Duran, The

Subscribe to Duran, The feed Duran, The
World news and geopolitical analysis
Updated: 19 hours 38 min ago

Globalists never give up. Rory Stewart emerges as latest foil to Boris & Brexit (Video)

Wed, 2019-06-19 20:55

The Duran’s Alex Christoforou and Editor-in-Chief Alexander Mercouris discuss the second round of Conservative voting to choose a new leader to replace a disgraced Theresa May. As the second round concluded, attention shifted from front runner Boris Johnson, to insurgent ‘remainer’ Rory Stewart.

CNN reports (https://edition.cnn.com/2019/06/18/uk/tory-leadership-race-rory-stewart-intl/index.html) that Rory Stewart, the current international development secretary, has been the hands down star of this leadership race. Initially scoffed at by Conservative commentators, Stewart, a self-declared centrist who still backs Theresa May’s Brexit deal, has seen off five candidates, all of whom stood on much harder Brexit platforms. His campaign has clearly spooked the others, who are seeing some of their supporters defect to Stewart.

Improbably, on Tuesday he made it through to the next round of voting, winning the support of 37 Conservative members of Parliament — up from 19 in the last round. It was the biggest leap forward of Johnson’s remaining rivals.

On the face of it, Stewart’s campaign looked doomed to fail. He was virtually unknown before the contest began, with barely a month’s experience in May’s Cabinet and a low-profile job as a junior prisons minister before that. Pitching himself as the only candidate telling the truth about Brexit, Stewart says that May’s deal with Brussels is the only one any prime minister can realistically secure. He says that candidates claiming they can take the UK out of the EU without a deal are lying because Parliament will not realistically allow them to do it.

Remember to Please Subscribe to The Duran’s YouTube Channel.

Follow The Duran Audio Podcast on Soundcloud.

Via RT…

Borish Johnson has topped the ballot in a second round of voting to decide the new Conservative Party leader, with former Brexit Secretary Dominic Raab eliminated from the race to replace Theresa May as the next prime minister.

Johnson received 126 votes from his fellow Tory MPs, steaming far ahead of Foreign Secretary Jeremy Hunt, who received 46 votes.

Environment Secretary Michael Gove, International Development Secretary Rory Stewart and Home Secretary Sajid David also remain in the race. The five remaining candidates will take part in a BBC debate on Tuesday night.

A third round of voting will take place on June 19.


Boris Johnson, Jeremy Hunt, Rory Stewart, Sajid Javid and Michael Gove are the contenders still in the #ToryLeadershipContest.

Do you back Boris for the top job? 1️⃣0️⃣ pic.twitter.com/rEtRNMlG0J

— RT UK (@RTUKnews) June 18, 2019

Johnson was accused of trying to avoid scrutiny by ducking the earlier debates during the leadership campaign — and his opponents are expected to use the Tuesday debate to pile criticisms on the frontrunner.

The voting by MPs will continue until only two candidates remain. At that point, the wider Conservative Party membership will vote to decide who will replace May and take up residence in 10 Downing Street.

Results from the final ballot are expected in the week beginning July 22, after a month of campaigning by the final two candidates.

The post Globalists never give up. Rory Stewart emerges as latest foil to Boris & Brexit (Video) appeared first on The Duran.

Categories: America, Foreign Policy

Declassified: The Sino-Russian Masterplan To End U.S. Dominance In Middle East

Wed, 2019-06-19 18:39

Authored by Yossef Bodansky via OilPrice.com:

Russian Pres. Vladimir Putin’s early June 2019 summit in Moscow with People’s Republic of China (PRC) Pres. Xi Jinping seems likely to have a disproportionate influence on the next phases of the crises unfolding in the greater Middle East, and therefore on the future of the region.

The escalating confrontation between Iran and the US is both influencing and influenced by the mega-trends set by Russia and the PRC.

Although the key meetings took place on June 5, 2019, the seeds of the new joint strategy were already planted during the May 13, 2019, summit in Sochi between Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov and Chinese State Councilor and Foreign Minister Wang Yi. They went over all the key topics in preparation for the Putin-Xi summit.

On June 5, 2019, Presidents Vladimir Putin and Xi Jinping met in Moscow and decided to not only markedly upgrade the bilateral relations and alliance of their countries, but to use the new relations in order to shape the long-term posture of the entire Eastern Hemisphere in their favor. Emphasis was to be put on the Eurasian Sphere (the Kremlin’s high priority) and the New Silk Road (the Forbidden City’s high priority), as well as the Korean Peninsula which is most important for both.

One of the first major confrontations with the US by Russia and the PRC was to be over the greater Middle East. The main reason was the advance negotiations with all key oil producers — including Saudi Arabia, Iraq, and Iran — on substituting the petrodollar with a basket of currencies where the yuan, the euro and the ruble dominate. Using the currency basket would enable the sellers and buyers to go around the US-imposed sanctions and quotas. Indeed, Beijing and Moscow were now enticing the oil producers with huge, long-term export deals which were both financially lucrative and politically tempting by offering guarantees for the well-being of the participating governments.

The crux of the proposal is regional and includes flagrant disregard of the US sanctions on Iran.

However, the key to the extent of the commitment of both Beijing and Moscow lies in the growing importance and centrality of the New Silk Road via Central Asia.

Persia had a crucial rôle in the ancient Silk Road, and both the PRC and Russia now expect Iran to have a comparable key rôle in the New Silk Road.

The growing dominance of heritage-based dynamics throughout the developing world, including the greater Central Asia and the greater Middle East, makes it imperative for the PRC to rely on historic Persia/Iran as a western pole of the New Silk Road. It is this realization which led both Beijing and Moscow to give Tehran, in mid-May 2019, the original guarantees that Washington would be prevented from conducting a “regime change”.

Therefore, even though both Russia and the PRC were not satisfied with the Iranian and Iran-proxy activities and policies in the Iraq-Syria-Lebanon area, it was far more important for them to support Iran, and also Turkey, in their confrontations with the US in order to expedite the consolidation of the New Silk Road.

Tehran and its key allies in “the Middle Eastern Entente” — Turkey and Qatar — are cognizant of the core positions of Russia and the PRC. Since mid-May, Tehran and, to a lesser extent, Ankara and Doha, were appraised by Moscow and Beijing of their overall direction of political decisions. Hence, since early June 2019, Tehran has felt confident to start building momentum of Iranian assertiveness and audacity.

Tehran has been raising its profile in the region.

Tehran insists that it is now impossible to make decisions, or do anything else, in the greater Middle East without Iran’s approval. On June 2, 2019, the Chief of Staff of the Iranian Armed Forces, Maj.-Gen. Mohammad Bagheri, touted the new strategic posture of Iran. “The Islamic movement has affected the entire world and on top of that, it has succeeded in intimidating the American hegemony and Zionism,” he said. Bagheri attributed the new influence of Iran to the acquisition of regional strategic depth; that is, reaching the shores of the Mediterranean.Related: The Top 50 Oil & Gas Companies Of 2019

“At the advent of the fifth decade of Revolution, it should be noted that the expansion of the strategic depth of Iran has brought about new and undisputed conditions that today no issue in West Asia can be solved without Iran’s participation.” No outside pressure, particularly US pressure, could, he said, compel an Iranian withdrawal and a reversal of its surge. “The Iranian nation will not retreat in the slightest from its position on the country’s defensive capabilities and will turn enemy’s threats to golden opportunities to develop core achievements of the Revolution, especially in the defensive and missile sectors.”

Senior IRGC commanders with political affiliations repeated the message over the coming days. On June 7, 2019, Brig.-Gen. Morteza Ghorbani, an adviser to the Chief of the IRGC, called on the region’s Muslim countries to join Iran. Instead of “seeking the wishes and objectives of the global arrogance and the Zionists”, all Muslim countries should back Iran, Ghorbani explained, because “together, we can establish an Islamic superpower”.

On June 10, 2019, Mohsen Rezaei, the Secretary of Iran’s Expediency Discernment Council and a former Chief of the IRGC, stressed Iran’s regional prowess. The Americans “are aware that Iran’s military strength is at a point where if they take the smallest action, the whole region will be set on fire. … We are moving towards becoming a regional power and that is costly for America.” On June 12, 2019, Maj.-Gen. Yahya Rahim Safavi, the senior Military Aide to Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamene‘i, stressed that with Iraq and Syria, Iran has created an unassailable bloc. “The pivot of Iran, Iraq, Syria and the Mediterranean [region] is an economic, political, security and defensive axis against the Zionist regime and the US,” Safavi explained. “Iraq and Syria strategically play a complementary rôle to Iran.”

Little wonder that Tehran has also made clear that Iran intends to stay in Syria long after the war is over despite the misgivings of the Kremlin.

Damascus accepts Tehran’s position, and should now be expected to reject all US-Israeli pressure to compel Iran to withdraw or even reduce the size of its forces. “Damascus has no intention of turning away Iran’s military assistance or demanding an Iranian troop withdrawal,” Syrian senior officials told their Russian counterparts in early June 2019.

At the same time, although he is wary of confronting Iran directly, Syrian Pres. Bashar al-Assad demonstrated his displeasure with the Iranian presence. In early June 2019, for example, he rejected flagrantly Tehran’s initiative for HAMAS and Syria to reconcile on account of the HAMAS cooperation with Iran and the HizbAllah against Israel. Assad justified the refusal by arguing that the HAMAS remained part of the Muslim Brothers’ networks which had been fighting Damascus since the late-1970s and which continued to sponsor jihadist forces.

Meanwhile, the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) Qods Force continued to expand the Iranian strategic deployment in Syria. Most important was the completion, in the first week of June 2019, of the forward emplacement of ballistic missiles in addition to the deployments in southern-western Iraq and nearby in Iran. The Iranians maintained Qods Force missile sites (as distinct from storage sites for the HizbAllah) — mainly Fatah-110 and Zulfiqar SSMs — at the T-4 airbase in Homs province, in Jubb el-Jarah east of Homs, in al-Safira near Aleppo, and in the Al-Kiswah area south of Damascus. In early June 2019, the Qods Force brought Toophan-1 anti-tank missiles to the T-4 airbase. These are all areas and installations that Israel has bombed repeatedly. Yet, the Qods Force keeps repairing the damage and redeploying new weapons and missiles; an expression of their growing importance to the forthcoming regional war.

Russia has accepted the Iranian presence up to a point.

In early 2019, the Kremlin formulated a worst-case scenario focusing on maintaining a Russian presence along the eastern shores of the Mediterranean (beyond the Aleppo-Damascus highway) while blocking US/Western encroachment. Moscow is cognizant that such an area of influence along the shores of the Mediterranean also means blocking the vital arteries of transportation which both Iran and Turkey are determined to establish.

In early June 2019, the Russians demonstrated the point that the western zones are Russia’s, and only Russia’s. Toward this end, the Russians compelled the Syrian military to force the PasdaranHizbAllah and Afghan Fatemiyoun units out of the Syrian base in Latakia.

Meanwhile, the cooperation between Iran and Turkey has expanded as agreed, but faster than expected.

Starting late May 2019, senior officials of both countries increased the number of bilateral visits in a concentrated effort “to find common ground in which Turkey helps Iran overcome the consequences of US sanctions”. By June 1, 2019, Iran and Turkey established a “new anti-sanction financial mechanism” with priority given to increasing the imports of natural gas and oil from Iran (with some of the oil laundered as Iraq-origin from Kirkuk). Iran and Turkey also agreed to protect mutual trade and economic ties, including the establishment of a joint bank, in the face of US sanctions. As well, both countries finalized an agreement to restart direct cargo train and passenger/tourist train services between Tehran and Ankara.

On June 8, 2019, Iranian Pres. Hassan Rouhani had a lengthy phone conversation with his Turkish counterpart, Reçep Tayyip Erdo?an. They finalized and formulated the new era in bilateral relations, ranging from economic cooperation to effecting regional dynamics.

Rouhani opened by emphasizing the importance of the expansion of relations between Iran and Turkey in the global and all-Islamic spheres. “Development of relations and cooperation between Iran and Turkey, as two powerful effective countries in the world of Islam, is important for stability and security of the region.” He pointed to the instability and bloodshed in countries such as Sudan, Libya, Yemen, and Afghanistan, and invited Erdo?an to work with Iran to resolve conflicts throughout the Muslim world. “Together, Iran and Turkey can cooperate with other friendly, brotherly countries to put an end to this regretful process and resolve the issues of the region and the world of Islam as well.” Rouhani said that Iran was most interested in markedly expanding bilateral economic cooperation, including providing highly-subsidized oil and gas to Turkey, while using national currencies in trade transactions to avoid the US sanctions.

In his response, Erdo?an largely agreed with Rouhani and reiterated Turkey’s commitment to confronting the US. Closer bilateral cooperation was a must. “As two brotherly, friendly countries, cementing of relations between Iran and Turkey can be beneficial for both nations and the region.”

Erdo?an concurred that it was imperative to “enhance bilateral relations in all fields, especially in economy and trade”, and agreed with Rouhani on “the importance of using national currencies in trade”. He termed the US “unilateral sanctions against Iran” as “tyrannical”. Hence, Turkey “will never accept these cruel sanctions and seek to increase our friendships and cooperation with Iran”. Erdo?an agreed that both countries must influence the region and “the world of Islam”. Erdo?an concluded: “Iran and Turkey can play a greater rôle by expanding their engagement and cooperation in the development of regional stability and security and counter-terrorism.”

Both Presidents agreed to escalate their joint anti-Kurdish campaign, as well as better coordination of their activities in Iraq and Syria.

By the time of the Rouhani-Erdo?an conversation, Turkish and Iranian forces were already engaged in a comprehensive anti-Kurdish offensive for more than a week.

The raids and bombings were conducted both in northern Iraq and along their mutual border. At first, the heaviest fighting took place in Turkey’s Igdir province, close to the borders with Armenia and Azerbaijan’s Nakhchivan Autonomous Region. The Turkish forces then moved to the Aralik district, close to the Turkish-Iranian border. At that point, the IRGC conducted a parallel operation in Chaldoran County bordering Igdir-Aralik. The Turkish and Iranian forces continued to move southward along the border, destroying the Kurdish pockets between them.

Meanwhile, Turkey launched a major offensive, Operation Claw, into Iraqi Kurdistan. As a separate element of the operation, the Turkish forces conducted deep raids closely coordinated with the Iranian forces. Most important were the attacks against PKK positions in the Hakurk mountainous region near the Iraqi border with Iran. The Iranian forces have been preventing the Kurds from escaping across the Iranian border as in previous Turkish raids. IRGC forces also clashed with Kurdish groups; both the Iranian-Kurdish PJAK and the Turkish-Kurdish PKK forces usually based in Iraqi Kurdistan. The Iranian raids, which include crossing of the Iraqi border, were coordinated with heavy air-strikes by the Turkish Air Force of the nearby regions of Zap and Qandil.

Concurrently, Qatar, on behalf of the bloc, challenged and effectively neutered the Mecca summits from within. The Qatari Prime Minister Abdallah bin Nasser bin Khalifa Al Thani participated in all three summits on May 30-31, 2019.

Despite the Saudi-led GCC boycott on Qatar, he had a most courteous exchange with Saudi Arabia’s King Salman bin ‘Abd al-’Aziz al Sa’ud. The main reason for Qatar’s presence in Mecca was to obtain and relay messages from Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman bin ‘Abd al-’Aziz al Sa’ud (aka MBS) and his close partner the Crown Prince of Abu Dhabi Mohammed bin Zayed al-Nahyan (aka MBZ) to Tehran.

The key message was that Saudi Arabia and the Gulf States did not want war with Iran, and would do whatever they could to prevent the US from launching one. Both MBS and MBZ noted that the US was stopping short of direct confrontation, with the USS Abraham Lincolnaircraft carrier strike group remaining out in the Arabian Sea rather than venturing across the Strait of Hormuz and into the Persian Gulf as US carriers had done in the past.

Tehran, however, would not legitimize any stand of either MBS or MBZ even though Tehran welcomed their message as transferred by Doha. Therefore, within days after the end of the summits, Qatar started to openly criticize and contradict the Mecca Summits’ resolutions and communiqués. Doha thus flagrantly shattered the delicate consensus which Riyadh had worked so hard to create, including the Saudi statement that “reconciliation with Qatar [is] possible” given the right circumstances.

On June 2, 2019, Doha asserted that the Mecca communiqués reflected “America’s policies on Iran” and not the self-interests of the region’s states. Qatari Foreign Minister SheikhMohammed bin Abdulrahman al-Thani, who also attended the Mecca summits, criticized the declaratory refusal to negotiate with Iran even though Doha passed secret messages to Iran throughout the summits. “The statements condemned Iran but did not refer to a moderate policy to speak with Tehran,” he said on Al Jazeera TV. “They adopted Washington policy towards Iran, rather than a policy that puts neighborhood with Iran into consideration.” Al-Thani argued that any cooperation with Tehran should be based on “non-interference in other countries”.

On June 5, 2019, Iranian Pres. Hasan Fereidun Rouhani coordinated policies in a phone conversation with the Qatari Emir Tamim bin Hamad al-Thani. Rouhani reiterated that Iran was not interested in a war with the US or anybody else. However, should “any foolish anti-Iranian act start in the region”, Iran would deliver “a firm response” which would harm the Arabian Peninsula more than anybody else. War would be futile, he noted. “Regional problems don’t have a military solution and we believe that threat, pressure, blockade, and economic sanction are wrong approaches in relations between governments.” Rouhani hailed Qatar’s stance because it contributed to easing regional tensions. “Certainly, any meeting will be ineffective, unproductive and even harmful, if it doesn’t draw regional countries to each other,” Rouhani affirmed Doha’s policy.

Sheikh Tamim responded by emphasizing that the policies and stances of Tehran and Doha were “close to each other” on most issues. He reiterated that Doha believed that “dialogue is the only way to ease tensions,” and that Doha wanted “to expand ties with Iran in all areas”. Sheikh Tamim concluded that all Qataris are “appreciating Tehran for supporting [Qatar] during the blockade”.

Apprehensive of the specter of a US escalation, Foreign Minister Mohammed al-Thani traveled to London on June 9, 2019, to try and get “a friendly message” across to Washington. He warned the US not to fall into the trap set by MBS and MBZ. He explained that the “Saudi and Emirati plan to impose stability on the region by supporting authoritarian governments and military councils in Africa, Egypt, Libya, and throughout the Arab world was a recipe for chaos”. These “policies are [only] creating more terrorism, conflict and chaos in the Middle East and Africa”.

For its own good, the US must not be part of the scheme. Discussing the situation in the Persian Gulf, Foreign Minister Mohammed al-Thani noted that “while Qatar respects US policy towards Iran, it cannot fully support it because Qatar views the matter from a regional perspective”. He criticized Washington’s stance. “The current US position on Iran lacks any indication of a way forward, or any type of positive or constructive message.” Doha did “not want to see any confrontation between the two powers, US and Iran, because we are stuck in the middle,” he concluded.

But the US kept escalating its covert war with Iran, both in the Persian Gulf and in Syria. The extent of the escalation and the focusing on objectives of great importance for Iran could not but lead to Iranian harsh reaction.

