The purpose of the war is “extermination, not of soldiers alone, that is the least part of the trouble, but the people.”
Letter from General Sherman to Mrs. Sherman, July 31, 1862
“[H]ad the Confederates somehow won . . . they would have found themselves justified . . . in stringing up President Lincoln and the entire Union high command for violation of the laws of war, specifically for waging war against noncombatants.”
Lee Kennett, Marching Through Georgia: The Story of Soldiers and Civilians during Sherman’s Campaign, p. 286.
“Distinguished military historian B.H. Liddell Hart observed that the code of civilized warfare which had ruled Europe for over two hundred years was first broken by Lincoln’s policy of directing the destruction of civilian life in the South.”
Charles Adams, When in the Course of Human Events, p. 116.
In When in the Course of Human Events: Arguing the Case for Southern Secession Charles Adams wrote of how the first Geneva Convention on War took place in 1863, followed by three more, with the last one being in 1949. The 1863 convention codified the laws of war as were understood at the time to say: 1) Attacking defenseless cities and towns was a war crime; 2) Plundering and wantonly destroying civilian property was a war crime; and 3) Only necessities could be taken from a civilian population, and they had to be paid for. Some historians, Adams wrote, claimed that these laws were the laws of war for four centuries and that they were all broken by the Lincoln regime. The lawlessness of the Lincoln regime, in other words, set the stage for the military atrocities of the twentieth century.
Most Americans have been taught to ignore the Lincoln regime’s war crimes by repeating Sherman’s CYA quip, “war is hell.” But there is a clear historical record of rape, murder, torture, arson, and the bombing of civilian occupied cities by the Union army. See for example War Crimes Against Southern Civilians by Walter Brian Cisco; The Civil War by Shelby Foote; Union Terror by Jeffrey Addicott; and South Carolina Citizens in Sherman’s Path by Karen Stokes for starters.
There you will learn that there was so much murder, arson and theft in Missouri that vast sections of the entire state were uninhabited by the war’s end. Entire towns, including my former town of Bluffton, South Carolina, were burned to the ground with every private residence set ablaze by U.S. Army “soldiers.” The Union Army was an army of pyromaniacs, rapists, and thieves.
In August of 1863 Charleston, South Carolina was not defended by Confederate forces when a six-month bombardment of the city commenced, exploding more than 22,000 artillery shells in the city. Unexploded shells were still being found a century later.
Sherman ordered the four-day bombardment of Atlanta in the Fall of 1864 when it was only occupied by women, children, infants, and elderly men, with his artillerists targeting homes where they spotted human habitation. As many as 5,000 artillery shells rained down on Atlanta’s civilian population in a single day. Corpses littered the streets, something that Sherman called “a beautiful sight.” Thousands of surviving residents were homeless at the onset of winter.
Such war crimes were committed by Lincoln’s army, with his direction and full knowledge, for the duration of the war. It is said that when the Prussian military invited Sherman’s sidekick, General Phil Sheridan, to present a lecture on the American way of war the Prussians – no shrinking violets – were shocked and disgusted by how he described the murder, rape, plunder, and arson that occurred under his command in the Shenandoah Valley.
Just three months after Robert E. Lee surrendered the Army of Northern Virginia General Sherman was put in charge of the “Military District of the Missouri,” which was all land west of the Mississippi River. His orders were to essentially wage a campaign of genocide against the Plains Indians, which he did for the next twenty-five years, killing some 45,000 of them, women and children included, and placing the rest in concentration camps called “reservations.” In 1891, the year of his death, Sherman expressed his regrets that his army did not kill every last Indian. He is famously associated with the genocidal quip, “The only good Indian is a dead Indian.” He did all this, he once said, “to make way for the [government-subsidized] railroads,” of which he was a major stockholder.
During the Philippine Insurrection (1889) the U.S. Army killed some 200,000 Filipinos, with some estimates that a million civilians were killed. That was after the Spanish-American War also massacred thousands of civilians.
All of this was brought to mind when I recently ran across a 2010 book entitled Hellstorm: The Death of Nazi Germany, 1944-1947 by Thomas Goodrich. (There is also a YouTube video, “Hellstorm: The Genocide of Germany”). It is a hard book to read because it describes the results of the American way of war (imitated by the Russians, British, and Germans as well) combined with twentieth century military technology.
Goodrich starts by writing of how Hitler’s 1925 Mein Kampf promised to rid Germany of all “Jewish influence” if he were to ever obtain political power. This naturally “alarmed Jews worldwide . . .” Influential Jewish businessmen first organized an international boycott of the German economy and of course denounced the National Socialist German Workers Party (the Nazis). That quickly turned into what the organizer of the boycott called a “holy war” against “cruel and savage beasts,” i.e., all Germans.
