Aletho News

ΑΛΗΘΩΣ

Blanket Informed Consent for Biologics Could Be Deadly

What You Need to Know and Need to Do

By Dr. Sherri Tenpenny | November 1, 2025

There’s a linguistic shift happening inside the walls of hospitals, surgical centers, and outpatient clinics — one that most people won’t notice until it’s too late. The word “vaccine” is vanishing from medical consent forms. In its place is a far broader, far murkier term being used: biologics. Let’s clarify some definitions:

  • Biologics refers specifically to a class of therapeutic drugs and medical products that are produced from living organisms or their components (e.g., made from proteins, organ cells, tissues, blood, tallow, gelatin, glycerol, etc.). Biologics are specifically regulated medical products that are made from or contain components of living organisms.
  • Biogenics is a broader, more general term meaning produced by living organisms or biological processes. It could be anything made by a living organism — plants, animals, bacteria, fungi, etc.
    Examples:

    • Tree resin (produced by plants)
    • Coral or seashells (made by marine animals)
    • Methane (from decaying organic matter)
    • Alcohol (from yeast fermentation)

Therefore, all biological products are biogenic, but not all biogenic materials are biological products. That means many new, modern medicines labeled “cutting-edge” — from mRNA injections to bioengineered cells — fall into the category of medically regulated biogenic products.

The Redefinition of Medicine

At first glance, it may sound harmless. Buried in the word salad of admission paperwork is a seismic change you might be agreeing to without realizing it. As a patient in a hospital, you could be injected, infused, or implanted with a biologic product you never specifically discussed with your treating physician, simply because the consent form used a broad term like “biologics” or “biogenics” and you didn’t fully understand the scope of that word.

It’s not that the hospital is secretly adding products; rather, the way the consent forms are worded gives them legal permission to use FDA-approved biologics or biologic materials when they are deemed medically necessary, without first discussing the pros and cons of the product.

You can view the full list of biologics on the FDA’s website. Vaccines are listed among the “approved biologics.” If you blindly sign a consent to receive a biologic, you’ve opened the door to a sweeping range of interventions that go far beyond what most would knowingly authorize.

Informed Consent: A Myth in Modern Medicine

The purpose of requiring informed consent is to promote the autonomy of the individual in medical decision-making. It is a legal doctrine that supports many of our cherished American ideals about our rights as individuals.

For decades, medical care has been governed by the principle that patients must be fully informed, fully aware, and provide informed consent for every healthcare procedure. It was more than a legal requirement; it has long been an ethical cornerstone. But as PubMed’s 1996 article, Legal and Ethical Myths About Informed Consent reminds us, even the foundation of informed consent came from a murky beginning.

In attempting to ascertain the origins of the phrase “informed consent,” it was first in a 1957 California case; no antecedent cases could be unearthed. The entire informed consent paragraph (in the first informed consent case) was adopted verbatim, and without attribution, from the amicus curiae brief submitted by the American College of Surgeons. It is an ironic twist of history that informed consent was dreamed up by lawyers employed by physicians.

Over time, the standard for truly informed consent has quietly been eroded. In many hospitals and clinics, informed consent forms have become little more than a formality: a few checks in digital checkboxes and a scribbled signature on an iPad. These consent forms are often buried within pages of fine print drafted by attorneys, intentionally dense and difficult to read. Even patients who try to understand the language find it nearly impossible to decipher.

The forms no longer use plain language. Instead of saying “Do you consent to receive the influenza vaccine or a COVID jab?”, the consent form may now ask if you consent to the use of biologic agents. The assumption is that you, the patient, understand that vaccines are biological agents. This raises the question: Is the confusing change in language intentional?

“Medically Necessary Biologics” — The Next Frontier

There is a push to categorize biologics as medically necessary. Once that phrase becomes standard, it reframes these products as non-optional. That’s a linguistic shift that carries enormous implications. If something is medically necessary, then refusing it becomes extremely difficult.

Now imagine being prepped for surgery. You’re told you must sign standard consent for “biologic products as necessary during the procedure.” You sign, thinking it refers to anesthesia, sutures, IV fluids, perhaps antibiotics. Your body then becomes an open field for whatever the institution – or your doctor – regards as necessary: a flu shot, a pneumonia shot, a pertussis shot, a monoclonal antibody infusion, or plasma/blood (perhaps from a COVID-vaccinated donor). You may never know what went into your body unless you ask for the record.

The Problem with Blanket Consent

Let’s look closer at what biologics encompass, according to the FDA and Congressional Research Service documents: Vaccines, monoclonal antibodies, gene therapy, whole blood and plasma, stem cells and T-cells, recombinant proteins, and growth factors.

The side effects of biologics vary depending on the specific product and how it is administered. Because these therapies are derived from living systems and often target the immune system, they can produce a wide range of reactions — from mild and localized to serious or life-threatening.

Most biologic drugs carry a risk of allergic or hypersensitivity reactions, since the body often recognizes the biologic as foreign. Those used to treat autoimmune conditions such as rheumatoid arthritis or psoriasis work by suppressing immune activity, which can increase the risk of infections. When given by injection, biologics often cause redness, swelling, or pain at the injection site; those administered intravenously can trigger infusion reactions, such as flushing, shortness of breath, or a sudden drop in blood pressure.

Common side effects include allergic reactions, injection-site irritation, chills, weakness, diarrhea, nausea, vomiting, rash, itching, high blood sugar, cough, and constipation. Other frequently reported effects are shortness of breath, leg swelling (peripheral edema), headache, fever, muscle or joint pain, decreased appetite, elevated triglycerides, insomnia, abdominal or back pain, dizziness, and various infusion reactions.

More serious side effects have included low blood pressure, anaphylaxis, serious or opportunistic infections, cancer, serum sickness, autoimmune thyroiditis, blood clots, heart failure, bleeding disorders, interstitial lung disease, hepatitis, enterocolitis, gastrointestinal perforation, stomatitis, anemia, and low white blood cell counts.