First came escalation of the campaign against the transfer of oil along the long desert road stretch between Deir ez-Zor and Damascus. Since the beginning of the war, Damascus had been purchasing oil from whomever controlled the oilfields east of the Euphrates, be it DI’ISH or the US-sponsored Kurdish PKK/YPG/SDF forces. As well, with the opening of the road from Iran via Iraq, the Iranians increased the shipment of oil in tanker-trucks. Since the Syrian Defense Forces (SDF) would not strike and shut down the lucrative oil trade, the US chose to rely heavily on the jihadist forces being trained and equipped in the al-Tanf area.

According to tribal leaders in the Deir ez-Zor area, the US launched at first “a campaign … to prevent smuggling [oil] from areas under SDF control in Deir ez-Zor to the Syrian regime by way of ferries across the river”. The first major escalation took place in the early morning hours of May 31, 2019. Jihadist forces near al-Shuhayl opened heavy machinegun fire on four tanker-barges ferrying oil across the Euphrates. When the ambush failed to cause any tangible damage, US combat helicopters and strike aircraft showed up and strafed the barges, blowing up three of them and causing at least four fatalities.

Although the US denied that the May 31, 2019, attack took place, the mere involvement of US forces compelled the US to change tactics. The emphasis moved to on-land raids and ambushes along the desert stretch north of al-Tanf, the vast Badiyah al-Sham (eastern desert) area. There, properly trained and equipped light forces could, on their own, strike and burn the tanker trucks moving in small convoys. As well, there was no question of conflict of interests with the US-proxy Kurdish forces. According to Syrian military officials, “the ISIL’s movements have taken place in line with US’ objectives to exert pressure on the Syrian Army and its allies in Syria”. The officials stressed that “the US is trying to help the ISIL block roads leading to Badiyah due to Badiyah’s strategically important oil and gas reserves”.

The main jihadist operations were taking place between Eastern al-Sukhnah and Deir ez-Zor, including the important T-3 Pumping Station and the Palmyra area. Some of these jihadistforces were using HUMMER-type vehicles in addition to the ubiquitous Japanese-made light trucks. Starting June 3, 2019, the jihadists used US-made TOW anti-tank missiles to strike Syrian armored combat vehicles escorting the tankers. The first such strike took place in the Jabal Bishri area.

By June 7, 2019, the jihadists had escalated their concentrated attacks on the traffic in the main desert route, hitting both Syrian and Iranian vehicles, and not just oil tankers and their escorts. The jihadists deployed several hundred fighters from the camps in the al-Tanf area, compelling the Syrian military to divert forces from their anti-DI’ISH operations in the Baqouz region in Eastern Euphrates province. The jihadist forces were operating over wider areas including the area of Jabal al-Bashri in south-eastern Raqqa, al-Dafinah in southern Deir ez-Zor, between Palmyra and al-Sukhnah, and the surrounding areas of al-Tanf in Eastern Homs. On June 11, 2019, the jihadists launched their first attack on the western axis of the T-3 Pumping Station near Palmyra. The jihadists also stormed army positions near the desert road east of Palmyra, causing heavy damage and numerous casualties.

By mid-June 2019, the intensity and frequency of jihadist ambushes had increased still further. These ambushes, Syrian defense officials explained, “are well-coordinated and [a] proof that the terrorist group possesses the ability to wreak havoc inside the country”. By now, according to these officials, there were some 2,000 to 3,000 jihadist fighters in the entire Badiyah al-Sham region who were living off the main US-sponsored bases in the al-Tanf area. The escalation has strategic impact because the Syrian military has had to divert reinforcements earmarked for the major offensive in Idlib (the last major pocket of the US-sponsored al-Qaida affiliated jihadists, both Syrian and foreign) to secure the desert roads.

Then, as promised to the jihadist fighters by the US recruiters in March 2019, on June 2, 2019, the US-proxy Kurdish authorities running the al-Hawl camp released more than 800 women and children — all families of DI’ISH fighters — and handed them to their families who happened to live in the al-Tanf area. This was the first such transfer of non-combatants and more were expected soon.

Meanwhile, a “mysterious” escalation took place in the northern part of the Persian Gulf.

On June 5, 2019, huge fire consumed a storage facility for oil products at the Shahid Rajaee port in southern Hormozgan Province. Located west of Bandar Abbas, the Shahid Rajaee port is Iran’s largest container shipping port. Reportedly, a vehicle used for transporting shipping containers exploded and caught fire. Since there were oil products near the site of the explosion, the blaze spread quickly to several tanks and storage sites and caused heavy damage to the port. The spreading fire set off huge explosions which shot fireballs and heavy smoke high into the air.

On June 7, 2019, six Iranian merchant ships were set ablaze almost simultaneously in two Persian Gulf ports.

First, five ships “caught fire” in the port of Nakhl Taghi in the Asaluyeh region of Bushehr Province. Three of these ships were completely burned and the two others suffered major damage. Several port workers and sailors were injured. As well, at least one cargo ship burst into flames and burned completely at the port of Bualhir, near Delvar. The fire was attributed to “incendiary devices” of “unknown origin”. The local authorities in Bushehr Province called the fires a “suspicious event” and went no further.

In Tehran, senior Iranian officials first attributed the incident to “fires caused by high temperatures”. Subsequently, they pointed out to statements by Iranian opposition activists in Europe (NOT the MEK) who “made the connection between the mysterious fires that hit the Iranian ships and the sabotage” of the tankers in Fujairah. Several diplomats in Tehran reported that the local grapevines were attributing the fires to “expert mercenaries” of “unknown origin”. “Knowledgeable Iranians” opined, the diplomats reported, that “ferocious revenge” was only a question of time.

Indeed, in the early morning hours of June 13, 2019, two large tankers were repeatedly attacked and set aflame in the middle of the Gulf of Oman. Both tankers were subsequently abandoned by their crews and left to drift, burn and sink. By end of the day, there were conflicting reports whether they already sank. The tankers did not sink and most of the flames died down on June 15, 2019. Hence, efforts started tow the tankers to UAE ports.

A few hours before the attack, a US MQ-9 Reaper unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) observed IRGC fast attack boats, most likely from the nearby Bandar-e-Jask naval base, gather and advance toward the area where the tankers would be struck. When the Iranians noticed the UAV, they launched a shoulder-fired surface-to-air missile. The missile overshot, narrowly missed the MQ-9, and crashed into the water. However, the UAV was pulled away from the scene so that there would be no evidence of the attack that unfolded shortly afterwards.

Both tankers were subjected to repeated attacks over three hours in order to ascertain their destruction. The Norwegian owned MT Front Altair was first hit by a torpedo attack which stopped it and started a small fire. The Front Altair was then subjected to two cycles limpet-mine attacks which caused at least three major explosions and set the tanker aflame. The Japanese owned Kokuka Courageous was also subjected first to a torpedo attack which breached the hull above the water line. Over the next three hours, the Kokuka Courageous was subjected twice to limpet-mine attacks, as well as a couple of 107mm rockets (most likely launched from an IRGC Seraj-1-class fast attack boat), which also set the tanker aflame. Both tankers were first hit in the engine-room area so that they stopped. The main tanks were then repeatedly bombed until they burned out of control.

The predominantly Russian crew of the Front Altair was rescued by an Iranian vessel and brought to a nearby port in Iran. The predominantly Filipino crew of the Kokuka Courageouswas rescued by local tugboats and then moved to the US destroyer Bainbridge. Tehran continued to insist that all 44 crew members of both tankers were rescued by the Iranian Navy and safety authorities.

The initial expert analysis of the attacks strongly suggested a professional operation.

“These appear to be well planned and coordinated attacks,” wrote shipping experts in the Gulf States. They noted that the two tankers were first hit in close proximity to the engine room and thus were stopped. They were then subjected to strong explosions at or below the waterline. Such explosions were most likely caused by limpet-mines similar to those used in Fujairah on May 12, 2019. The USS Bainbridge reported that it saw “an unexploded limpet mine on the side of one of the ships attacked in the Gulf of Oman”. The next day, a US UAV spotted an IRGC Zulfiqar-class fast attack boat approaching the tanker where the crew removed the unexploded mine. The experts concluded that “a state actor is responsible” for the attack.

In all likelihood, the strike was carried out by members of the Sepah Navy Special Force, an independent Takavar unit of the IRGC Navy, and/or foreign Shi’ite jihadists trained by them. The attackers operated from the military port in Bandar-e-Jask in the Southern Hormozgan Province of Iran. The mother ship of the Fujairah attackers was believed to have sailed from Bandar-e-Jask. The IRGC Navy base was established there in 2008. Several years later, it was expanded to include the headquarters of the Iran Navy’s 2nd Naval District. Bandar-e-Jask is the home base of a unit of the IRGC’s Ghadir midget submarines, a wide variety of IRGC fast attack boats, (including the Seraj-1 and Zulfiqar classes), and long-range UAVs used for operations over the Persian Gulf. The Ghadir midget submarines are equipped with the Jask-2 anti-ship missiles and Valfajr torpedoes (which might have been used to attack the two tankers).

The initial media coverage of the incident was of significance.

The first reports came rather quickly on the Iranian Al-Alam News Network which broadcasts in Arabic and covers the entire Arabian Peninsula. Al-Alam reported that two “giant oil tankers” had come under “attack”, that “two explosions” took place, and that the tankers were aflame. These reports were then picked up by the Persian-language Iranian media; first the IRGC-affiliated Tasnim News and then the propaganda channel, Press TV, which broadcasts in several languages worldwide. Only then the media in the Middle East and the global media started to pay attention to the strike.

Subsequently, official Tehran began addressing the issue; warning Saudi Arabia and the Gulf States against hastily attributing the attack to Iran. “All regional states should be careful not to be entrapped by deception of those who benefit from instability in the region,” Iranian Government Spokesman Ali Rabie said. “The Iranian Government is ready for security and regional cooperation to guarantee security, including in the strategic waterways.”

The attack on the tankers in the Gulf of Oman cannot be seen in isolation.

They were part of a comprehensive policy against Saudi Arabia and the Gulf States, but timed in the aftermath of the attacks on the Iranian ports. In early April, a three-phase escalating war plan was drawn under Maj.-Gen. Qassem Soleimani in order to deprive the West of access to the Arabian Peninsula’s oil if US sanctions persisted and Iran could no longer sell oil.

The first phase was to signal Iran’s resolve and might; the second, sinking tankers transferring oil from Saudi Arabia and the Gulf States, as well as blocking the Strait of Hormuz; and the third was to destroy the entire oil and gas infrastructure throughout the Arabian Peninsula. In late-April 2019, Maj.-Gen. Mohammed Hossein Bagheri alluded to the Iranian resolve. “If our oil fails to go through the Strait, others’ crude will not either,” Bagheri warned. The Fujairah attack and the Gulf of Oman attack corresponded with the first two phases of Soleimani’s plan. The third was also tocome.

The attack on the Japanese owned Kokuka Courageous was fortuitous because it happened just as Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe was visiting Tehran in effort to convince Tehran that US Pres. Donald Trump was serious about comprehensive negotiations with Iran. On June 13, 2019, Abe met with Ayatollah Seyyed Ali Khamene‘i who set the tone for Iran’s harsh policies.

After pleasantries, Abe told Khamene‘i that the primary objective of his visit was to convey a special message from Pres. Trump. “I would like to give you a message from the President of the United States,” Abe told Khamene‘i. Khamene‘i exploded and told Abe his mission was doomed and futile from the very beginning. “We have no doubts about your goodwill and seriousness, but with regard to what you relayed from the US President, I see no merit in Trump as a person to deserve the exchange of any messages, and I do not have any answer for him and will not give him any either,” Khamene‘i replied.

Khamene‘i then addressed the nuclear issue, repeating the falsehood of his own fatwaforbidding nuclear weapons. However, Khamene‘i stressed that the US or the EU had no say in whether Iran would or would not have nuclear weapons. “We are against nuclear weapons and my fatwa bans their development. However, you should know that if we decide to develop nuclear weapons, the United States will be unable to do anything,” Khamene‘i told Abe.

According to the Mehr News Agency, Abe delivered five specific requests from Trump to Khamene‘i. Mehr cited “Trumps’ five requests and the Leader’s direct answers to them:

“Trump: The US is not intended to change the regime in Iran.

“Leader: This is a lie for if the US could do that it would but this is what US is not capable of doing.

“Trump: We want to re-negotiate nuclear issues.

“Leader: Iran held talks with the US for five to six years over nuclear issues and reached a conclusion but the US withdrew from the deal. This is not reasonable to re-negotiate things with a country who has ruined all the agreements.

“Trump: The US seeks to prevent Iran from achieving nuclear weapons.

“Leader: We disagree with nuclear weapons and I have announced it Haram in a Fatwa but you should know that if we wanted to make nuclear weapons the US could not prevent us.

“Trump: The US is ready to start honest negotiations with Iran.

“Leader: We do not believe in that, since honest negotiations are far from a person like Trump. Honesty is rare among American officials.

“Trump: Holding talks with the US will make Iran improve.

“Leader: Under the mercy of God, we will improve without having negotiations with the US and despite the imposed sanctions.”

The other important meeting Prime Minister Abe had was with Pres. Rouhani. According to Rouhani, they discussed “stability and security of the region”. Most important was Abe’s reiteration that Japan remained interested in purchasing Iranian oil despite the sanctions. “Japan’s willingness to continue purchase of oil from Iran and to boost financial, scientific and cultural cooperation will be a guarantee for development of ties,” Rouhani stated.

Ultimately, Russia and the PRC were the prime, long-term beneficiaries of the brewing crisis in the Persian Gulf.

Both Vladimir Putin and Xi Jinping were in Bishkek, Kyrgyz Republic, on June 14, 2019, for the summit of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO). Rouhani was also participating. After the attack on the tankers, the US attention again focused on the Persian Gulf and away from the escalation of the confrontation with the PRC and Russia.

Meanwhile, both Putin and Xi were, in Bishkek, leading the dramatic strengthening of both the Eurasian Sphere and the New Silk Road. The US handling of both the trade/tariff war with the PRC, and the Persian Gulf crisis, as explained by Rouhani, had convinced Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi and the Central Asian leaders in attendance to seek closer ties with Russia and the PRC. The SCO was further enthused by the decision, announced by Xi Jinping, to divert major PRC investment funds from the US to Central Asia and the New Silk Road. Indeed, Russian and PRC officials defined the Xi-Putin-Modi meeting in Bishkek as being “vital for re-shaping the world order” and as a major setback to the US attempt to dominate the forthcoming G20 summit in Osaka, Japan.

Meanwhile, Tehran continued to prepare for an escalation to come. On June 14, 2019, Iranian Intelligence Minister Mahmoud Alavi led a senior delegation to Damascus where it met with leaders of Palestinian terrorist organizations, HizbAllah and other Shi’ite jihadist factions. In the meeting, the Palestinian leaders emphasized the “interconnected rôle of the resistance axis’ forces and countries in the region in confronting schemes and threats that target Iran, Syria, Palestine and Lebanon”. Indeed, Egyptian senior intelligence officials now claim that the recent launching of rockets from the Gaza Strip was conducted by “regional elements” tied with “the attacks on oil tankers in the Persian Gulf.”

Concurrently, Qods commander Qassem Soleimani continued traveling clandestinely throughout the Middle East, preparing his extensive and growing forces, both Iranian and Iran-proxy, for a direct clash with the US and its allies should Khamene‘i give the order.

By Yossef Bodansky via Defense & Foreign Affairs.

The post Declassified: The Sino-Russian Masterplan To End U.S. Dominance In Middle East appeared first on The Duran.

Categories: America, Foreign Policy

Genocidal Roots of the Green New Deal

Wed, 2019-06-19 18:32

Submitted by Matthew Ehret…

The world is being told to consume a poison pill known as the Green New Deal and President Trump has taken a stand against it.

During a May 14 speech, President Trump won even more animosity from the left for having attacked the Green New Deal by comparing it to the fraud of Russia-Gate. Speaking to a crowd of energy workers in Hackberry Louisiana, the President said: “The green New Deal is a hoax like the one I just went through. I’m not sure, it might be an even bigger one, and mine was pretty big”. If the green New Deal were made law, Trump warned that every blue collar worker in attendance would be destroyed: “everybody in this room gets fired if the plan is ever implemented.”

Was Trump embodying the “pollution-loving capitalist who hates nature” which the left has painted him or is there something more insidious which underlies the Green New Deal which the President hit upon? To answer that we will have to first quickly review what the Green New Deal IS, then where it came from and then finally what its architects have stated they wish to accomplish with its implementation. From there, we can assess if the president’s words were hyperbole or truth.

What is it?

As the name implies, the Green New Deal is a sweeping policy agenda which takes its name from the original New Deal of 1932 enacted under the leadership of President Franklin Roosevelt. The New Deal was originally a program for bank reform, and mass infrastructure building in order to heal America from the deep wounds caused by 4 years of Great Depression. While the Green New Deal of 2019 proposes to dramatically overhaul the rules of finance and infrastructure planning, its similarities to the original end there.

Roosevelt’s New Deal was driven by projects which increased the productive powers of labor of the nation as a whole by investments into hydroelectric projects, transportation corridors, the Tennessee Valley Authority, and thousands of other infrastructure projects. The Green New Deal on the other hand seeks to lower American productive powers of labor and living standards by investments into zero growth green infrastructure. Of course if that were explicitly stated, no one would drink the Kool-Aid.

As presidents Putin and Trump have both emphasized at various times not only has it never been proven that human-made CO2 drives climate variations, but it has also come to light that since 1998, the warming trend dominant since 1977  has been on an strange “pause”. While CO2 output steadly rose from 1938-1977, it was accompanied by a total cooling causing scientists in 1977 to sound the alarm that we were on the verge of an ice age. This fact reflects the embarrassing reality that CO2 tends to follow climate variations rather than precede them, indicating that this greenhouse gas is actually being effected by the warming of the earth most likely driven by space-based causes as Putin has referred repeatedly. Even more surprising to some, recently published NASA studies have shown that the world’s biomass has increased by 10% in recent years due in large measure to the industrial growth policies of China and India. Plants have, after all, been observed to grow much better when fed by increased levels of carbon dioxide.

Where did it come from?

So how could so many respectable scientists, journals and politicians have possibly assumed a fallacy to be so true that an overhaul of the entire global society is being proposed? This obviously didn’t arise over night, but the current pressure to transform our entire world to the undisputed “reality” of man-made global warming finds its true origins in the Malthusian revival of 1968-1972.

In this short interval of time, a vacuum left by the assassinations of pro-development leaders such as John F. Kennedy, Enrico Mattei, Charles de Gaulle, Martin Luther King and Bobby Kennedy was filled by establishment hacks and cowards. These tools ushered in a paradigm shift towards “conservationism” and rejected the industrial growth ethic that defined western civilization up until that point.

This Malthusian Revival answered the challenge put forth by Eugenics Society president and UNESCO founder Julian Huxley who wrote in 1946: “Political unification in some sort of world government will be required… Even though… any radical eugenic policy will be for many years politically and psychologically impossible, it will be important for UNESCO to see that the eugenic problem is examined with the greatest care, and that the public mind is informed of the issues at stake so that much that now is unthinkable may at least become thinkable.” Of course, just one year after the world had come to realize the horrors of Nazi eugenics, Huxley and his associates among the Anglo-American elite who financed Hitler had a big job to clean up the image of eugenics and re-package it under another name.