Goodrich quotes Hollywood script writer Ben Hecht as writing that a “cancer” flourishes in the world in the form of “Germany, Germanism, and Germans.” They are “murderers, foul and wanton,” said the Hollywood movie script writer. “Germany must perish,” added Theodore Kaufman in a book of that title. He argued that, after the war, “all German men and women should be sterilized” to eliminate the disease of “Germanism and its carriers.” The New York Times praised this as “A Sensational Idea” while the Washington Post labeled it “A provocative theory.”
Franklin D. Roosevelt made these calls for “extermination” and genocide official when he endorsed the so-called “Morgenthau Plan,” named after his Treasury Secretary Henry Morgenthau. The plan called for the complete destruction of Germany after the war by the dismantling of all industry and the confiscation of massive amounts of land, among other things. The plan estimated that the result would be death by starvation of some 50 million Germans. Their hope was that “within two generations Germany would cease to exist.” When others expressed shock at such a barbaric proposal, Morgenthau snapped, “They asked for it. Why the hell should I worry about what happens to their people?” Morgenthau obviously wasn’t worried about what might happen to him in the afterlife.
Winston Churchill also endorsed the plan and, it goes without saying, so did Stalin. Goodrich claims that Hitler considered the war to be a war against “Jewish Bolshevism” since “Lenin, Trotsky, and many other Russian [communist] revolutionaries were Jewish.”
Hellscape vividly describes the carpet bombing of civilian-occupied Dresden, Germany, where tons and tons of bombs were dropped by the Royal Air Force (RAF) and the U.S. Airforce on the defenseless city. Literally thousands of bombers dropped phosphorous bombs on the city, creating a hellish inferno that melted bodies almost instantly, literally broiling them alive. The entire city was described as “one huge glowing wave.” There were thousands of dead bodies everywhere and the stench of burnt, decaying flesh was nauseating, said survivors. The animals in the Dresden zoo were incinerated along with everyone else caught above ground.
Knowing that people would flee to a large public park outside of the city the RAF dropped tons of high explosive bombs there. American bombers followed up by strafing the civilians in the park with their machine guns. This whole scene was repeated day after day as though the objective was to murder every last human being in Dresden. Goodrich cites estimates of some 400,000 civilians killed in Dresden alone.
This mass murder of defenseless citizens was gleefully and fiendishly repeated in Hamburg and many other German cities near the end of the war when there was little or no military resistance. “What had taken the German nation over two millennia to build, had taken its enemies a mere six years to destroy,” Goodrich concludes.
Goodrich writes of how Stalin considered Russian prisoners of war to be traitors since his order was to fight to the death. The American authorities after the war helped Stalin enforce his rule with “operation keelhaul,” which returned thousands of Russian prisoners of war back to Stalin. “[T]he entire Cossack nation had been delivered to the Soviets. Within days, most were either dead or bolted into cattle cars for the one-way ride to Siberia” and slave labor. Over five million Soviet citizens were returned to Stalin and “delivered to torture and slavery.” General Eisenhower supervised all of this with a collection of concentration camps that held the prisoners before handing them over to Stalin. Thousands of them were intentionally starved to death in the camps, writes Goodrich.
Stalin wasn’t the only newly-anointed slave owner. “When France requested slaves as part of its war booty, Eisenhower transferred over 600,000 Germans east.” And “like the Americans, the French starved their prisoners.” Several hundred thousand prisoners in Great Britain “were transformed into virtual slaves” as well. Eventually, “at least 800,000 German prisoners died in the American and French death camps” after the war.
One of the more sickening sections of Hellstorm is the description of the massive rape of German women and girls that occurred for several years. I will spare the reader of the gory stories and details. The Russians were the primary perpetrators, while American soldiers boasted that rape was not necessary; it was easy to bribe starving and destitute German women with a mere candy bar or a few slices of bread. “A bit of food, a bar of chocolate, or a bar of soap seems to make rape unnecessary,” an American soldier is quoted as saying very matter-of-factly. “By the summer of 1945, Germany had become the world’s greatest slave market where sex was the new medium of exchange.”
As I said, this is a hard book to stomach, but it is also a necessary book to read to understand the realities of the American way of war that was introduced the world in the 1860s and which, because of its “success,” was imitated by murderous tyrants – and their propaganda mouthpieces — the world over during the twentieth century. War crimes and their “ends-justify -the-means” rationales are so routine today that propagandists for the current Israeli war of genocide in Gaza have nonchalantly advocated the “Dresdenizing” of Gaza and the subsequent murder of thousands of women, children, and infants.
I was interviewed by the China Academy regarding the strategic partnership between Russia and China. The strategic partnership was formed by two profound historical changes in the international system that occurred around the same time: Russia’s decoupling from the West and the rise of China as the soon-to-be world’s leading economy.
The first historical shift is the end of Russia looking to the West for modernisation and development. Russia has pursued a Western-centric foreign policy for the past 300-years, and after the Cold War pursued the overarching objective of creating an inclusive European security architecture based on the vision of Gorbachev’s Common European Home. The project of Greater Europe died in February 2014 with the Western-backed coup in Ukraine, which ended all hopes of a gradual integration with the West. Over the past 300 years, there have been several attempts in the West to push Russia back into Asia – although this time the East is no longer an economic backwater. Russia subsequently replaced “Greater Europe” with the “Greater Eurasia Initiative” as it began reorganising its economy toward a more accommodating and economically vibrant East.
