Aletho News

ΑΛΗΘΩΣ

Washington Is Gaslighting Us About Taiwan

By Patrick Macfarlane | The Libertarian Institute | August 25, 2022

Since Nancy Pelosi’s purposeless diplomatic visit to Taipei on August 2, cross-strait tensions have soared between China and Taiwan. Pelosi’s envoy has effectively reduced U.S.-China relations to its lowest point since at least 1995—when diplomatic efforts between Washington and Taipei instigated a tit-for-tat military standoff between Washington and Beijing.

In response to Pelosi’s visit, China’s People’s Liberation Army (PLA) launched an unprecedented series of military drills in six marine sectors around Taiwan. The drills included anti-submarine and sea assault operations and a simulated blockade of the island. Chinese fighters and warships crossed the Taiwan Strait’s median line every day that the drills took place.

The high point of Beijing’s response occurred immediately after Pelosi’s departure from Taiwan when it launched a rocket barrage over the island.

After the trip, U.S. officials and pundits redoubled their attempts to cast Beijing’s response as an unprovoked overreaction as they had done in the days preceding it. Secretary of State Antony Blinken’s August 1 pre-visit statement is emblematic of the war party’s post-trip spin:

What I can say is this: this is very much precedent in the sense that a previous speaker has visited Taiwan, many members of congress go to Taiwan, including this year and so if the Speaker does decide to visit and China decides to create some kind of crisis or otherwise escalate tensions, that would be entirely on Beijing. We are looking for them, in the event she decides to visit, to act responsibly and not to engage in any escalation going forward.

Blinken’s statement, and the cacophony of hawkishness that echoes it, are classic examples of gaslighting.

In modern parlance the term “gaslighting” broadly denotes a pattern of manipulation that victims experience in abusive relationships.

Psychology Today defines it thusly:

Gaslighting is an insidious form of manipulation and psychological control. Victims of gaslighting are deliberately and systematically fed false information that leads them to question what they know to be true, often about themselves. They may end up doubting their memory, their perception, and even their sanity. Over time, a gaslighter’s manipulations can grow more complex and potent, making it increasingly difficult for the victim to see the truth.

The phenomenon was professionally documented, perhaps for the first time, in a 1969 article published in The Lancet. Entitled “The Gas-Light Phenomenon,” the article examines three case studies in which families attempt to rid themselves of an unwanted member by convincing said member, and the target institution, that the member qualifies for admittance due to a mental condition the family manufactured.

The 1969 article named the phenomenon after the 1938 play “Gas Light,” in which a husband attempts to rid himself of his wife by “driving her into a mental asylum.” The story was later popularized by the 1944 film of the same name staring Charles Boyer, Ingrid Bergman, and Joseph Cotten.

The specific gaslit arguments that the hawks employ against China are as follows:

1. Beijing is overreacting.

On August 4, the National Security Council’s strategic communications coordinator John Kirby told reporters:

China has chosen to overreact and use the Speaker’s visit as a pretext to increase provocative military activity in and around the Taiwan Strait. We anticipated that China might take steps like this. (Emphasis Added)

Kirby’s statement itself betrays his desired narrative. He implies that Pelosi’s visit was a convenient pretext for Beijing to justify an increase in its military activity in the strait. This framing does not comport with reality. On the contrary, Beijing repeatedly warned against the visit. Even if Beijing was insincere in its warnings and was looking for such a pretext, Pelosi provided it.

Furthermore, Kirby himself admits that Washington anticipated Beijing’s reaction. Despite this, the White House took no action—formal or otherwise—to prevent Pelosi from going.

2. Pelosi’s visit has precedent.

The war party line, that Pelosi’s trip has precedent, is true—but only to the extent that former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich did indeed fly to Taiwan in 1997 to meet with the then-president of Taiwan, Lee Teng-hui. That is where the similarity ends.

In truth, the 1997 trip occurred under very different circumstances.

For one, Gingrich visited Beijing and Shanghai before flying to Taiwan. Second, Beijing also opposed Gingrich’s visit to Taiwan. Chinese officials begrudgingly approved of the Taiwan stop only after Gingrich threatened to cancel the Chinese leg of his tour. Third, Gringrich’s visit occurred shortly after the Third Taiwan Strait Crisis–an event that began when President Clinton issued a visa to Lee Teng-hui to speak at Cornell University. After having just deescalated from the brink of war, it is likely that Beijing desired normal relations with the United States. Fourth, in 1997, the United States did not have the regular military presence in the Indo-Pacific that it now has. Fifth, Pelosi’s 2022 trip expressly considered “mutual security,” which in the Indo-Pacific can only mean confronting China. Finally, in 1997 the Chinese military only possessed a fraction of the strength it now does.

In his August 1 statement, Blinken stated “many members of Congress go to Taiwan.” This is also true, however, China always objects to these delegations and normally responds to them with military exercises.

3. Beijing’s military drills are a reckless and unprovoked provocation

The undeniable truth is that before learning of Pelosi’s visit, Beijing was not planning military exercises anywhere near the size and scope of those performed after her visit. Beijing repeatedly warned Washington of the dire consequences of the visit. Pelosi went anyway. Washington did nothing to stop her. Beijing directly cited the drills as a consequence for the visit.

This observation is not to say that Beijing is a completely innocent victim. It should not be conducting the drills, but there is no evidence to suggest that the drills would have happened absent Pelosi’s visit. Actions have reactions.