The Club of Rome and 1001 Trust

In 1968, an organization was formed known as the Club of Rome led by two misanthropes named Aurelio Peccei and Sir Alexander King. The organization quickly set up branches across the Anglo-Saxon world with members ranging from select ideologues from the political, business, and scientific community who all agreed that society’s best form of governance was a scientific dictatorship. Sir Alexander wrote: “In searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine and the like would fit the bill….All these dangers are caused by human intervention, and it is only through changed attitudes and behavior that they can be overcome. The real enemy then, is humanity itself.”

In order to finance this paradigm shift, the 1001 Trust was founded in 1970 by Prince Bernhardt of the Netherlands. Bernhardt (card carrying Nazi and founder of the Bilderberger Group in 1954) had worked alongside his close misanthropic associates Prince Philip Mountbatten, and Sir Julian Huxley to create the World Wildlife Fund (WWF) just a few years earlier. The plan was simple: each of the 1001 founding members simply put $10,000 into the trust which was then directed towards the green paradigm shift. Other prominent 1001 Club members included international royalty, billionaires, and technocratic sociopaths who wanted nothing more than to manage this promised Brave New World as “alphas”. Many of these figures were also members of the Club of Rome, including Canada’s Maurice Strong, who later became Vice President of the WWF under Prince Philip’s presidency. Strong had replaced another WWF Vice President by the name of Louis Mortimer Bloomfield. Bloomfield was another 1001 Club member whom New Orleans District Attorney Jim Garrison discovered to be at the heart of the Montreal-based assassination of the anti-Malthusian President John F. Kennedy in 1963.

The document which became the bible and blueprint of this new anti-humanist movement that birthed today’s Green New Deal agenda was titled Limits to Growth (1972) and today holds the record as the most widely read book on ecology, having sold 30 million copies published into 32 languages. A recent article celebrating the book’s 40 year anniversary stated “it helped launch modern environmental computer modeling and began our current globally focused environmental debate. After Limits [To Growth], environmentalists, scientists and policy-makers increasingly thought of ecological problems in planetary terms and as dynamically interconnected… It is worth revisiting Limits today because, more than any other book, it introduced the concept of anthropocentric climate change to a mass audience.”

The book itself was the culmination of a two year study undertaken by a team of MIT statisticians under the nominal heading of Jay Forrester and Dennis Meadows. Like Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez today, these young MIT professors were merely cardboard cut-outs selected to deflect from the higher social engineers managing the show from the top.

The MIT study itself was not even begun in the USA, but rather in Montebellow Quebec in 1971, when Club of Rome-backer Pierre Trudeau allocated tax payer money to begin the project. A network of Rhodes Scholars and Privy Councillors centered around Alexander King, Maurice Strong, Maurice Lamontagne (founder of Environment Canada), Michael Pitfield (Privy Council Clerk and founder of Canada’s CSIS) and Governor General Roland Michener, among others, had presided over that meeting. When the Canadian funds had served their role, the project continued to receive its funding from the Volkswagen Foundation, whose Nazi-supporting past should have made some of the MIT statisticians uncomfortable.

Malthusianism in Brief

These Club of Rome/WWF/1001 Club members dubbed themselves “neo Malthusians” referring to the ideology popularized by the British Empire’s Thomas Malthus. Malthus’ 1799 Essay on the Principle of Population pessimistically noticed that human population grows geometrically while food production grows arithmetically leading invariably to a crisis point of over-population.  This crisis point creates a mathematical foundation for the concept that later came to be dubbed “carrying capacity” by the authors of Limits to Growth. Of course rather than permit those human cattle from developing their minds in order to make more discoveries and inventions which would offset this crisis point, Malthus (and his heirs later) knew that the British Empire which employed him could never exist were that creative power unleashed. Instead, Malthus coldly advocated the elimination of the “unfit to make way for the more fit.” Not adept at the subtleties of modern 21st century newspeak, Malthus went so far as to propose that even children perish:

“All children who are born beyond what would be required to keep up the population to a desired level must necessarily perish, unless room be made for them by the deaths of grown persons… therefore we should facilitate, instead of foolishly and vainly endeavoring to impede, the operations of nature in producing this mortality”

By re-packaging Malthus’ assumptions into a more complex computing system, these neo-Malthusians wanted to create a shame based movement of willful self-annihilation among an entire generation of baby boomers.

Of course if you assume that technological progress has ended, then it will certainly appear that a closed system of fixed limited resources can only be managed by a technocratic elite choosing who gets diminishing returns as the world settles into some imaginary “mathematical equilibrium” of sustainability. Fortunately for humanity, reality rarely conforms to the pessimistic ideals of racists and imperialists.

The Chaining of Prometheus

A long time London trained asset and close collaborator of Canada’s Prime Minister Pierre Elliot Trudeau, Maurice Lamontagne was Club of Rome member, and former President of the Privy Council. Of all Club of Rome members, Lamontagne was the most candid in identifying the Earth’s greatest enemy to be human creativity itself. Writing in his Senate Committee Reports of 1968-1972 which reformed science policy funding and planning, Lamontagne wrote:

“Nature imposes definite constraints on technology itself and if man persists in ignoring them the net effect of his action in the long run can be to reduce rather than to increase nature’s potential as a provider of resources and habitable space… But then, an obvious question arises: How can we stop man’s creativeness?”

Correctly recognizing that the yearning to discover the unknown is built into the human condition, Lamontagne answers his own question, writing:

“How can we proclaim a moratorium on technology? It is impossible to destroy existing knowledge; impossible to paralyze man’s inborn desire to learn, to invent and to innovate… In the final analysis we find that technology is merely a tool created by man in pursuit of his infinite aspirations and is not the significant element invading the natural environment. It is material growth itself that is the source of conflict between man and nature”

Thus creativity and its fruits of technological progress are acceptable only IF they reduce the assumed conflict between man and nature posited by Lamontagne!  “Bad” technology in Lamontagne’s formulation, has the effect of increasing humanity’s material growth (ie: powers of productivity). If, on the other hand, we promote technologies of a low energy flux density form, such as windmills, solar panels and biofuels, which lead to the reduction of man’s powers to exist, then technology can be defined as a “good” thing” according to this twisted logic.

This concept was echoed by another Club of Rome member and collaborator with Lamontagne on his Senate Report named Omond Solandt. Solandt made his career as the science advisor to Lord Mountbatten (Prince Philip’s pedophiliac mentor) during WWII and headed the Defense Research Board until 1957, where he collaborated on MK Ultra alongside the infamous Ewan Cameron at McGill University. Solandt sophistically said: There is no longer any need to advance science. The need is rather to understand, guide and use science effectively for the welfare of mankind.” What defines “the welfare of mankind” in the mind of an MK Ultra proponent should give one chills.

In preparation for the “post-industrial order” that was unleashed with the 1971 floating of the US dollar and the destruction of the Bretton Woods monetary system, that at least included a modicum of regulation of the monetarist speculators, Lamontagne prescribed that the “new wisdom” no longer aim at discoveries in atomic, medical and space sciences, in order to focus on more “practical” engineering endeavors. He also proposed that funding to advanced science be diminished by widening the definition of “science” itself to embrace the humanities, monetary economics and social sciences. Those programs then began absorbing the funding that had formerly been directed to research on pure science. Lamontagne stated this in volume one of his Report:

“The new wisdom prescribes that the additional R&D effort be devoted to the life sciences and social sciences rather than the physical sciences… to economic and social objectives rather than curiosity and discovery.

In Defense of Prometheus

One leading Canadian scientist took an early stand against this Club of Rome-driven transformation. Ronald Hayes, professor of environmental science at Dalhousie University and Canadian Civil Servant wrote his 1973 book “The Chaining of Prometheus: The Evolution of a Power Structure for Canadian Science”, where he identified Lamontagne as a minion of the god Zeus as portrayed in Aeschylus’ famous drama Prometheus Bound. The ancient Greek drama told the story of the demi-god Prometheus who was punished for 10 thousand years for the defiant act of teaching humanity how to use the Fire which Zeus had monopolized for himself.

Attacking the call to deconstruct the entire 1938-1971 science funding structure and rebuild it under a new technocratic regime, Professor Hayes said that the main problem with the Lamontagne approach was called the Egyptian Syndrome: “if only we could destroy all that the Israelis have built up and reduce Palestine to a desert everyone would be equal and we could start to build a better world for the Arabs. Thus Lamontagne wants to destroy the National Research Council, the body that has nurtured and launched much of the government research and got the graduate programs going in our universities. It is a fault of the Trudeau administration which Lamontagne echoes.”

Hayes attacked the newly-formed powers of the Treasury Board which were now given exceptional control of science policy under a new scientific dictatorship when he said “the most subtle exercise of power, which obviates the necessity of close control, is infiltration by reliable people- the creation of a ruling elite…These Englishmen became known the world over as the rulers of the British Empire… With somewhat similar aims, the Public Service Commission is grooming future Canadian government managers to follow the general policies and precepts of the Treasury Board.”

There Are No Limits To Growth

Ten years after the publication of the Limits to Growth, American presidential candidate and founder of the Fusion Energy Foundation Lyndon LaRouche (1922-2019) responded to the neo-Malthusian movement in more forceful terms than Dr. Hayes. Writing his 1982 “There are no Limits to Growth” as an early publication of the Club of Life, LaRouche wrote:

“It is not the growth of industry which destroys the world’s forests. In most cases, the cause is a lack of industrial output, a lack of good industrial management of the ecosphere. Over the past fifteen years, the greatest single cause for destruction of the world’s “ecology” has been the toleration of the policies demanded by the so called “ecologists,” the so-called “neo-Malthusians” of the Club of Rome, of the International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis (IIASA), of the World Wildlife Fund, the Aspen Institute, the Ford Foundation, the ‘Rockefeller Foundation, the U.S. Sierra Club, and so forth and so on. We are not putting enough industrially-produced energy, in the form of water management, chemicals, and so forth, into the farming of the Earth’s biosphere. At the same time, we are using biomass for fuel and other “traditional” uses, in cases we should be using nuclear-generated energy supplies, and using modern, industrially produced materials in place of timber for housing and so forth”

Describing the extraordinary influence which the Limits to Growth had on consolidating the neo-Malthusian revival as a dominant factor in western policy circles, LaRouche identified the core fallacies which are only now being properly challenged by the efforts of President Trump in America. LaRouche stated:

“The study itself [Limits to Growth] was most conspicuously fraudulent on two leading counts. First, in attempting to prove that industrial society was using up its remaining natural resources very rapidly, Meadows and Forrester greatly understated the known quantities of such resources. Second, more important, Meadows and Forrester projected the rate of consumption of natural resources by using systems of simultaneous linear equations. The very use of such linear equations for a computer “model” of that sort, builds into the computer projections the assumption that absolutely no technological progress is occurring in society. In fact, technological progress, including fundamental redefinitions of what “natural resources” means, has been the outstanding feature of European civilization for five hundred years. The Limits to Growth depended upon the assumption that such technological progress had come to a sudden, absolute stop.”

Entropic or Anti-Entropic

Just like Thomas Malthus centuries earlier, the neo-Malthusians had to deny the existence of technological progress (and its origins in human creative reason) as the means by which humanity’s carrying capacity is changed according to discoveries and inventions. This fact of humanity’s relationship with the universe absolutely defines our existence as a species above all other creatures of the biosphere. As the “carrying capacities” of other species are defined by the environment and genetic characteristics, humans uniquely can transcend those conditions willfully on the condition that we are given access to the best cultural and educational heritage of the past with the inspiration and curiosity to carry that heritage to ever higher limits without ever expecting to reach a “mathematical equilibrium” or “entropic heat death” as so many statisticians from the Limits to Growth school pessimistically presume.

In opposition to this school, LaRouche’s discoveries in the science of physical economy (made during a period of 1952-1956) were premised on the opposing concept that mankind’s ability to leap from lower to higher forms of energy consumption (ie: wood burning, to coal to oil to nuclear fission to fusion etc.) allows for the upward transformation of humanity’s physical economic potential without limits. Creative leaps into the unknown drive new discoveries of principles which allow for humanity’s potential relative population density to increase with increased standards of living, life expectancies and cognitive potential in ways that no other animal (which the Malthusians wish us to presume we are) can achieve. This fact of life is the essential proof that not only mankind but the universe is unbounded in its potential for constant self-perfectibility and thus ANTI-ENTROPIC in its essence.

The BRI and the REAL New Deal

I hope that this report has demonstrated that the Green New Deal is nothing other than a new form of eugenics masquerading as a socially conscious reform of the system. The fact is that not only is this Green New Deal NOT green (as a world covered by solar panels would increase desertification of the earth through heating), but has no connection to the true New Deal. The effects of a program that seeks to reduce global CO2 emissions to “acceptable levels” in accord with the will of today’s British Empire would bring nothing more than chaos, famine and depopulation to humanity.

Luckily, today’s world carries nearly 8 billion souls and (barring a few stubborn oligarchs and technocrats)- all of whom have minds that could be willfully perfected and deployed to make great discoveries in science and the arts. The world in which these people live is increasingly being shaped by a REAL New Deal under the Chinese-led Belt and Road Initiative which now has more than 160 countries on board and is the size of 20 Marshall Plans. This initiative requires a return to an ethic founded upon a love of mankind and belief in scientific and technological progress. This spirit was expressed beautifully by President Xi Jinping who said on May 15 at the Dialogue of Asian Civilizations:

“For a civilization to endure, efforts must be made to keep it alive and build on its heritage from one generation to the next. More importantly, a civilization needs to adapt itself to the changing times and break new ground. The history of world civilizations tells us that every civilization needs to advance with the times and take in the best of its age in order to develop itself. We need to come up with new ideas to add impetus and inspiration to the development of our civilizations. With these efforts, we will deliver achievements for our civilizations to transcend time and space and have a lasting appeal. To spur people’s innovation and creativity, the best way is to come into contact with different civilizations, see the strengths of others and draw upon them.”

The fact that such figures as Presidents Xi Jinping and Putin have created an alliance based upon long term planning, great infrastructure projects to uplift the conditions of life of everyone and frontier technological progress indicates that the “great green game” created in the wake of the assassinations of anti-Malthusian leaders in the 1960s is finally coming to an end. America’s slow self-mutilation has finally a chance to heal with the first anti-Malthusian President elected since the days of the well-intentioned (though often dim-witted) Ronald Reagan over 35 years ago.

While Reagan did not have a Russia-China power alliance to cooperate with during the Cold War, President Trump does. The offer for America to join the Belt and Road and new strategic operating system of cooperation is on the table and awaiting an answer. How Trump will respond remains to be seen.

BIO: Matthew J.L. Ehret is a journalist, lecturer and founder of the Canadian Patriot Review. He is an author with The Duran, Strategic Culture Foundation, Fort Russ. His works have been published in Zero Hedge, Executive Intelligence Review, Global Times, Asia Times, L.A. Review of Books, and Sott.net. Matthew has also published the book “The Time has Come for Canada to Join the New Silk Road” and three volumes of the Untold History of Canada (available on untoldhistory.canadianpatriot.org). He can be reached at matt.ehret@tutamail.com

The post Genocidal Roots of the Green New Deal appeared first on The Duran.

Categories: America, Foreign Policy

The Case that Obama Was a Traitor Just Got Powerful New Evidence – From the DNC!

Wed, 2019-06-19 18:18

Submitted by Eric Zuesse…

The case that Obama’s team concocted Russiagate in order to weaken Trump if Trump were to win the Presidency has just received an important admission by the Government’s acknowledgement that the Government under Obama had lied to the FISA Court in order to get the FISA Court’s permission to investigate Trump for possible collusion with Russia’s Government. This information came from the DNC’s own lawyer, to the current U.S. Justice Department, in the case of United States of America v. Roger J. Stone Jr.

In response to Trump operative Roger Stone’s defense effort against Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s charges against Stone, the “Government’s Response to Defendant’s Motion to Compel Unredacted Crowdstrike Reports”

(https://www.scribd.com/document/413428947/Stone-De-123-DOJ-Response-to-MTC-Crowdstrike-Reports — choose “txt” if you want to download it) acknowledges that “On June 14, 2016, the DNC, via CrowdStrike, publicly announced that it had been hacked by Russian government actors. … [But,] According to counsel [from DNC — this comes from what the DNC has communicated to the U.S. Department of Justice and is now being made public in the “Government’s Response” to Stone’s filing], no redacted information concerned the attribution of the attack to Russian actors.” And, since all the rest, the unredacted information, likewise didn’t (as everyone now knows after reading the Mueller Report, because it admits this), the Obama Government actually had nothing that could be presented to the FISA Court without lying, in order for the Obama regime to be able to win that Court’s permission to investigate Trump as being a possible Russian agent.

In other words: Obama’s preparation, just in case Trump might defeat Hillary Clinton, included DNC-Clinton campaign fabrication of ‘evidence’ (via the DNC-hired CrowdStrike) to implicate Trump in treason with Russia, so as to get the FISA Court’s okay and then proceed to cripple Trump’s Presidency. This was an internal U.S. Government war against then-candidate Trump, in order to cripple his Presidency, in the event that Trump might win — as he did.

However, can the previous President be brought up on any criminal charges at all for initiating an action to cripple his successor’s Presidency? This is a legal question with no precedent other than, perhaps, the Watergate burglary case that — irony of ironies — drove Roger Stone’s own friend and hero Richard Nixon out of office. Perhaps Obama was even worse than that President. (Also ironically, Obama tried even more mightily than Nixon did to empower international corporations as the coming dictatorial government of the entire world.)

Here is the full key paragraph in the Government’s just-released reply to Stone:

By May 2016, the Democratic National Committee (“DNC”) and the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee (“DCCC”) became aware that their computer systems had been compromised by intrusions, and they hired the cybersecurity company CrowdStrike to identify the extent of the intrusions and mitigate the threat. On June 14, 2016, the DNC, via CrowdStrike, publicly announced that it had been hacked by Russian government actors. See, Washington Post, “D.N.C. Says Russian Hackers Penetrated Its Files, Including Dossier on Donald Trump”, June 14, 2016, available at https://www.nytimes.com/2016/06/15/us/politics/russian-hackers-dnc-trump.html. At the direction of the DNC and DCCC’s legal counsel, CrowdStrike prepared three draft reports. 1 Copies of these reports were subsequently produced voluntarily to the government by counsel for the DNC and DCCC. 2 At the time of the voluntary production, counsel for the DNC told the government that the redacted material concerned steps taken to remediate the attack and to harden the DNC and DCCC systems against future attack. According to counsel, no redacted information concerned the attribution of the attack to Russian actors.

It therefore seems that if House Democrats initiate impeachment against Trump, he will initiate very serious criminal charges — perhaps even an extraordinary case of treason — against Obama, for concocting Russiagate against him. Consequently, one may reasonably infer that Pelosi and Trump have agreed that there will not be impeachment proceedings, and that there will also not be prosecution against Obama. However, if Trump does get impeached, then there will be virtually a civil war between Republicans and Democrats, as both cases proceed. There is no impeachment by the House that would result in a Republican Senate’s replacement of Trump by Pence: defenestration of Trump. Trump would remain as President. Meanwhile, the case against Obama would be proceeding full force (because the House had impeached him), and the thorough corruption that rules the Democratic Party would then become exposed to the public. The formation of a new major U.S. political party could then become likelier than at any time since the Republicans replaced the Whigs in 1860. However, this time around, the cause wouldn’t be slavery, but instead the fact that, in today’s America, it’s only the billionaires who are in control over both Parties. In other words: the impetus for a third political Party to become financed by one or more billionaires would be the intolerable stranglehold that corruption — control of the Government by the billionaires — has over our country. We then would have two major political parties plus a third that would then serve as the kingmaker taking bids from each of the other two in order to determine which one to throw its support to. It would be the tie-breaker. So, the kingmaker-party would be little more than another party controlled by billionaires. They would make deals to determine which one of the other two will rule the country. American ‘democracy’ wouldn’t be fundamentally affected, because it doesn’t exist anyway, except in our schoolbooks, ‘history’ books, ‘news’ reports, and the public speeches by politicians. It’s all a fraud. And this is why the U.S. regime wants to get rid of people such as Julian Assange.