Each biologic drug has its own safety profile, and not all patients will experience these reactions. But because biologics act deeply within the body’s immune and cellular systems, their side effects can be complex, unpredictable, and sometimes severe. These products are not something you should be given without knowing the risks!

The Anesthesia Loophole

Anesthetized patients cannot give or withdraw consent in real time. Hospitals know this — and legal teams have prepared for it. That’s why pre-operative consent forms now carry generalized clauses authorizing “treatment using biologic materials.”

The rationale sounds protective: “We need flexibility in case of complications.”
The reality is exploitative: “We can administer what we deem appropriate.”

Under this loophole, you could receive a biologic without your explicit approval. Once it’s in your body, it cannot be undone. While this remains only a theoretical concern at this time, as AI increasingly takes over healthcare and personal options continue to be reduced, it is distinctly possible.

I found court cases where a patient received a biologic without specific consent. (here) (here). I didn’t find a published U.S. case that squarely says: “Because of the single word biologics in a blanket consent, a sedated patient got a biologic they would have refused.” But these two cases demonstrate the core risk is real.

What You Must Do

We are living in a time when words have become deceptive, from politics to healthcare. To protect yourself, you must re-establish your authority over your own body. Here’s a place to start. Print this and keep it with your health insurance card:

  1. Read every word. Never sign a consent form that contains vague terms like “biologics,” “biogenics,” or “cell-based therapies” without a full explanation from your doctor(s).
  2. Ask direct questions. Ask out loud: “Does this include vaccines, gene therapies, or blood products?” Write their answers and whether you agree or disagree.
  3. Refuse in writing. On both digital and paper copies, clearly state: “I do not consent to the administration of vaccines, biologics, or other synthetic materials.”
  4. Get a copy. Always request a printed copy or photo of your signed form, especially if it was done on an iPad.
  5. Have an advocate. Assign a trusted person to reiterate your refusal verbally and in writing if you are incapacitated. If you don’t have a close friend or family member who can navigate this with you, hire someone from GraithCare.com. They are knowledgeable and worth every penny.
  6. Document everything. After discharge, review your medical record and confirm what was administered. Side effects or complications may not materialize for weeks or months.

This is not paranoia; this is precautionary and wise self-care. The same level of attention you’d give to a financial contract should apply even more importantly to your medical care.

Bodily Autonomy Is a Spiritual Battle

At its heart, this is about sovereignty. The right to decide what enters your body — what merges with your cells — is not just a medical decision, it’s a moral and spiritual obligation.

Scripture says our bodies are temples of the Holy Spirit, not laboratories for untested technologies. To surrender consent to vague, corporate-crafted terms like “biologics” is to give the keys away to your own temple. I believe every human being deserves the dignity of true informed consent, not coerced compliance through deceptive wording.

Closing Thoughts

We are a litigious society, and physicians are always concerned and on the defensive about avoiding lawsuits. The timeless advice from that 1996 article on how you can best be perceived and help your patient’s decision-making process:

The best advice we can give is to treat patients like people, act sensitively and compassionately, and most of all, talk to patients. Have a conversation, have several; remember that this is a process. In this process, you will gradually come to know your patient’s decision-making style. Furthermore, do not press patients to decide quickly. Do not make them think that you do not have time for them. Because if you do, regardless of how much information they are given, they are going to be angry, and another name for an angry patient is plaintiff.

So please, before you sign anything: stop. Read. Ask. Refuse if you must. Line out what you don’t agree with, initial it, and date it. Your signature implies permission.

November 1, 2025 Posted by | Deception | | Leave a comment

Max Blumenthal: Charlie Kirk Update – Middle East Plan Just BLEW UP

Dialogue Works | October 29, 2025

October 31, 2025 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Deception, Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism, Video | , , , | Leave a comment

US Atomic Tests Could Open Pandora’s Box for ‘New Arms Race and Nuclear War’

By Ekaterina Blinova – Sputnik – 31.10.2025

A nuclear war risk is growing and Washington’s apparent readiness to resume nuclear tests is making it more grave, warns Professor Peter Kuznick, director of the Nuclear Studies Institute at American University, in an interview with Sputnik.

“All nine nuclear powers are modernizing their nuclear arsenals, making them more efficient and more deadly. On top of that, there’s pressure to expand the nuclear arsenals,” Kuznick tells Sputnik.

To complicate matters further, other countries – including South Korea and Ukraine – are flirting with the idea of developing their own nuclear weapons, the professor notes.

The world is going the wrong direction and becoming more dangerous.

US Unready for Nuclear Tests

If the US resumes nuclear tests, Russia and China will follow suit, according to the professor.

“They actually have more to gain from this than the US does,” he says, adding that it would probably take years before the US would be able to conduct new nuclear tests, as the Nevada test site has effectively atrophied.

At the same time, it would mean the end of the 1996 Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, which have not been ratified by the majority of nuclear powers. Up until now, the US, Russia and China have abided by it: the last Russian nuclear test took place in 1990, China’s – in 1996.

Reaction to Russian Wonder-Weapon?

The idea of resuming nuclear tests followed Russia’s trials of its cutting-edge weapons. Could the US boast anything like that? Not yet — and it would take years to catch up, according to the pundit.

“The Burevestnik and the Poseidon [missiles] are new science fiction-like, new generation of nuclear delivery systems. You add that to the Oreshnik test back in November 2024,” Kuznick notes.

Give Peace a Chance

The most logical response to Washington’s breaking the de facto moratorium on nuclear tests should be “the United States is out of control,” Kuznick says.

“That would be what [Russia and China] should say and do and call for new talks to end this expansion, intensification of the nuclear arms race,” the professor underscores.

US President Donald Trump in the meantime said that it will be known soon whether the United States will resume underground nuclear testing.

