, they intoned, conjuring up images of the hellfire they believe will shortly consume mankind. They sang hymns to their god – science. ‘We’ve got all the science / All that we need / To change the world / Hallelujah’, they sang, rocking side to side as they did so.
They demanded repentance. ‘Buy less, fly less, fry less’, said one placard. Catholics only demand the non-consumption of meat on Fridays, as an act of penance to mark the day of Christ’s death. This new religion demands an end to meat-consumption entirely, as penance for mankind’s sins of growth and progress.
And like all death cultists, they handed out leaflets that contained within them ‘THE TRUTH’. The leaflets foretell floods and fire: ‘We are in trouble. Sea levels are rising… Africa and the Amazon are on fire.’ The only word that was missing was locusts. They can’t be far behind these other ghastly visitations to sinful mankind.
And if you question their TRUTH? Then, like those heretics who were hauled before The Inquisition 500 years ago, you will be denounced as a denier. A denier of their revelations, a denier of their visions. ‘Denial is not a policy’, their placards decreed. Spotting me filming their spooky, apocalyptic ceremony, one of the attendees waved that placard in my face. A warning from the cult to a corrupted outsider.
This was, of course, Extinction Rebellion. Let us no longer beat around the bush about these people. This is an upper-middle-class death cult.
This is a millenarian movement that might speak of science, but which is driven by sheer irrationalism. By fear, moral exhaustion and misanthropy. This is the deflated, self-loathing bourgeoisie coming together to project their own psycho-social hang-ups on to society at large. They must be criticised and ridiculed out of existence.
Yesterday’s gathering, like so many other Extinction Rebellion gatherings, was middle-aged and middle-class. The commuters heading in and out of King’s Cross looked upon them with bemusement. ‘Oh, it’s those Extinction freaks’, I heard one young man say. It had the feel of Hampstead and the Home Counties descending on a busy London spot to proselytise the cult of eco-alarmism to the brainwashed, commuting plebs.
It was a gathering to mark Extinction Rebellion’s week of disruption. The group is asking people in London and other cities around the world to ‘take two weeks off work’ and join the revolt against the ‘climate and ecological crisis’. You can tell who they’re trying to appeal to. Working-class people and the poor of New Delhi, Mumbai and Cape Town – some of the cities in which Extinction Rebellion will be causing disruption – of course cannot afford to take two weeks off work. But then, these protests aren’t for those people. In fact, they’re against those people.
Extinction Rebellion is a reactionary, regressive and elitist movement whose aim is to impose the most disturbing form of austerity imaginable on people across the world. One of the great ironies of ‘progressive’ politics today is that people of a leftist persuasion will say it is borderline fascism if the Tory government closes down a library in Wolverhampton, but then they will cheer this eco-death cult when it demands a virtual halt to economic growth with not a single thought for the devastating, immiserating and outright lethal impact such a course of action would have on the working and struggling peoples of the world.
Extinction Rebellion says mankind is doomed if we do not cut carbon emissions to Net Zero by 2025. That’s six years’ time. Think about it: they want us to halt a vast array of human activity that produces carbon. All that Australian digging for coal; all those Chinese factories employing millions of people and producing billions of things used by people around the world; all those jobs in the UK in the fossil-fuel industries; all those coal-fired power stations; all that flying; all that driving… cut it all back, rein it in, stop it. And the people who rely on these things for their work and their food and their warmth? Screw them. They’re only humans. Horrible, destructive, stupid humans. … continue
The Senate Intelligence Committee’s final report on ‘Russian interference’ in the 2016 US presidential election is short on evidence and long on reheated assertions and innuendo from ‘experts’ exposed as actual election meddlers.
There is little new in the 85-page, partially redacted document released on Tuesday, that has not been made public by the committee previously – including the accusations that “Russia” focused on stoking anger and resentment among African-Americans, for example.
There is a reason for that. By the committee’s own admission, “much of this Volume’s analysis is derived from” the work of two Technical Advisory Groups (TAG), which produced two public reports back in December 2018, to the same kind of fawning press coverage the report is receiving now.
Not Surprisingly, the report’s “findings” are being cited as conclusive proof that Democrats were right and President Donald Trump was wrong about 2016, Russia, Ukraine and the US presidential election.
The only trouble with that is that the committee provides no actual evidence for any of its claims – only assertions. For example, their description of the Internet Research Agency – the “Russian troll farm” – is basically copied over from Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s indictment of a dozen of its alleged members. Yet a federal judge presiding over the case ruled back in May that allegations cannot be treated as established evidence or conclusion, coming close to finding Mueller’s prosecutors in contempt.
Another document presented as evidence is the January 2017 “Intelligence Community Assessment,” the disingenuously named work of a small group of people, hand-picked by the Obama administration’s DNI and chiefs of the CIA, FBI and NSA – all of whom, except for the NSA, have since been implicated in what seems to be a campaign to spy on Trump, delegitimize his presidency, and have him impeached.
The Senate report also quotes testimonies from Obama aides such as Ben Rhodes – helpfully redacted of course – Gen. Philip Breedlove, the NATO commander who tried to set off a war with Russia; professional “Russian bot” hunters like Clint Watts and Thomas Rid; and NATO’s “Strategic Communications Center of Excellence.”
The best part, however, has to be the reliance on New Knowledge, presented as “a cybersecurity company dedicated to protecting the public sphere from disinformation attacks.” In reality, New Knowledge was exposed by the New York Times as the outfit that actually ran bots and disinformation operations during the 2017 Alabama special election for the US Senate, targeting Republican candidate Roy Moore on behalf of Democrats – while blaming Russia!
In an internal memo, New Knowledge executives boasted how they “orchestrated an elaborate ‘false flag’ operation that planted the idea that the Moore campaign was amplified on social media by a Russian botnet.”
The other TAG, led by British academics and researchers, found that the activity of ‘Russian trolls’ increased after the election – by 238 percent on Instagram, 59 percent on Facebook, 52 percent on Twitter, and 84 percent on YouTube. So it was influencing elections… retroactively?
Left unsaid was that the absolute quantity of “Russian” posts was minuscule, a proverbial drop in the bucket compared to the billions of social media posts generated and consumed by the US electorate during the campaign.
These are the people who “significantly informed the Committee’s understanding of Russia’s social media-predicated attack against our democracy,” as this week’s report puts it.
Ever since Hillary Clinton blamed “Russian hackers” for the revelations of corruption within the DNC in July 2016, the Washington establishment has been eager to blame Moscow for all the ills of the US political system, real or imagined. The Senate Intelligence Committee’s report seems to be nothing more than an attempt to reheat the long-cold corpse of a conspiracy that should have been buried with the Mueller Report and allowed to rest in peace.
Damascus voiced readiness on Tuesday to welcome Syria’s Kurds back into the fold after Washington left them to face Turkish military threats alone.
Deputy Foreign Minister Faisal Mekdad stressed that Damascus “will defend all Syrian territory, and will not accept any occupation of its land,” he told Al-Watan newspaper.
The official said Kurdish groups have been “tossed aside” by Washington, after US President Donald Trump on Monday gave Turkey a green light to press ahead with its planned military operation.