Investigative historian Eric Zuesse is the author, most recently, of  They’re Not Even Close: The Democratic vs. Republican Economic Records, 1910-2010, and of  CHRIST’S VENTRILOQUISTS: The Event that Created Christianity.

The post The Case that Obama Was a Traitor Just Got Powerful New Evidence – From the DNC! appeared first on The Duran.

Categories: America, Foreign Policy

Iran overplays its hand by 10-day nuke threat

Wed, 2019-06-19 18:18

The Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPoA), a nuclear non-proliferation deal that was a signed agreement between the Islamic Republic of Iran and several other countries, appears to be scrapped.

Several news articles attest to this:

These reports all discuss Iran’s intention to enrich uranium at much higher levels than the 3.6% enrichment levels allowed it by the terms of the JCPoA agreement. Iran threatens to pass its limits within ten days: (excerpt below, emphasis added)

Iran warned European nations on Monday that it would breach in 10 days the landmark 2015 nuclear agreement unless they take action to alleviate the pressure of tightening U.S. sanctions in the coming weeks.

The spokesman for Iran’s atomic energy agency, Behrouz Kamalvandi, said the country would exceed a cap on stockpiles of low-grade uranium on June 27 and threatened to raise enrichment purity beyond a 3.67% limit meant to prevent Iran from making weapons-grade material.

“This is an important test for Europe. It’s to their detriment that the U.S. is making decisions for them,” he said in a televised address from Arak heavy water plant. “Meetings and summits won’t suffice. Once they take actionable measures, we can return to our previous commitments.

The announcement raises pressure on European nations who’ve urged Tehran to stick with a deal even after it was abandoned by the U.S. but have struggled to come up with a vehicle that would allow the Iranians to keep trading. It will also stoke further friction with the U.S., which has accused the Islamic Republic of being behind a spate of attacks on oil tankers near the Strait of Hormuz shipping chokepoint. Iran denies any wrongdoing.

One major criticism of Iran’s actions when the US was preparing to withdraw from the JCPoA was that the position of Iran’s leadership was to try to push the rest of the geopolitical powers around so Iran could have what it wanted. In fact, the JCPoA itself is a deeply flawed agreement, based in the ideology that the Iranians would be peaceful if left alone.

Coupled with the nature of the rhetoric from Iran against the United States most specifically, but also its rhetoric against Israel, the country appears to have some other desire than peace in terms of its nuclear development activities. Whether by virtue of the actual intent of the Iranian leadership to actually bomb Israel out of existence or to be otherwise aggressive towards any other country, the posturing is a bad sign.

(It is particularly important to understand that even a nation whose existence is so roundly controversial (and often damned) as Israel is, is still nonetheless, a nation, and right or wrong history-wise, there are many innocent people that live in this area that do not deserve to be the target of a threat. This goes for every nation on the face of this earth.)

A good example of how it is properly done is Russia. President Vladimir Putin has gone on record creating and announcing the creation of, extremely sophisticated and deadly weapons technology, and that declaration was specifically aimed at the United States because of the US’ own intense efforts to isolate the Russian Federation and make it buckle under to a liberal globalist (but US-led) hegemony.

Mr. Putin has never expressed animosity towards the US, but he cast the situation in the light of Russia’s wish to remain independent from the world, from outside forces, and to chart its own destiny. At all these times, though, Mr. Putin addresses the Americans as “partners.” He is able to deliver very strong language without being provocative.

Perhaps the Iranians simply do not know how to do this, but that is unlikely, given their close relationship with Russia and other members of the global community.

As it stands, the Iranian warning to Europe appears to be in the hopes that European nations will “force the Americans’ hand” to make the United States back off from the severe economic sanctions it reimposed on the Islamic country after leaving the JCPoA.

It is unlikely that this move will work, and in fact, it may hand US President Trump his next big win.

The problem is that the JCPoA was not an agreement signed only with America. The following nations are parties to this act:

  • China
  • France
  • Germany
  • The European Union (overall)
  • Russia
  • The United Kingdom

Of these, the big players are the UK, Russia and China.

All of these countries joined the agreement because what Iran was doing represented a problem to them as well as to the United States.

There may have actually been an effort by Russia, for example, to use the JCPoA to prevent the United States’ policies from damaging its ally, Iran.

TASS reported back in September of 2018 that Russia was pledged to stand by the provisions of the JCPoA, and all the European signatories echoed this commitment to stick by the treaty, including Great Britain. At the time, Iran reiterated its own commitment to abide by the agreement. However, this is now changed with the rhetoric ramping up against Iran, including accusations that it carried out attacks against oil tankers in the Strait of Hormuz recently.

Iran’s idea appears to be an attempt to isolate the United States’ efforts against itself by threatening the other signatories with Iran’s departure from the JCPoA. “If you don’t make the Americans stop, we are going to make more enriched nuclear material!!”

The only thing is, this is a gamble that the Iranians are quite likely to lose.

Threatening the remaining signatories to the deal who have acted in good faith (rightly or wrongly) with the annihilation of that deal, appears to expose the nature of the powers that be in the Iranian government. This tactic has worked in the past, and given the nature of the European powers (including Russia) to act in cooperation with one another, it is understandable why Russia and the other signatories sharply differed with the US’ withdrawal from the deal. The US admittedly does have a pattern of going it alone, and its recent foreign policy directions (over the last 20-30 years) have been quite often out of touch with the notion of cooperation with and within the world community, to some very bad results.

This may have emboldened the Iranians to believe that they can try to strong-arm the Europeans into going their way. However, we are dealing with a country that is on record for threatening other powers (Israel and the United States), and that on theological grounds within Islam. Telling Europe to do it Iran’s way (or else!) may not work.

Part of the dynamic here is, of course, the nature of Donald Trump, the President of the United States. As a negotiator and deal maker, he is unafraid to walk away from a deal when it is bad for him. He is very clear and unequivocal on the matter that he will not make a deal that harms his country. It is therefore almost completely unlikely that Iran’s rhetorical tantrum is going to faze Mr. Trump in any way. For him, in fact, this likely will simply mean that he is about to win the fight.

And, in this situation, he may well do so. In creating a situation where the country who is actually on record for expressing hostile intents (over and over again!) tries to put pressure on, shall we say, more civilized nations to do its bidding, those civilized countries may in fact end up seeing this behavior as unacceptable. “You want to be with us, you need to calm down and start playing like us, or we will not help you!”

This is the point of tension.

A globalist international culture is likely to play the weak card in this matter, and, Germany and France are both wishy-washy globalists. The UK is undergoing a transition to a more nationalist point of view, and Russia and China are both already there, plus they are so powerful that they can “spin the globe” any way they wish, but each nation has expressed no desire for hegemony.

While the US does act like an imperial force in terms of how it throws power around, here, the matter of restraining an angry power may create a moment of alliance, with Europe, Russia and China rejecting Iran’s behavior.

If this is the case, however, do not expect it to be discussed openly. Instead, expect the news about Iran to gradually die away (as reporters pivot back to Mueller, perhaps), and at some point, maybe six months down the road after an unreported-on period of quiet in the area around Iran, we will hear that Iran wants to negotiate with the US.

This will come as the result of quiet guidance and advice, most likely on the part of the Russian Federation, in such a way as to not overtly embarass Iran, but to make it appear that they are “evolving” in their own attitudes.

When predicting the future, of course, one never knows, but in light of several significant realities, this outcome seems likely. Those realities are as follows:

  • There is no actual grounds for military conflict
  • Military conflict would be repudiated by the “other side” of whoever started it. If the US, then Russia would be forced to repudiate it. If Iran, Russia would be forced to stand aside and let the US repudiate it. In such a case, Iran would suffer horrific damage.
  • Such a war would absolutely not escalate. This is not a worthwhile option to go nuclear in any possible way.
  • Iran also knows that the US President wants to make a deal. They further know that a deal is possible, only for the price of laying aside pride.
  • The European signatories do not want a nuclear-armed Iran any more than America does. Iran does not conduct itself in such a manner as to be considered a “safe” partner in this area of power, and they are not helping themselves now with their threats.

All of these point towards an eventual new deal made with the US president, likely one that will both severely and truly curtain Iran’s nuclear development, but also one which, like North Korea, will offer alternatives that can bring great prosperity to the Iranian people. If the mullahs come to see that they have more to gain with a real deal with the US than they have to lose by acting as they are now, then they will move accordingly.

Time will tell.


The post Iran overplays its hand by 10-day nuke threat appeared first on The Duran.

Categories: America, Foreign Policy

The end of western driven globalization (Video)

Tue, 2019-06-18 19:51

RT CrossTalk host Peter Lavelle and The Duran’s Alex Christoforou discuss the development of a Eurasian information infrastructure which aims to further divide the world into a western post neo-liberal order and a China driven Eurasian world order, connected via the One Belt One Road initiative.

Remember to Please Subscribe to The Duran’s YouTube Channel.

Follow The Duran Audio Podcast on Soundcloud.

Say hello to the Russia-China operating system“, authored by Pepe Escobar, via Asia Times

Google cuts Huawei off Android; so Huawei may migrate to Aurora. Call it mobile Eurasia integration; the evolving Russia-China strategic partnership may be on the verge of spawning its own operating system – and that is not a metaphor.

Aurora is a mobile operating system currently developed by Russian Open Mobile Platform, based in Moscow. It is based on the Sailfish operating system, designed by Finnish technology company Jolla, which featured a batch of Russians in the development team. Quite a few top coders at Google and Apple also come from the former USSR – exponents of a brilliant scientific academy tradition.

In 2014, Russian entrepreneur Grigory Berezkin started co-owning Jolla, and from 2016 his Mobile Platform company started developing a Russian version of the operating system. In 2018, Rostelecom, a state company, bought a 75% share in Open Mobile Platform.

Ahead of the St Petersburg International Economic Forum last week, Huawei chairman Guo Ping discussed the possibility of adopting Aurora with Russian minister of digital development and communications, Konstantin Noskov. According to Guo, “China is already testing devices with the Aurora pre-installed.

In Moscow, before moving to St Petersburg, Presidents Putin and Xi Jinping discussed multiple possible deals; and these include Huawei-Aurora, as well as where to locate some of Huawei’s production lines in Russia.

Google, here we come

Aurora could be regarded as part of Huawei’s fast-evolving Plan B. Huawei is now turbo-charging the development and implementation of its own operating system, HongMeng, a process that started no less than seven years ago. Most of the work on an operating system is writing drivers and APIs (application programming interfaces). Huawei would be able to integrate their code to the Russian system in no time.

HongMeng, for its part, is a key project of Huawei 2012 Laboratories, the innovation, research and technological development arm of the Shenzhen colossus.

No Google? Who cares? Tencent, Xiaomi, Vivo and Oppo are already testing the HongMeng operating system, as part of a batch of one million devices already distributed.

HongMeng’s launch is still a closely guarded secret by Huawei, but according to CEO Richard Yu, it could happen even before the end of 2019 for the Chinese market, running on smartphones, computers, TVs and cars. HongMeng is rumored to be 60% faster than Android.

The HongMeng system may also harbor functions dedicated to security and protection of users’ data. That’s what’s scaring Google the most; Huawei developing a software impenetrable to hacking attempts. Google is actively lobbying the Trump administration to add another reprieve – or even abandon the Huawei ban altogether.

By now it’s clear Team Trump has decided to wield a trade war as a geopolitical and geoeconomic weapon. They may have not calculated that other Chinese producers have the power to swing markets. Xiaomi, Oppo and Vivo, for instance, are not (yet) banned in the US market, and combined they sell more than Samsung. They could decide to move to Huawei’s operating system in no time.

By the end of August, probably at an industry fair in Berlin, Huawei should be announcing its new chip Kirin 985. And by September the first Huawei smartphone equipped with HongMeng could be hitting the market.

Watch that Lineage

Google bought Android in 2005. Android is based on Linux, a free software operating system. There are already similar and better free software systems on the market, such as Lineage, which has a version adapted to at least two Huawei models, the P20 Pro and the Honor View 10.

The existence of Lineage operating system is proof that Huawei is not facing a lot of hurdles developing HongMeng – which will be compatible with all Android apps. There would be no problem to adopt Aurora as well. Huawei will certainly open is own app store to compete with Google Play.

The next step for Huawei and other producers is to go for Made in China processing and memory chips, breaking the stranglehold by Intel, Qualcomm, Broadcom, Micron Technology, Western Digital and the British ARM.

And then there’s the Holy Grail: 5G. Huawei founder Ren Zhengfei has repeatedly stressed that what really matters is how advanced Huawei is compared to the competition.

Total tech war is in full effect. Huawei may face a very hard spell ahead. But at the end of a long and winding road there may be a sweet, unbeatable prize; prevailing over Google, Cisco, Microsoft, Qualcomm, and all that with invaluable help from the Trump administration.

The post The end of western driven globalization (Video) appeared first on The Duran.

Categories: America, Foreign Policy

President Trump suggests that US’ own intel agencies aren’t the final word [Video]

Tue, 2019-06-18 19:49

President Trump bluntly said that he would want to hear from foreign agencies if they contacted him with information about political opponents. A piece from Fox News reported on this and the predictable reaction from the political left in the US. In the light of Russiagate, this statement riled up the Democrats to their latest frenzy and calls for impeachment were strengthened by some of the people in this increasingly strange political party.

It’s time for Congress to begin impeachment hearings. https://t.co/yYG6oqHfCm

— Kirsten Gillibrand (@SenGillibrand) June 12, 2019

Except for the fact that President Trump is onto something.

Shoddy intelligence has been the bane of American foreign policy. Since at least as far back as General Colin Powell’s hour-long exposé of the expected weapons of mass destruction in Saddam Hussein’s Iraq, we have been treated by a conflicting set of ideas about American intelligence-gathering services:

  • They are the finest in the world
  • They are the worst in the world

We saw this as the Second Iraq War wound on and on with no major finds of WMD’s save a cache of some five hundred old sarin canisters that even the US military sources noted were not what was being sought. There were no WMD’s found, and the rhetoric pivoted to the notion that they had been secreted outside of Iraq in places like Syria, where the US could not go at that time. However, US troops there now still have never given a report of these devices.

We saw it in President Obama’s stunningly lousy Middle East tour, called the “apology tour” by critics, as Mr. Obama thought that the Middle Eastern nations that did not like the US much would like us better if we said we were sorry for what we did before.

It did not work.

In 2016’s presidential election, though, the above bullet points got a couple new additions:

  • The US intel agencies are non-political and non-partisan
  • The US intel agencies were co-opted by political operatives to “manage” an election, though they did so unsuccessfully.

And now, we have President Trump saying that he would listen to information from a foreign source about a political opponent. Yet, because American intel agencies are American, and by at least some definitions, the best in the world, the President is apparently expected by his opponents to swear utter and complete fealty to only home-grown intel agencies.

This is a ludicrous idea, given that those agencies cooperated with political forces, to create and to try to support opposition research that was spun into a set of completely false narratives about Donald Trump: sexist, racist, treasonous, colluded with Russia, and so on. We all know these narratives – they are still being repeated like a mantra being said over and over by all-but-hopeless yogis wishing desperately for the sun to rise in the west and set in the east.

Given the wildly unreliable state and recent malleability of the top American crime investigation and foreign intelligence agencies, it would seem that the President is getting wise to this matter, enough to realize perhaps that the Swamp is everywhere in D.C., and therefore, to trust only D.C. sources is, unfortunately, rather foolish.

Now, with all this in mind, consider President Trump’s response as shown in the first part of this video:

Fox reported it this way:

Trump made the admission during an interview with ABC News’ George Stephanopoulos, adding that he would not necessarily contact the FBI if such an approach was made. Video from the interview went public Wednesday evening.

“I think I’d want to hear it… I think you might want to listen, there isn’t anything wrong with listening,” he said.

“If somebody called from a country, Norway, [and said] ‘we have information on your opponent’ — oh, I think I’d want to hear it.”

The president continued in the interview: “Somebody comes up and says, ‘hey, I have information on your opponent,’ do you call the FBI?

“I’ll tell you what, I’ve seen a lot of things over my life. I don’t think in my whole life I’ve ever called the FBI. In my whole life. You don’t call the FBI. You throw somebody out of your office, you do whatever you do.”

When pressed on the issue by Stephanopoulos, Trump responded: “Oh, give me a break — life doesn’t work that way.”

The effort by the American MSM is to try to keep the “reputation” of the American agencies pristine, when it is is overwhelmingly evident that this is in doubt. That doubt is presently held by both political parties in the United States: The Democrats doubt it because Robert Mueller, armed with a team of pro-Clinton investigators, nonetheless failed to deliver a “collusion / conspiracy” verdict against Mr. Trump. The Republicans doubt it because the whole basis of the same investigation is known to be based on a piece of political opposition research that got itself treated the same way as foreign intelligence would be.

Of course, RussiaGate is the tip of a very big iceberg. Many of us already know this and have certainly been saying so for decades. But this particular outcropping is most inconvenient for the political power establishment in the US and the West. Its exposure is greatly needed, but at the same time, the desire to hide it is extremely strong, because it supports a very precariously-built house of cards.

What no one on the “establishment” side is willing to accept is that the inevitability of the collapse of that house of cards is certain. The President is the first person in a very long time in American politics to refuse to play the game, and his ability to attack it and expose it succeeds because the President’s comments and observations, while often flamboyantly stated, are nonetheless based in reality. It is very difficult to fight reality, especially when the lie no longer works.

Many conservative Americans have been taken in by their “side” of the establishment narrative (lie) about our intelligence agencies and the FBI. Here, there is a challenge. We have been taught for decades that we are the best. And it was the truth for a long time. But it is not the truth now. The only way to get it to once again be the truth is to expose and demolish the old structure, fearlessly. Conservatives can be heartened by at least knowing that the forces who are now investigating things are on the side of truth much more than politics.

Still, it has been and is going to be, quite a ride.


The post President Trump suggests that US’ own intel agencies aren’t the final word [Video] appeared first on The Duran.

Categories: America, Foreign Policy

The New Context for Russiagate

Tue, 2019-06-18 19:40

Submitted by Steve Brown…

There is no doubt that if Hillary Clinton had won the US election in 2016, she would have confronted Russia in Syria. Trump didn’t.  And simply put, Russiagate provided the means to exert pressure on Russia that Clinton would have applied, had she won office.

Now Russiagate serves a new purpose for Neoliberals.

Consider that US sanctions versus Russia have never been more severe. By the US Treasury’s own account and by major media reports, the new sanctions may be confirmed. And on June 13th, the Russian president talked publicly about increased tensions with the United States, saying that the situation has degraded, and is degrading, worse than at any time since the Cold War.