“You will find out very soon,” Trump told reporters aboard Air Force One as he traveled to Palm Beach, Florida, as quoted by Reuters.

October 31, 2025 Posted by | Militarism | , , , , | Leave a comment

Pressure against Venezuela as hybrid war against Russia and China

By Raphael Machado | Strategic Culture Foundation | October 31, 2025

A common vice found among geopolitically anti-imperialist analysts and journalists is the attempt to explain all international conflicts by the “single cause” of the imperialist quest for natural resources — almost always oil. This is how the Iraq War is classically explained, for example: “Big Oil” would have used the Bush administration to open markets, once closed, through bombing and territorial occupation.

This type of clearly materialist explanation stems from an evidently Marxian premise, insofar as it aims to treat all social, cultural, and political phenomena as epiphenomena before the preponderant and structural reality of economic transformations and interests.

Like a good part of the 19th-century pseudo-scientific efforts to reduce reality to a single principle (as was the case with Freudianism and Positivism), this economist materialism also does not hold up under the hammer of critical analysis.

Just as an example, in the Iraqi case, the generic materialist explanation does not withstand the empirical discovery that the major U.S. oil companies were, in fact, already on a path of dialogue with the counter-hegemonic countries of the Middle East and, precisely for that reason, tried unsuccessfully to pressure for non-intervention and the pacification of American-Iraqi relations.

Nonetheless, the “oil myth” persists in the study of the Middle East. So we are not surprised that it is appealed to once again to explain the U.S. pressure on Venezuela. The narrative says that Trump’s pressure on Maduro, and the threats to overthrow his government, are due to Trump’s interest in Venezuela’s 300 billion barrel reserves — the largest in the world.

The problem with this narrative, however, is that according to all indications, Maduro would have offered to close extremely advantageous partnerships with the U.S. for the exploitation of Venezuelan oil, given that the current level of extraction in Venezuela is minimal. From a material perspective, the deal would be quite interesting for the U.S. oil industry, as the country consumes a vast amount of oil and its reserves are “only” the ninth largest in the world.

Everything indicates, however, that Trump would have rejected the offer of a deal.

The U.S., apparently, wants something that is worth more than the largest oil reserve in the world.

This is where geopolitical science comes in.

Generally, geopolitics is confused with “geo-economics,” in the sense that many people believe they are seeing a “geopolitical analysis” when they see an attribution of economic causes to some international conflict. But geopolitics is, fundamentally, the science that studies the correlation between geography and power. In this sense, resources can enter into geopolitical analyses, but only as part of a general context.

And in the Venezuelan case, even the very important and abundant oil is of secondary importance in the conflict with the U.S.

More important than oil, for the U.S., is to guarantee hemispheric hegemony — especially in the Americas. It is about, as defined in an arrogant and classic manner, the U.S. “backyard,” a space in which the U.S. elite in the 19th century decided to no longer tolerate any European presence.

Let’s fast forward 200 years. How are the international relations of Ibero-American countries?

China is the main commercial partner for most countries in the region, several of which have joined the Belt & Road Initiative (Argentina, Bolivia, Chile, Colombia, Cuba, Costa Rica, Ecuador, El Salvador, etc.). Some countries in the region (Brazil, Bolivia, Cuba) have also joined BRICS, which works towards the de-dollarization of international trade. Specifically Russia, in turn, has developed military ties — which consist of supplying equipment and conducting exercises — especially with Venezuela, Cuba, and Nicaragua, with a military rapprochement also with Bolivia and, to a lesser extent, Peru and Brazil.

In a context where pressure on the U.S. in other regions of the world is growing, it is dangerous for U.S. hegemony to see the growth of Russian-Chinese influence in its “backyard.”

Venezuela is a significant and priority target there because it is precisely the country with the deepest strategic relations with Russia and China. Venezuela is one of the main sources of oil for China, while at the same time Caracas seems to play a relevant role in the multifaceted Russian strategy of “pushing” for multipolarity by strengthening countries around the world that try to challenge the hegemonic order.

To confirm this thesis, we would need to analyze U.S. relations with the rest of the continent to verify if there is any movement by the U.S. to try to pull countries in the region away from Russia and China.

And it seems very clear: the strategy of rapprochement with Brazil is based precisely on an effort to pull the country out of the “Chinese orbit.” The U.S. also pressured Mexico to remain outside the New Silk Road. The U.S. increased its presence in Ecuador and pressured Milei to abandon plans for a Chinese base in its territory. Examples abound to indicate that we are facing a broad continental offensive whose goal is to update the Monroe Doctrine for the 21st century.

It is not, therefore, about oil, but about hegemony.

October 31, 2025 Posted by | Militarism | , , , , | Leave a comment

Iran’s FM condemns US nuclear weapons testing resumption as global threat

Press TV – October 31, 2025

Iranian Foreign Minister Seyed Abbas Araghchi has issued a warning in response to Washington’s announcement to resume nuclear weapons testing, calling it a regressive and irresponsible move.

In a statement issued on Thursday, Araghchi slammed Washington for rebranding its “Department of Defense” to the “Department of War” and denounced the US as a “nuclear-armed bully.”

“The same bully has been demonizing Iran’s peaceful nuclear program and threatening further strikes on our safeguarded nuclear facilities, all in blatant violation of international law,” the Iranian foreign minister said.

He condemned the US for its longstanding criticism of Iran’s peaceful nuclear program while simultaneously resuming its own atomic weapons tests, actions he claims violate international law.

“Make no mistake: The US is the World’s Most Dangerous Proliferation Risk,” Araghchi stated, arguing that the resumption of nuclear tests poses a serious threat to international peace and security.

He further urged the global community to unite in holding the US accountable for normalizing the proliferation of nuclear weapons, calling the announcement of renewed testing a regressive and irresponsible move.

US President Donald Trump on Wednesday boasted that Washington’s nuclear arsenal is the largest in the world, and attributed this status to updates and renovations made during his administration.