The second historical shift is the rise of China, which has outgrown the US-administered international economic system. The Global Financial Crisis of 2008-9 was a wake-up call as the US demonstrated it would not restore fiscal discipline, which implied that the stability of the system would continue to erode. China demonstrated both the intention and ability to challenge US geoeconomic leadership by pursuing ambitious industrial policies to assert technological and industrial leadership, investing trillions of dollars into physical connectivity with the Belt and Road Initiative, and new financial architecture with development banks, payment systems and de-dollarisation.
The West assumed the partnership of China and Russia was a “marriage of convenience” as the common interests of opposing US hegemony was superficial and they would likely clash over the dominance of Central Asia. This prediction failed to recognise that both China and Russia need each other to develop a new international economic architecture, and as neither side pursues hegemony they have the ability to accommodate each other’s strategic interests. The efforts by the US to break both Russia and the China at the same time has pushed these two giants together in what can only be described as Kissinger’s worst nightmare. The strategic partnership has also laid the foundation for a new international economic architecture that pulls in other centres of power.
Over the past 11,000 years of the current interglacial period, phases of prosperity and cultural flourishing are clearly linked to warmer temperatures. A reduction in deaths with rising temperatures can also be observed for the last two decades.
Fact: Cold kills nearly 30 times more people than extreme heat, 4.6 million vs. 0.155 million. Rising temperatures drive up the number of heat deaths, but not in extreme heat, but in moderate heat, as TKP recently reported and broke down. However, rising temperatures also reduce the number of deaths from cold.
Bjorn Lomborg used this data to illustrate the ratios graphically:
Chart: Björn Lomborg
Overall, this has meant saving 166,000 lives per year over the last two decades. This is according to the Lancet study by Qi Zhao (2021), which TKP has already reported on.
“Globally, 5,083,173 deaths per year were associated with sub-optimal temperatures, accounting for 9.43% of all deaths. 8.52% were cold-related and 0.91% were heat-related. There were 74 temperature-related excess deaths per 100,000 population. The mortality burden varied geographically.”
Eastern Europe had the highest heat-related excess mortality rate and sub-Saharan Africa had the highest cold-related excess mortality rate.
So we see that global warming saves lives, exactly the opposite of what politicians like Health Minister Karl Lauterbach or EU-Leyen claim and of course the mainstream media.
The chief of the Israeli occupation forces (IOF) Unit 8200 and architect of their military’s Artificial Intelligence (AI), Brigadier General Yossi Sariel, is expected to resign in the upcoming weeks, according to a report by the Israeli news website Walla.
Nearly 11 months after Sariel’s unit failed to warn the Israeli military command of Operation Al-Aqsa Flood on October 7, 2023, the general is finally resigning.
“The unit that has become an international brand is supposed to undergo rehabilitation after the great crisis,” an Israeli security official told Walla.
The Military Intelligence Directorate’s Unit 8200, known for its expertise in signal intelligence (SIGINT) and code decryption, counterintelligence, cyber warfare, military intelligence, and surveillance, plays a pivotal role in Israeli security and is comparable to the United States National Security Agency (NSA).
Unit 8200 is also the IOF’s largest intelligence collector and has seen a revolutionary upheaval under Sariel, who pushed for the integration of AI into the force’s function. Renowned for his work within intelligence circles, Sariel has made a series of blunders that have cast a grim shadow over his career in the Military Intelligence Directorate (Aman).
Not only had Sariel failed to take the appropriate security measures prior to October 7, but he had also mistakenly revealed his identity to the public. The head of Unit 8200 and other top commanders of strategic units in the IOF are kept a top secret. However, a mistake made by Sariel himself at an earlier time nullified the effects of Israeli protocols.
After keeping his identity a secret for nearly two decades, Sariel doxxed himself after publishing a book under a pen name. The “embarrassing security lapse” saw Sariel, previously known as Brigadier General Y, publish a book on Amazon, leaving a digital trail to his private Google account created in his name, along with his unique ID and links to the account’s maps and calendar profiles, The Guardian reported earlier this year.
Aman’s head of the Research Division, Brigadier General Amit Saar, had also been subject to criticism over the failure to warn and take action against the October 7 operation and resigned in April this year, citing illness.
It is also worth noting that the headquarters of Unit 8200 came under a drone attack by Hezbollah on August 25, in a response launched by the Islamic Resistance against the Israeli regime for the assassination of top commander martyr Sayyed Fouad Shokor in late July.
Evie Magazine, a conservative-leaning women’s publication, recently posted an article titled “Climate Change Anxiety Is A Cause For The Decline In The Birth Rate,” in which the author claims that human-caused global warming is leading to climate anxiety which misdirects its wrath at larger families. This is mostly false. Climate change is not producing anxiety so much as false and misleading alarmist media coverage is, but it is true that blaming large families for bad weather is equally wrong.