So, considering such dismal Russo-US relations, why do US Neoliberals still push the Russiagate agenda? One reason is that Russia has consistently opposed aggressive US foreign policy since 2011, while US Democratic party Statists push for war in the Middle East and Asia, one example being their opposition to Trump’s proposal to remove US troops from Syria.

That the US major media and leadership of the Democratic party opposed any plan to remove US troops from Syria is undeniable. And while the stated number of US troops so-stationed appears to be few, intelligence sources show that the US presence in Syria is far greater than publicly proclaimed. Besides those mis-stated numbers, we have a media-endorsed false public narrative that the US is continuing to target ISIS positions, when it is not. In fact, the US has protected terrorists in Syria and is protecting jihadists and jihadi territory there.

The US in Syria

According to the map shown (courtesy: Southfront) the US maintains forces in Manbij to defend Takfiri areas around Jarablus, to the terrorist stronghold of Idlib. Recent reports state that the US has failed to engage any terrorist forces in the region, and that their only commitment is to defend YPG (Kurdish forces) and SDF rebels.

For the US to withdraw here will cause great consternation by Israel (allies of the Kurds) and the usual Russiagate crew. That’s because any vacuum to fill around Manbij will certainly be filled by Russia — not Turkey — and therefore will be seen as a Trump concession to Russia.

United States protects Takfiri terrorists in al-Tanf.

In al-Tanf the Lions of the East Army; the Forces of Martyr Ahmad al-Abdo; the Army of Free Tribes; Revolutionary Commando Army and Al-Qaratayn Martyrs Brigade all operate freely.  These terrorist militias are protected by US air forces, being remnants of the terror forces originally employed by the CIA in Timber Sycamore. The US presence here is seen as a counter to the Russian-SAA and Iran, and if the US were to abandon al-Tanf that would once again invoke the wrath of the Russiagate crew.

Cabinet changes

While anti-Russia war hawks Mattis, McMaster, and Tillerson were all fired partly due to their positions on “Russian collusion”, their posts have been filled by even more aggressive and fervent war hawks, namely Bolton, Pompeo and Shanahan. Those hawks do far more than obsess over Russiagate, they seek actual means for real confrontation with Russia on the geopolitical chess board.

Thus, the Russiagate controversy is not just a media diversion hosted by Democrats; Russiagate provides cover for a new Trump regime policy aimed to embroil the Russian Federation in ever deepening geo-political chaos and crisis.

Join the dots

One. Bibi’s failure to form a government.  This somewhat reflects Trump’s own issue at home in the United States, where Trump is constantly hounded by Russiagate and by threats of impeachment.  One can easily sense Trump’s lack of patience with Democrats on the Russiagate issue, and his war hawk cabinet has given Trump an unique opportunity to shift the focus now.

Two. Syria’s Idlib heats up. Recently ISIS fighters and their affiliates have struck out from Idlib in various offensives, in some cases surprising the SAA, calling in air stikes. It is unclear at this time how ISIS is now being directed, and how and where its arms are being supplied.  But nonetheless a serious escalation of force has occurred from encircled Idlib. What is the motivation for this escalation? All we know is that the Idlib escalation is occurring in tandem with the Iran Tanker attack.

Three. Iran tanker attack. Despite all the theories about this bizarre but dramatic incident in which no lives were lost, the tanker attack has provided the Trump regime with a unique new opportunity to focus on a brand new war, a war with Iran.

We thus paint a mosaic of shifting scenes pertaining to international issues which overshadow and put paid to Russiagate, to obstruction, and to impeachment. Thus providing a new context for Russiagate itself.

So, is Russiagate dead? We don’t know yet, but on the brink of a New War — whether enforced on a false pretext or not — there is little time to consider.  And another new context is born for Russiagate!

[Side note: Another marvel of the current situation is Wall Street. Despite threats of war and peril to oil supply, Wall Street hardly moves; recall that in the Panic of 2008-2009 the 2008 election was greatly impacted by that financial failure!]

Steve Brown is the author of “Iraq: the Road to War” (Sourcewatch) editor of “Bush Administration War Crimes in Iraq” (Sourcewatch) “Trump’s Limited Hangout” and “Federal Reserve: Out-sourcing the Monetary System to the Money Trust Oligarchs Since 1913”; Steve is an antiwar activist and historian of the monetary system and editor of Novus Confidential investigative reports.

The post The New Context for Russiagate appeared first on The Duran.

Categories: America, Foreign Policy

The Madness of Nuclear Weapons

Tue, 2019-06-18 19:38

Submitted by Richard Galustian…

The Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI) launched a few days ago their SIPRI Yearbook 2019, which assesses the current state of armaments, disarmament and international security.

On launching their Yearbook, SIPRI Governing Board Chairman, Jan Eliasson stated:

“A key finding is that despite an overall decrease in the number of nuclear warheads in 2018, all nuclear weapon-possessing states continue to modernize their nuclear arsenals.”

The United States, Russia, the United Kingdom, France, China, India, Pakistan, Israel and the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (North Korea) currently possess approximately 13,865 nuclear weapons. In 2018 the numbers were as shown in the table below.

According to a study of the 14th June 2018 published almost exactly a year ago  which was co-authored by Michigan Technological University Professor Joshua Pearce and David Denkenberger, assistant Professor at Tennessee State University less than 100 exploded bombs would end all civilisation.

It is presumed – as it is not expressly stated – that the numbers are based Hiroshima-sized nuclear bombs (15 kilotons each).

“The results found that 100 nuclear warheads is adequate for nuclear deterrence in the worst case scenario, while using more than 100 nuclear weapons by any aggressor nation (including the best positioned strategically to handle the unintended consequences) even with optimistic assumptions (including no retaliation) would cause unacceptable damage to their own society,” the scientists wrote adding.

“100 nuclear warheads is the pragmatic limit and use of government funds to maintain more than 100 nuclear weapons does not appear to be rational,” the Study argues.

The scientists further explained the devastating global environmental impact that would occur if a country used give or take 100 nuclear weapons.

This “environmental blowback” would involve a significant drop in global temperatures as soot from nuclear blasts prevents sunlight from reaching Earth’s surface. This, combined with reduced precipitation, could severely impact food production, experts warn, potentially resulting in mass starvation.

Researchers also cite estimates that around 40 million people would die if say 75 nuclear bombs were unleashed on China still leaving a population at 2019 estimates just over 1 billion people.

China, officially the People’s Republic of China, is the largest country in the world today.

To give a greater perspective to these numbers, 350,000 people in Chernobyl had to be resettled within a few days of the accident. The World Health Organization estimated (in 2005) that 4,000 people died due to long-term effects of radiation and 31 died from the radiation instantly.

To provide another frame of reference, an exchange involving just 50 nuclear weapons , the kind of thing we might see in an India-Pakistan war, for example , could release 5+ billion kilograms of smoke, soot and dust high into the stratosphere. That’s enough to cool the entire planet by about 2 degrees Fahrenheit (1.25 degrees Celsius) , about where we were during the Little Ice Age of the 17th century. Growing seasons would be shortened enough to create significant food shortages.

So the climatic effects of even a relatively small nuclear war would be planet-wide.

Another perspective helps one understand the real potential problem is to consider larger bombs.

The RDS-220 hydrogen bomb, also known as the “Tsar Bomba”, is the biggest and most powerful thermo nuclear bomb ever detonated. It was exploded in a controlled environment by the Soviet Union on 30 October 1961 over Novaya Zemlya Island in the Russian Arctic Sea.

Tsar Bomba (a life size mock of it pictured in a Moscow Museum) has the equivalent explosive power of 3,800 Hiroshima bombs.

America possesses similar thermo nuclear weapons.

Total insanity.

Enough said!

The post The Madness of Nuclear Weapons appeared first on The Duran.

Categories: America, Foreign Policy

NYT pushes Power Grid Cyberwar between US & Russia, as Trump & Putin prepare for G20 (Video)

Mon, 2019-06-17 21:50

The Duran’s Alex Christoforou and Editor-in-Chief Alexander Mercouris discuss a New York Times story that claims the U.S. has deployed “American computer code” into Russian systems operating the nation’s power grid.

Citing anonymous “current and former officials” with knowledge of the situation, the New York Times reported on Saturday that the Pentagon’s U.S. Cyber Command has moved to act on new authorities and independence granted by the White House and Congress to “deploy cybertools more aggressively” against Russia’s power grid.

The government has remained publicly quiet on what specific actions have been taken, but national security adviser John Bolton said on Tuesday that the U.S. was taking a more aggressive offensive stance in cyberspace “to say to Russia, or anybody else that’s engaged in cyberoperations against us, ‘You will pay a price.’”

The New York Times further claims that the cyber ops against Russian power grids has remained hidden from US President Trump, who has “not been briefed in any detail about the US computer code being implanted inside the Russian grid.”

Remember to Please Subscribe to The Duran’s YouTube Channel.

Follow The Duran Audio Podcast on Soundcloud.

Via Zerohedge

President Trump has hurled the dire charge of “Treason” at the New York Times for its lengthy investigative piece alleging US intelligence has stepped up systematic cyber attacks on Russia’s power grid. “This is a virtual act of Treason by a once great paper so desperate for a story, any story, even if bad for our Country…” Trump tweeted Saturday evening in response to the story which ran hours earlier.

He then hastily added in a follow-up tweet in all caps, “ALSO, NOT TRUE!” — as if only then realizing his initial tweet seemed to actually vouch for the story. The follow-up further excoriated the Times for their reporting with“not even the slightest thought of consequence!”

Whether this means the president is outraged that a true and verified report could be detrimental to US credibility and national security, or that fake news could hurt the US and invite unnecessary cyber retaliation is still not fully evident, but Trump’s impulsive Saturday evening tweets appear to back the former.

…..ALSO, NOT TRUE! Anything goes with our Corrupt News Media today. They will do, or say, whatever it takes, with not even the slightest thought of consequence! These are true cowards and without doubt, THE ENEMY OF THE PEOPLE!

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) June 16, 2019

And the Times was quick to respond to the “treason” charge as follows:

Accusing the press of treason is dangerous.
We described the article to the government before publication. As our story notes, President Trump’s own national security officials said there were no concerns. https://t.co/MU020hxwdc pic.twitter.com/4CIfcqKoEl

— NYTimes Communications (@NYTimesPR) June 16, 2019

The NYT report outlines an alleged ongoing US operation to infiltrate and implant malware in Russia’s power grid as preparation for any potential major cyber warfare operation in the future, and further as “a warning” to the Kremlin. However, the story is light on details and heavy on the usual anonymous “current and former officials”.

According to the Times, “officials described the previously unreported deployment of American computer code inside Russia’s grid and other targets.” The officials described that “it has gotten far, far more aggressive over the past year,” and that they are “doing things at a scale that we never contemplated a few years ago.” Though US operations hadn’t reached the level of specific attacks, the malware constitutes what’s described as a “persistent presence” within Russia’s infrastructure.

The report casts the latest ramped up cyber efforts targeting Russia as part of a broader campaign to clandestinely probe the country’s electrical grid going back to 2012 — efforts which grew following alleged Russian hacking and election meddling connected with the 2016 election.

Crucially, as CNN describes of the NYT report, “Two administration officials told the Times they believed President Donald Trump had not been briefed in any detail about the US computer code being implanted inside the Russian grid.”

And further, the story is outright suggesting the White House’s own intelligence briefers are actually withholding vital national security information from the president:

Pentagon and intelligence officials describe to the Times “broad hesitation” to tell Trump about the details of the operations against Russia. They tell the Times there was concern over how Trump would react, and the possibility that Trump might reverse the operations or discuss it with foreign officials.

So there it is – assuming the report has merit – essentially a major “clandestine military activity” is being run by US defense and intelligence commanders but while intentionally circumventing the White House’s lawful civilian oversight?

Indeed, perhaps Trump is right to have word “treason” as his first thought — though it wouldn’t be on the part of the Times reporting but on the part of those seeking to hide the operation from the president himself.

The post NYT pushes Power Grid Cyberwar between US & Russia, as Trump & Putin prepare for G20 (Video) appeared first on The Duran.

Categories: America, Foreign Policy

US Govt’s Entire Russia-DNC Hacking Narrative Based On Redacted Draft Of Crowdstrike Report

Mon, 2019-06-17 14:17

Via Zerohedge

It’s been known for some time that the US Government based its conclusion that Russia hacked the Democratic National Committee (DNC) on a report by cybersecurity firm Crowdstrike, which the DNC paid over a million dollars to conduct forensic analysis and other work on servers they refused to hand over to the FBI.

CrowdStrike’s report made its way into a joint FBI/DHS report on an Russia’s “Grizzly Steppe“, which concluded Russia hacked the DNC’s servers. At the time, Crowdstrike’s claim drew much scrutiny from cybersecurity experts according to former Breitbart reporter Lee Stranahan.

Now, thanks to a new court filing by longtime Trump adviser Roger Stone requesting the full Crowdstrike analysis, we find out that the US government was given a redacted version of the report marked “Draft,” as reported by the Conservative Treehouse.

What makes the whole thing even more hokey is a footnote admitting that “counsel for the DNC and DCCC informed the government that they are the last version of the report produced.

So to be clear – the entire narrative that Russia hacked the DNC is based on a redacted draft of a report which Crowdstrike appears not to have even finalized. 

I missed the previous DOJ filing, but this seems significant.

The DOJ informed the court it doesn't have the unredacted Crowdstrike reports. https://t.co/xJHC6ntroc

— Techno Fog (@Techno_Fog) June 15, 2019

And as the Conservative Treehouse notes: “This means the FBI and DOJ, and all of the downstream claims by the intelligence apparatus; including the December 2016 Joint Analysis Report and January 2017 Intelligence Community Assessment, all the way to the Weissmann/Mueller report and the continued claims therein; were based on the official intelligence agencies of the U.S. government and the U.S. Department of Justice taking the word of a hired contractor for the Democrat party….. despite their inability to examine the server and/or actually see an unredacted technical forensic report from the investigating contractor.”

The entire apparatus of the U.S. government just took their word for it…

…and used the claim therein as an official position….

…which led to a subsequent government claim, in court, of absolute certainty that Russia hacked the DNC.

Think about that for a few minutes. –Conservative Treehouse

Meanwhile, the Crowdstrike analyst who led forensics on the DNC servers is a former FBI employee who Robert Mueller promoted while head of the agency. It should also be noted that the government of Ukraine admonished Crowdstrike for a report they later retracted and amended, claiming that Russia hacked Ukrainian military.

In connection with the emergence in some media reports which stated that the alleged “80% howitzer D-30 Armed Forces of Ukraine removed through scrapping Russian Ukrainian hackers software gunners,” Land Forces Command of the Armed Forces of Ukraine informs that the said information is incorrect.

Ministry of Defence of Ukraine asks journalists to publish only verified information received from the competent official sources. Spreading false information leads to increased social tension in society and undermines public confidence in the Armed Forces of Ukraine. –mil.gov.ua (translated) (1.6.2017)


The post US Govt’s Entire Russia-DNC Hacking Narrative Based On Redacted Draft Of Crowdstrike Report appeared first on The Duran.

Categories: America, Foreign Policy

Mojahedin-e-Khalq (MEK) and the Gulf of Oman tanker attacks

Mon, 2019-06-17 14:07

Submitted by Mousumi Roy…

Again, a Republican administration is lying in order to provoke a war against an oil-rich Middle Eastern country. Wondering if Biden will once again repeat the lies in order to justify another invasion or whether he will actually look at the evidence this time? Looks like Iran is being set up with another false flag involving ship- America’s favourite excuse for war. Too bad it’s so much easier to start a war than to stop one. ‪Major U.S. news networks, including MS-NBC, CNN, and Fake News, featured the usual mouthpieces for Israel’s substantial lobby in Washington, backing up Pompeo’s unsubstantiated claim that Iran carried out the recent attacks on the two vessels in the Gulf of Oman, as well as the May 12 attack on ships at anchor off Fujairah.

Flying objects suggested that the real damage was from torpedoes, not mines which would have blown holes below the waterline. My first guess would be the Mossad. The right wing government under Bibi Netanyahu would do anything, commit any international crime, if they could get the US to attack Iran. Iran is their main rival in that part of the world and the Israelis desperately want to keep them down.

This hegemony allows the Washington to print it’s way into endless wars while the nation goes to pot. In any event, people forget Russia and Iran signed security guarantees and China wouldn’t take much of a shine to a US invasion of Iran. Obviously the top of the Qui Bono is Israel, which has long been trying to engineer a US invasion. Saudi Arabia and the UAE are in tow and Qatar has gas that can be transited to Europe. Mueller derailed the investigation into Saudi Arabia’s support of the 9/11 hijacker patsies, none of whom appeared on the flight manifests. There are other inconvenient truths about them, especially Atta.

This latest false flag is a pathetically obvious frame up. Btw, Eric Prince met with the intelligence officials of Israel, Saudi Arabia and the UAE in Seychelles on January 11, 2017 for an after action review of their election interference successes. Do people remember any of these foreign state actors being investigated? There are over a half dozen companies tied into these country’s intelligence and defense complexes that were involved in hacking and shaping opinion on social media in the US elections.

‪The Israeli attack on the USS Liberty was kept secret for decades since it was intended as a false flag to blame Egypt and justify your assistance in attacking Egypt. Unfortunately for the plotters, the good ship just refused to sink. The surviving crew were sworn to secrecy under threat of treason if they told the truth.

Ironically, on the very same day the House Intelligence Committee was hearing evidence about the threat of “deep fake videos” during the upcoming presidential election campaign, the U.S. Central Command (CENTCOM) released a video, along with photographs, purporting to show a boat belonging to the IRGC removing an unexploded limpet mine from the side of the Kokuka Courageous, which was carrying highly-flammable methanol from Saudi Arabia to Singapore.

After suffering from explosions, the captains of both the Japanese and Norwegian owned vessels ordered their crews to abandon ship. Yutaka Katada, the president of Kokuka Sangyo Marine, the company that owns the Kokuka Courageous, said the attack on his firm’s vessel did not come from a mine, as alleged by Pompeo and CENTCOM, but from a “flying shell.”

The explosion was too far above the water line to have been from a mine, Katada told the press in Tokyo. There was skepticism in Iran and Japan about Pompeo’s unsubstantiated claims about the most recent attack, which involved a Japanese-owned vessel during Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe’s visit to Iran. Abe was in Tehran to negotiate a dialogue between The Doofus and the Iranian leadership. From Tehran, Iranian Foreign Minister Javad Zarif said “suspicious doesn’t begin to describe” the attack on a Japanese-owned vessel during the visit of Abe to Iran, the first visit by a Japanese President to Iran in over 40 years. Although Pompeo stated, in his accusation against Iran, that no proxy group has the means or sophistication to carry out such attacks on vessels in the Persian Gulf, he is flat out wrong.

One terrorist group, the Mojahedin-e-Khalq (MEK), which has committed countless attacks against Iranian and U.S. targets inside and outside of Iran, would have every reason plus the means to attack a Japanese-owned vessel during Abe’s visit.

The MEK stands opposed to three-way talks between Japan, Iran, and the U.S., with Abe acting as mediator. Abe reportedly carried a letter from The Trump to Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, Iran’s Supreme Leader, who, according to Khamenei’s website, rejected the letter. Last month, Trump tweeted: “If Iran wants to fight, that will be the official end of Iran.” The MEK has paid Bolton and Trumps’ lawyer, Rudolph Giuliani, lucrative speaking fees to address the cult-like organization’s annual meeting in Paris.