Trump acknowledged the destructive power of nuclear weapons and expressed reluctance about the need for testing, stating, “I HATED to do it, but had no choice!”

He elaborated that due to the nuclear developments in other countries, he had directed the newly named so-called Department of War to initiate nuclear tests, asserting that this process would begin immediately.

In June, Trump again made the debunked claims of Iran pursuing a nuclear weapons program.

In response, the head of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), Rafael Grossi, said that there is no evidence Iran is pursuing a nuclear weapons program.

Grossi acknowledged what Iran has repeatedly stated and the UN nuclear agency has also confirmed in its reports.

October 31, 2025 Posted by | Militarism | , | Leave a comment

The powerful who stand with Israel

Israel was able to carry out its live-streamed genocide in Gaza because powerful Western allies supplied it with diplomatic cover and weapons

By Vijay Prashad | people’s dispatch | October 28, 2025

On October 26, Caroline Willemen of Médecins Sans Frontières stated that Israel continues to use the need for humanitarian aid in Gaza as “means of pressure”. “The humanitarian situation in Gaza has not improved significantly,” she told the press, “as water and shelter shortages persist and hundreds of thousands of people continue to live in tents as winter approaches”. Israel’s armed forces have now annexed more than half of Gaza’s land and are dumping vast amounts of debris into that zone, turning it into a mountain of garbage. To move the rubble without experts and equipment is very dangerous, as about ten to twelve percent of the Israeli bombs dropped on Gaza have not exploded.

“Every Gazan person is now living in a horrific, unmapped minefield,” said Nick Orr of Humanity and Inclusion, a non-governmental organization at work in Palestine. “The UXO [Unexploded Ordnance] is everywhere. On the ground, in the rubble, under the ground, everywhere”. As Palestinians dig through the hills of concrete, they risk triggering a dormant bomb – creating more casualties of the Israeli genocide.

Over the past two years, Israel has dropped at least 200,000 tons of explosives on Gaza, a tonnage equivalent to thirteen atom bombs of the scale dropped on Hiroshima by the United States on August 6, 1945. This is unimaginable, particularly given the fact that Palestinians have no air defense systems, no air force, and no ability to defend themselves from high-altitude and drone bombing or to strike back in any comparable way. Genocides are, by their nature, asymmetrical. But to describe these past two years as asymmetrical is obscene: this was one-directional violence, the Goliath-like Israelis using their immense advantages against the David-like Palestinian resistance.

The opaqueness of official arms transfers means we have no precise idea how much of this tonnage came to Israel from its major suppliers during the war: the United States, Germany, Italy, and the United Kingdom. However, we have enough evidence to know that most of the bombs came from the United States, with smaller supplies from the other countries. A new report from the United Nations Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in the Palestinian territories occupied since 1967, entitled Gaza Genocide: a collective crime (October 20, 2025), makes it indisputably clear that the countries supplying Israel with military equipment, or assisting it in any way – including through diplomatic support – are utterly complicit in the genocide.

In other words, the obligation to abide by the UN Convention on Genocide is not discretionary; the duty to do what they can to stop the genocide is mandatory. The participation makes them wholly culpable. The report notes that the Israeli genocide of the Palestinians in Gaza makes this “an internationally enabled crime”.

The level of complicity is extraordinary. Take the case of the United Kingdom, whose Prime Minister, Keir Starmer, is a human rights lawyer and indeed wrote the textbook on European human rights law (1999). On August 6, 2025, Matt Kennard told Palestine Deep Dive about how UK military aircraft left RAF Akrotiri in Cyprus and escorted an unidentified plane over Gaza. Six days later, Iain Overton at UK Declassified revealed that amongst these planes was an RAF Shadow R1 surveillance plane flying alongside a Beechcraft Super King Air 350 owned by the Sierra Nevada Corporation (from the United States) with a call sign CROOK 11. What were these aircraft doing? Who had sanctioned them this work? Who is CROOK 11?

In December 2024, Starmer told troops at RAF Akrotiri: “There’s a lot of different work that goes on. I’m also aware that some, or quite a bit, of what goes on here can’t necessarily be talked about all of the time… We can’t necessarily tell the world what you’re doing here…because although we’re not saying it to the whole world for reasons that are obvious to you”. The obvious reason is that this is a genocide, and the UK is complicit, so they cannot talk about it.

The record for the United States is even more ghastly. One paragraph from the Special Rapporteur’s report is damning enough:

Since October 2023, the US has transferred 742 consignments of “arms and ammunition” (HS Code 93) and approved tens of billions in new sales. The Biden and Trump Administrations reduced transparency, accelerated transfers through repeated emergency approvals, facilitated Israeli access to US weapons stockpile held abroad, and authorized hundreds of sales just below the amount requiring congressional approval. The US has deployed military aircraft, special forces and surveillance drones to Israel, with US surveillance purportedly being used to target Hamas, including in the first raid on Al Shifa hospital.

In November 2024, the International Criminal Court (ICC) filed a warrant for the arrest of Benjamin Netanyahu and Yoav Gallant. Based on this recent UN report, the ICC prosecutor, Karim Khan, should be obliged to file warrants against Rishi Sunak, Starmer, Olaf Scholz, Friedrich Merz, Joe Biden, and Donald Trump – at a minimum. Anything less makes a mockery of the rules-based international system, namely the United Nations Charter.

October 30, 2025 Posted by | Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism, War Crimes | , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Imran Khan wasn’t overthrown — Pakistan was

Former Pakistan’s Prime Minister Imran Khan [ARIF ALI/AFP via Getty Images]
By Junaid S. Ahmad | MEMO | October 30, 2025

From the barracks of Rawalpindi to the halls of Washington, a sordid alliance stalks the republic of Pakistan: a military caste addicted to power, a civilian class cowed into servitude, and a foreign patron ever ready to pull the leash. What unfolds is less a grand strategy than a tragicomedy: generals trading sovereignty for sinecures, soldiers harbouring contempt for their officers, and a once-promising democratic movement crushed under the twin weights of imperial ambition and martial tutelage.