4. Pelosi’s visit does not contradict longstanding U.S. policy.

The Taiwan Relations Act of 1979 expressly “terminate[s] governmental relations between the United States and the governing authorities on Taiwan.” The United States does not and should not have formal or informal diplomatic relations with Taiwan.

What is it called when the sitting Speaker of the House, the third in line to the presidency, has a meeting with the sitting president of Taiwan?

5. Pelosi’s visit is not a danger to China.

According to the One-China policy, Taiwan is China. This is official United States policy—at least on paper.

Through the decades, especially since the beginning of the Trump administration, the United States has been moving away from the One-China policy and its “strategic ambiguity” regarding the actions it will take to defend Taiwan in the event of a Chinese invasion.

Pelosi’s visit is a late stage step toward a formal American repudiation of the One-China policy. Indeed, her delegation has likely ushered in a new era of militarization in the region, all of it likely foreseen—and perhaps desired—by the U.S.

Since Pelosi’s visit, two additional congressional delegations have visited the island. The first delegation arrived August 14 and was composed of Senator Ed Markey (D-Mass) and four other members. The delegation reportedly asked Taiwanese lawmakers how they felt about “strategic ambiguity” and if they would like the policy changed to “strategic clarity.” The delegation discussed regional security and increasing economic ties between Washington and Taipei.

The second delegation arrived in Taiwan on August 21 and met with Taiwanese officials about formalizing economic ties, mainly the production of superconductors. The delegation came in after the White House announced formal trade talks to occur this fall.

Increasing cooperation between the U.S. and Taiwan will further economic decoupling between both the U.S. and China and Taiwan and China. Economic ties between each are a major impediment to war. Furthermore, close military ties between the U.S. and Taiwan could give the U.S. a permanent military presence within China, as was the case before 1979. China will not allow this to happen.

American China hawks have used the above arguments to manufacture consent for increasing confrontation over Taiwan, including forthcoming “‘air and maritime transits’ in the Taiwan Strait” that could lead to war. Much like the Lancet’s case study, these hawks must convince the American public to distrust their own perceptions of reality to do so.

How else could anyone believe that Beijing’s actions came out of the clear blue sky?

Patrick MacFarlane is the Justin Raimondo Fellow at the Libertarian Institute where he advocates a noninterventionist foreign policy. He is a Wisconsin attorney in private practice. He is the host of the Liberty Weekly Podcast at http://www.libertyweekly.net, where he seeks to expose establishment narratives with well researched documentary-style content and insightful guest interviews.

August 25, 2022 Posted by | Aletho News | , | Leave a comment

Disappearing YouTube Misinformation Prevention Policies on Masks and Social Distancing

The Naked Emperor’s Newsletter | August 23, 2022

Earlier in the year YouTube’s COIVD-19 medical misinformation policy wouldn’t allow you to post content which contradicted the WHO’s or local health authorities’ guidance on various issues including:

  • Social distancing;
  • Claims that wearing a mask is dangerous or causes negative physical health effects;
  • Claims that masks do not play a role in preventing the contraction or transmission of COVID-19
Image

Now, it’s perfectly fine, signalling that those claims are no longer misinformation. Too bad if you previously had your account cancelled for questioning those policies. You should know by now when it is ok to question The Science™ and when it is verboten. Do keep up.

 

Image

August 25, 2022 Posted by | Full Spectrum Dominance, Science and Pseudo-Science | , | Leave a comment

Pakistan threatens to cut off digital ID of “hecklers”

By Ken Macon | Reclaim The Net | August 23, 2022

Pakistan Interior Minister Rana Sanaullah Khan warned supporters of recently-ousted prime minister Imran Khan whose behavior could be considered “harassment and heckling” that they could have their biometric ID apps blocked, according to a report by The Nation.

The political climate in Pakistan is tense, with supporters of Khan threatening to “take over” and harassing government officials.

The government is now threatening those engaging in heckling and harassment will have their Computerized National Identity Card (CNIC), which is biometric, blocked. CNICs are used to access bank accounts, government services, and to register SIM cards. Blocking the ID would make life rather difficult.

Khan’s supporters could also be arrested, the Interior Minister said. On Twitter, the minister encouraged people to send identifiable videos of Khan’s supporters heckling to the Federal Agency’s Cyber Crime Wing.

Meanwhile, TV stations have been banned from airing Khan’s speeches live. The former Prime Minister accused the government of censorship for temporarily blocking YouTube on Sunday amid his speech at a political rally.

August 25, 2022 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Full Spectrum Dominance | , | Leave a comment

US ices its ‘Ministry of Truth’

Samizdat – August 25, 2022

The US Department of Homeland Security finally shut down the Disinformation Governance Board on Wednesday, over a month after a review panel convened to rescue the idea advised doing just that – and months after widespread condemnation of the project forced the agency to reconsider.

Citing the “prior recommendation” of the Homeland Security Advisory Council, which voted unanimously to dissolve the group last month, DHS Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas officially announced the termination of the Disinformation Governance Board and revoked its charter.

The committee’s final report affirmed that there was no need for a disinformation board, arguing the agency had fallen prey to mission creep. Instead, it was the DHS’ job to “address the disinformation threat streams that can undermine the security of our homeland,” speaking to the public in plain language and emphasizing “the importance of truth.”

Co-authored by former deputy attorney general Jamie Gorelick, the report also blamed the use of the emotionally loaded term “disinformation” for sinking the project, arguing it had inflamed the public’s imagination regarding the new group’s ambitions. “The actual work of the department has been exaggerated, and the real work is extremely straightforward.”