The article begins with writer Carolyn Ferguson claiming that “last year was the hottest year on record for the world,” and that the United States is somehow warming faster than the rest of the world, and that “many are feeling the effects of global warming this year.” This is false.
The idea that any given country is heating up faster than the rest of the world has been done to death, and has been claimed for just about every single country on the planet. It should be obvious that every place on earth cannot be warming faster than the rest of the world. Scientists are selecting regions and comparing them independently over different timeframes, using different datasets and methods, whatever timeframe is most optimal to show the most warming. This makes these comparisons basically worthless.
The fact for the United States is that the record of high temperature anomalies, that is, extreme heat, has not shown an increase in those high temperature events since the best records begin in 2005. (See figure below)
According to longer term data, heatwaves in the U.S. today are less frequent and severe than they were in the 1930s, as seen below:
Likewise, as discussed in thisClimate Realism post, the change in the number of days with temperatures over 95 degrees Fahrenheit has actually declined for the majority of the country. Only 10 U.S. states show an increasing trend.
Even looking at proxy data globally which give an idea of ancient temperatures do not indicate we are in a period that can be described as “the hottest on record.” Today’s temperatures according to some sources appear similar to that of the Medieval or Roman warm periods, roughly 1000 to 2500 years ago, respectively. Media claims to the contrary are just propaganda.
The majority of the abnormal warming from last year occurred in Antarctica, where temperatures remained well below freezing, but was simply “less cold” than normally occurred during certain months, particularly September. A significant portion of last year’s heat globally was boosted primarily due to the natural El Niño cycle, which is known to bump up average temperatures for much of the globe. This effect is easily traced in the temperature records.
This is not to say an average warming has not occurred over the past hundred-plus years, but it is not unprecedented nor is it alarming.
The Evie post proceeds to claim that aggression rises amid higher temperatures, writing “one of the most often overlooked corollaries is a rise in communal anger and aggression.”
The “heat makes people crazy” idea has been floated several times over the years, but even the article the Evie post links to admits that it’s likely heat is not the main factor in most of the studies that found aggression. The social sciences and psychology experiments are rifle with uncontrollable variables. Without attempting to conduct any studies, the plain fact that places like Florida and Mexico, the Bahamas, and other hot tropical locales are popular relaxation destinations seems to throw cold water on the hypothesis. Why would anyone go someplace that makes them angrier or more aggressive for vacation?
Discomfort can be aggravating, certainly, but it’s not just higher temperatures alone. Ferguson then gets to the claim that mental health professionals are “seeing more patients come in with symptoms of climate change anxiety, which is supposedly the root of many activists’ anger when it comes to large families.”
Climate Realism has written extensively about how misleading the climate anxiety diagnosis is, here, here, and here, for examples, often shifting the blame from the true culprits. Something like “climate anxiety” does exist – but it is a media-driven phenomenon because of the constant drumbeat of impending doom, not from actual lived experience of warming. Constant media coverage telling people that we are hurtling towards “global boiling,” that every weather extreme is because of you and your neighbor’s use of gasoline, including from typically conservative publications like Evie Magazine, is what is causing anxiety in people.
While Evie is right that climate activists should not turn their ire on big, traditional families, they are wrong that climate anxiety is a legitimate phenomenon.
As Ferguson correctly concludes in her piece, if someone decides not to have kids, “that’s their prerogative, but they should know this decision will likely have little impact on saving our planet.”
The attorney from the Department of Justice who defended the Food & Drug Administration in court admitted on undercover camera that the agency’s actions were an abuse of authority by the government during its public campaign against ivermectin to treat COVID-19.
A trio of doctors recently won a major legal victory in a multi-year lawsuit sparked by the FDA’s viral 2021 public health guidance advising against the use of ivermectin for treating COVID-19. The most notable offending tweet stated, “You are not a horse. You are a not a cow. Seriously, y’all. Stop it.”
Department of Justice trial lawyer, Isaac Belfer, defended the FDA in this suit brought by Drs. Mary Talley Bowden, Robert L. Apter, and Paul E. Marik. On undercover camera, Belfer admits to a Project Veritas journalist that his client’s legal loss was deserved because the agency overstepped its statutory authority when it publicly tweeted medical advice.
Belfer told our journalist, “So, what the agency has done… [is] unquestionably beyond its authority. Making a recommendation of what drugs to take or not to take, that’s the practice of medicine. And FDA can’t practice medicine.”
The FDA’s public relations campaign also failed to inform the public that the award-winning antiparasitic medicine had a decades-long track record of successful medical usage in humans.
During the COVID-19 pandemic, the doctors prescribed ivermectin to tens of thousands of patients and found the drug to be a cheap and effective treatment.
The doctors told Project Veritas that they suspect that the suppression campaign against ivermectin was motivated by the government’s interest in fast-tracking the experimental COVID-19 vaccination. This speedy vaccine roll-out could only be accomplished through the FDA’s emergency use authorization [EUA], and only if no other alternative medications existed to treat COVID-19.