“The nation welcomes all its children and Damascus will solve all problems in Syria in a positive manner, away from violence,” Mekdad said, vowing to take back all Syrian territory.
“We advise those who have gone astray to return to the nation, because the nation is their final destiny,” he added, encouraging Syria’s Kurds to reconcile with the government.
Ankara has threatened an offensive in Syria against Kurdish militias and US forces on Monday pulled back from Turkish border areas, opening the way for an invasion President Recep Tayyip Erdogan has said could come at any moment.
Mekdad said that Kurdish militias in Syria were being “played” by Washington.
A Palestinian-Jordanian who has been on hunger strike for 15 days in Israeli prisons has revealed the details of her horrific interrogation and torture, the PLO Prisoners’ Committee reported on Monday. Heba Al-Labadi, 24, was arrested on 20 August by Israeli soldiers as she crossed the Allenby Bridge from Jordan to attend a wedding in the occupied West Bank with her mother.
According to her lawyer, Al-Labadi has been subjected to inhumane treatment in detention. She was apparently stripped of all of her clothes as soon as she was arrested, handcuffed, blindfolded and leg-chained before being moved to the Bitah-Tikva investigation centre. She told her lawyer that she was embarrassed when she saw the female Israeli soldiers looking at her private parts when she entered and left the toilet.
Al-Labadi also explained that she was interrogated for 20 consecutive hours during the first 16 days of her detention and said that she was given only two breaks for meals every day. She was then moved to rooms full of collaborators, who started to interrogate her; this lasted for up to 35 days, during which she was subjected to verbal, physical and psychological abuse and torture. The Israeli interrogators, she insisted, got close to her body intentionally and used the dirtiest words to insult her.
“They also insulted Islam and Christianity,” she said, “and said that I am an extremist and told me that they had arrested my mother and sister and they would put me under renewable administrative detention for seven and a half years and then release me to the West Bank and put me under 24-hour surveillance.”
A large number of investigators are said to have interrogated Al-Labadi and kept her in a very dirty cell with insects and spiders. The cell had rough walls and a bright light which prevented her from sleeping. The “very thin” mattress had no cover or clean sheets. The interrogators told her that she would “rot” in prison.
On 25 September, Heba Al-Labadi was issued with a 5-month administrative detention order with neither charges made against her nor a trial. That was why she started her hunger strike.
Two days later, she was moved to a cell monitored by four cameras. The toilet in her cell has a see-through door, so her every move is monitored by the prison guards.
Despite being ordered to end her hunger strike, she insisted that the “tragedy” of the administrative detention must end first. “I will continue until the end or I shall die.”
Israel’s District Planning and Building Committee considered a plan on Sunday submitted by the Bedouin Settlement Authority in the Negev which aims to build camps as preparation for the displacement of 36,000 Arab citizens, Arab48.com has reported. The plan targets Palestinian-Arab residents within Israel who live in Bedouin villages “unrecognised” by the Israeli occupation government.
Such villages have often been in place for hundreds of years before the creation of the Israeli occupation state. Nevertheless, it is insisting on displacing their residents and replacing the villages with housing projects for Jewish Israeli settlers.
A letter has been sent to the head of the District Planning and Building Committee asking them not to accept the plan. It was sent on behalf of Adalah Centre, an Israeli rights group seeking justice for Arab residents, along with the Regional Council for the Unrecognised Villages in the Negev, the Peaceful Coexistence Club and Shatil Association.
Submitted by lawyer Suha Bsharah from Adalah, the letter stressed the importance of rejecting the plan, which is simply a tool to displace Arabs from their homes and villages within Israel. It also reiterated that such an action amounts to a “flagrant violation of the basic rights of the Arab citizens on top of which is the right to respect, dignity and equality.”
The letter noted that this plan reinforces the suffering inflicted on the Arab residents of the unrecognised villages as Israel is planning to displace them under the pretext of carrying out government projects. “It is unreasonable that the authorities displace tens of thousands of residents from their homes and lands,” wrote the signatories. “[The plan] will destroy a complete generation of Arab children, women and youths.”
According to Bsharah, “The Israeli authorities are seriously looking for a legal cover for the displacement of Arabs by getting the approval of the District Planning and Building Committee. They are not looking for a just and appropriate solution that would maintain the right to live with respect, dignity and safety for the Arabs who have been living here for decades, if not hundreds of years.”
The head of the Council of the Unrecognised Villages, Atiyyeh Al-Asam said: “The Council rejects this plan because its implicit and explicit goal is to forcibly displace the residents of the unrecognised villages. We believe that this plan is materialising the spirit of the [withdrawn] Prawer Plan which was based on displacing tens of thousands of Arabs.”
US President Donald Trump’s decision to pull out US troops from northern Syria has been met with bipartisan outrage, calling it a “betrayal” of the Kurds. Wait till the regime-changers hear the obvious solution to keep them safe.
As some two dozen US troops stationed in northwestern Syria began to withdraw on Monday, reports began coming in of Turkish airstrikes against Kurdish targets. Ankara is apparently calling the operation “Fountain of Peace.”
Officially, the goal is to establish a “safe zone” along the border to resettle some of the 3,6 million Syrian refugees. Oh, and also to set up a buffer zone between the Kurdish militias in Syria – YPG and YPJ – from their PKK kin in Turkey, designated terrorists by Ankara.
Trump’s detractors in Washington have denounced his decision as a “betrayal” of the Kurds, accusing the president of abandoning the force that the Pentagon has used as boots on the ground against IS in eastern Syria. Recall that it was the Kurdish-led “Syrian Democratic Forces” (SDF) that liberated Raqqa – “capital” of Islamic State (IS, formerly ISIS) – in October 2017.
Thing is, the Obama administration sought to create some kind of parallel government in those territories, in line with its policy of demanding regime change in Damascus and the overthrow of Syrian President Bashar Assad.
If Kurdish leaders thought this would somehow translate into support for statehood, or dominion over traditionally Arab-majority territories, they were dangerously deluded. Trump has made it clear from the beginning of his presidency that he had no interest in “nation-building” anywhere, and has tried to put that info effect despite constant push-back from the US establishment.
What happened in August 2016 should have also been a clue – and offers a possible way out of the present conundrum. Back then, Turkey invaded from the north in ‘Operation Euphrates Shield,’ attacking the Kurds from the rear just as the SDF was launching the major push against Raqqa. The US did nothing to stop this. Only when the Syrian Arab Army – accompanied by Russian observers – stepped in to create a buffer zone between the Turks and the SDF, did the invasion stop.
While Ankara thinks nothing of attacking the Kurds, it is hard to imagine it would dare open fire on Syrian troops – or the Russians fighting alongside them. The obvious solution for the Kurds is to make a deal with Damascus and secure the protection of the Syrian government that the US could never provide. This would keep them safe, while keeping Damascus happy and Ankara without grounds to object.
The only ones displeased by this would be regime-change advocates in Washington – but that’s their problem.
No one like to be on the losing side of a political battle. Until recently the emotional reaction of a loser was expressed through frustration or anger. Now we’re told that the experience of political defeat can make you ill!
According to sections of the medical profession, people do not simply get angry at political outcomes they don’t like. They claim that events like the Brexit referendum can make you anxious and ill.