“They don’t have a red pencil to correct everything in the world that’s not true,” Chertoff clarified.

Launched in April, the Disinformation Governance Board immediately came under fire from civil liberties and free speech advocates, who were already concerned about the Biden administration’s cozy relationship with social media and worried about the partisan leanings of its director, Nina Jankowicz. The author and self-styled disinformation expert previously worked for the Ukrainian Foreign Ministry and as a lobbyist targeting Russia and Belarus with “democracy assistance” programs while promoting disinformation of her own, including dismissing the Hunter Biden laptop as a Russian fabrication. Leaked documents reveal she was also in the employ of the UK’s Integrity Initiative, a shadowy influence operation that meddled with the political process at home and abroad under the guise of “defending democracy.”

While the DHS initially tried to defend what critics were denouncing as Biden’s “Ministry of Truth,” it was ultimately forced to put the program on ice, bringing in Chertoff and Gorelick to attempt to salvage the idea. However, the HSAC determined last month there was “no need for a Disinformation Governance Board.”

August 25, 2022 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Full Spectrum Dominance | | Leave a comment

Western Psychological Warfare Apparatus Creates False Beliefs

Tortilla con Sal | August 2022

An increasingly large number of people now agree that information of all kinds in the countries of North America, Europe and their Pacific allies is deployed overwhelmingly to serve the interests of Western corporate oligarchs and the politicians who front for them. Outlets including news media and NGOs, academic and scientific journals as well as international institutions have practically all been fully integrated now into the long standing, global psychological warfare offensive of the West’s ruling classes. At home, they work relentlessly to control the perceptions and behavior of their countries’ populations. Overseas, they seek constantly to mobilize international opinion against countries like Russia and China, governments from Syria to Venezuela, political movements like Hezbollah, and even individuals, like Julian Assange, who resist them.

The main purpose of this vast psychological warfare apparatus is to create false beliefs which over time harden into false memories. The process consolidates ruling class control domestically while also facilitating their present and future crimes of aggression around the world. Populations in the West are deliberately misinformed and misled by means of plausible misrepresentation, blatant distortion, systematic omission and downright lies. Categories of information such as journalism, academic and scientific research, investigation by NGOs or briefings from international institutions have all been deformed, distorted and devalued by their abuse so as to further the domestic and global interests of the Western oligarchies.

Since long before 20th Century public relations and psychology, the fundamental way to manipulate mass consciousness, from the Holy Inquisition to the enthronement of Science, has been to encourage submission to authority. The Milgram experiment is a notorious example, although, in one respect, itself a cause for optimism. Other more insidious means sow ruling class messaging among otherwise trusted contrary sources. Concentrated corporate control of information and communications resources has made possible mutual constant universal reinforcement between all varieties of mass media and information outlets. Like magicians, governments and corporations understand very well that suppressing resistance depends on disappearing contrary information by every means possible, including censorship, mass distraction and sensory overload.

An apparently hardly noticed corollary of this systematic perversion of good faith reporting, research and investigation has been a collapse of rationality. In Western public life, it is now effectively forbidden to compare and contrast rival versions of events which contradict the general received wisdom propagated by Western government and corporate approved information outlets. So political and intellectual argument in North America and Europe has become ever more narcissistic, self-serving and ultimately irrational. This applies also to supposedly progressive or even radical outlets which in their coverage of international affairs still depart from essentially neocolonial assumptions of Western superiority.
Over the last fifteen years or so a growing number of independent writers and reporters have sought to challenge the false information spread by well coordinated and concentrated corporate and government controlled networks of mutually reinforcing information outlets. This development has notably sharpened the relation between information and class. More clearly than ever the production and distribution of information has become a vast theater of propaganda operations controlled by a multinational intellectual managerial class with shared imperatives. They promote and enforce a class monopoly of access to information outlets for producers of information and similarly a corresponding monopoly of distribution outlets, both mainstream and ostensibly alternative, for its consumption.

All production and distribution of information involves some variety of reporting which, like any other human activity, can be good or bad. Reporting in general has always been an arena of competing interests and rationalities. But, even so, fundamental components of competent reporting have generally been held to include, among other things, recording first hand accounts of events, clearly sourcing those accounts, presenting trustworthy data and documentary evidence, offering provenance of those sources, acknowledging loyalties and bias while considering competing rival versions, making the reporting accessible and frankly submitting all this material to free and open scrutiny.

It is certainly debatable when contemporary reporting began its categorical collapse into the current gross, unrelenting pyschological warfare offensive by North American and European oligarchies against their own peoples and the majority world. However, the rapidly increasing numbers of independent reporting outlets signal the reality of that collapse and also help reveal its class nature, its class nuances and its irrationality. The currently developing fierce efforts by the West’s ruling oligarchs to repress and censor independent reporting confirm the wholesale abandonment of rationality by Western societies and their leaders. A principal criterion for appraising rationality in an individual or a society is precisely their ability and self-confidence in making a case against rival arguments.

Attempts at outright censorship, or the many other kinds of arbitrary intellectual and cultural repression deployed, represent a failure to be able to reason effectively, to promote consensus or to accommodate legitimate dissent. This collapse of reason and its accompanying deformation of self-confidence into dismissal and exclusion are self-evident in the routine reporting practice and editorial policies of the managers controlling academic and scientific production and the propaganda theater most people still like to call journalism, among the board members and staff of influential non governmental organizations, among the personnel of international institutions and also among the managerial class controlling artistic and cultural production.