Nevertheless, neither Bolton nor Giuliani have registered under the Foreign Agents Registration Act (FARA) as lobbyists for the MEK.

The post Mojahedin-e-Khalq (MEK) and the Gulf of Oman tanker attacks appeared first on The Duran.

Categories: America, Foreign Policy

The future of men and marriage is bleak

Mon, 2019-06-17 14:05

Authored by Suzanne Venker, op-ed via The Washington Examiner:

With Father’s Day upon us, the time has come to address as a nation what Heather Mac Donald noted earlier this year is “the greatest social catastrophe of our time”: fatherlessness. Fatherlessness is the No. 1 cause of nearly all social ills we face. We can’t afford to ignore it any longer.

To be clear, father absence is the more accurate term, since fatherlessness implies that men have become “deadbeat dads” — nothing could be further from the truth. Sure, this faction exists, as do “deadbeat moms.” But the two most significant threats to a father’s presence in the home are divorce and out-of-wedlock births.

It’s the breakdown of marriage, in other words, or the collapse of the family, that results in father-absent homes. Whether you feel its pain directly or not, it affects you. “Families are the building blocks of civilization,” writes Genevieve Wood at the Daily Signal. “They are personal relationships, but they greatly shape and serve the public good. Family breakdown harms society as a whole.”

Indeed it does. And how, exactly, did the family fall apart? When we stopped valuing men and marriage.

There was a time, believe it or not, when marriage was highly valued. Ergo, the majority of Americans married. They even looked forward to it! It was an honorable mark of adulthood to leave one’s family of origin and build a family of one’s own.

Then came feminism. “And with it,” notes Dennis Prager in his “Fireside Chat” on marriage and children vs. career, “the notion that ‘a woman without a man is like a fish without a bicycle.'”

This mantra was glamorized (though not coined) by Gloria Steinem in the 1970s and was quickly inculcated both in Prager’s generation and those that followed. Prager rightly defines America’s new narrative, which is directed specifically to women: “You don’t need a man; you need a career. Then you’ll be happy.”

Since this narrative first took hold, America has undergone a sea change with respect to men and marriage. Marriage began to be viewed not as a given but as a possible accompaniment to a woman’s otherwise more important and exciting independent life — and men went along for the ride. What choice did they have? Then, sometime later, America upped the ante with a full-scale war on men and, more recently, with an attack on men’s very nature.

Men and boys have heard this message loud and clear, and as a result have stepped back or stopped trying. Boys are failing to grow up and make something of themselves because they lack fathers who can help them do just that. They lack fathers because America has made it clear that men are superfluous and even dangerous to women and children.

As a result, half of America’s citizens have been marginalized, as evidenced by the meteoric rise of Jordan Peterson, who never set out to become a voice for men but inadvertently kicked over a hornet’s nest. The sheer number of males who cling to Peterson’s words of hope is staggering. He has become a lifeline to a lost generation of men.

That’s really what we’re up against this Father’s Day: a lost generation of men. But it will be our loss in the end. We can’t afford for men to retreat any further than they have. The nuclear family is the foundation of America’s greatness; and a dearth of productive men invariably means, as Tucker Carlson noted in January, the subsequent disintegration of marriage.

These two cannot be separated. Women don’t want to marry unemployed men or men who have no purpose. But women do want children and will go to great lengths to have them in unconventional ways. Thus, children (boys especially, since girls will still have their mothers) will remain fatherless, and the cycle will continue.

It is time for people to say “Enough!” We cannot survive as a nation without strong and competent men raising strong and competent boys who become the kind of men that women want to marry.

We know those in power will do nothing about it; they’ve already proven it in spades.

“The elites are absolutely unwilling to send the message that fathers are as important to their children as mothers,” Mac Donald told Carlson.

“Their tongues are tied — they refuse to say it. It’s one of those truths that’s being completely denied by elite culture. Why? Because it violates the feminist nostrum that women can do it all.”

And there it is.

It has been 50 years since feminists first began to make the claim that women don’t need men, and by every statistical measure we are worse off because of it. How much longer are we willing to stay silent?

The post The future of men and marriage is bleak appeared first on The Duran.

Categories: America, Foreign Policy

Putin, Lavrov and Xi Call for an End to MAD. Lord Russell’s Spectre Frowns

Mon, 2019-06-17 13:53

Authored by Matthew Ehret via The Strategic Culture Foundation:

The spectre of nuclear war has long hung over the world like a nightmarish sword of Damocles offering humanity much cause for despair at the dual nature of science as a beautiful source of creative power that uplifts and ennobles on the one hand and acts as a harbinger of death and chaos on the other.

However, it would be wrong to blame science for the crisis which mankind unlocked with the atom, when the reality is that we have never freed ourselves from the pest of oligarchical systems of rule. Going back to records of the Roman, Persian and Babylon empires, such systems have always sought to manipulate the masses into patterns of behaviour of self-policing and constant conflict.

Whether we are talking about the Crusades, European religious wars, Napoleonic wars, Crimean War, Opium Wars, or WWI and WWII, it has always been the same recipe: Get victims to define their interests around material constraints, diminishing resources, or religious/ethnic/linguistic biases that prevent each person from recognizing their common interests with their neighbor and then get them to fight. Classic divide and conquer.

By the close of WWII, that ancient recipe for managed chaos no longer functioned as a new ingredient was introduced into the geopolitical “great game”. This atomic ingredient was so powerful that those “game masters” managing the affairs of the earth from above like detached Olympian gods, understood that they could now be annihilated as fast as their victims and a new set of rules had to be created post haste.

Lord Russell’s Nuclear Gamble

A leading representative of the genocidal mind of the British Empire was one Lord Bertrand Russell, 7th generation member of the hereditary elite known today for his celebrated pacifism and profound philosophical depth. It is an uncomfortable fact that this paragon of “logic” and peace was one of the earliest thinkers on record calling for the nuclear annihilation of the Soviet Union in the wake of the surrender of Nazi Germany. Should the Soviet Union not submit to a One World Government, argued Lord Russell in the September 1946 Bulletin for Atomic Scientists, then it would simply have to face a nuclear punishment.

Of course that threat was short lived, as Russia’s surprise announcement of their “cracking the atomic code” broke the monopoly which the Anglo-Americans had been salivating over in 1945 as they watched Japan (whose backchannel surrender had already been negotiated) burn under the shadow of a newly emerging Anglo-American Leviathan.

Lord Russell, then heading the CIA/MI6 Congress for Cultural Freedom(whose goal was to create a new anti-culture of hedonism and irrationalism in the arts during the Cold War) was forced to change tune and instead unleash a new doctrine which came to be known as “Mutually Assured Destruction” (MAD). Russell’s obsession with trying to enslave all of physics to a strict mathematical determinism as displayed in his Principia Mathematica (1910) and his leading role in the CIA’s promotion of abstract art/atonal music under the CCF banner is a useful insight into how societies are managed by oligarchs.

In a BBC interview years after Russell changed his views on a first strike on Russia, the British aristocratic, now-turned anti-nuclear advocate described his change of heart thus:

“Q: Is it true or untrue that in recent years you advocated that a preventive war might be made against communism, against Soviet Russia?”

RUSSELL: It’s entirely true, and I don’t repent of it now. It was not inconsistent with what I think now…. There was a time, just after the last war, when the Americans had a monopoly of nuclear weapons and offered to internationalise nuclear weapons by the Baruch proposal, and I thought this an extremely generous proposal on their part, one which it would be very desirable that the world should accept; not that I advocated a nuclear war, but I did think that great pressure should be put upon Russia to accept the Baruch proposal, and I did think that if they continued to refuse it might be necessary actually to go to war. At that time nuclear weapons existed only on one side, and therefore the odds were the Russians would have given way. I thought they would … .

Q: Suppose they hadn’t given way.

RUSSELL: I thought and hoped that the Russians would give way, but of course you can’t threaten unless you’re prepared to have your bluff called.”

An End to the MAD World

The new game became “geopolitical balance of terror” under MAD, and in many ways the power it offered an oligarchy was greater than anything a pre-atomic society had to offer. While major wars were no longer desirable (though always a risk in this psychotic game of high stakes poker), asymmetric warfare and regime change became the new “big things” for the next 70 years. A population in constant terror of annihilation created a ripe ground for the spread of a new inquisition under the guidance of a megalomaniac cross-dresser running the FBI. This inquisition purged the west of qualified leaders who were committed to peace between east and west and included great scientists, artists, professors and politicians who watched their careers destroyed as the Deep State grew ever more powerful and atomic bombs more abundant.

While many foolishly celebrated the success of MAD with the collapse of the Soviet Union and the rise of a unipolar world that would supposedly usher in a peaceful “end to history”, others recognised the grand sleight of hand as NATO continued to expand even though WWs raison d’être had disappeared. Yevgeni Primakov and a circle of Russian patriots (which included a rising Vladimir Putin) were among those who saw through the fraud. This network worked diligently with their Asian counterparts to create a foundation for survival which manifested in the form of the G20 in 1999 and Shanghai Cooperation Organisation in 2001.

As 2007 began, the wars in the Middle East unleashed after 9-11 had no end in sight, and an intention much darker than many ever imagined was emerging amidst the chaos. A NATO-led Anti-Ballistic Missile shield began construction around Russia’s southern perimeter on Dick Cheney’s initiative and was joined soon thereafter by an “Asia-Pivot” encirclement of China under Obama in 2011. Only the most naive fools then believed that Iran or North Korea were the real reasons for this Hobbesian power grab for a first strike monopoly. Lord Russell’s ghost could be felt across the world threatening a nuclear war if national sovereignty were not abandoned in favor of a world government managed by a “scientific dictatorship”,

Russia and China Call to Control the Fiery Serpent

President Putin along with Sergei Lavrov and President Xi Jinping have signalled an end to the era of MAD with an important call for a new international security doctrine based upon a “new operating system”.

Coming out of the St. Petersburg Economic Summit on June 6, Putin said “if we do not keep this ‘fiery serpent under control- if we let it out of the bottle, God forbid, this could lead to global catastrophe. Everyone is pretending to be deaf, blind or dyslexic. We have to react to this somehow, don’t we? Clearly so.”

Putin’s words were amplified by Sergei Lavrov on June 11 speaking at the Primakov Readings 2019 conference in Moscow which brought together diplomats, experts and politicians from 30 countries on the theme of “Returning to Confrontation: Are there Any Alternatives?” Lavrov said:

“It is of principle importance that Russia and the U.S. calm the rest of the world and pass a joint statement at a high level that there can be no victory in a nuclear war and therefore it is unacceptable and inadmissible. We do not understand why they cannot reconfirm this position now. Our proposal is being considered by the U.S. side.”

Since putting themselves between an Anglo-American firing squad and the nations of Syria and Venezuela, in tandem with the surprising unveiling of an array of new military technologies in March 2018, Putin has transformed the geopolitical “rules of the game” so that Lavrov’s proposal is now a real possibility. The new technologies unveiled by Russia in 2018 include supersonic missiles, underwater drones and other nuclear powered rockets that guarantee Russia’s retaliatory attack capability should anyone be stupid enough to launch a first strike against Russia.

The BRI and the New Operating System

The St. Petersburg Economic Summit from June 5-6 not only saw 19 000 participants from 145 countries signing $47.8 billion in agreements, but also featured an important meeting by China’s Xi Jinping and Putin who described their relationship as the best of friends and locked their nations ever more deeply into the new operating framework of the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) which is quickly extending into the Arctic.

This meeting will be carried to a yet higher level with the June 13-14 Shanghai Cooperation Organisation Summit in Bishkek Kyrgyzstan which will integrate Eurasian nations ever more into the BRI. Putin and Xi will not only meet at this summit once again, but will also be joined by India’s newly re-elected Narendra Modi, whose participation is vital for the re-organisation of the world system.

After the SCO summit, the world will await the potential meeting at the June 28-29 G20 summit in Osaka, Japan, where U.S. President Donald Trump has indicated his desire to meet with all three leaders for bilateral negotiations. Many onlookers have criticised the idea that Trump could actually desire an honest meeting, but Lavrov has indicated his higher understanding of the strategic complexity in America by making the point in a June 6 interview that President Trump’s failures to build constructive relations with Russia are due to sabotage by forces embedded within the government when he said: “Certain US politicians, including those who tied President Trump’s hands, not allowing him to deliver on his campaign promises to normalise and improve relations with Russia, are still unable to accept this fact.”

In fact at a June 12 press conference alongside the President of Poland, Trump was pressed by a reporter to take a hard line against Russia who is apparently “threatening Poland”. While paying lip service to the Russia=bully narrative, Trump ended his response saying “I hope that Poland is going to have a great relationship with Russia. I hope we’re going to have a great relationship with Russia and, by the way, China and many other countries.” Trump had earlier called for Russia, China and America to convert their hundreds of millions of dollars in military spending into projects that are in the common interests of everyone.

During his keynote address to the Economic Forum, Putin called out the elephant in the room by bringing up the breakdown of the global financial system: “the degeneration of the universalist globalisation model and its turning into a parody, a caricature of itself, where common international rules are replaced with the laws… of one country.” Putin went on to warn of a “fragmentation of the global economic space by a policy of completely unlimited economic egoism and a forced breakdown. But this is the road to endless conflict, trade wars and maybe not just trade wars. Figuratively, this is the road to the ultimate fight of all against all.”

The point was driven home that ultimately without a new economic system, the danger of global annihilation and injustice will always hang over humanity. Echoing Xi Jinping’s philosophy of win-win cooperation, Putin said what is ultimately needed is “a more stable and fair development model. These agreements should not only be written clearly but should also be observed by all participants. However, I am convinced that talk about an economic world order like this will remain wishful thinking unless we return to the centre of the discussion, that is, notions like sovereignty, the unconditional right of every country to its own development road and, let me add, responsibility for universal sustainable development, not just for ones own development.”

BIO: Matthew J.L. Ehret is a journalist, lecturer and founder of the Canadian Patriot Review. He is an author with The Duran, Strategic Culture Foundation, Fort Russ. His works have been published in Zero Hedge, Executive Intelligence Review, Global Times, Asia Times, L.A. Review of Books, and Sott.net. Matthew has also published the book “The Time has Come for Canada to Join the New Silk Road” and three volumes of the Untold History of Canada (available on untoldhistory.canadianpatriot.org). He can be reached at matt.ehret@tutamail.com

The post Putin, Lavrov and Xi Call for an End to MAD. Lord Russell’s Spectre Frowns appeared first on The Duran.

Categories: America, Foreign Policy

Julian Assange to be extradited to US sooner than you think (Video)

Sun, 2019-06-16 20:20

The Duran’s Alex Christoforou and Editor-in-Chief Alexander Mercouris discuss the extradition of Julian Assange to the United States, which will play out February next year in a London court. Assange, 47, faces 18 counts in the United States, including conspiring to hack government computers and violating espionage law.

On 12 June, the UK Home Secretary Sajid Javid certified the request from the US to extradite Julian Assange for allegations of hacking and sharing classified American government documents. By certifying the request, Javid has rubber-stamped the US extradition which can now be considered by the court.

Assange will appear via video before Westminster magistrates on Friday.

Remember to Please Subscribe to The Duran’s YouTube Channel.

Follow The Duran Audio Podcast on Soundcloud.

Via Sydney Morning Herald….

“It is important that people aren’t fooled into believing that WikiLeaks is anything but a publisher,” said Assange, who appeared by videolink from a London prison, dressed in a grey T-shirt and wearing black-framed glasses.

“The US government has tried to mislead the press,” he told Westminster Magistrates’ Court.

As Ben Brandon, the lawyer representing the United States, ran through a summary of the charges against him including that he had cracked a US Defence network password, Assange said: “I didn’t hack anything.”

Australian-born Assange came to prominence when WikiLeaks published hundreds of thousands of secret US diplomatic cables in 2010, angering Washington which said he had put lives at risk.

His supporters hail him as a hero for exposing what they describe as abuse of power by modern states and for championing free speech.

He spent almost seven years holed up in cramped rooms at the Ecuadorean embassy in London where he fled in 2012 to avoid extradition to Sweden where he was wanted for questioning over allegations of rape.

WikiLeaks emerged as a key protagonist in Russia’s interference in the US 2016 Presidential election, with material hacked by Russian operatives disseminated through the group. Assange himself spread conspiracy theory related to the figures in American politics at the time.

The US indictment does not relate to alleged election interference.

Assange was dragged from the embassy on April 11 and jailed for 50 weeks for skipping bail.

The United States has since charged Assange with numerous offences including espionage, saying he unlawfully published the names of secret sources and conspiring with ex-Army intelligence analyst Chelsea Manning to obtain access to classified information.

Brandon said Assange’s actions had been dangerous and “by publishing the unredacted material Mr Assange created grave and imminent risk that many intelligence sources, including journalists, human rights defenders and political activists would suffer serious physical harm or arbitrary detention.”

However, Assange’s lawyer Mark Summers said the charges were an “outrageous and full fronted assault on journalist rights and free speech” and that his client did not have access to a computer to allow him to follow the case.

He told the court that Assange, who had been too ill to attend the previous hearing in May, was receiving healthcare. He did not elaborate.

Judge Emma Arbuthnot said the full extradition case would be heard in the week starting Feb. 25 next year.

Australia’s Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade (DFAT) said on Saturday that it was providing consular assistance to Assange and had sought assurances he would be treated appropriately under British law.

“Any extradition request is a matter for the UK authorities. The Australian government cannot interfere in another nation’s legal proceedings,” a DFAT spokesperson told Reuters via email on Saturday.

The post Julian Assange to be extradited to US sooner than you think (Video) appeared first on The Duran.

Categories: America, Foreign Policy

Forgotten Battles Against the Deep State Part 3: W.A.C. Bennett vs. the Malthusians

Sun, 2019-06-16 15:43

Submitted by Matthew Ehret…

The world today is being pulled in two opposing directions, with a doctrine of “one world government”, population reduction and war on the one side vs a “multipolar system” of sovereign nations states committed to growth and progress on the other. This is not a new fight, but has shaped the struggles of human history. In reviewing our history with this struggle in mind, a master key is found which can unlock many secrets long buried by revisionist historian.

In the first part of this series “Forgotten Battles Against the Deep State”, we reviewed the struggle launched by Canada’s 13th Prime Minister John Diefenbaker, who had a grand vision for Northern Development funded by a National Bank which was sabotaged by nests of Rhodes Scholars which he did not understand.

In Part two “JFK vs the Empire”, we were introduced to the deeper fight against the system of empire launched by John F. Kennedy from 1945 to his untimely death in 1963. Even though Kennedy and his brother Robert were being groomed to become elite puppets for the City of London just like their father, both young men broke with that tradition through intense studies of world history where-in they chose to locate their identities in the best constitutional traditions of America.

In our third segment, we will be introduced to a figure who acted as Premier of British Columbia from 1952-1972 and whose struggle to bring Canada into the modern era only occurred through the most courageous fights against British Malthusian agents today known as the Deep State embedded within the Canadian government.

The Strategy for Arctic Development Today

The greatest opportunities to unleash progress and peace across the world exist in the opening up the Arctic to real development. Russia and China are leading the fight to extend the Belt and Road Initiative through Russia, Siberia and the extensions of rail into the Americas (through the Bering Strait) has been supported by both Eurasian powers. Another project which would become possible under such a transformed dynamic includes the long-overdue North American Water and Power Alliance (NAWAPA) advocated by the likes of John and Robert Kennedy.