The FDA’s tweets caused a deadly chain reaction. The agency’s pronouncements were swiftly enforced by national medical associations and regulatory agencies, pharmacists refused to fill prescriptions, insurance refused to pay for it, and doctors who prescribed it faced career ruin.
Drs Apter and Bowden told Project Veritas that suppression of ivermectin led to a prolonged pandemic, and potentially millions in excess COVID deaths.
Apter: “It’s not unreasonable to think that there have been a million unnecessary deaths from COVID in the United States because of the public health agency suppression of effective early treatment with repurposed inexpensive medications.”
Bowden: “If more people had access to early treatment in the form of ivermectin, monoclonal antibodies, hydroxychloroquine… we could have nipped the pandemic in the bud.”
As a result of the lawsuit, the FDA was forced to delete its social media posts warning against the use of ivermectin for treating COVID-19. Though the FDA removed its public statements, the agency did not change its policy or directives. Because major state and national medical governing authorities look to the FDA as an authoritative source on the appropriate use of drugs, pharmacies still refuse to prescribe ivermectin, and doctors face professional repercussions for prescribing it.
Dr. Talley Bowden was forced to resign her privileges from Houston Methodist Hospital; Apter was referred to the Washington Medical Commission and Arizona Medical Board for disciplinary proceedings; and Marik was forced to resign from his positions at Eastern Virginia Medical School.
Apter: “Because of my prescription of ivermectin for COVID I am still facing persecution by the medical licensing boards in spite of the fact that they have not been able to show a single adverse event in my care.”
Bowden: “I have a medical board coming after me because I tried to help a patient get ivermectin. We all had professional repercussions because of our use of ivermectin.”
Though the doctors continue to face professional consequences for their advocacy of ivermectin use for COVID-19, Belfer admits that the doctors dealt a significant blow to the government with their court victory. He told Project Veritas that the agency will think twice before issuing any misguided health advice in the future.
“I think going forward they’ll [FDA] probably be a bit more careful. They [the doctors] got an opinion that was good for them. That kind of limited FDA’s authority. It’s not okay to… actually tell people, ‘You should not take this drug.’”
Dr. Bowden says the fight against government overreach was worth it, because now doctors are vindicated in their years-long quest to protect the health of their patients.
Bowden: “One thing this case did is set a precedent. I think it permanently tarnished the reputation of the FDA. I think the public will takes the FDA little less seriously now, and it keeps them from making the same bold, reckless move in the future when it comes to telling patients what they can and cannot do. Like Isaac [Belfer] said, and we have all said, the FDA is not your doctor. The FDA has no business telling patients what they can take. And we proved in the court of law that they cannot do that.”
The United States has a long legacy of coups. During the Cold War, Washington participated in no less than sixty-four covert coups. They did not end with the Cold War. Since then, the U.S. has carried out or facilitated several coups, including in Haiti, Venezuela, Brazil, Honduras, Paraguay, Bolivia, Egypt, and Ukraine.
Recently, the United States has been accused of participation in three more coups. The degree of evidence and clarity varies, and, unlike in the above cases, these cases are not yet closed.
Haiti has a horrible history of American interference and coups. The latest chapter reads like a convoluted novel. The United States, who at first seemed to be backing the enormously unpopular and increasingly authoritarian president of Haiti, Jovenal Moïse, has now been accused of involvement in his assassination.
Moïse was assassinated in 2021 in a confusing plot by men armed with high-caliber weapons who claimed to be with the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration, a claim the U.S. State Department says is “absolutely false.”
But two of the plotters of the assassination now seem to have been revealed as DEA informants and a third as an informant for the FBI.
Floridian Walter Veintemilla, who has been accused of financing the assassination, reportedly received legal advice and an endorsement to capture Moïse from a U.S. intelligence agency informant. If that informant were allowed to testify, his testimony, according to Veintemilla’s defense, would provide evidence “that several investigative and administrative agencies of the United States Government were aware of the actions and intentions of his alleged co-conspirators in Haiti and supported those actions.”
One of Veintemilla’s co-defendants, Arcangel Pretel Ortiz, who is said to have recruited the mercenaries who assassinated Moïse, is an FBI informant. According to The Miami Herald, Ortiz “was so emboldened as an FBI informant that the Miami-area resident met with agents and promoted ‘regime change’ in Haiti ahead of the brazen presidential assassination.”
Christian Sanon, a Haitian-American, is the man the coup group allegedly planned to install as president. He has been accused of being a plotter of Moïse’s assassination. Six weeks before the assassination, Sanon sent a letter to U.S. Assistant Secretary for the State Department’s Bureau of Western Hemisphere Affairs Julie Cheng outlining his intention to lead a transition government in Haiti. In the weeks before the assassination, Sanon held a meeting in Fort Lauderdale that Veintemilla attended.