Given the intense concentration of political and economic power among the Western oligarchs who have successfully conspired to control all these sectors, the resulting general unanimity of presuppositions among their respective subaltern intellectual and cultural managerial classes is as much to be expected as their complete lack of accountability. Anyone openly challenging or contradicting received wisdom is marginalized and ostracised in what is a truly authentic class warfare waged by North American and European oligarchs against their own peoples and the majority world.

In response, as a class phenomenon, the proliferation of independent reporting outlets reflects not just underlying genuine popular outrage at being permanently misled. It is also a correspondingly authentic, resilient grassroots challenge to the status quo. Conventional liberal or social democrat opinion gauges the authenticity of independent reporting by the criteria of financial and/or editorial independence. But a low budget is no guarantee of integrity and a genuinely independent information outlet may or may not be ideologically aligned with a foreign political movement or government. Under contemporary conditions a more authentic criteria of reporting independence is the degree of legitimate defence of governments and peoples who are victims of the crimes of Western ruling elites.

Truly independent reporting takes this position while at the same time using conventional reporting norms to cover issues and events Western mainstream and alternative media obfuscate or conceal. Doing so necessarily endows genuinely independent reporting outlets, regardless of their political allegiances, with class characteristics by the very nature of their readiness to expose contradictions in accounts of events and issues produced by corporate capitalist information outlets. Paradoxically or not, class solidarity with the victims of imperialist crimes becomes the principal criteria of reporting independence both in terms of what is reported and too how it is reported. For the moment, that means being in solidarity with the world’s peoples defending their basic rights against Western ruling class aggression.

This text was produced by Stephen Sefton with research by Lauren Smith and comments from others.

August 25, 2022 Posted by | Deception, Full Spectrum Dominance, Mainstream Media, Warmongering | Leave a comment

Study Exposes Misinformation Campaign Pushing Pro-American Narratives on Twitter, Facebook

By Kyle Anzalone | The Libertarian Institute | August 24, 2022

Graphika and the Stanford Internet Observatory released a study showing a “series of covert campaigns over a period of almost five years” that pushed pro-Western misinformation on Twitter, Facebook and five other social media platforms. The operations targeted people living in Central Asia and the Middle East.

An investigation was launched after Twitter and Merta turned over the data on two overlapping accounts to Graphika and the Stanford Internet Observatory. The accounts were removed in July and August for violating teams of services, including “platform manipulation” and “inauthentic behavior.” The fake accounts deployed misinformation to set narratives supporting Western geopolitical goals.

According to the executive summary, “Our joint investigation found an interconnected web of accounts on Twitter, Facebook, Instagram, and five other social media platforms that used deceptive tactics to promote pro-Western narratives in the Middle East and Central Asia.” It continues, “The platforms’ datasets appear to cover a series of covert campaigns over a period of almost five years rather than one homogeneous operation.”

One operation by the covert accounts was directed at Central Asia. A narrative the fake accounts tried to spread was painting Russia as the looming enemy. “Assets in the group consistently portrayed Russia as a threat to Central Asia. A recurring narrative claimed that Russia is abusing Russian-Central Asian partnerships, namely the CSTO, to extract one-sided benefits…The assets also said Central Asian countries must leave these organizations if they wish to retake their full sovereignty from Russia.”

The Central Asia operations also sought to portray Russia as a villain and support the Ukrainian war effort. On several occasions, the accounts attempted to generate hashtag campaigns supporting Kiev.

The covert accounts campaigns against Iran linked to articles from fake media outlets to spread misinformation. The report says, “Several suspended accounts were linked to two sham media outlets operating in Persian.” However, not all the posts are linked to phony media outlets. The accounts frequently linked to stories from US government-funded sources like Voice of America.

A different operation attempted to set the discourse on the war in Yemen. “These accounts shared content critical of Iranian and Houthi rebel activity in Yemen. Posts accused Houthi rebel leaders of blocking humanitarian aid deliveries, acting as proxies for Iran and Hezbollah,” the report authors wrote.

While Graphika and the Stanford Internet Observatory do not name a culprit for the misinformation campaigns, they say the accounts were likely ineffective at spreading misinformation. “The data also shows the limitations of using inauthentic tactics to generate engagement and build influence online. The vast majority of posts and tweets we reviewed received no more than a handful of likes or retweets.”

August 25, 2022 Posted by | Aletho News | , , , , | Leave a comment

Inhumane acts committed by Azov terrorists will be made public in International Tribunal

Samizdat – 25.08.2022

Washington is afraid that crimes committed by Ukraine’s Azov neo-nazi regiment will come to light during the international tribunal for war criminals in Mariupol, the Russian Embassy to the US said.

The Russian embassy noted that the upcoming tribunal against Ukrainian war criminals, which is being prepared by the DPR authorities, will hold Ukrainian Neo-Nazis accountable.

“We have taken note of another groundless accusation against our country related to the Tribunal over Ukrainian war criminals. The upcoming Trial is aimed at bringing justice to war criminals, among which there are Nazis from the Azov Regiment. Washington is clearly afraid of making public the evidence of the inhumane acts committed by the members of this terrorist organization,” a statement read.

“The International Tribunal in Mariupol can shed light on the true essence of the Kiev regime, of which the United States diligently creates a bright and heroic image. American citizens will finally learn that in reality, their government is helping those who purposefully kill and torture the Russian people of Donbass and Ukraine,” it said.

The embassy said Russia fully complies with the Geneva Conventions and guarantees Ukrainian captives proper conditions of detention.