At the summit of Pakistan’s national hierarchy sits the uniformed elite—high-command officers whose benefit resides not in defending the people, but in ensuring their own station remains unchallenged. The vast majority of junior officers and ordinary soldiers know the drill: they march at a command, live off state hand-outs, yet watch in silence as their rulers gamble everything in Islamabad’s corridors of power. Beneath their boots pulses a latent contempt: not for the institution of soldiering, but for the generals who confuse war-games with governance, who mistake subservience for sovereignty. They know the charade: a military that catalogues enemies abroad yet fails its citizens at home; a top brass more at ease with arms deals and alliances than with schools or clinics.

Meanwhile, in Washington and its allied capitals, they observe the last great outsourcing of empire. The US sees Pakistan not as an independent partner, but as a subcontractor—an air-strip here, a drone base there, a pliant nuclear state with acceptable risks. When Imran Khan—in office—moved, albeit imperfectly, toward a new Pakistan: one marked by social justice, independent foreign policy, and friendship with all nations, he ran head-first into this alliance. He derailed the pat-scripts: refused US basing rights, challenged embassy diktats, and dared to recast Kashmir and Palestine not as trophies of patronage but as tests of principle. His mistake was not corruption—it was defiance. And the consequence was swift: a regime-change operation dressed in parliamentary garb, a military and intelligence complex that salivated at the smell of capitulation, and a Washington that nodded, funded and quietly applauded.

From here the narrative spirals into farce. Pakistan’s flag-waving elite collect defence pacts as one might souvenirs—each a badge of fidelity to the imperial order, each certifying that the country’s violent and unjust alignments will continue unimpeded. The generals embrace those pacts not because they secure Pakistan—they don’t—but because they secure the elite’s privilege: a share of the deals, a veneer of patriotism, a shield against accountability. And while their generals trade in hardware and geopolitics, the cries of the oppressed vanish into night: Pashtun civilians bombed under the guise of “counter-terror,” Afghan refugees reviled as villains by a state that once nurtured their tormentors.

Yes, nuclear-armed Pakistan could not muster a single bullet for Gaza. It did not send a protection force. It does not lobby the United Nations for justice, despite the occasional meaningless rhetoric. Instead, it signs on to the next big defence contract, brushes its hands of the Palestinian plight, and turns its back on the ideal of Muslim solidarity. What kind of state is this that boasts nuclear weapons yet lacks the moral will to send aid—or more than a token gesture—to fellow victims of aggression? A state that lectures others on terrorism while shelling its own Pashtun tribes. A state so short on legitimacy it must invoke the bogeyman of the Afghan refugee, call entire populations “terrorists,” then crush any dissent with tanks and tear-gas.

Speaking of dissent—when Imran Khan’s movement rose, the state responded with idylls of terror. Cadres of young activists, women, students, social justice advocates—whether Karachi or Khyber—found themselves in dungeons sanctioned by a military-political complex. The hearings were stacked, the charges manufactured, the message simple: move for justice and you move into our sights. The generals clapped their hands, Washington twisted the strings, and the civilian face of Pakistan trembled. The officer class may nominally obey the high command—but in quiet mess halls and among soldiers’ wives the whispers of outrage gather: “Why are we policing our own people? Why is Urdu-speaking Karachi the victim of our operations? Why do we trespass into forests and valleys and call them terror zones?”

In the borderlands the farce becomes terrifyingly concrete. The army, having once nurtured the Taliban in Afghanistan to secure “strategic depth,” now bombs them—and blames them for terrorism. In this brain-twist of national strategy, the creator is recast as the adversary, the patron transformed into the provoked. The Pashtun civilian watches as homes are razed near the Durand Line, as refugees arrive on Pakistani soil bearing the costs of wars Pakistan helped manufacture, and as the generals portray them as fifth-column terrorists. The irony would be comical were it not so brutal.

And what of Kashmir? In the so-called “free” Azad Kashmir of Pakistan, huge anti-government demonstrations rage. A region whose inhabitants yearn for dignity, not just slogans. Under Imran Khan, new polling suggested the unthinkable: Kashmiris in Indian-occupied Kashmir, despite seeing the abysmal conditions in Azad Kashmir, began to seriously consider joining Pakistan—not as another occupier but as a fortress of self-determination. The generals would rather you not notice that: they prefer the pre-scripted dispute, the perpetual conflict, the tortured rhetoric of “we stand with Kashmir” while the state stands with its own survival. The polls are telling: if Pakistan’s Kashmir policy is failing, the state itself is structurally unhealthy.

To be sure, the Pakistan military remains an institution of extraordinary capability. But capability is not legitimacy; nor is turf-control a foundation for national purpose. The generals continue to conflate war-power with nation-power, forgetting that true power is fostered by schools, by hospitals, by trust in institutions—and by consent, not coercion. And when a regime trades in foreign patronage—be it Washington’s dollars or Beijing’s infrastructure—but cannot deliver justice or dignity at home, the bargain has already been lost.

As the Iranian–Israeli conflict rages, as Gaza bleeds, and as the great-game intensifies in South Asia, Pakistan stands at a crossroads: obey its patrons, shrink its sovereignty, and reclaim the empire-client script—or reject the military’s primacy, embrace true independence, and build a republic that answers not to external powers but to its people. The generals will tell you that the choice is security; the civilians will whisper it is dignity.

Here is the truth the generals, the politicians, and the strategists don’t want you to admit: you cannot rule a nation by telling its people to be silent while you thunder abroad. You cannot build strategic depth on the graves of your own citizens. You cannot pretend to champion Palestine while allying with its oppressors. You cannot call yourself a sovereign state when your alliances define you more than your aspirations.