Last week the British Medical Journal reported that anxiety about Brexit may have triggered a patient’s psychotic episode. The author of the report, “Acute transient psychotic disorder precipitated by Brexit vote,” claims that “political events can be a source of significant psychological stress.” According to this report, the mental health of a 40-year old man deteriorated rapidly following the announcement of the result of Brexit.
A closer inspection of this report raises questions about the legitimacy of the claim of a Brexit induced psychosis. Apparently, the man has previous history of a similar episode, related to stress at work. So it is likely that the main connection between the man’s psychotic disorder and the Brexit vote is that they occurred at the same time.
What’s important about the BMJ report is that it legitimizes the pre-existing campaign to blame Brexit for people’s mental health problems. It has been evident for some time that sections of the hard-core Remain community have decided to play the illness card.
During the past two years I have encountered numerous acquaintances who reported that their mental health has been severely compromised by the outcome of the Referendum. This sentiment is continually communicated through the media. “Brexit has triggered my anxiety and depressions – and I am not the only one” – declared a journalist in the pro-Remain Metro.
And the numbers of Brexit sufferers never ceases to grow. In case you did not known it: one in three of us is now suffering from Brexit anxiety, according to a recent study by the British Association of Counselling and Psychotherapy.
Predictably, numerous so-called experts and therapists have jumped on the ‘Brexit makes-me-sick’ bandwagon. It is difficult not to feel ill after reading Elle’s “9 Ways to Beat Brexit Anxiety: According To two Psychologists.” With headlines like, “Brexit Anxiety: How To Look After Your Mental Health During Political Chaos,” it is not surprising that some of their readers will reinterpret their political disappointment as a mental health condition.
Advice directed at mentally disturbed millennials is far from neutral. It communicates the idea that if you have not been made ill by Brexit then there is something really wrong with you. So what we have here is a case of political messaging masquerading as helpful advice. Elle’s “9 Ways to Beat Brexit Anxiety” assumes that if you are a millennial then you are likely to have been messed up by Brexit. Either wittingly or unwittingly, publications raising concern about Brexit induced mental illness are actually inciting people to become ill.
Confusing political problems with medical ones has a corrosive impact on public life. It assumes that people lack the intellectual and psychological resources to deal with setbacks and defeats.
A mature democracy should help its citizens to deal with the difficult challenges that they will encounter in the course of their political life. Unfortunately, sections of British society have opted to medicalize it instead, turning citizens into potential patients.
Professor Frank Furedi is a sociologist and author. His ‘How Fear Works: The Culture of Fear In the 21st Century’ is published by Bloomsbury.
Climate alarmists Michael Mann and Katharine Hayhoe have been caught using dubious, revisionist temperature data in their attempt, as one Climategate email author put it, to “deal a mortal blow” to the extensively documented Medieval Warm Period.
Before climate change became a political issue, it was scientifically well-established that a significant global warming event occurred between approximately 900 AD and 1200 AD. For example, the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) First Assessment Report presented a temperature history and visual graph documenting that the Medieval Warm Period existed and that it brought temperatures at least as warm as today (at pg. 7). Multiple peer-reviewed studies provided additional confirmation of the Medieval Warm Period.
The warming climate of the Medieval Warm Period spurred abundant crop production, fewer extreme droughts and floods, growing human population, and improving living standards. The Little Ice Age terminated the Medieval Warm Period and brought devastating weather extremes, widespread crop failures, famines, plagues like the Black Death, and a contracting human population. (For a good summary of the extensive benefits of the Medieval Warm Period and the devastating harms of the Little Ice Age, see the excellent book, “In the Wake of the Plage: The Black Death and the World It Created.”)
The existence of large historical temperature fluctuations, warmer temperatures than today, and many documented benefits of those warmer temperatures presented a powerful obstacle in alarmists’ attempts to brand our current modest warming an unprecedented climate crisis. One of the many embarrassing emails leaked in the Climategate scandal showed how alarmists deliberately set a goal of eliminating the historical existence of the Medieval Warm Period. Alarmist climate scientist Jonathan Overpeck wrote in an email to fellow alarmist Keith Briffa, “I get the sense that I’m not the only one who would like to deal a mortal blow to the misuse of supposed warm period terms and myths in the literature.”
Also, scientist David Deming testified to Congress that a prominent figure working in the field of climate change asserted to him, “We have to get rid of the Medieval Warm Period.”
We have often been told that the science is settled. Apparently, that doesn’t apply to scientific data and evidence invalidating climate alarmism. Mann last month favorably retweeted an assertion that present temperatures are the warmest they have been for at least the past 5,000 years. Hayhoe earlier this year gave a presentation in which she presented a graph (without any scientific citation) asserting temperatures steadily and consistently declined for 4,000 years – without any significant variation – prior to the warming of the past 120 years that finally and mercifully brought an end to the Little Ice Age (at 7:41).
As documented above, the existence of substantial historical climate variations such as the Medieval Warm Period and the Little Ice Age were scientifically well-documented and not in dispute before climate activism politicized the issue. Alarmist scientists were on record searching for justifications to eliminate these inconvenient climate variations that blew gaping holes in their alarmist theories. Now, conveniently, alarmists like Mann and Hayhoe claim the Medieval Warm Period, the Little Ice Age, and other well-documented warm and cold periods simply did not exist.
An old sarcastic saying goes, “When the facts doesn’t fit the theory, change the facts.” Mann and Hayhoe provide perfect real-world examples of such perniciousness. Powerful scientific evidence supported near-universal agreement about the existence of the Medieval Warm Period. Then Mann and Hayhoe, supported by little or no compelling evidence, waved a magic wand and made the Medieval Warm Period conveniently disappear.
Climate realists, however, will stick with the powerful scientific evidence, the long-established scientific “consensus,” the peer-reviewed scientific literature, and the findings of the IPCC. Sorry, Mann and Hayhoe, but you have been caught red-handed.
I know a protest when I see one. Walking around in London today it is evident that the tens of thousands of adults playing at being children are not so much protesting but putting on a performance of protest.
Unlike normal protest the men and women wearing uniforms in London today, are not there to police but to be helpful and assist this very noisy and very colorful performance.
For their part the chanters of apocalyptic slogans and the boisterous participants declaring that they know what’s best for everyone, have rehearsed their role for this mass expensive street theatre. Queuing up to get arrested is all part of this drama. There are even celebrities lurking about to provide a sense of the occasion.
When I encounter a group of middle aged distinguished-looking activists tucking into their lunch, while sitting on the pavement by the Embankment, I am reminded of the kind of street parties that occurred during the Queen’s Jubilee. Talking to these chaps and chapettes, it becomes evident that not only are they having the time of their life, they are also under the impression that their picnic contributes to the saving of the planet. When I put to them my view that ‘this is a self-indulgent carnival of reaction’, they don’t argue back. One of them tells me to go to hell. An elderly lady sneers at me and simply states that ‘I will not have a bad word said against these young people’. As far as she and her companions are concerned, Extinction Rebellion now possesses the kind of moral authority previously associated with the Church and the institutions of the state.