Donetsk People’s Republic (DPR) leader Denis Pushilin earlier said that the suspected war criminals captued by the Donbass militias would face an international tribunal, which is to be held in Mariupol. He noted that the DPR authorities would not delay the trial, adding that the Foreign Ministry is working to invite the international community to take part in the tribunal.

Donetsk People’s Republic (DPR) leader Denis Pushilin earlier said that the suspected war criminals captured by the Donbass militias would face an international tribunal, which is to be held in Mariupol. The politician stated that among suspects are neo-Nazis and some troops who committed atrocities in Donbass over the past 8 years.

He noted that the DPR authorities would not delay the trial, adding that the Foreign Ministry is working to invite the international community to take part in the tribunal.

August 25, 2022 Posted by | Subjugation - Torture, War Crimes | , | Leave a comment

US Drones Flying in Afghan Airspace, Taliban Says as Group Yet to Confirm Death of al-Zawahiri

Samizdat – 25.08.2022

Afghanistan on Thursday accused the US of flying drones over its territory without official permission.

Taliban spokesman Zabiullah Mujahid said his government raised the issue with the US as it considers operating drones without its consent to be an act of aggression.

The spokesman also mentioned that the alleged killing of Ayman al-Zawahiri, leader of the al-Qaeda network, is still a claim, and “the investigation has not yet been finalized.”

On August 1, US President Joe Biden announced that Zawahiri was killed in a “precision” strike in Kabul, where the terrorist mastermind had, as Washington claimed, moved to “reunite with members of his immediate family.”

Under the Doha peace deal which was struck between the US and the Taliban in 2020, the group reportedly agreed not to allow al-Qaeda or any other extremist group to operate in areas under their control.

According to media reports, al-Zawahiri had been in charge of the terror group al-Qaeda since 2011.

August 25, 2022 Posted by | Deception, Illegal Occupation, Militarism | , | Leave a comment

US-South Korean Ulchi Freedom Shield military exercises raises alarms in Pyongyang

By Ahmed Adel | August 25, 2022

South Korea and the United States began the joint Ulchi Freedom Shield (UFS) military exercises on August 22, resuming large-scale field training after a four-year pause. Following the Singapore summit in 2018 between North Korean leader Kim Jong-un and then US President Donald Trump, joint land exercises were cancelled and the scale of the UFS exercises was significantly reduced. However, with US President Joe Biden in power and the consequential destabilisation because of Washington’s desperate attempt to maintain a unipolar order, these exercises have resumed.  

Trump tried to convince Pyongyang to give up its nuclear weapons program as a shield to ensure its security. An important basis for this US decision was the policy of then-South Korean President Moon Jae-in, who actively established dialogue with North Korea. Incumbent President of South Korea Yoon Suk-yeol has reviewed inter-Korean relations and promised to carry out regular military drills and strengthen his country’s missile defence capabilities. As a result, South Korea fully resumed joint military exercises with the US.

Western media reported that this year’s UFS exercise includes a series of drills in specific hypothetical situations, modelled on an all-out war, simulating joint attacks, as well as operations such as supplying weapons and fuel to the front, and moving weapons of mass destruction. In the past, the US and South Korea mobilised tens of thousands of troops and a large number of aircraft, warships and tanks to participate in similar exercises. 

According to a shared statement, South Korea and the US are holding these drills in response to North Korea, which has increased the number and scale of missile tests over the past year. North Korea is not a credible threat to the US though and is unlikely to attack South Korea unprovoked, meaning that their missile tests are a demonstration of its defensive capabilities. 

North Korea traditionally views joint US-South Korean military exercises as preparations for an invasion, a legitimate concern since it was the US who internationalised the Korean Civil War that has kept the peninsula divided ever since.  

The joint US-South Korean military exercises are sure to provoke an outraged response from Pyongyang. Although Pyongyang can limit itself to harsh rhetoric, the recent cruise missile launches are a pre-emptive response to the US-South Korean military drills. In general, the provocative exercises have pushed tensions to a new level.

At the meeting on August 9 in the Chinese city of Qingdao, Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi and his South Korean counterpart Park Jin exchanged views on the latest situation on the Korean Peninsula and how to resolve tensions. At that time, the date and scope of the UFS exercise were announced. It is possible that this caused the Chinese side to voice their concerns about the US-South Korea exercise plan and the possible impact it can have on stability in Northeast Asia. 

After the talks, the South Korean minister asked Beijing to play a constructive role in persuading Pyongyang to choose dialogue over a military response. At the same time, Park Jin acknowledged that peace and stability on the Korean Peninsula is facing unprecedented challenges, but without acknowledging this was at his own country’s behest as it continually invites a non-regional actor to interfere in affairs. 

For his part, Wang Yi called Pyongyang and Seoul as the two real masters of the Korean peninsula, making it clear that China expects South Korea to make responsible decisions regarding bilateral relations and without outside influence. But, this year’s UFS military exercise shows that Seoul is not ready to act confidently and independently.

It appears that the current US-influenced South Korean government is incapable of managing the security situation on the Korean peninsula. This concerns China as it already faces US provocations regarding Taiwan and it does not want another major flashpoint opened on its border.

The North Korean government regularly asks China to play a constructive role. South Korean leaders are well aware that, in fact, China is the only country with some kind of leverage and influence over Pyongyang. In general, Yoon Suk-yeol’s administration does not want to increase confrontation with China, but at the same time acts as a US lackey towards North Korea.

Yoon Suk-yeol tried to avoid trouble and repeatedly reassured that South Korea’s participation in some American initiatives was not directed against China. South Korea wants to join US economic initiatives, but this always comes at a price of serving American geopolitical interests. 