Pakistan’s military may still march on; its generals may still wield the levers of power; Washington may still fax orders and funnel funds. But the people—they are waking up. And once the echo of Imran Khan’s voice becomes a roar, no amount of bayonets, no arsenal of deals, no drums of war will silence it. The generals may hold the fortress of Rawalpindi, but they cannot hold the conscience of a nation. The struggle for that is already well underway—and the verdict will not wait.

October 30, 2025 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Corruption, Militarism | , , | Leave a comment

US planning war with Venezuela to undermine Russia and China’s presence in South America – US mercenary

By Lucas Leiroz | October 30, 2025

Tensions in South America continue to escalate. Washington is promoting a naval siege of Venezuela, sending several military vessels—including aircraft-carriers and nuclear-capable submarines—to the Caribbean Sea. Furthermore, bombings of Venezuelan boats arbitrarily classified as belonging to drug traffickers have become frequent, resulting in the death of several Venezuelan citizens whose identities are still unknown.

There are many concerns about the future of this escalation. Some experts believe there will be an all-out war in South America, with US troops invading Venezuela in amphibious and aerial assaults, leading to a large-scale armed conflict. Other analysts believe that US President Donald Trump is simply bluffing and that no war will occur—or that there will be only a moderate conflict, with small-scale bombings.

Information from sources familiar with American military affairs seems to indicate an actual American willingness to attack the South American country. Jordan Goudreau, a well-known American mercenary and founder of Silvercorp PMC, recently stated that the US is interested in overthrowing the Venezuelan government to undermine “Moscow and Beijing’s influence” in the Americas.

Goudreau disagrees with analysts who emphasize the economic issue. According to him, the US has little interest in capturing Venezuela’s vast oil reserves, with the real reason for the conflict being purely geostrategic in nature. The American mercenary asserts that the US does not want to allow its main geopolitical rivals, Russia and China, to have a strong partner country in the Americas, as this would give them an advantage in a hypothetical conflict scenario with Washington.

In this sense, for Goudreau, Washington will simply attempt to overthrow the government to gain political and territorial control of Venezuela, preventing it from continuing to engage in partnerships with Russia and China. He stated that there will be no improvement in the country if the Western-backed opposition takes power. He made it clear that the well-being of Venezuelans is not a concern for Washington, whose focus is on neutralizing Venezuela’s geostrategic potential for powers like Russia and China.

It is important to remember that Goudreau became globally known for his involvement in a previous regime change attempt in Venezuela. He revealed that in 2020 he signed a contract between his PMC and the Venezuelan opposition to launch a military operation against President Nicolás Maduro. At the time, American, Colombian, and Venezuelan expatriate mercenaries orchestrated the so-called “Operation Gideon,” launching an amphibious assault on the Macuto Bay region. The operation was a failure, with several mercenaries being killed or arrested by Venezuelan authorities, and the entire plan behind the assault—including the direct involvement of American authorities under the first Trump administration—became public.

Furthermore, Goudreau is also a prominent public figure on American military affairs in South America, particularly in Colombia—a country that, despite its current stance of solidarity with Venezuela, is historically aligned with the US and home to several American bases and PMCs. Goudreau is a military instructor in Colombia and leads a private security project for schools in the Cartagena region. This demonstrates his familiarity with American military affairs in South America. He certainly has access to strategically valuable information about Washington’s decision-making process in that region.

There’s another issue that few analysts are commenting on: the “compensatory” factor in Trump’s foreign policy. The American president was elected on a pacifist platform, promising to end the conflicts in which the US was involved, especially in Ukraine and the Middle East. Obviously, peace in Ukraine won’t be achieved so easily, as it involves factors that go far beyond the American president’s political will. However, he has been able to act as a mediator in other arenas, such as the Middle East, where Trump brokered an agreement between Hamas and Israel.

As well known, the military-industrial complex is one of the main lobbying groups in the US and exerts profound influence on Washington’s domestic and foreign policy. It is therefore normal that, given the de-escalation in some regions, domestic lobbyists are pressuring Trump to launch a new military campaign. Furthermore, Trump also claims a kind of US “right” to control political processes on the American continent, as a way to compensate for his policy of reducing the US’ global presence. Therefore, it is possible that Trump is artificially inflaming the crisis in Venezuela to “compensate” for his less aggressive stance in other regions.

However, starting a conflict in Venezuela could be a nightmare for the US. Venezuela’s geography makes it extremely difficult for military operations. The country is situated between the Caribbean and the Amazon rainforest. Ground operations would be nearly impossible in much of the Venezuelan territory. The US would have to rely almost exclusively on bombings from ships and fighter jets, as well as moderate amphibious raids. This could cause profound damage to Venezuela, but it would not be enough to neutralize local military—which include not only the armed forces and the Bolivarian Guard, but also a popular militia of millions of armed civilians.

Furthermore, Russia and China would not stop cooperating with Venezuela in all the sectors in which they already cooperate, including economic, technological, and military. Moscow and Beijing would obviously not intervene directly in the war, but they would not stop supporting Caracas—which is why the plan to neutralize Russian-Chinese “influence” would fail.

The best the US can do is de-escalate while there is still time and acknowledge that sovereign countries in the Americas have the right to cooperate with any power they choose.

Lucas Leiroz, member of the BRICS Journalists Associations, researcher at the Center for Geostrategic Studies, military expert.

You can follow Lucas on X (formerly Twitter) and Telegram.

October 30, 2025 Posted by | Militarism, Russophobia, Sinophobia | , | Leave a comment

Eurasian Integration as an Anti-Hegemonic Economic System

By Prof. Glenn Diesen | October 30, 2025

We are living in an era of economic disruptions as US-centric globalisation is replaced by a more decentralised format of globalisation spearheaded by the Greater Eurasian continent. The consequence of these disruptions during this transition period is instability in economics, politics, and international security, as economic coercion escalates into war.