The ease with which Extinction Rebellion has succeeded in occupying the moral high ground has little to do with the quality of their arguments and the strength of their case. In all but name, the political establishments of the western world have given up the attempt to exercise moral authority. The elite no longer upholds the values of their ancestors and is all too aware of its loss of legitimacy. It no longer believes in itself and is evidently prepared to be flagellated by its environmentalist critics. In turn Extinction Rebellion knows that when it instructs its posh friends to jump, their answer is likely to be ‘How High’!
A lot of people on the streets of London and elsewhere are of course really miffed and angry about the way this carnival of reaction has disrupted to their life. In private conversations they murmur and swear at ‘these wastrels’. But as long as the performers enjoy backing of the media, the cultural elites, a significant section of the political establishment, and of course the all-important celebrities, their voice can be safely ignored by the protesters.
Until now participating in a Climate Extinction performance has been a risk-free activity. Unlike real protests which always incur serious risks, this week’s performance is unlikely to cost the performers very much. The cost will be borne by an increasingly fed-up public who was never asked whether or not they wanted their life to be turned upside-down.
Professor Frank Furedi is a sociologist and author. His, ‘How Fear Works: The Culture Of Fear In The Twentieth Century’ is published by Bloomsbury.
Hundreds of people in Ecuador have clashed with security forces as they marched toward the country’s capital of Quito to protest soaring fuel prices.
Riot police and military forces used tear gas to disperse the protesters on Monday after they blocked roads with burning tires and other barricades in the town of Machachi on the outskirts of Quito.
Chanting anti-government slogans, the protesters also attempted to force their way into the National Legislative Assembly in the capital.
Thousands of indigenous people are due to converge on Quito for a protest on Wednesday.
“More than 20,000 indigenous people will be arriving in Quito,” said Jaime Vargas, the leader of the umbrella indigenous organization CONAIE, which was key to driving then-president Jamil Mahuad from office during an economic crisis in 2000.
The protesters, some armed with sticks and whips, hail from southern Andean provinces and are heading to the capital aboard pick-up trucks and on foot.
Meanwhile, Ecuador’s Ministry of Energy said in a statement on Monday that activities in three oil fields in the Amazon region had been suspended “due to the seizure of the facilities by groups of people outside the operation,” without identifying the groups responsible.
The seizures affected 12 percent of the country’s oil production, or 63,250 barrels of crude per day, according to the ministry statement.
The Latin American country has been rocked by days of mass demonstrations since increases of up to 120 percent in fuel prices came into force on October 3.
President Lenin Moreno scrapped fuel subsidies as part of an agreement with the International Monetary Fund (IMF) to obtain loans despite Ecuador’s high public debt.
The Ecuadorian government says the protests have so far left one civilian dead and 77 injured, the majority of them security forces. A total of 477 people have also been detained.
In a radio and television address on Sunday, Moreno blamed the deterioration in the country’s finances on his predecessor, Rafael Correa, also accusing him of an “attempted coup” and of “using some indigenous groups, taking advantage of their mobilization to plunder and destroy.”
The Ecuadorian president called for dialog with the indigenous community to alleviate their grievances.
“I am committed to a dialog with you, my indigenous brothers, with whom we share so many priorities,” Moreno said in his address. “Let’s talk about how to use our national resources to help those in the greatest need.”
But his plea was met with harsh opposition from Vargas, the indigenous leader.
“We are sick of so much dialog… There have been thousands of calls, thousands and thousands of calls, and until this point, we have not brought out our response,” he said.
Moreno declared a state of emergency in indigenous areas on Thursday, allowing the government to restrict movement and to use the armed forces for maintaining order as well as censoring the press.
In an interview with DW Brasil, former Brazilian ambassador to Beijing, Marcos Caramuru, revealed the great interest Chinese companies have in potential infrastructure work in Brazil. Even with Brazilian President Jair Bolsonaro showing initial hostility towards China during his 2018 election campaign, his opinion appears to have changed given the huge sums involved in bilateral relations and the opportunities the Asian country can provide the economic struggling Latin American Giant.
Bolsonaro is commonly known as the ‘Tropical Trump’ for his open admiration of the U.S. President and his shared ideas and beliefs. Therefore, it was unsurprising that he said “The Chinese are not buying in Brazil… They are buying Brazil,” in the pre-election campaign.
Global Timesspeculated that “it’s inconceivable the new Bolsonaro government would give up on the Chinese market.” It also left a note of caution for the Brazilian leader who made another major antagonism towards China: “His trip to Taiwan during the presidential campaign caught the ire of Beijing. If he continues to disregard the basic principle over Taiwan after taking office, it will apparently cost Brazil a great deal … The Chinese island won’t bring any more benefits to Brazil, which Bolsonaro and his team must be aware of.”
Marcus Vinicius Freitas, a visiting professor at the China Foreign University in Beijing, explained that: “When the Chinese look at Brazil they actually see an amusement park where everything still needs to be done.” His assessment is in reference to the huge developmental and infrastructural opportunities that Brazil has, with many sectors remaining underdeveloped despite the domineering position Brazil has over the wider Latin American region. “There is no doubt that China has a menu of options for Brazil,” he added, citing Chinese technologies in road, subway, rail, viaduct and airport construction that could be of interest to Brazil.
There are also additional opportunities from agribusiness to commodities, the most attractive sector for Chinese capital is infrastructure and major works, especially in the area of gas, oil, renewable energy which will ensure growth on a sustainable and significant basis for the Brazilian economy.
However, despite the significant economic relationship between the two countries and the opportunities China can provide Brazil, it had not stopped Bolsonaro from aggravating Beijing. Therefore, it would be assumed that Bolsonaro would submit to Trump’s every demand in the midst of the U.S. president’s trade war with China. However, this has proven not to be the case with Brazil’s Vice President Hamilton Mourão saying in June that his country does not plan to ban Huawei from providing 5G equipment to telecoms in his country, signalling that Bolsonaro has said one thing during the election campaign, but acted in another way while president.
This would suggest that Bolsonaro’s government is following a different path than initially anticipated and the Brazilian president is not a complete U.S. puppet as often said by his critics. Although Trump told Bolsonaro during the latter’s visit to the White House earlier this year that Huawei was a security threat, the Brazilian Vice President emphasized that Brazil has no reason to distrust Huawei and that his country needs the Chinese technology to help its continued development.
As Beijing has been calling for a resolution to the Trump-initiated trade war, China’s ambassador to Brazil, Yang Wanming, accused the United States of bullying and lobbying its trading partners, affecting the entire global economy. He explains that the U.S. ruined market confidence, increased the risk of global recession and endangered emerging economies like Brazil.
And in this scenario, it would be important for Brasilia and Beijing to defend international cooperation and multilateralism. China’s GDP grew by ‘only’ 6.2% in the second quarter of 2019, which is the lowest economic growth recorded since 1992. This so-called economic ‘slowdown’ has served as a successful bait to trigger Western media.
As a result, Trump declared that his tariff war with China was working and said his protectionist measures had led to the exodus of companies from the Asian giant. However, if the measures were so successful Trump would not continue to threaten his partners from trading with China. The Bolsonaro government has seen that in this situation, siding with the U.S. is not in its interests.
Although Bolsonaro will continue to take on a very pro-Trump stance in Latin American affairs, especially against Cuba and Venezuela, he has demonstrated that he is unwilling to embroil Brazil in international issues besides those relating to Israel, serving the interests of the powerful Christian Evangelical lobby in the South American country.