During his talks with his South Korean counterpart, Wang Yi affirmed that China supports the improvement of North-South relations, adheres to a two-way phased approach, and promotes denuclearisation and building a peace mechanism on the peninsula. 

But just because Chinese concerns may be acknowledged, it does not mean that North Korea feels anymore relaxed about the provocative exercises. In fact, given the context of the US instigating war in Ukraine and attempting to destabilise the Taiwan Straits, Pyongyang has very legitimate concerns with Washington’s intentions on the Korean peninsula. 

Ahmed Adel is a Cairo-based geopolitics and political economy researcher.

August 25, 2022 Posted by | Militarism | , , , | Leave a comment

Watch the New Film About Cartoonist Bob Moran

BY TOBY YOUNG | THE DAILY SCEPTIC | AUGUST 22, 2022

A talented filmmaker called Keith Craig has made a film about Bob Moran, the brilliant, acerbic, passionate cartoonist who lost his job at the Telegraph for being too outspoken and uncompromising in his opposition to the lockdown policy. Most of this site’s long-term readers will be familiar with Bob’s work, which we have used many times and continue to use in our Archive section. They’ll also be familiar with the cast of talking heads in this film – James Delingpole, Bev Turner, Dr. Tess Lawrie, Bernie Spofforth, Tonia Buxton and more.

This hugely enjoyable, lovingly-made film is very much worth watching in full. Deserves to become a cult classic.

August 25, 2022 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Science and Pseudo-Science, Timeless or most popular, Video | , , , | Leave a comment

Democrats and Republicans Pretend They Have Massive, Unbridgeable Differences So They Can Unite Seamlessly on War

Bernie and Lindsey share a moment of collegiality. Photo by Matt Stone via Getty Images
By Michael Tracey | August 24, 2022

After endless rounds of Hamlet-style legislative tedium, Congressional Democrats finally muscled through a $430 billion spending bill this month which deals with a smattering of their domestic policy priorities. Because Republicans opposed the bill en masse, and Democrats supported it en masse, one might look at this development and conclude that standard-fare partisanship is just as indelible a feature of US politics as it’s ever been. After all, the partisan affiliation of Senators and House members was perfectly predictive of their voting behavior vis-a-vis the “Inflation Reduction Act.” When the rubber hits the road, it turns out Republicans and Democrats really do have competing, irreconcilable interests — right?

Thanks to these occasional instances of classically polarized partisan sausage-making, elected officials and media operatives can claim at least some basis for their frantic insistence that some titanic gulf separates the two parties. The ever-presence of bi-directional Culture War agitation can heighten this impression — upon which it always becomes existentially crucial that one or the other party gets put into power at the next election. Make sure to vote in the upcoming Midterms, because these Midterms just happen to be the most consequential Midterms of all time, at least since the 2018 Midterms. The fate of humanity hinges on whether Chuck Schumer or Mitch McConnell controls the Senate, didn’t you know?

On the other hand, if you’re one of the vanishingly few Americans who’d like to think that your vote this year could meaningfully alter the course of US foreign policy, you’re bound for disappointment. Because even as both parties tried to make it seem like the “Inflation Reduction Act” vividly demonstrated the intractable differences between them, they were simultaneously demonstrating the exact opposite: that at least in regards to another set of issues which genuinely are “existential,” in that they impinge on such matters as whether you’re likely to get incinerated in a large radiation blast anytime soon, there is almost no meaningful distance at all between Democrats and the GOP. Over time, if anything, whatever distance might have previously existed has meaningfully shrunk. Because with limited and marginalized exceptions, both Democrats and Republicans are increasingly functioning as a unified bloc on the questions which most centrally bear on America’s posture as a global military and economic hegemon. As that posture becomes more fraught and antagonistic across multiple theaters, the two parties have become more and more ardent in constricting the range of acceptable debate. Democrats may spend the bulk of their time on social media or in front of TV cameras piously shrieking that the empowerment of Republicans would guarantee the implosion of “democracy,” and Republicans may make funhouse-mirror versions of the same argument. But this phony baloney two-way theater obscures just how much their worldviews have converged.

Earlier this month, the Senate approved the accession of Finland and Sweden to NATO by a vote of 95-1 — formalizing the process by which those two countries have opted to repudiate their historic doctrines of military neutrality. (Finland is abandoning the precedent it adhered to throughout the entirety of the Cold War, while Sweden is abandoning the precedent it has adhered to since the reign of Napoleon.) Speaking from the Senate floor ahead of the vote, Sen. Tom Carper (D-DE) joyously declared how “glad” he was that NATO enlargement is something “we can all pretty much agree on.” In a touching moment, Carper noted that he had both the “same initials” and the “same views” on the subject as his colleague Sen. Tom Cotton (R-AR) — perhaps the most ideologically zealous interventionist in the Senate. Cotton also happens to be one of the few remaining US political figures of any notoriety who’s still refused to budge in his conviction that it was a really great idea for George W. Bush to invade Iraq. And unless he just happens to have an unusually specific fondness for Iowa and New Hampshire, Cotton is clearly preparing to run for president — so it should bring Democrats great pleasure that someone they’re in such fundamental agreement with is gearing up to throw his hat in the ring.