The Haitian coup is not the only one the United States is accused of being involved in. More recently, Bangladeshi Prime Minister Sheik Hasina resigned and fled to India after student-led protests became violent and the Bangladeshi military declined to prevent protestors from storming her official residence.
But several news outlets in India are now reporting that Hasina had planned to deliver a speech in which she would have accused the U.S. of “plotting a regime change in Bangladesh.” Hasina claims that Washington orchestrated her removal from power because she refused to give the U.S. two military facilities in Bangladesh. She accused “a white man” of conditioning her power on granting the bases to a “foreign country.” According to Jeffrey Sachs, Hasina had also delayed the signing of military agreements with the United States, including one that would have tied Bangladesh to closer military cooperation.
Relations between Bangladesh and the U.S. have been deteriorating, and Hasina has frequently accused the U.S. of working to remove her from power.
Intriguingly, Sachs points out that Assistant Secretary of State for South Asia and Central Asia Donald Lu had recently gone to Bangladesh for meetings. That is the same U.S. official who met with Pakistani officials just before Pakistan’s Prime Minister Imran Khan was removed from office in a non-confidence vote that he insists was a U.S.-supported coup.
Then-Pakistani Ambassador to the U.S. Asad Majeed Khan met with Lu who expressed that the United States is “quite concerned about why Pakistan is taking such an aggressively neutral position” on the war in Ukraine. Lu then says, “I think if the no-confidence vote against the Prime Minister succeeds, all will be forgiven in Washington… Otherwise, I think it will be tough going ahead.” In case the threat was not clear enough, Lu then explained what “tough going ahead” meant: “[H]onestly I think isolation of the Prime Minister will become very strong from Europe and the United States.”
One month later, Khan was removed from office in a non-confidence vote. And all was “forgiven.”
Like Hasina, Khan claims that he was removed in part because of a refusal on basing agreements with the United States. Khan had “distanced” Pakistan’s foreign policy from the U.S., including swearing that he would “absolutely not” allow the CIA or U.S. special forces to use Pakistan as a base ever again: “There is no way we are going to allow any bases, any sort of action from Pakistani territory into Afghanistan. Absolutely not.”
And across the ocean in Venezuela, President Nicolás Maduro has accused the U.S. of aiding a coup attempt after the recent Venezuelan election. At dispute is an election that Maduro claims to have won by a margin of 51.95% to 42.18%, and the opposition claims to have won by a margin of 67% to 30%.
Maduro asked the Venezuelan Supreme Court to review the voting data and validate the results. The court accepted the request and summoned all the candidates to appear before it. All the candidates appeared in the session except opposition leader Edmundo González, who did not show up. The court confirmed that the National Electoral Council delivered all the election evidence requested by the court, including detailed voting records and totals.
On August 22, Venezuela’s Supreme Court backed Maduro’s verdict and said that the voting tallies published online by the opposition to demonstrate its landslide victory were forged. González was the only candidate who refused to participate in the Supreme Court’s audit.
U.S. President Joe Biden initially said he supported new elections in Venezuela before the White House walked the president’s statement back, claiming that Biden was only “speaking to the absurdity of Maduro and his representatives not coming clean about the July 28 elections,” which it was “abundantly clear” Maduro lost. Maduro and the opposition both dismissed the idea of a new election with Maduro reminding the U.S. that “Venezuela is not an intervened country, nor do we have guardians.”
Whether or not the election was fair, and whichever side interfered in the election, the United States was a party to that interference. The U.S. has a long and consistent history of interfering in Venezuelan elections against the party of Hugo Chávez and his successor, Nicolás Maduro. It has been a consistent financer of the Venezuelan opposition and influencer of the Venezuelan media.
But the largest influencer in the current Venezuelan election has been the threat that the stranglehold of American sanctions on the Venezuelan economy will not be relieved until the people of Venezuela yield to the U.S. and vote Maduro out of power. Mark Weisbrot, the co-director of the Center for Economic and Policy Research, told me that the sanctions “prevent the country from having democratic elections, because there is overwhelming evidence that the harsh collective punishment of the sanctions will continue until Venezuela gets rid of its current government.” That evaluation was echoed by the governor of the state of Anzoátegui, Luis Marcano, who told historian and political scientist Steve Ellner, “The voter is going to feel a gun pointed at their head. Vote for Maduro and the sanctions remain.”
In addition to Pakistan, these three new charges of regime change are being brought against the United States. Imran Khan’s case against the U.S. seems pretty clear with Donald Lu’s threat on the record. The three new cases—in Haiti, Bangladesh, and Venezuela—may, to varying degrees, be less clear. But they should not be dismissed. And the aged specter of American coups still pervades the world.
Award-winning South African political cartoonist and talk show host Jeremy “Jerm” Nell interviews world-class academic Denis Rancourt (h-index 41 & i10 index of 91) on his latest paper showing an estimated 31 million dead from the Covid “vaccines” and the government’s Covid policies. We have a summary of the interview and full transcript at https://artofliberty.substack.com/p/dr-denis-rancourt-31-million-dead
Once again, Labor characterised its foes as ‘conspiracy theorists’, ‘cranks,’ ‘kooks’ and ‘far right extremists’ rather than engaging in rational debate
The Australian Government has voted down a bill to establish a Covid Commission of Inquiry, which would have essentially the same powers and independence as a Royal Commission.