In fact, an argument can be made that Brazil benefits from the ongoing trade war between the two Great Powers. China has continually been placing large orders of Brazilian soybeans, choosing the South American country to fill the supply gap after stopping U.S. purchases. Chinese buyers are increasingly looking for Brazilian soybeans.
China halted U.S. soybean imports as tensions between Beijing and Washington increased and turned to Brazil. For now, Brazil has been able to respond to China’s demand, but its supply is running low and Beijing is at risk of failing to meet its needs. With any end to the trade war, it is unlikely that China will revert and make the U.S. its most important soy purchaser, providing an opportunity for Brazil to consolidate its own position.
Whether it was through a sudden realization, or whether it was from internal pressures from Brazil’s powerful agricultural industry and other important advisers, Bolsonaro has certainly done a 180 towards his China rhetoric. With the status of Brazil’s role in BRICS questioned by experts last year because of Bolsonaro’s initial hostility towards China and his vivid support for Trump, his Foreign Minister Ernesto Araújo has fully embraced his country’s chairmanship of the organization. This demonstrates that no matter the motivating reason, Bolsonaro has certainly changed his China policy from hostility to openness and welcomeness as the Asian country can drastically improve Brazil’s economic situation.
Paul Antonopoulos is the director of the Multipolarity research centre.
Joseph Mifsud, born in 1960, is a bit of a mystery, in the sense that he has numerous connections to organisations such as the European Union, you can find him in multiple locations, but the moment he was connected to the Spygate scenario, everybody just knew him as the Russian who tried to hire George Papadopoulos for nefarious reasons. Even though he is Maltese.
“I am a member of the European Council On Foreign Relations. And you know which is the only Foundation I am a member of? The Clinton Foundation. Between you and me, my thinking is left-leaning. But I predicted Trump’s victory as well as Brexit. Everyone of us wants peace. If the Governments don’t talk to each other, we citizens must keep talking.” — Joseph Mifsud
At unknown points,
Mifsud studied at the University of Malta, which he graduated from in 1982 with a bachelor’s degree in education. Mifsud also graduated from the University of Padua with a degree in pedagogy in 1989, and then in 1995, Mifsud also graduated from Queens University with a master’s degree in philosophy.
Mifsud later studied at the University of Reading, where he earned his doctorate. Mifsud also became fluent in Maltese, French, Italian, Arabic and English, and has knowledge of Spanish, Portuguese, Russian and Slovenian.
From 1996 to 1998, Mifsud served in the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Malta, and also served as Malta’s representative to the Council of Europe in Education and at Unesco.
In 1997, Mifsud was appointed as the Head of the Department of Education at the University of Malta.
Mifsud has also served as an adviser to the European Union, the European Union Parliament, the Parliament of Malta, organisations in Italy, Spain, Africa, and the Commonwealth Law Bulletin.
On May 1, 2004, Malta officially joined the European Union. Around this time, Mifsud was placed in charge of establishing the European Programmes Unit, and also helped during the negotiations of Malta’s entry into the organisation.
In 2006, Mifsud taught a summer class with Katerina Galanaki, which was attended by Matthew Caruana Galizia, the son of Daphne Caruana Galizia.
From October 1, 2006 to August 30, 2007, Mifsud served as the Head of the Private Secretariat for Dr. Michael Frendo.
On November 15, 2007, Mifsud received a letter from the University of Malta, as an audit done by PriceWaterhouseCoopers suggested that he had mismanaged funds during his time teaching.
On April 9, 2008, the Bank of Valetta won an order and garnished Mifsud’s wages.
On June 9, 2008, the Paris Summit establishedEMUNI and Euro-Mediterranean higher education.
In November 2008, Mifsud was elected as the first President of the Euro-Mediterranean University (EMUNI) in Slovenia by European and Mediterranean, Rectors and Presidents of Universities. During this time, Mifsud also helped pioneer the Euro-Mediterranean Professional School.
On November 26, 2008, the University’s General Assembly meeting was held in Barcelona, Spain, where 115 members from 32 states adopted the Universidy statute and elected the institutional bodies.
In February 2009, EMUNI University officially became a legal entity in Slovenia.
By April 2009, Mifsud was the representative of Malta on the board of the Bologna Follow-up Group, the Erasmus Mundus Committee and the Tempus Committee, Malta’s Socrates Sub-Committee For Higher- Education and the “Joint Research Center” of the European Commission.
On April 22, 2009, Ian Mundell published the article “Bridging the Mediterranean” in Politico, which featured an interview with Mifsud.
Between June 21–22, 2009, Mifusd and Strobe Talbott attended “G8 and Beyond”, which was convened by the Brookings Institution, Aspen, Club de Madrid and Link Campus.
On June 14, 2010, Mifsud gave the opening address at the 2nd EMUNI Research Souk — the Euro-Mediterranean Student Research Multi-Conference — hosted by the EMUNI University.
On June 29, 2010, Mifsud met with Secretary General of the Union for the Mediterranean Ahmad Masa’deh at the Headquarters of the Secretairat in the Palacio Real de Pedralbes in Barcelona, Spain.
Between October 20–23, 2010, Mifsud attended the EUA Annual Conference in Palermo, Italy, where he held talks with representatives of EMUNI partner institutions.
On October 24, 2010, Mifsud participated as part of the round table session on Teaching and Learning Diplomacy as part of the Rome Diplomatic Festival, which was attended by others including Nabil Ayad.
Between December 11–13, 2011, Mifsud attended the 4th Global UN Alliance of Civilizations Forum in Doha.
In 2012, Mifsud became the Director of the London Academy of Diplomacy, which is affiliated with Scotland’s University of Stirling, as he left the Euro-Mediterranean University. The same year, the London Academy of Diplomacy received the award “Diplomat of the Year” from Diplomat Magazine. At some point during this, Mifsud also joined the Leading Board for the Albanian Diplomatic Academy.
Simona Mangiante was also introduced to Mifsud during this time by Gianni Pittella while she worked in Brussels as an attorney specialised in child abduction cases.
At the same, Simona worked for Mairead McGuinness and Roberta Angelilli, and she worked as an administrator to the Home Affairs Committee under Martin Schulz.
The London Academy of Diplomacy has a total of 36 faculty members, which includes former diplomats. In September and January each year, students are accepted, with the total usually amounting to 150 new students. The London Academy of Diplomacy is also open to organising visits to the Houses of Parliament, the Commonwealth Secretariat, numerous organisations in London, the Hague, the European Parliament, NATO, the European Union Headquarters and the United Nations.
In the summer of 2012, the London Academy of Diplomacy established cooperation with the Faculty of Global Processes of Moscow State University.
In October 2012, Mifsud met with Enzo Scotti — the President of Link University — Professor Nabil Ayad, Professor Claire Smith and numerous Italian Generals for a training programme on international security, which was arranged by Link Campus University and the London Academy of Diplomacy in Rome, Italy.
In 2012, Mifsud attended Globalistics 2013 at Moscow University, where he suggested that Moscow University join a project to reform Link Campus University in Rome.