“Probably one of the easiest votes I’ll ever make in the United States Senate,” announced Sen. Jim Risch (R-ID), who seemed particularly appreciative that he barely had to give the Finland/Sweden issue more than a moment’s thought. “John McCain, I wish you were alive today to celebrate,” chimed in Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC). And indeed, there’s little doubt that McCain would have reason to celebrate from beyond the grave: the US political class, whatever their surface-level partisan or factional disagreements, is barreling toward unshakable “unity” on the expansion of US hegemonic power, now arrayed with growing fervor against the reviled tandem of Russia and China. One of McCain’s favorite themes was always “unity,” but a peculiar kind of “unity” whose purpose was mainly to facilitate wars.

Even the lone senator who did vote against the accession of Finland and Sweden this month, Josh Hawley (R-MO), did so on grounds that made abundantly clear he had no objection on principle to the expansion of NATO — much less to the accelerated deployment of coercive US power around the world. What he objected to was simply that expanding NATO at this juncture reflected ineffectual resource allocation, as Hawley preferred that whatever the US may now be obliged to expend in Scandinavia should instead be expended in East Asia, to prepare for an allegedly looming war with China. Hawley stressed that he opposed bringing Finland and Sweden into NATO only insofar as it would be a hindrance to the US implementing “a coherent strategy for stopping China’s dominance in the Pacific, beginning with the possible invasion of Taiwan.”

Hawley explained, “Our military forces in Asia are not postured as they should be,” whether because “we don’t have enough advanced munitions” or because the current fleet of US attack submarines is “sinking.” Fundamentally, Hawley argued, the US is “simply not sized to handle two simultaneous conflicts.” And his objection to NATO expansion boils down to a preference for “handling” a conflict in the Pacific over one in Europe — not, it should be noted, a preference for mitigating conflict in the first place. But even going by his own stated rationale, it’s unclear what the operating principle is for Hawley: in 2019, he voted for the accession of well-known military powerhouse North Macedonia to NATO. All that’s seemingly changed in the interim is that Hawley has taken to framing his views more in terms of opposing what he calls a “globalist foreign policy” — which somehow coincides with his advocacy for dramatically ramping up US militarization on the other side of the globe in East Asia.

Even Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY), among the dwindling group of national politicians one might expect to raise at least a perfunctory objection to NATO expansion, conceded during the Senate debate this month: “In this new world I am less adamant about preventing NATO’s expansion.”

It wasn’t always this way. In 1998, 19 senators voted against the accession to NATO of Poland, Hungary, and the Czech Republic — not enough to prevent the proposal from obtaining the required two-thirds majority, but enough to at least prompt a reasonably robust debate, one which far exceeded the pittance that accompanied this month’s vote. Figures as high-profile as Sen. Daniel Patrick Moynihan (D-NY), Hillary Clinton’s predecessor, argued against NATO expansion on the floor of the Senate in extremely stark terms: Moynihan declared his opposition stemmed from a keen wariness about “the dangers of nuclear war in the years ahead,” and said NATO expansion needlessly “put ourselves at risk of getting into a nuclear engagement, a nuclear war, with Russia — wholly unanticipated, for which we are not prepared, about which we are not thinking.”

Moynihan’s primary sparring partner during that 1998 debate was none other than Joe Biden, then the top Democrat on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, who appointed himself point-person for the entire process of shepherding NATO expansion through the necessary procedural formalities. In fact, Biden’s conviction in the eternal virtue of NATO expansion seems to be one of the few positions he’s held consistently over the course of his comically long, decades-spanning career. That first round of expansion in 1998, Biden declared at the time, would mark “the beginning of another 50 years of peace” — a prophecy that today some might quibble with.

Though he didn’t succeed, Moynihan’s opposition showed it wasn’t an automatic career-ender to be associated with skepticism of this particular strand of US military expansionism — nor was raising concerns about the specter of nuclear war considered contemptibly “cringe.” Moynihan remained a highly revered figure among his colleagues; a new expansion of Penn Station in NYC was even just named after him last year. With a hot war raging today in Ukraine, in which the US is effectively the leading co-combatant against Russia, the risk of nuclear war is much more acute than when Moynihan warned about it 24 years ago. But almost no political figure of any prominence even appears to be “thinking” about the matter anymore. Indulge in such “thinking,” and you’re liable to be denounced as a Putin agent for your trouble, and/or field a barrage of angry accusations that you’re somehow in league with right-wing “insurrectionists.”

A few who voted against NATO expansion in 1998 are still in the Senate, like Pat Leahy (D-VT), Ron Wyden (D-OR), and Jim Inhofe (R-OK) — all of whom just supported Finland/Sweden accession this month, apparently without a second thought. (Leahy, at age 82, was technically absent for the vote due to hip problems.) Even Harry Reid (D-NV), who’d later become the Senate Majority Leader and therefore presumably could not be dismissed as some fringe agitator, voted against NATO expansion in 1998. There were weeks of formal debate back then — Senators actually engaged one another directly with arguments and counter-arguments, an extreme rarity in an otherwise stultified environment. And while Biden’s side prevailed, there was at least some notional sense that another “side” existed. Today, there is functionally just one “side,” with politicians flocking in unison to install another 830 miles of NATO “security umbrella” (by way of Finland) right smack dab on the border with Russia. This would’ve been almost unthinkable in 1998, even for the most ardent NATO expansion advocates — but today the move was swiftly ratified with hardly a critical word uttered.