It is tragic that such visionary thinking has been absent in our western culture for so long, that the belief that such initiatives were ever possible has been almost entirely crushed out of the hearts and minds of most citizens. The spirit of optimism of the Kennedy years has been abandoned. The challenges defined by John F. Kennedy for the American nation and to all those around the world who took personal pride in Mankind’s space achievements must now be rekindled.

The majority of today’s youth, and even fewer of today’s baby boomers do not even believe that it is possible for mankind to exert any durable changes to nature which are not intrinsically destructive. It is the contention of this author that were our minds not severed from great Canadian endeavours, from even our recent past, through largely successful British supported attempts to re-write Canadian history, such pessimistic beliefs as we encounter today could not exist, and those powers of creative problem solving so essential for the survival of nations, could be nurtured anew. In short, with a proper understanding of the ideas of the past that gave birth to this dying present devoid of a future, a dark age, even at this late hour, were still avoidable.

It is for this reason that we will begin our report by introducing the reader to the vital story of William Cecil Bennett, the visionary Premier of British Columbia, admirer and sometimes collaborator of John F. Kennedy, who represented the tradition that a true Canadian patriot should aspire to achieve. Bennett’s struggle for development directly intersects similar fights with allies in Ottawa such as Prime Minister John Diefenbaker, and groupings of leading figures around the Quiet Revolution in Quebec such as Premiers Jean Lesage and Daniel Johnson Sr. Internationally such networks in Canada were tied directly to those leading networks around President Charles De Gaulle of France, and President Kennedy’s networks in the USA.

A man with a purpose

A young man during the Great Depression, W.A.C. Bennett’s recognition of the impotence of economic theories founded on ivory tower formulas, without grounding in reality, proved a vital insight that would serve him for the rest of his life. This insight would be the effect of watching formerly successful citizens living on the streets and begging for food, through no fault of their own. A commitment to heal those ills caused by human selfishness and folly would become a consuming passion which served him throughout a political career that would stretch for over thirty years in the British Columbia legislature, twenty of those as Premier. After having earned a living as a successful entrepreneur, Bennett would decide to make a move into politics as a Conservative Minister of the Legislative Assembly (MLA) in 1941, two years into Canada’s involvement in World War II.

Bennett’s first appointment involved his service as a member of the Post War Rehabilitation Council, whose mission was to prepare for the crisis which was waiting to occur as the flux of young soldiers returning from service would need to find productive employment and rebuild their lives. There was no way that the existent economy of British Columbia would be capable of handling such a flood of young men. The economy would have to be re-adjusted quickly to accommodate this vital need[1]. The council would produce two reports in 1943 and 1944, laying out a bold blueprint for uplifting peoples’ productive capacities, which would soon become Bennett’s lifelong devotion.

The blueprint would call for the vast development of British Columbia with a focus upon energy development, northern expansion, water management, agriculture, mining, forestry, rail construction, city building and of course, manufacturing. Industrial development to process as much raw material at home as possible was necessary in Bennett’s mind in order to avoid falling into the age old trap, where one nation exports cheap resources for mere money while a dominant country maintains the vital industries, which perpetuates the backwardness of the raw material exporting nation. Such an imperial monetarist policy was the bane of the existence of the underdeveloped Dominion of Canada. Bennett refused to accept this practice. Among a vast spectrum of proposals, the council’s plan called explicitly for developing the region of the Peace River in the north, the extension of rail lines deep into the north of the province and also the creation of a publicly owned hydroelectric authority to provide cheap electricity.

While attempts were being made to advance British Columbia’s development in piecemeal fashion under the Liberal-Conservative coalition governments, the pace was too slow for Bennett’s liking, and he found it necessary to leave the Conservative party in 1951 in order to temporarily become an independent MLA. He began organizing heavily to bring about the collapse of the coalition government through a vote of no confidence in 1952. During his time as an independent, Bennett saw a potential in re-organizing an underdog party known as Social Credit (Socred) that had never had more than a handful of seats at one time in B.C. However, using every ounce of his energy, Bennett organized outside of traditional party institutions to ensure that within several months, 19 seats would be won by Socred members.

While it is important to note that Social Credit would have its origins as a bizarre British run operation in the 1920s, the newly elected batch of Socred MLAs were almost entirely composed of regular working citizens. Barely a few hours of administrative experience could be found among any of the new representatives creating one of the most ideologically free cabinets in Canadian history.

Having 19 seats would be enough to win a provincial election, but not enough to earn the mandate necessary to push those large scale projects Bennett wanted. A second election was thus called nine months later, ensuring Socred a solid majority, and giving Bennett the flexibility to advance on various aspects of the blueprint all at once.

Opening up the Great North

Unlike the small minded economists of today who, when confronted with the challenge of developing railroads across the Bering Strait, declare “but what is the point? There is no civilization there”, Bennett was not subject to such short-sightedness. Taking the experiences of history seriously, Bennett understood that the first step to opening up new frontiers hinged upon developing advanced transportation systems, without which nothing could be done, and from which all would organically follow. A railroad is not the effect of civilization as “supply and demand” thinking would presume. Rather, civilization was the effect of the railroad.

It was understood by many at this time that British Columbia’s natural potential was too vast to continue to go untouched and its population too concentrated to the south eastern corner of the province around Vancouver and Victoria. A 1942 U.S. survey of the area noted the problem in the following way; “If the northern part of the area has been held down in a vicious circle of under-development (scanty population, inadequate transportation routes, high cost of living, etc) then it is entirely possible that the circle will have been cut by the provision of a vastly more adequate transportation system”[2]

The immediate problem that Bennett faced, was that the Pacific Great Eastern (PGE) was so mismanaged and undeveloped that not only did it merely service a small handful of lines touching the few population centers then in existence cusping the American border, but the provincial government had even tried desperately to sell it to both the federal government and Canada’s two private transcontinental railways, but to no avail. Bennett went straight to work on the rehabilitation of the rail system and stated in 1954 “Of all the interests I have in public life, none is a greater challenge… no money in this province could pay me for the satisfaction I would feel if this railway were changed from a joke and put on a sound financial basis”.

The rail and transport component of Bennett’s plan would have two phases. The first phase would be from 1954-59 and the second from the mid 1960s to early 1970s. Throughout the 1950s, the PGE was extended to Dawson Creek, and Fort St. John in the Peace River district. Extensions across the south also abounded. After Ottawa continuously blocked his program and refused to participate in the financing of the operations, Bennett took on a more “go it alone stance”, and continued to utilize the sovereign rights which Canadian provinces wield outside of federal jurisdiction to push forward with a second phase of rail extension in the 1960s and early 1970s[3]

(See figure 2).

Throughout this process, Bennett’s intentions to connect the rail lines deep into the Yukon, Alaska and the Great Slave Lake region of the Northwest Territories were transparent in countless speaking engagements. An illustration of the most likely Alaskan-Canadian rail lines promoted by Bennett can be seen in figure 3. To get there, connections had to be made from Fort St James to Takla Landing, and from Fort St John to Fort Nelson and onto Whitehorse. According to a 1968 study by Hedlin, Menzies and Associates Ltd, six routes in all were to be completed from British Columbia into the Yukon with additional routes stretching into the Northwest Territories, and Alaska.

As demonstrated in figure 2, these visionary plans were never fully completed, and limits to the PGE (now B.C. Rail) cut off at Takla Landing, Fort Nelson, and Dawson Creek without a single connection into the Arctic territories or Alaska. Tragically, due to the shift into post-industrial monetarism with the 1971 destruction of the Bretton Woods System, long term thinking has been so derailed that the rail line to Takla Landing has been made famous as the “mysterious rail to nowhere” which the government of British Columbia has up for sale for one dollar!

The Northern Vision program of a new John Diefenbaker leadership entering Ottawa in 1957 replacing a 22 year Liberal regime would vitalize Bennett. However due to the blowback by the powerful Ottawa mandarins occupying high level offices throughout Canada’s Civil Service, Diefenbaker’s Vision was aggressively subverted inducing a frustrated Bennett to comment in 1977: “They talked northern vision, but produced none of it”[4].

To what degree Bennett understood the highly coordinated subversion of Diefenbaker’s “Northern Vision” from London’s Foreign Office is not known. However, Bennett was in no way a naïve man, and his genius as a strategist would be unveiled during the years of the fight over British Columbia’s water and energy resources[5].

Bennett’s Grand Design and its opposition

A core component in Bennett’s Grand Design would be the building of hydroelectric stations to power the present and future industries and households of British Columbia, as well as provide for water management to the benefit of the USA and Canada. The potential for harnessing both was greater in no part of North America than in British Columbia, and the needs of a growing population would become dire if future oriented plans were not adopted immediately. To illustrate Bennett’s sensitivity to the needs of the future, he would later write:

“The greatest thing we need in our civilization, in our time, is not oil, not gas, but fresh water; not just any old water but fresh water. There’s too little of it in the world. We’re heading into a period of droughts. I am not prophesying doom, but we should be prepared… These people who are always criticizing dams don’t know what they are talking about. We should be encouraging the building of dams everywhere in Canada. Of course, we shouldn’t hurt our natural resources such as our fish. Of course, we should protect our natural beauty at the same time, but we should encourage dams to be constructed even for farmers on their ranches. If water flows through an area, build a dam! Governments should encourage that, because what is needed is an abundance of fresh water.”[6]

In advancing this component of his design, Bennett would be confronted with a coordinated backlash by the highest echelons of Britain’s networks amongst the Canadian mandarins in Ottawa. The obstacles Bennett would have to overcome to advance this component of his development strategy would be enormous. The greatest were:

1)      The Ottawa controlled B.C. Electric Company which refused to cooperate with his plan to develop the north.

2)      The Fight to subvert Diefenbaker’s Northern Vision via a contraction of the money supply led by the Governor of the Bank of Canada, James Coyne

3)      The Davie Fulton- General Andrew McNaughton operation to break the American-Canadian program for the Columbia development in favour of a “Canada only” variant.

4)      The coordinated barrage of anti-Americanism in the media sponsored by leading British assets in Canada that had given birth to the strategy later dubbed Canada’s “New Nationalism” and embodied in Pierre Elliot Trudeau’s Just Society reform.

A few words on Continental development

The necessity of developing continental water management policies was first recognized in the late 19th century as the growing population of the western United States blossomed and Lincoln’s Trans Continental Railway linked the two oceans for the first time. Canada’s western population growth followed soon thereafter with the completion of the Canadian Pacific Rail from Montreal to Vancouver in 1885. The westerners of North America had found themselves trapped in territories that suffered massive water scarcity, while the great abundance of water resources in the unpopulated Canadian north went through its cycle essentially unused either by humans or even the biosphere. The first formal treaty signed between Canada and the USA to deal with this increasing need would be the Boundary Waters Treaty in 1909 which also established the International Joint Commission, although very little would come of it for the duration of the coming several decades.

By 1944, Prime Minister Mackenzie King and Franklin Roosevelt called upon the International Joint Commission (IJC) to accelerate programs that would mutually benefit both Countries with a focus upon the St. Lawrence Seaway on the east coast and the development of the Columbia River basin in the west. Though great strides had been made by networks of Quebec Premier Duplessis, Prime Minister St. Laurent and President Eisenhower to accomplish the St. Lawrence Seaway program by 1959, the long sought Columbia River development had made very little progress.

The importance of the Columbia River Basin was amplified by the fact that many of America’s river systems along the Columbia River basin area were already dammed to near capacity (see figure 4.) and while great abundance had been achieved in agricultural and industrial output throughout the 1940s and 1950s, water and energy scarcity still loomed. Not only that, but the “Glacier dilemma” was creating a big problem for the Americans. The glaciers of the Canadian north are not at all unchanging, but rather partially melt in spring and refreeze in Winter. This process creates a wide variance of the Columbia River’s flow. The Spring melt would result in floods every year wrecking havoc on agriculture, and the weak trickle in winter would make harnessing the full hydroelectric potential of the river impossible.

From 1940, American engineers had proposed a series of dams on the Canadian side that would act as catchments to store the water to regulate the flow, creating both flood controls in summer and a maximization of hydroelectricity production in winter. Plans were put forward by American engineers to build what was later to become known as the Mica, the Keenleyside and Duncan Dams on the Canadian side of the border while the Libby Dam was to be built on the American side. The Duncan and Libby dams would be located on the Kootenay River, which was a tributary of the Columbia. In exchange for the Canadian dams which would increase downstream benefits greatly, the American offer would make half of that newly created power available for British Columbia.

A General Subversion

Plans to go through with these designs had been sabotaged largely by the subversive influence of anglophile war hero General Andrew McNaughton, Canadian chairman of the IJC from 1950-1962[7] (see figure 5). McNaughton not only organized against the American designs, declaring any cooperation with America to be a move towards “continentalism” (and thus the loss of Canadian sovereignty), but he also favoured an alternative program which proposed to divert the Columbia and Kootenay rivers into the Fraser so that their flow would create power only for the Canadians and provide water supplies for the prairies, leaving the Americans out to hang. Had this program been accepted, then not only would the Columbia program as we know it not exist, but the great potential to construct NAWAPA would have been destroyed.

McNaughton would be among the powerful networks run by the Oxford Trained Mandarins of Ottawa’s Civil Service who would attempt to destroy every continental approach to resource management presented during these years. Their favoured theme was the creation and exploitation of anti-American sentiments, and tapping into deep seated fears that Canadians had of being annexed by the USA[8]. McNaughton’s program provided a stubborn counterweight to the American government’s unwilling-ness to pay for the high costs demanded of them by Ottawa for the system, and resulted in a stalemate that lasted years.

In order to get an idea of McNaughton’s attitude and the effectiveness of the stalemate: the McNaughton Plan remained under discussion all the way until 1960, and when Premier Bennett decided to openly endorse the American proposal (after a drawn out battle with the Ottawa mandarins beginning in 1956), McNaughton attacked Bennett for allowing the Americans to “walk into a house divided against itself and skin the occupants alive”.

Bennett’s Two Rivers Policy breaks the stalemate.

Previous to 1954, no possible resolution to the stalemate was forthcoming. Bennett, anxious for development, began demonstrating his creative powers to the great anxiety of Ottawa. At this time, Bennett began working with an American firm named Kaiser Corporation which had offered a plan to pay for the construction of a massive storage dam on Mica Creek and guaranteed that 20% of the power produced would be delivered to British Columbia. Bennett pushed for the Kaiser deal against massive backlash from all parties in the Provincial legislature. The federal government of Prime Minister St. Laurent, then fearing the loss of Ottawa’s bargaining power on the Columbia, immediately responded by passing the International Rivers Improve-ment (IRI) Act of 1955. This act prohibited all parties from building improvements on an international river without federal license, thereby crushing the Kaiser deal. Taking this lesson to heart, Bennett resolved that no such manipulation by Ottawa would occur again.

A new opportunity to break the stalemate presented itself in 1957, when a prospecting survey conducted by the Swedish industrialist Axel Wenner-Gren in collaboration with Bennett had concluded that the Peace River in British Columbia’s north held all of the requirements for a huge hydroelectric dam that would create the largest man-made reservoir in the world. The power from the Peace would not only be greater than the Columbia but could be delivered more cheaply. This discovery would become the origin of Bennett’s Two River Strategy (see figure 6) and would provide one of the key bargaining chips to break the Ottawa-Washington stagnation.

Realizing the importance of this new bargaining chip, Bennett made the following elated statement at a press conference on October 8 1957:

“This is the most momentous announcement I have ever made… the studies being conducted in the north indicated the feasibility of establishing in the Rocky Mountain Trench the greatest hydroelectric project in the world” and would be “entirely in the control of the government of British Columbia… this day is the most important that B.C. has experienced in its whole history. Surely now both Ottawa and the U.S. will realize we mean business.”

Bennett’s program for the Peace would not impinge upon the 1955 IRI Act since the Peace River fell entirely within Canadian territory.

By early 1960, Bennett had openly begun organizing for America’s Columbia River Treaty proposal which effectively put the nail in the coffin for the McNaughton Plan. An overjoyed Diefenbaker saw this as an opportunity to salvage his waning Northern Vision and immediate raced down to the USA to persuade President Eisenhower to sign a draft treaty (see figure 7) , which was then ratified in Ottawa and sent to Bennett. To everyone’s surprise and bewilderment, Bennett did not sign. He was more committed to the Peace than anyone had hitherto imagined. No one could understand how anything could be made of that obscure, uninhabited region of the north. In the words of Bennett:

“The criticism you had to listen to was terrible! First, they said you could never transmit power over that distance to Vancouver, the place where most of it would be needed and used. No, the distance was far too great! They had no vision. We stood alone against all the other parties, the federals, the other provincial governments, even the United States. They opted only for the Columbia; but we alone said that the Peace was vital for our province.”[9]

More obstacles to disrupt the Peace

Using brilliant American System thinking, Bennett’s entire plan for the Peace would hinge upon future productivity that had no existence in the present and yet would extinguish the debts incurred in the present and justify its construction. No present demand would justify the abundance of supply that would be delivered by the Peace, for that abundance was for the future. Bennett envisioned using the cash gained by selling Columbia River power to the Americans which would then pay for the building of a reservoir and hydro station on the Peace which in turn would provide the power for British Columbia’s population and industry to flourish.

The first obstacle confronted by Bennett at this phase was to be found in the monetarist thinking that had dominated policy making in Canada at that time. The Two River Policy would nearly be destroyed when the Ottawa controlled power utility B.C. Electric that had a monopoly on all power distribution in the province, refused to agree to purchase power from the Peace citing the monetarist argument of “supply and demand”. The monetarist reasoning would follow the following lines: “If the electricity from the Columbia provided from America to BC would more than meet the immediate demand for power in B.C., then no additional power generation would be needed, as none would be demanded… thus nothing should be built on the Peace.” The fact that Columbia River proposals involved the Americans providing half of the newly generated hydro potential from its dams to Canadians meant that all possible demand would be satisfied, and anything greater (such as that which would be developed on the Peace) would be redundant.

A second obstacle which threatened to undermine the plan involved the intervention by the Federal Minister of Justice Davie Fulton who became Ottawa’s chief spokesman and negotiator for the Columbia. Fulton had been an advocate of the McNaughton Plan and critic of the Two River Policy. He and a group of young Oxford trained Rhodes scholars known as “Fulton’s Boys” would establish a faction within the Diefenbaker cabinet that worked tirelessly against all attempts by Diefenbaker and his closest collaborators to apply nation building policies into action. Two of Fulton’s Boys, Michael Pitfield and Marc Lalonde would later on lead Trudeau’s close inner circle of advisors.

A third obstacle was found in the absence of financial aid from Ottawa. This lack of financial support was the direct effect of the Bank of Canada’s money contracting policy during 1957-1960. The effect of the money contraction would lead to a long public fight between the bank’s Governor, James Coyne and Prime Minister Diefenbaker whose Northern Vision was handicapped when credit was intentionally dried up. The fight led to Diefenbaker’s firing of the Bank of Canada’s Governor James Coyne in July 1961, an action that began the process that ultimately led to the defeat of Diefenbaker’s government in 1963.[10]

Up through May 1961, Fulton and Coyne’s intrigues resulted in an Ottawa policy that castrated Diefenbaker and posed unworkable conditions upon Bennett. Ottawa objected to Bennett’s desire to sell downstream benefits to the Americans and demanded that instead of cash, British Columbia receive only electricity from the USA’s newly maximized hydro potential. Obviously, Bennett was furious, seeing as how the cash was necessary to build the Peace River, and the excess electricity provided from the downstream power generating stations would have been far more than an under developed British Columbia could use. To make matters worse, Ottawa demanded joint federal-provincial control over the Columbia River projects in return for any monetary aid. Having proven its perpetual intention to sabotage provincial development, Bennett found this joint control to be entirely unacceptable.