The billwas supported by a small coalition of senators from minor parties and the Opposition (conservative), but was rejected by the Labor Party(left-wing) in a vote today.
To date, Australia has had plenty of Covid inquiries, but none with teeth.
The siloing of inquiries to deal only with states and territory and federal governments on an individual basis has allowed for a lot of finger pointing with very limited accountability.
The scope of the federal Covid Inquiry excludes the policies of state and territory governments, which enacted vaccine mandates, lockdowns and inter-state border restrictions, leading politicians and media to call it “toothless.”
In turn, states and territories have focused on how well they implemented policies heavily influenced by the Federal Government and national advisory bodies without actually considering whether the policies were any good.
The patchwork nature of these inquiries allows the Federal Government to blame states and territories for implementing the harshest measures, and the states and territory governments pass the buck to the federal agencies and departments for influencing them to do so.
Another problem with inquiries to date is that federal, state and territory governments have played hide the ball with important documentation and data required to properly assess their performance. As yet, no Australian government has released the health advice that draconian measures were based upon.
A Royal Commission or similar, taking the entire Covid response – at federal, state and territory levels – and with aggressive powers to command access to information that governments don’t want to release, would be required for real accountability.
The only ways to bring this about are for the executive to call a Royal Commission, or for the Senate to call a Commission of Inquiry.
However, despite the recommendation of the Senate Select Committee on COVID-19 in 2022 that a Royal Commission into Australia’s Covid response be established, the Labor Government has resisted calls to do so.
The Committee, led by senior Labor Party member Katy Gallagher (now Minister for Finance, for Women and for the Public Service) criticised the then Liberal Government’s lack of transparency and accountability around pandemic decision making by the National Cabinet.
Emergency law making had “challenged the Australian Parliament’s capacity to provide meaningful scrutiny of proposed laws, particularly in identifying and addressing the impact of emergency powers on the rights of individuals,” the Committee stated in its recommendations.
Leader of the Opposition at the time, Anthony Albanese, sort of promised a Covid Royal Commission. But after being elected to government in May 2022, Prime Minister Albanese has resolutely dodged the issue, throwing his support behind the limited federal inquiry instead.
The bill, prepared by Senator Matt Canavan (Liberal), was co-sponsored by Senators Malcolm Roberts (One Nation), Alex Antic (Liberal), Gerard Rennick (Liberal), Ralph Babet (United Australia Party) and Matt O’Sullivan (Liberal), all of whom have been vocal critics of Australia’s pandemic response.
During speaking time, senators who sponsored the bill argued that a Covid Commission of Inquiry is needed so that Australia can finally move on from Covid with a good plan in place for future pandemics. A proper inquiry would get to the bottom of what went wrong (and what went right) to restore trust in public health, they said.
Senator Roberts also said that in light of the fact that multiple U.S. states are now suing Pfizer for misleading about its Covid vaccine, if an inquiry found that Pfizer was indeed guilty of fraudulent behaviour, this could shift the financial burden of injuries and deaths associated with Pfizer’s product from Australian tax payers to the pharmaceutical giant.
Australian tax payers have coughed up more than $20 million on compensation for Covid vaccine injuries, but they will have to pay a lot more if a Covid vaccine injury class action is successful. The action, which was filed in the Federal Court last year, has enrolled over 1,500 injured Australians (or families of the deceased).
However, only ten senators supported the bill when it went to a vote in Parliament today. The bill was supported by the above mentioned senators (with the exception of Senator Antic, who is on leave), some members of the Coalition, One Nation, and independent Senator David Pocock.
Despite Greens Senator Jordon Steele-John stating that his party supports the establishment of a “frank” and “transparent” inquiry with the powers of a Royal Commission, the Greens abstained from the vote. Labor voted against the bill.
An inquiry into proposed terms of reference for a Covid Royal Commission has already been conducted, which will prove helpful in the event that either a Royal Commission or a Commission of Inquiry into Australia’s Covid response are eventually established.
Nonetheless, such efforts will face stiff opposition from the Albanese Government, if Labor Senator Tim Ayres’ speech in Parliament today is representative of his party’s position.
In speaking time before the vote, Senator Ayres said that the Government did not support the bill because “there’s already a public inquiry,” before launching into an astonishing diatribe of ad hominem attacks on the senators who proposed the bill.
Senator Ayres used the term ‘conspiracy theories’ or ‘conspiracy theorist’ more than twenty times, likened the efforts of senators to bring about a thorough Covid inquiry to movements motivated by “anti-semitism,” and called these same senators “cranks,” and the “nastiest, extreme, kooky elements of politics.”
Senator Rennick called Senator Ayres’ speech “disgusting,” stating, “all we’re recommending today and supporting is that we have a thorough inquiry.”