In March 2013, Mifsud owed roughly EUR 39,000.00 to the EMUNI University in Slovenia for expenses claimed during his tenure.
On April 3, 2013, Mifsud and Thomas Childs attended the Global Economic Forum: Best Practices in Trade and Investment Promotion in London, which was hosted by the International Business & Diplomatic Exchange (IBDE).
On May 15, 2013, Inverhold Ltd. was founded by Dr. Stephan Roh in London, England.
Between June 11–13, 2013, Mifsud and Nabil Ayad attended the “Global, Regional and National Actors in the Governace of the Atom: A Focus on Europe and the Middle East” international conference at the Academy of Global Governance in Florence, Italy. They presided over a simulation exercise, which was assisted by visiting professor of the London Academy of Diplomacy, Sameh Aoul Enein.
On July 2, 2013, His Excellency Dr. Sultan Al Jaber visited the London Academy of Diplomacy to discuss cooperation between the organisation and the United Arab Emirates, which was attended by Mifsud, Nabil Ayad and Riad Nourallah.
In August 2013, Mifsud received an honorary professorship from the University of East Anglia.
In 2014, the Rome Academy of Diplomacy was founded, and Mifsud played a vital role to its development. Dr. Stephan Roh also became a visiting lecturer at the London Academy of Diplomacy, and bought Link Campus University. In return, Mifsud became a consultant at Roh’s legal firm.
Also in 2014, a Russian intern named Natalia Kutepova-Jamrom visited his office after having worked in the Russian Government as a legislative aide, and she later introduced Mifsud to numerous Russian diplomats and scholars, and secured an invitation to the Valdai Discussion Club.
In January 2014, the University of East Anglia ended their arrangement to validate London Academy of Diplomacy degree courses, with the arrangement then transferred to the University of Stirling.
Between April 24–2015, 2014, Mifsud attended the Global University Summit in Moscow, Russia.
On May 29, 2014, Mifsud met with Ambassador Alexander Yakovenko at the Residence, where Mifsud presented his views on the aftermath of the Global University Summit, and discussed UK-Russia relations.
In mid-November 2014, Mifsud visited Washington, DC, where he attended a lecture at the American University on “Diplomacy and Development in a Global Environment”, which was sponsored by Australia’s Program On International Organizations, Law and Diplomacy. During this time, Mifsud spoke with The Washington Diplomat’s Larry Luxner.
On February 23, 2015, Mifsud and Falah Mustafa gave a lecture at the London Academy of Diplomacy about the Islamic State and the future of Kurdistan and Iraq.
On March 12, 2015, the London Academy of Diplomacy hosted the panel “Diplomacy and Social Media”, which was attended by Mifsud, Christian Sys, Sir George Reid and Dr. Martyn Bond.
On April 30, 2015, Euripides Evriviades hosted the conversation “Cyprus, the EU and the Eastern Mediterranean” at the London Academy of Diplomacy, which was introduced by Mifsud.
Between September 8–10, 2015, the XXV Economic Forum was hosted in Krynica-Zdrój, Poland, which was attended by Mifsud on the third day.
On September 11, 2015, Mifsud attended the Senate of the Republic in Piazza della Minerva, Rome, with others including Vincenzo Scotti and Gianni Pittella.
In late October 2015, Mifsud proposed to Anna at a restaurant which overlooked the Kremlin in Moscow during Anna’s sister’s birthday.
On December 8, 2015, Ben Carson announced his foreign policy adviser team, which included both George Birnbaum and George Papadopoulos.
In 2016, Simona’s contract came to an end. As such, Pissetti suggested employment with Mifsud in London, which led to Mifsud offering her a job at the London Centre of International Law Practice, located at Lincoln’s Inn Fields. Simona was promised £2,500.00 per month from a colleague of Mifsud.
On January 29, 2016, Mifsud sent an e-mail to Anna, where he requested the engagement ring and assorted items to be returned to his Rome or United Kingdom address due to Anna cheating on him.
On March 6, 2016, George Papadopoulos learned that he would become a foreign policy adviser for the Trump campaign.
Between March 8–9, 2016, Mifsud attended the World Summit On Uncontrolled Migration at the Adelaide Convention Centre in South Australia.
On March 10, 2016, Mifsud hosted a breakfast on behalf of Access European Universities in Adelaide, Australia.
On March 14, 2016, in Italy, Mifsud met with George Papadopoulos, and although initially distant in the conversation, Mifsud became more interested when he learned that Papadopoulos had joined the Trump campaign.
On March 21, 2016, Donald Trump visited the The Washington Post’s headquarters, where he introduced his foreign policy team — including Papadopoulos — to the editorial board.
A few days later, on March 24, 2016, Olga Polonskaya (neé Vinogradova) met and discussed with Mifsud the possibility of an internship. Shortly after this, Papadopoulos met with both Mifsud and Polonskaya, who Mifsud introduced as President Vladimir Putin’s niece, at a café in London. Mifsud also offered to introduce Papadopoulos to the Russian Ambassador in London, Alexander Yakovenko.
“Mifsud underlines that he and Papadopoulos met three or four times overall. ‘He came here in Italy, in Rome, with seven other experts of international relations working for the London Centre of International Law Practice. We were dining and, if I remember well, he announced that we would join Trump’s electoral campaign team. After that, we kept in touch via email or when we subsequently met in person. But, let’s be clear: the Russians didn’t ask me to meet Papadopoulos. Mr. Papadopoulos asked me for contacts in several areas: I proposed someone in the Arabian Gulf, then in Latin America, a hot issue for Trump after his remarks on the wall at the border with Mexico, then in Russia and the European Council. They chose Russia as they were interested in sanctions against Moscow, NATO, Ukraine and a more stable relationship with Russia. A topic very sensitive also for the Russians.’” — Repubblica
After the meeting, Polonskaya texted her brother, Sergei Vinogradov, about the meeting, as she had understood half of the conversation. The text message read: “Because my English was bad”.
Elsewhere, Papadopoulos sent an e-mail to seven members of the Trump campaign in an attempt to arrange a meeting between the campaign and the Russians, with the title of the e-mail being “Meeting with Russian Leadership — Including Putin”, which also discussed his meeting with Mifsud. The proposal was dismissed by the campaign, with concerns raised by Sam Clovis and Charles Kubic.
On March 31, 2016, Papadopoulos attended a national security meeting in Washington, DC with the foreign policy advisers of the Trump campaign and Trump himself. As he introduced himself, he mentioned connections which may assist in arranging a meeting between Trump and President Putin.
On April 10, 2016, Papadopoulos sent an e-mail to Polonskaya.
The next day, on April 11, 2016, Polonskaya responded to Papadopoulos’s e-mail, where she suggested she would help build relations between the United States and Russia, which led to a discussion between Papadopoulos, Polonskaya and Mifsud about arranging a foreign policy trip to Russia.
JOSEPH MIFSUD: “This is already been agreed. I am flying to Moscow on the 18th for a Valdai meeting, plus other meetings at the Duma.”
OLGA POLONSKAYA: “I have already alerted my personal links to our conversation and your request… As mentioned we are all very excited by the possibility of a good relationship with Mr. Trump. The Russian Federation would love to welcome him once his candidature would be officially announced.” — The Indictment of George Papadopoulos
On April 13, 2016, Mifsud and Sir George Reid hosted a public talk titled “Controlled or uncontrolled migration — a fortress EU or a global response?” at the University of Stirling.