The disruptions to the international economy were predictable—and indeed predicted—for decades. When immense economic power is concentrated in a hegemon, the hegemon has incentives to build trust in an economic architecture under its administration. This translates into an open international economic system with access to technologies, industries, energy, food, physical transportation corridors, banks, currencies, and payment systems. This is referred to as a benign hegemon, as building trust in an open system ensures that alternatives are not developed and the world becomes immensely dependent on the hegemon. Subsequently, globalisation meant Americanisation.

Hegemons are, however, inherently temporary. Over the years, the US economy became excessively rent-seeking, financialised, and debt-ridden as its competitive edge declined. A hegemon makes mistakes and fails to prioritise strategically, as it can absorb the costs—until it reaches a breaking point. Around the world, other countries climbed up global value chains and grew concerned about the fiscal irresponsibility and unsustainability of the hegemonic system.

A declining hegemon will predictably behave very differently. It will use its administrative control over the global economy to prevent the rise of rival centres of power. Economic coercion is the new normal—for example, restricting China’s access to key technologies, seizing Iranian tankers and preparing the establishment of maritime choke points, stealing Russia’s sovereign funds, etc. Trust collapses, and efforts to create a more decentralised international economic system only intensify.

The declining hegemon will also attempt to divide rival centres of power: Germany must be severed from Russia, Russia must be split from China, China should be kept at a distance from India, India should reduce its economic connectivity with Iran, Iran should not resolve its disputes with the Gulf States etc. Markets are captured as the declining hegemon, for example, pushes Europe to reduce cooperation with Chinese technology and Russian energy. As the Europeans and other allies develop excessive reliance on the US, economic and industrial power can be transferred to the US. Eventually, Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, and Europe will recognise that hitching their wagon to a declining hegemon to preserve a unipolar order that is already gone, is inherently destructive. The option is to either diversify their economic connectivity for prosperity and political autonomy, or become captured markets that can be cannibalised by the declining hegemon.

The declining hegemon has—much like its adversaries and allies—strong incentives to embrace multipolar realities. New political forces within the declining hegemon will recognise that pursuing hegemonic policies under a multipolar international distribution of power will be punished by the international system. Exhausting its remaining resources and incentivising the rest of the world to collectively balance against the declining hegemon is unsustainable. The ideal strategy for the declining hegemon is to accept a more modest role in the international system as one among many great powers, reducing collective balancing and enabling socio-economic recovery to rebuild former strength.

The rise of Eurasia marks the end of 500 years of Western leadership and dominance in the world, since European maritime powers began connecting the world in the early 16th century. While some panic in the West is therefore understandable, there are nonetheless great opportunities.

Adam Smith famously wrote: “The discovery of America, and that of a passage to the East Indies by the Cape of Good Hope, are the two greatest and most important events recorded in the history of mankind… By uniting, in some measure, the most distant parts of the world, by enabling them to relieve one another’s wants, to increase one another’s enjoyments, and to encourage one another’s industry, their general tendency would seem to be beneficial”.

However, Adam Smith also recognised the problems of the skewed power distribution between the Europeans and the rest of the world. Adam Smith wrote: “To the natives however, both of the East and West Indies, all the commercial benefits which can have resulted from those events have been sunk and lost in the dreadful misfortunes which they have occasioned… At the particular time when these discoveries were made, the superiority of force happened to be so great on the side of the Europeans that they were enabled to commit with impunity every sort of injustice in those remote countries”.

Adam Smith argued that a more even distribution of power could create a more harmonious international economy: “Hereafter, perhaps, the natives of those countries may grow stronger, or those of Europe may grow weaker, and the inhabitants of all the different quarters of the world may arrive at that equality of courage and force which, by inspiring mutual fear, can alone overawe the injustice of independent nations into some sort of respect for the rights of one another. But nothing seems more likely to establish this equality of force than that mutual communication of knowledge and of all sorts of improvements which an extensive commerce from all countries to all countries naturally, or rather necessarily, carries along with it”.

I conclude that the aspiration of Eurasian integration should be to make it anti-hegemonic but not anti-Western by descending into bloc politics.

October 30, 2025 Posted by | Economics | , , , , , , | Leave a comment

US sanctions on Russian oil companies make Europe even more dependent on Washington

By Ahmed Adel | October 30, 2025

United States President Donald Trump is playing a double game by imposing new sanctions on Russian oil and gas, as he positions himself as the only one capable of saving Europe from the energy crisis that they themselves created by following Washington’s sanctions regime.

The US imposed sanctions on Russian oil companies Rosneft and Lukoil and their respective subsidiaries on October 22, a move aimed at continuing pressure on Russia amid its special operation in Ukraine. The measure, however, had serious side effects for countries allied with Washington, especially Germany.

Berlin began a frantic race against time to exempt Rosneft subsidiaries in the country that have been under German state administration since 2022, including refineries, an action denounced as illegal by the Russian controlling group. Germany argued to the Trump administration that Rosneft’s German subsidiaries are independent of the Russian parent company.

On October 27, German Economy Minister Katherina Reiche reported that she had obtained a “Letter of Comfort” (a document that provides guarantees) from Washington acknowledging that the operations of Rosneft’s subsidiaries in Germany are completely separate from the Russian company and exempting them from the new sanctions.

“The US has confirmed in writing that the assets in Germany are completely separate from Russia,” Reiche emphasized.

This case once again exposes the energy crisis affecting Europe, which depends on imported gas and oil for power generation and has entered an economic crisis since suspending Russian supplies of these resources and aligning itself with the White House’s sanctions policy. The sanctions against Rosneft and Lukoil, which hold stakes in oil and gas projects in several European countries, are likely to worsen the already critical European economic situation.

A potential closure of Rosneft and Lukoil subsidiaries in Europe will further increase energy prices on the continent, which are already impacted by the replacement of Russian gas with American gas and by high winter demand. The heating of homes, the energy used by industries, and the increased costs of these processes will lead to an inflationary crisis in European prices, in a situation that is already not very favorable to these countries.