In a statement after the vote, Senator Canavan said that more disheartening than Australia’s damaging pandemic response was “the response to the response.”
“Those Australians hurt during Covid deserve to have the accountability of proper public hearings, the publication of all the health advice and an open, transparent attempt to recognise mistakes as well as put in processes to prevent such things ever happening again.
“Why can’t the Government accept that if it is given immense power to lock people in their homes and force people out of work, that there should be an equal and corresponding obligation for them to be accountable to the people hurt by their decisions?”
Senator Babet took to X to express his dissatisfaction with the outcome, calling the decision of the Senate “weak.”
“Is it too much for Australians to ask for governments and the bureaucrats advising them to be held to account for the advice and actions they took during the pandemic?”
When discussing the mRNA COVID vaccines, we need to be careful about dividing people into the two broad groups of the vaccinated and the unvaccinated.
The truth is that many vaccinated people didn’t want to be injected and now deeply regret it.
There are 6 categories of the vaccinated, ranging from the innocent victims to the wicked, unrepentant perpetrators.
1. Those vaccinated by force, against their will
These people were forced to get the jab against their will, and included babies and children who were unable to resist. By forced, we mean they were subjected to extreme duress through threats like job loss or being banned from performing their livelihoods. Many knew that the experimental mRNA shots were potentially dangerous, or didn’t work, and were just unnecessary, but were forced against their will to accept them. These people are victims serious human rights violations. – injured or not.
2. The harassed and coerced
These people were not convinced and many were distrustful of the shot, or even fearful of the drug’s side effects. Many understood that the novel gene-manipulative drug was untested and could be potentially dangerous. Many understood the risk,and never would have allowed themselves to be vaccinated. But they did because the harassment at work, home and in public was just too much to bear.
3. The restriction dodgers
Many were convinced the novel vaccine would work or at least wouldn’t do any harm. Many had felt they didn’t need it, but simply wanted to go back to normal living. Unfortunately these people didn’t do the necessary research to make an informed decision. They were duped into thinking they weren’t harmful. We can forgive this category because at least they didn’t run around lecturing, persecuting and excluding those who resisted taking the mRNA shots. Like in category 1 and 2 above, many deeply regret allowing the injection and promise not to ever take these shots again.
4. The dimwitted follower sheep
They were gullible beyond belief, blindly following everything they were told, and refused to listen to informed experts and hard data contradicting the bogus claims made by the vaccine makers and tyrants. Even today many continue to insist the vaccine works, some even willing to roll up their sleeves again whenever instructed. Too many of them are simply too brainwashed, hypnotized are just flat out too dimwitted to learn. For them, denying is better than confessing and admitting to having been a fool. Yet, we can forgive them to some extent, but we need not give them much sympathy if things go wrong for them.
5. The mRNA vaccine tyrants
We all know who these people are. They were in the media, institutes, governments and big corporations. They lied and hid the risks from us. These people will remain evil until they confess to their grave sins and change their malicious ways. Everyday we heard them ridicule, persecute, marginalize and coerce the unvaccinated. Many of these tyrants need to be punished, prosecuted for fraud, or forever fired from their positions. The late Dr. Vladimir Zelenko even called for the death penalty for the worst offenders. These people can be forgiven, but only through lots of repentance, remorse, apologies and making solemn pledges to redeem themselves.
6. The unrepentant mRNA tyrants
Those who don’t repent must know we will never forget and will not ever relent hauling you in to face legal justice. Your numbers are shrinking and your protection is crumbling. But it’s (still) not too late for you to redeem yourselves.
1. “There is a huge gap between us (Jews) and our enemies, not just in ability but in morality, culture, sanctity of life, and conscience. They are our neighbors here, but it seems as if at a distance of a few hundred meters away, there are people who do not belong to our continent, to our world, but actually belong to a different galaxy.” Israeli president Moshe Katsav. The Jerusalem Post, May 10, 2001
2. “The Palestinians are like crocodiles, the more you give them meat, they want more”…. Ehud Barak, Prime Minister of Israel at the time – August 28, 2000. Reported in the Jerusalem Post, August 30, 2000
3. ” [The Palestinians are] beasts walking on two legs.” Menahim Begin, speech to the Knesset, quoted in Amnon Kapeliouk, “Begin and the Beasts”. New Statesman, 25 June 1982.
4. “The Palestinians” would be crushed like grasshoppers … heads smashed against the boulders and walls.” Isreali Prime Minister (at the time) in a speech to Jewish settlers New York Times April 1, 1988
5. “When we have settled the land, all the Arabs will be able to do about it will be to scurry around like drugged cockroaches in a bottle.” Raphael Eitan, Chief of Staff of the Israeli Defence Forces, New York Times, 14 April 1983.
6. “How can we return the occupied territories? There is nobody to return them to.” Golda Maier, March 8, 1969.
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.
/ truthstreammedia or Subscribestar here: subscribestar.com/truthstreammedia
Aletho News