On April 18, 2016, Mifsud introduced Papadopoulos via e-mail to Ivan Timofeev. Timofeev then said he had connections to the Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs. This led to numerous Skype conversations between both Papadopoulos and Timofeev.
“At some point, he started asking whether it would be possible to set up a meeting between Trump and Putin ‘or some other high-ranking Russian politicians.’ Our conversations made it clear that George was not well acquainted with the Russian foreign political landscape. You obviously can’t just go and set up a meeting with the president, for instance. Things just aren’t done that way.” — Ivan Timofeev, August 21, 2017
On April 19, 2016, Mifsud attended a discussion at the Valdai Club, moderated by Ivan Timofeev, with other attendees including Stephan Roh and Igor Tomberg.
On April 22, 2016, Timofeev e-mailed Papadopoulos and thanked him for their talk, and suggested that they meet in either London or Moscow — Papadopoulos suggested a meeting in London between the two of them and Mifsud.
On April 25, 2016, Papadopoulos e-mailedStephen Miller, where he again pushed for the idea of a meeting between Trump and President Putin.
On April 26, 2016, Mifsud and Papadopoulos met with each other again at a hotel in London, where Mifsud mentioned that he had returned from Moscow and a meeting with Russian Government officials, during which he learned of the existence of dirt on Hillary Clinton held by the Russians.
“Roh claims that Mifsud has done nothing wrong and was set up — and denies having ever told Papadopoulos the Russians had dirt on Clinton.” — BuzzFeed News
“Ok. But what about the emails stolen from Mrs. Clinton? ‘The dirty job’ offered to Papadopoulos? ‘I don’t know. I strongly deny any discussion of mine about secrets concerning Hillary Clinton. I swear it on my daughter. I don’t know anyone belonging to the Russian government: the only Russian I know is Ivan Timofeev, director of the think tank ‘Russian International Affairs Council’. Which is based at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Russian Federation. ‘But this is meaningless’, Mifsud says.” — Repubblica
On April 27, 2016, Papadopoulos e-mailed both Miller and a high-ranking official separately at the Trump campaign, where he again pushed for a trip to Moscow.
On April 30, 2016, Papadopoulos sent an e-mail to Mifsud and thanked him for his assistance in potentially arranging a meeting between the Trump campaign and the Russian Government.
On May 4, 2016, Timofeev sent an e-mail to both Papadopoulos and Mifsud, where he said the Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs were open to cooperation, and that Papadopoulos should meet with the North America Desk when he is next in Moscow. Papadopoulos then forwarded the e-mail chain to the high-ranking campaign official for guidance.
On May 5, 2016, Papadopoulos had a phone call with Clovis, and then forwarded the same e-mail chain to him.
On May 13, 2016, Mifsud e-mailed Papadopoulos with an update on their recent conversations.
“We will continue to liaise through you with the Russian counterparts in terms of what is needed for a high level meeting of Mr. Trump with the Russian Federation.” — Joseph Mifsud
The next day, on May 14, 2016, Papadopolous e-mailed the high-ranking campaign official and said that the Russian Government was open to hosting Trump in Russia.
On May 21, 2016, Papadopoulos e-mailed another high-ranking Trump campaign official, which had the subject line “Request from Russia to meet Mr. Trump”, which included the May 4, 2016 e-mail chain.
Between May 21–23, 2016, Mifsud attended the 16th Doha Forum in Qatar, where he represented the London Academy of Diplomacy. The event was also attended by Tobias Ellwood, MP.
On June 1, 2016, Papadopoulos e-mailed the high-ranking Trump campaign official, who then redirected him to the campaign supervisor. Papadopoulos then e-mailed the campaign supervisor about the Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs seeking a meeting with Trump, and whether or not he should ignore it.
On June 19, 2016, Papadopoulos e-mailed the high-ranking Trump campaign official again, as Timofeev had suggested to him that a campaign representative could go to Moscow instead to attend the meetings instead of Trump himself.
In July 2016, Mifsud lost his honorary professorship from the University of East Anglia.
On July 21, 2016, Mifsud attended the graduation of students from the London Academy of Diplomacy.
On August 15, 2016, the campaign supervisor sent an e-mail to Papadopoulos and said that he and another foreign policy adviser should visit Moscow and accept the trip offer from the Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs.
In September 2016, Simona started to work at the London Centre of International Law Practice, where she received a LinkedIn message from George Papadopoulos, who liked her photograph and noted that they have connections to the same place of employment, followed by an attempt to arrange a meeting with her, which fell through.
In late October 2016, Simona sent an e-mail to Mifsud, where she complained about her employment and how she had been ‘working for nothing’ as she was paying rent on her flat in South Kensington using savings.
On October 27, 2016, Mifsud attended the “International Law and the Territorial Gains and Losses of Non-State Armed Groups in Africa and the Middle East” discussion at Gray’s Inn, which was hosted by the London Centre of International Law Practice.
On October 29, 2016, at 01:30 A.M., Mifsud responded to Simona from his Stirling University e-mail address in Italian from London, having returned from Moscow.
“Dear Simona,
I hope you are fine… I was in Moscow… Now I’m in London. Can we meet in person? I’m here until Tuesday night.
A hug.
J” — The Guardian
In November 2016, Simona quit her position at the London Centre of International Law Practice, having received zero pay. Her work iPhone stopped working afterwards.
At the start of February 2017, the Federal Bureau of Investigation found Mifsud in Washington, DC.
Between February 8–11, 2017, Mifsud attended Global Ties’ Unity In Community national meeting at the Omni Shoreham Hotel in Washington, DC, a non-profit organisation with a working relationship with the United States Department of State.
On February 11, 2017, Mifsud sent an e-mail about his conversations with Papadopoulos to agents at the Federal Bureau of Investigation, and then left Washington, DC.
On February 16, 2017, the Federal Bureau of Investigation interviewed Papadopoulos again, this time with Papadopoulos’s counsel present. Papadopoulos offered to cooperate with the Federal Bureau of Investigation.
In March 2017, George and Simona met each other in New York, where they started to date each other.
On March 20, 2017, Mifsud sent a text to Anna to inform her that he would chair a meeting in Saudi Arabia on international security.
The next day, on March 21, 2017, Mifsud sent a photograph to Anna of buildings in Saudi Arabia which showed the flags of the United States and Saudi Arabia.
“Today, there is no sign of the London Academy of Diplomacy on Middlesex Street in London. Phone numbers for the organisation that can be found online do not work and websites lead to error messages. A receptionist at the address said the organisation left the premises six months ago.” — Carole Cadwalladr, The Guardian, October 31, 2017
In early April 2017, Mifsud and Anna met with each other in Kiev, Ukraine, where Mifsud informed Anna that he had been questioned by the Federal Bureau of Investigation.
In May 2017, Mifsud started to work as a full-time professional teaching fellow in the politics department at the University of Stirling.
Between May 8–9, 2017, Mifsud attended the G7 International Forum about “Globalization, Inclusion and Sustainability In a Global Century” in Rome, Italy, hosted by Link University Campus and Fondazione Economia Tor Vergata.