Bernie Sanders (I-VT) was in the House at the time, not the Senate, and therefore did not specifically vote on the provision to amend the NATO treaty. But in 1997 he made a point to put some observations on the record concerning a concurrent measure that set the groundwork for Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania to join NATO (which ultimately happened in 2004, thanks to the friendly bipartisan cooperation of Biden and George W. Bush). Sanders asked on the floor of the House: “First of all, Russia clearly perceives that the expansion of NATO into the Baltics would be an aggressive, wholly unjustifiable move by the United States… since the Cold War is over, why are we militarily provoking Russia?”

Today, Bernie is essentially mute on the subject — except when he votes unfalteringly in favor of the latest NATO-related initiative, such as the Finland/Sweden measure this month, or the $40 billion Ukraine war funding bill in May. And for the most part, he can’t even be bothered to explain his reasoning — which in a way is understandable, since it’s not like there’s some steady drumbeat of “progressive” activists/media holding his feet to the fire on these issues. Could figures who opposed NATO expansion in 1998 theoretically argue that conditions in 2022 have changed so radically that they’ve in turn changed their position? Yes, they could theoretically argue that. But they’re barely even asked to justify their positions, as the near-total eradication of any dissension on the matter has given way to an impenetrable consensus, such that no justification need be given.

The Washington Post was candid in 1998 about the reasons “approval was virtually assured” for NATO expansion, notwithstanding the minority of opposition led by Moynihan. “Pressure from ethnic constituencies and the prospect of new markets for the American defense industry at a time of shrinking US demand,” the newspaper reported, had already sealed the deal. Try mentioning either of those factors in polite company today with regard to the current posture of US foreign policy in Eastern Europe. You’ll probably find you’d prefer to stick with more standard-fare squabbling about things like the “Inflation Reduction Act.”

August 24, 2022 Posted by | Militarism, Timeless or most popular | , | Leave a comment

The latest on vaccination of 5-11 year-olds

When will the onslaught on children end?

Health Advisory & Recovery Team | August 23, 2022

In February 2022, the JCVI in their wisdom, made a ‘non-urgent offer’ of Covid-19 vaccination for healthy children aged 5-11, scheduled to begin in April. It is worth reading the full statement, which hardly makes a strong case. Here are a few quotes.

  • In comparison to the rest of the population / older age groups, evidence indicates that children aged 5 to 11 are at the very lowest risk from COVID-19. Rates of hospitalisation, paediatric intensive care admission and death are lower in this age group than in all older age groups. In addition, the high level of prior infection in this age group of children can be expected to contribute towards their natural immunity against reinfection. There are some data to suggest that natural immunity may last longer than vaccine-induced immunity against non-severe infection.
  • The impact of vaccination on school absences was indeterminate; the balance between school absences due to reactions following vaccination versus school absences avoided due to prevention of infection is highly influenced by the uncertain timing of any future wave of infection and of the vaccination programme.
  • vaccine effectiveness against symptomatic infection due to Omicron (Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine) wanes over time from around 70% shortly after 2 vaccine doses to around 25% after 10 weeks and 10% after 20 weeks.
  • [myocarditis] medium to long-term (months to years) prognosis remains less certain.
  • It is estimated that over 85% of all children aged 5 to 11 will have had prior SARS-CoV-2 infection by the end of January 2022

This last point makes the programme for this age group even more ridiculous – the 85% estimate of January 2022 has now risen to 99%, and is perhaps the main reason why parents have not been clamouring to get their children vaccinated (10% to date). Despite this, the government is planning an enhanced programme this September to reach all the currently unvaccinated, in particular primary school children.

Cornwall and the Isles of Scilly (NHS Kernow) are leading the way with advertisements and pop up clinics because of ‘a rise in cases’. As previously, petting dogs have been enrolled, and advertisements such as the one pictured here, are falsely claiming that somehow vaccinating small children who are already immune, will magically protect their grandparents.

Legal challenges: Meanwhile, disappointingly though not surprisingly, the Court has thrown out the request for a judicial review of the MHRA, the JCVI, and Secretary of State’s decision to vaccinate this age group and for the 12-15s another judge likewise rejected the legal challenge. A member of the legal team involved has published his response to these judgements here but in effect both judges were saying that the MHRA, the JCVI and the CMOs are self-evidently “experts”, thus the Secretary of State is clearly acting correctly to accept their advice, irrespective of whether their advice is sound. This is a bad day for UK citizens since it appears that drug regulators are now unaccountable.

The political route: The Children’s Covid Vaccines Advisory Committee (CCVAC) who helped with these cases, have recently sent a summary of all their concerns to Stephen Barclay, the latest Secretary of State for Health & Social Care. A reply has been received giving the usual bland “Vaccines are now safer than ever before.” and quoting the same data presented by the JCVI a year ago, totally failing to grasp that the current data give a very different risk:benefit balance. The CCVAC team have also drafted a letter for the new Prime Minister and they are seeking health professionals to add their signatures ready to have a very large letter to deliver to the new incumbent of No 10 in early September. The letter calls on the Prime Minister to halt the vaccination of children pending a full and independent safety review. Is there any chance that the new British Prime Minister will follow the lead taken by several Scandinavian countries? The Director of Denmark’s Board of Health for example was recently on record saying that the vaccination of children had achieved nothing. Meanwhile a report from Iceland shows that in their ~60,000 child population, serious vaccine injuries (eleven) far outweighed Covid-19 hospital admissions (zero).

Readers are invited to share this letter with any health professionals they know, including staff at their local medical centre.  Letter to incoming PM: apply the precautionary principle (childrensunion.org)

August 24, 2022 Posted by | Science and Pseudo-Science, Timeless or most popular, War Crimes | , | Leave a comment

« Previous Entries     Next Entries »