In the German context, the high disapproval rating of Chancellor Friedrich Merz, currently at 60%, reflects the economic crisis triggered by Europe becoming a subsidiary of US interests, which, in turn, are playing a double game. By sanctioning Russia and exacerbating the crisis in Europe, Europeans are forced to turn to the Americans. The US becomes the only possible savior of Europe within this crisis scenario that they themselves created.

By replacing Russia, which supplied these fuels at relatively low cost via long-range pipelines from Russia to Central Europe, there is now a much more expensive, much more inefficient form of supply via ships.

Furthermore, shifting energy dependence from Russia to the US leaves Europe vulnerable to market whims, since Russian contracts came with prearranged prices, while American imports are priced at market rates. And in recent days, with these sanctions, prices there have risen by 5% to 6% in a single week. The Europeans are facing a rather critical situation, and this crisis should not be considered only in the short term. It is likely to extend over the coming years and decades if this distancing from Russia is not reversed.

Although it has granted exemptions to Rosneft’s subsidiaries under German control, Germany is not among the White House’s concerns. Trump understands that the multipolarization of the international system is already a reality and is now seeking to regain Washington’s lost power. To this end, unlike past US leaders, he has abandoned Europe. Trump even thinks that Europeans should organize themselves and a European bloc leadership should emerge, because the US will no longer play that role.

The Germans are being seriously affected by embarking on the complete delirium of believing that Russian President Vladimir Putin has a project to conquer Western Europe. This led Germany to join the US sanctions and to abandon the purchase of petroleum products from Russia. Many German companies could not handle the energy price hikes and went bankrupt, while the strongest ones moved to the US. As a result, the German economy sank, with a very high unemployment rate and deindustrialization.

Even in the face of economic deterioration, Europeans remain determined to confront Russia because, at this point, they have no way to retreat, having created a mystique that Ukraine would be Russia’s first obstacle to a supposed plan of military expansion on the continent. Due to this ludicrous belief, Europe spent enormously, exhausted its weapons stockpile, followed Washington in this, and now finds itself alone, watching Trump negotiate directly with Putin, in which the latest US sanctions package is a part of.

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

October 30, 2025 Posted by | Economics, Russophobia | , , , | Leave a comment

Trump orders US War Department to immediately resume nuclear weapons testing amid atomic arms race fears

Press TV – October 30, 2025

US President Donald Trump has instructed the country’s Department of War to immediately resume testing nuclear weapons in a decision that has alarmed disarmament advocates and global security experts.

Posting on his Truth Social platform on Thursday, Trump said he had issued the order “because of other countries testing programs.”

“That process will begin immediately,” he added.

The US president described Russia and China as respectively the second and third biggest nuclear armed powers in the world, alleging that if Washington did not resume the testing, the countries would catch up with it “within five years.”

The testing process is expected to provide data on how new warheads function and whether aging stockpiles remained reliable.

Trump’s remarks marked the most direct US call for renewed nuclear testing since Washington conducted its last live detonation in 1992.

Critics have warned that reviving live tests could destroy decades of painstaking non-proliferation efforts and invite a cascade of retaliatory tests worldwide, eroding the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty (CTBT).

The United States opened the nuclear era in July 1945 with the detonation of a 20-kiloton bomb at Alamogordo, New Mexico, and weeks later resorted to the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

The latter catastrophe has etched Washington’s name in history as the only party in the world to ever actually deploy the non-conventional arms.

Observers say Trump’s Thursday move threatens to undo efforts by generations of global leaders to ensure the tragedy would never be repeated.

They have also warned about potential efforts by the Israeli regime, the US’s closest ally in West Asia and the only possessor of nuclear arms in the region, to try to justify further enhancing its deadly nuclear arsenal using the knowhow, which is to be acquired by Washington from the tests.

Trump, however, alleged that he “HATED” to issue the order “because of the tremendous destructive power,” but “had no choice!” because of his self-proclaimed fear of other nuclear armed powers’ catching up with Washington.

Last year, a report revealed that the United States planned to spend hundreds of billions of dollars on modernizing its nuclear arsenal.

October 30, 2025 Posted by | Militarism, Russophobia, Sinophobia | , | Leave a comment

Kremlin vows response if US violates nuclear moratorium

RT | October 30, 2025

Russia will respond “accordingly” if the US violates a moratorium on testing nuclear weapons, Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov has said.

On Thursday, US President Donald Trump said he had ordered the Pentagon to resume nuclear weapons testing, citing strategic competition with Russia and China. “That process will begin immediately” in response to “other countries’ testing programs,” he said.

When asked about the issue by journalists later in the day, Peskov noted “the statement by [Russian President Vladimir] Putin, which has been repeated many times, that, of course, if someone abandons the moratorium [on nuclear testing], then Russia will act accordingly.”

“The US is a sovereign country and has every right to make sovereign decisions,” he stressed.

Responding to Trump’s claims of other countries carrying out nuclear tests, Peskov said “we are so far not aware of this.”

“If it is about Burevestnik, then it is not a nuclear test,” he insisted. “All nations are developing their defense systems, but this is not a nuclear test.”

The Burevestnik is a new Russian state-of-the-art nuclear-capable cruise missile, powered by a small nuclear reactor that gives it a virtually unlimited range. The Russian military successfully tested the missile last week.

Washington test-fired an unarmed, nuclear-capable Minuteman III intercontinental ballistic missile in February and launched four Trident II missiles from a submarine in September.

Russia last tested a nuclear weapon during the Soviet period in 1990. The US halted its testing in 1992 under a Congress-mandated moratorium.

According to a recent estimate by the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI), the US has 5,177 nuclear warheads, Russia has 5,459, and China is projected to reach 1,500 by 2035.

October 30, 2025 Posted by | Militarism | , | Leave a comment

« Previous Entries     Next Entries »