On May 12, 2017, Mifsud, Dr. Roh, Vladimir Likhachev and Timofeev held a presentation on the international report “GLOBAL ENERGY 2015–2016”, which was hosted by the Russian International Affairs Council.
The day after, on May 13, 2017, Mifsud and Anna texted each other, where Mifsud accused her of cheating on him after Anna discovered that she was pregnant.
On May 14, 2017, Mifsud and Anna continued to text each other, where Mifsud had moved to celebrate Anna’s pregnancy.
After May 18, 2017, Timofeev was stopped at an airport in the United States by Team Mueller, where he was questioned about his interactions with Papadopoulos.
On May 21, 2017, Mifsud and Secretary Ashton Carter attended the Riyadh Forum On Countering Extremism and Fighting Terrorism in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia.
Between June 26–27, 2017, Mifsud and George Soros attended the annual council meeting for the European Council On Foreign Affairs in Berlin, Germany.
On July 10, 2017, Mifsud met with Ernest Chernukhin, a representative of the Russian Embassy in London.
On July 27, 2017, Papadopoulos was arrested at Dulles International Airport upon his arrival.
In August 2017, Mifsud e-mailedThe Washington Post and stated that he had no contact or history with the Russian Government.
On August 21, 2017, Timofeev was interviewed by Gazeta about his involvement with the 2016 presidential election.
Around the start of September 2017, Polonskaya contacted Prasenjit Kumar Singh after they had met at Link Campus University, where she requested for the two of them to meet. Singh and Polonskaya then met to discuss the translation of Singh’s website for the London Executive School from English into Russian, which Polonskaya then proceeded to do.
On September 29, 2017, Mifsud and Anna texted each other about Anna’s pregnancy and Mifsud’s failing health and triple bypass.
In October 2017, BuzzFeed Newscontacted Anna in Kiev, Ukraine, but she refused to discuss her relationship with Mifsud.
On October 5, 2017, George Papadopoulos pleaded guilty for lying to the Federal Bureau of Investigation. At the same time, Simona Mangiante received a visit from an agent of Team Mueller while at George’s family home in Chicago, where he served a subpoena signed by Aaron Zelinsky. Later, she visited the Federal Bureau of Investigation’s Chicago Field Office, which led to a 2-and-a-half hour interrogation by the agent that served the subpoena and a female agent.
“Among other things she would not discuss with the Guardian, the FBI was interested in her relationship with Papadopoulos. Was it genuine? ‘They asked: ‘Do you love him?’ I replied: ‘yes’. They replied: ‘He [Papadopoulos] is lucky’.’” — The Guardian
On October 19, 2017, Mifsud attended a fundraising dinner in Reading West, which was also attended by Alok Sharma and Boris Johnson, who was a guest speaker at the event. During this time, Mifsud met with both Sharma and Johnson, as Mifsud had planned to speak with Johnson about Brexit. Mifsud when then photographed with Johnson and Prasenjit Kumar Singh.
On October 27, 2017, Mifsud and Anna texted each other about Mifsud’s failing health.
ANNA: “Hello” 14:25
ANNA: “Someone from London journalist asks about you.” 14:26
JOSEPH MIFSUD: “Do not reply please” 15:23
ANNA: “so you do not get sick? and you were in Rome 2 days ago?” 16:58 — BuzzFeed News
On November 9, 2017, Ali Watkins — with contributions from Josh Meyer and Naomi O’Leary — published the article “Mysterious Putin ‘niece’ has a name” in Politico.
In October 2018, Dr. Roh sent a photograph of Mifsud, taken on May 21, 2018, to BuzzFeed News and The Associated Press, among many other organisations.
On November 12, 2018, Dr. Roh sent an e-mail to BuzzFeed News, where he informed the organisation that they were attempting to arrange a testimonial in front of the United States Senate for Mifsud.
In early 2018, Timofeev met with reporters from CNN in his Moscow office, where they discussed Papadopoulos and Mifsud’s meetings, and his own communications with Papadopoulos.
In January 2018, Simona met with Luke Harding and Stephanie Kirchgaessner of The Guardian, where they interviewed her about her visit from Team Mueller in October 2017.
In August 2018, a reporter from The Associated Pressvisited Malta in an attempt to track down information about Mifsud and his whereabouts.
On August 13, 2018, a reporter from The Associated Pressvisited the home of Mifsud’s wife, Janet, who retreated into her home upon realising that the reporter was from the media.
On August 14, 2018, Janet sent an e-mail to the reporter from The Associated Press, where she stated that she had nothing to comment about.
World War II is often called “the good war,” and has been since the U.S. war on Vietnam to which it was then contrasted. World War II so dominates U.S. and therefore Western entertainment and education, that “good” often comes to mean something more than “just.” The winner of the “Miss Italy” beauty pageant earlier this year got herself into a bit of a scandal by declaring that she would have liked to live through World War II. While she was mocked, she was clearly not alone. Many would like to be part of something widely depicted as noble, heroic, and exciting. Should they actually find a time machine, I recommend they read the statements of some actual WWII veterans and survivors before they head back to join the fun.[i] For purposes of this book, however, I am going to look only at the claim that WWII was morally just. … continue
This site is provided as a research and reference tool. Although we make every reasonable effort to ensure that the information and data provided at this site are useful, accurate, and current, we cannot guarantee that the information and data provided here will be error-free. By using this site, you assume all responsibility for and risk arising from your use of and reliance upon the contents of this site.
This site and the information available through it do not, and are not intended to constitute legal advice. Should you require legal advice, you should consult your own attorney.
Nothing within this site or linked to by this site constitutes investment advice or medical advice.
Materials accessible from or added to this site by third parties, such as comments posted, are strictly the responsibility of the third party who added such materials or made them accessible and we neither endorse nor undertake to control, monitor, edit or assume responsibility for any such third-party material.
The posting of stories, commentaries, reports, documents and links (embedded or otherwise) on this site does not in any way, shape or form, implied or otherwise, necessarily express or suggest endorsement or support of any of such posted material or parts therein.
The word “alleged” is deemed to occur before the word “fraud.” Since the rule of law still applies. To peasants, at least.
Fair Use
This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc. We believe this constitutes a ‘fair use’ of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more info go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond ‘fair use’, you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.
DMCA Contact
This is information for anyone that wishes to challenge our “fair use” of copyrighted material.
If you are a legal copyright holder or a designated agent for such and you believe that content residing on or accessible through our website infringes a copyright and falls outside the boundaries of “Fair Use”, please send a notice of infringement by contacting atheonews@gmail.com.
We will respond and take necessary action immediately.
If notice is given of an alleged copyright violation we will act expeditiously to remove or disable access to the material(s) in question.
All 3rd party material posted on this website is copyright the respective owners / authors. Aletho News makes no claim of copyright on such material.
![Palestinian prisoner, Heba Al-Labadi is on the eighth day of hunger strike after being sentenced to administrative detention for five months without charge or trial on 20 August 2019 [Twitter]](https://i0.wp.com/www.middleeastmonitor.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/10/ECYxESYWkAAW0NB-e1569940375372.jpg?resize=1024%2C683&quality=75&strip=all&ssl=1)
Aletho News 