The primary argument Fulton used against Bennett’s program would be built on a fallacy which Bennett would frequently attack for years. Where Ottawa asserted that once the treaty was signed to sell power back to the Americans, it could never be reversed, and that power would be forever lost from Canada, Bennett would constantly point out that his program called for a treaty of sixty years broken into two instalments, whereby the second instalment would contractually oblige the USA to return B.C.’s share of power in the form of electricity or cash. Bennett would describe the deal and his battle with his critics thus:

“Now critics say it didn’t pay for all the cost of the dams, this cash we received from the Americans. It was a sell-out to the Yankees, they say. The answer to that accusation is that of all the treaties ever concluded between Canada and a foreign country, this one was the best for British Columbia and for Canada. The critics could only see the first half of the treaty but the agreement covers sixty years, not thirty. We were only paid for the first half… How stupid these people are. They always forget about the last half of the treaty when the United States must give back to us at our border our share of the power, our rightful half. Whatever they’ve developed over thirty years, half of it comes back in either power or in cash.”[11]

Bennett would deal with these obstacles not by playing within the closed system thinking demanded by the conditions set forth by the Ottawa mandarins and their British controllers. Instead, Bennett would apply his powers of the creative flank and throw over the entire chess board at every opportunity. In this case, he would seek the help of John F. Kennedy and take over B.C. Electric.

Bennett’s Flank

On November 1961, in order to gain additional political support in his battle with Fulton, Bennett flew down to Seattle, Washington to attend a memorial for Senator Warren Magnusen’s 25 years of service. The real reason for his attendance is to be looked for in the long closed door meeting he had with fellow attendee, President John F. Kennedy. Meetings between U.S. Presidents and provincial Premiers are relatively unprecedented and the meeting between Kennedy and Bennett created a diplomatic incident. While no official transcript of the meeting exists, the results could be felt when five days later, Kennedy’s Secretary of the Interior, Stewart Udall, loudly denounced Fulton’s opposition to Bennett’s grand plan as “stuff and nonsense”.

An enraged Fulton flew immediately to Victoria, B.C. to confront the Premier. Bennett, though having been seen just minutes earlier, could not be found to greet him, leaving a dejected Fulton to hop back on the plane and return to Ottawa. The decision by Kennedy to support Bennett’s Two Rivers policy over that of Ottawa’s version of the treaty would contribute to a deep rift between Diefenbaker and Kennedy that would unfortunately last throughout the duration of Kennedy’s short life.

The final obstacle that had to be dealt with was the lack of cooperation from B.C. Electric to provide contracts to B.C. Peace River Power Development Company created by Axel Wenner-Gren, of which B.C. Electric was a large shareholder. Contracts to purchase the power were absolutely necessary in order to begin construction on the Peace River. Frustrated by months of inaction, Bennett arranged a meeting with the head of B.C. Electric at a hotel in London. Having asked why it was that B.C. Electric was not cooperating with the needs of the province, Bennett was informed that the problem resided in Ottawa’s direct control over the utility which had no intention of permitting the Peace to go forward. Bennett laid out his ultimatum in the following way:

“There’s a great law of nature that goes something like this- what you don’t use, you lose. If a person is a pianist and doesn’t develop it, he loses his talent. If a person is a good pitcher and doesn’t throw, he loses that talent. We are not going to sit by and watch potential development in British Columbia be held back by any source. Not big business, not by big labour, not by big government. I want you to clearly understand that. I will give you reasonable time, but it will be short.”[12]

Within several months, after no change in the utility’s stance occurred, Bennett introduced Bill 5, also known as the Power Development Act into the provincial legislature offering $180 million for the acquisition not only of Wenner-Gren’s Peace River Power Development Company, but the entire B.C. Electric from its owner, the federally controlled B.C. Power Corporation. This was now August 1961, and after a short legal battle, the sum paid for the takeover was $197 million to cover interest and legal fees.

Since British Columbia now owned the utility that would build and operate all the dams on the Canadian side of the Columbia, Bennett could uniquely set the treaty terms. This would be the birth of B.C. Hydro, and the construction of the Two River Plan.

Interprovincial Development

With the terms Bennett required for British Columbia’s Two Rivers Policy established, a final treaty was ratified with Bennett’s full satisfaction in 1964 by Lester Pearson, President Lyndon Johnson and himself (see figure 8). The success of the Peace River was made evident to all once it began supplying over 90% of B.C. Hydro’s electrical power to British Columbia after its completion in 1968. The agreed upon hydroelectric output produced by the Columbia dams  (completed from 1967-1972) was sold back to the USA for $254 million dollars in one lump sum for the first half of a 60 year long treaty. The second cycle, scheduled to end by 2024 would have the US provide electricity back to Canada instead of cash. $64 million would be provided to British Columbia from the U.S. as compensation for the operation of the dams that minimized flood damages in the U.S.

The immediate revenue of this deal mixed with the increased productivity and industrial activity effected by the construction of the Peace River resulted in Bennett’s ability to invest into various social programs such as universal medical coverage, and wide public improvements. To top it off, $100 million loan was also provided to Quebec’s Premier Jean Lesage who had encountered similar problems as Bennett had with Ottawa’s Civil Service and yet yearned to continue developing the hydro electric and transportation programs begun by the Duplessis leadership of l’Union Nationale that came before him.

Like the case of Quebec’s hydroelectric potential in the north of the province, British Columbia had encountered many naysayers that said transmitting electricity across the long distances separating the Peace River from most populated centers in the province was impossible, as the electrical power loss due to the heating of the wires would be too great. The discoveries which had to be made to allow for the transmission of electrical power at much higher voltages and correspondingly lower current flows lead to British Columbia’s and Quebec’s engineers becoming world innovators in the field of electrical transmission.

An Introduction to the Provincial Fight to Develop

It is appropriate at this stage of our report to address the vital role played by two types of conferences that had occurred to make the development of British Columbia and other provinces possible. With the tightly controlled federal government that is itself greatly influenced by the British run Civil Service, and highly fragmented provincial system, the path of Canada’s development has taken an unlikely, yet necessary route. This development had occurred generally in spite of, and rarely through any help of, the Federal Government, with nation building Premiers often being forced to lead Ottawa by the nose in advancing great works. (See appendix)

The mechanism most often selected through the 1950s and 1960s to set the conceptual framework for visionary ideas, so often lacking from Ottawa, and that crossed beyond provincial and national borders involved a variety of conferences in which leading state, provincial, and private sector leaders, desiring development would network and strategize for their own and the country’s benefit.

The first and most common events were the Interprovincial Conferences which addressed a variety of issues from local concerns, to large scale agricultural, and resource management. These conferences would facilitate such deals as the $100 million aid and technical expertise provided from Bennett to Quebec’s Jean Lesage in 1964. The second type of conference on the west coast was known as the Alaska-British Columbia- Yukon conferences (A-BC-Y), of which three had formally occurred between 1960 and 1964. A brief examination of the contents of these conferences shall provide the reader a wonderful glimpse into the strategic thinking and possibilities which were coming into existence during this vital period of history.

Learning the A-BC-Ys

“We think that this is the time- and timing is important- and this is the place for the new frontier and the northern vision; because if ever there was a place that needed planned growth and millions of dollars in expenditure, it is northern B.C., the Yukon and Alaska… The time for action is now, not ten years from now! Last week the Russian ambassador told me in a very clear way, that in the part of Russia opposite us, Russia is spending 40 percent of all its capital expenditures. We in the U.S. and Canada cannot sit idly by and see that great economic development take place without matching it with more than words”

These were the opening remarks made by Premier Bennett at the second A-BC-Y Conference in Juno Alaska in 1960[13]. The three conferences that would occur amongst Alaska, British Columbia and the Yukon between 1960 and 1964 contained the germ seeds of the greater continental cooperation that was being organized as early as 1870. While intercontinental visions had begun with the planned linking of telegraph wires through the Bering Strait as early as the Alaska purchase of 1867, and the 1905 designs for a rail tunnel connecting America to Russia through Canada[14], the First World War and speculative economic insanity of the 1920s had kept such visions from being realized.

The needs of World War II would kick start the orientation to joint cooperative development in the north beginning with the formation of the U.S.-Canadian Joint Economic Committee (USCJEC) in January 1943. The Canada Air routes to Alaska and Yukon, the Alaska Highway, and a pipeline and refinery system known to provide aviation fuel for the Northwest Staging System also known as the Canol Project would begin during this time. A 1943 New York Times editorial on the USCJEC would read “The cooperative project outlined may foreshadow a new kind of relationship, and one that may be imitated elsewhere on the globe. Economic areas do not always run with political areas. Friendly adjoining governments may be able to overcome this difficulty, to the general advantage. Political Boundaries may simply become less important.” This motion towards continental development should not be confused with the contemporary monetarist atrocity of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) (see box).

While the momentum to advance continental programs was largely dissipated after World War II, Bennett would revive the spirit alongside like minded thinkers such as Alaskan Governor William Egan. After two important meetings between Bennett and the Alaskan Territorial Governor in 1954 and 1956, the A-BC-Y Conferences would be formed in order to help advance the construction of the PGE Rail into Alaska via a variety of routes, as well as provide hydroelectric power to the Alaskan Panhandle. The panhandle is an area devoid of hydroelectric potential, yet strategically rich in resources, and Pacific ports[15]. Due to the destructive role of Ottawa and Gen. McNaughton at the IJC, the third and final A-BC-Y conference in 1964 emphasized that further U.S.-Canada joint development of hydropower should proceed outside of the control of the IJC[16]. It is known that NAWAPA was discussed at the third conference, but as the reports would not made public, it cannot yet be reported in what way it was received or presented.

NAWAPA’s design was begun in 1954 and, after one of its lead engineers had been hired by the Ralph M. Parsons Company in 1958, its development had become the company’s policy. By Spring 1964, a U.S. Senate Subcommittee on Western Water development, led by Senator Frank Moss, was formed in order to conduct a comprehensive evaluation of NAWAPA. Their report, published in October of that year, found that since NAWAPA would store and deliver a much greater amount of water with significantly fewer projects (dams, canals, tunnels, etc.) than would be possible even through the construction of all the projects which had been studied or authorized by U.S. federal or non-federal agencies, a full engineering feasibility study was warranted (see figure 9).

As two key bottlenecks for the water’s journey into southern Canada and USA were the Peace River and Columbia, it is safe to say that the final conception of the NAWAPA design was given its modern form through Bennett’s initiatives on the Columbia River Treaty.

It is undoubtedly the case that leading engineering and pro-development networks across North America would have been very familiar with the program before its official unveiling. What Bennett’s view of NAWAPA is has not yet been revealed to the authors of this report, however based upon a Canadian Broadcasting Corporation (CBC) interview from 1961 Bennett’s view regarding river systems and water exports integral to the NAWAPA design were transparent:

“We have in British Columbia four great river systems, and we have the greatest potential hydroelectric development of any part of the whole continent. And we’re not to be compared to other parts of Canada, where they haven’t got this great abundance of potential hydroelectric power. We have the Columbia River. We have the Fraser River. We have the Peace River. We have the Liard River. We have the Taku. We have the Yuka, and many many other rivers. In fact, a total of a potential of 40 million horsepower [30 gigawatts]. And we have a great asset, which is now being exported, unused, for which we do not receive a single nickel. It’s exported out to the oceans. The Arctic Ocean, and the Pacific Ocean unused. We are not doing a good job regarding this great natural resource”.

To avoid venturing into speculative territory, choosing to remain instead on firm ground, we can say that the majority of those water systems outlined by Bennett in this interview have major roles to play in the NAWAPA design. Necessary support components to NAWAPA’s construction would have necessitated massive rail development and industrial potential across Northern B.C. and into the Yukon and Alaska reflected in the rail extension strategy begun by Bennett in 1954. Holding in ones’ mind the fact of Bennett’s intended Alaska- B.C. rail connection, and other uncompleted rail extensions outlined above, as well as the hydroelectric generation on the Fraser which he was fighting to develop when he was defeated in the 1972 B.C. election, we must conclude that all of the organic ingredients for NAWAPA’s development were on hand under Bennett’s visionary leadership and very present during the proceedings of each of the A-BC-Y Conferences.

The 1963 Paradigm Shift: The Dream Fades

Everyone participating in these conferences could sense that the world was quickly changing for the worse. JFK’s assassination opened the gates for the unleashing of the Vietnam war, a wave of traumatic political assassinations of great leaders struck with lightning speed, and a slide into cultural irrationalism with the emergence of the sex-rock-drugs counterculture paradigm was draining the life from Bennett’s vision. The time for such visionary programs was quickly running out.

The recently created cult of “environmentalism” was serving as a new religion for a disenchanted youth generation trained to blame all of the imperialistic folly of the postwar world, not on the oligarchical system that was taking over society, but rather on the nuclear family, Christianity, and the belief that scientific and technological progress could support a continuously growing population. It seemed that planning for the future needs was not as important as “squares” like Bennett thought, as youth across North America and Europe seemed to “discover” all on their own, that humanity was not something worth saving after all.

The anti-science, anti-technological growth green policy would be cultivated by British agents within the Canadian and American establishments not to save nature, but rather to desperately put blockades on the continuation of programs such as the Bennett Grand Design. The first such program was the creation of the AitlinLakesProvincialPark to forestall the hydro plans for the Yukon River[17]. To this would later be added the first wave of conservation lands sponsored by the Canadian government under Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau and the $4.5 million dollar grants supplied to the Nature Trust of B.C. that would remove British Columbia territories vital to continental development from consideration[18]. These programs would be established specifically to halt the construction of the NAWAPA design.

The abolishment of large scale programs that inspire the imagination of citizens to leap outside of a closed framework of local concerns is today and has always been the pre-eminent drive of the oligarchical system. No society under any form of government, which is properly awakened to the greater needs and potential of the future can be stopped from pursuing a mission that is in line with creative reason. This also means that since oligarchical systems such as that embodied by today’s British Empire can only maintain their existence when a population is kept small minded and fearful of change, such projects which awaken a spirit of creative change and improving nature as well as civilization are the greatest threat to empire.

For this reason, it is vital that today’s citizens come to understand that the green agenda imposed upon Canada by Pierre Elliot Trudeau’s “Cybernetic Revolution” from 1968-72 which is today threatening to eliminate the majority of the world population, would be made possible only through the effect of a British sponsored cultural policy that would be known as “New Nationalism” and promoted by the likes of Walter Lockhart Gordon, General McNaughton, James Coyne and Davie Fulton. This cultural policy would be vital in shaping a sense of Canadian identity that would be founded upon fear of change. Those programs advanced by the likes W.A.C. Bennett, Diefenbaker, Lesage and Daniel Johnson Sr. have now become the inspiration of fear and hatred from many such Canadians that have been victimized by several generations of misanthropic propaganda wearing the mask of patriotism. [If you have made it this far, then you should be encouraged to read Origins of the Deep State part 1 and 2]

Bringing Bennett’s Dream Back to Life

Lyndon LaRouche’s policies for a New Bretton Woods and Glass-Steagall would provide Canada with the tools to begin to quickly return to the paradigm of creative change, and future planning last actively embodied by the likes of Bennett and his international collaborators. If the choice were made to defend human life at all cost and without any compromise from the emerging dark age which is fast creeping upon civilization, then programs such as NAWAPA, and the North American Belt and Road Initiative and Arctic development would be the natural continuation of programs already begun decades ago, and expressed by Bennett’s Grand Design, JFK’s Apollo mission, and Diefenbaker’s Northern Vision. Combined with joint collaborative programs with China and Russia on Arctic development and Asteroid Defence, the future could become very bright indeed.


  1. David J. Mitchell, W.A.C. Bennett and the Rise of British Columbia, With a New Afterword, Douglas & McIntyre, Vancouver/Toronto, 1995.
  2. Roger Keene and David C. Humphreys, Conversations with W.A.C.Bennett, Methuen Press, Toronto, 1980.
  3. Neil A. Swainson, Conflict over the Columbia, The Canadian Background to an Historic Treaty, Canadian Public Administration Series, the Institute of Public Administration of Canada, McGill-QueensUniversity Press, Montreal, 1979.
  4. British Columbia, Ministry of Energy, Mines, and Petroleum Resources, History of the Columbia River Treaty.
  5. John R. Wedley, A Development Tool: W.A.C.Bennett and the PGE Railway, BC Studies, no. 117, Spring 1998, pp. 29-50.
  6. P.R. Johannson, A Regional Strategy: the Alaska-British Columbia-Yukon Conferences, BC Studies, no.28, Winter 1975-76, pp. 29-52.
  7. Daniel Macfarlane, The Value of a “Coyne”: The Diefenbaker Government and the 1961 Coyne Affair, University of Ottawa, 2008.
  8. Peter C. Newman, Renegade in Power: The Diefenbaker Years, McClelland and Stewart Ltd., 1963.

 End notes


[2] Benjamin Kizer, “The Northwest Pacific Planning Project”, December 1942, p.5

[3] An irony of Canadian history is that in large measure, the federal government, unlike the U.S example, has been largely responsible for prohibiting and sabotaging the aspirations of its provinces to develop, while the responsibility has customarily fallen to the shoulders of bold premiers to lead Ottawa to the future by the nose

[4] W.A.C. Bennett interviewed by David Mitchell, 18 June 1977,1675-23, track 2, p. 4, BCARS

[5] In exposing the agendas of subversive agencies (witting or not), Bennett frequently commented that “there are two type of people in the world: those that get things done, and those who throw sand on the gears”

[6] Conversations with WAC Bennett, Methune Press, Toronto, 1980.pg 107-108 (heretofore “Conversations)

[7] McNaughton would later go onto lead the fight against the North American Power Alliance, becoming the primary organizer against the proposal and its champion, Senator Frank Moss.

[8] On several occasions, the potential for Canada’s annexation into the USA had nearly materialized beginning with the Quebec Act of 1774 effectively blocking Canada’s entry into the anti-imperial struggle of the 13 colonies, followed by the failed 1776 takeover by Benedict Arnold. After this point, the greatest threat to the imperial control over the Dominion of Canada would be located in the concept of the “custom’s union” modelled on the German “Zollverein” industrial development model of Frederick List. This model would be advanced by Isaac Buchanan in 1865, Sir Wilfred Laurier until 1911, and would again re-emerge as a failed attempt again in 1945. The Customs Union view would have given Canada privileges enjoyed by the U.S. states amongst themselves under the principled guidance of the U.S. Constitution and its anti-monetarist essence.

[9] Conversations, p.111

[10] “I don’t think there is any question that the Coyne Affair was the destruction of the Diefenbaker government right then and there”- Alvin Hamilton, The Value of a “Coyne”: The Diefenbaker Government and the 1961 Coyne Affair, Daniel Macfarlane, University of Ottawa, 2008. p 140

[11] Conversations, p. 112

[12] Conversations, p 116

[13] BC Studies, Winter 1975-76, A Study in Regional Strategy: The Alaska, B.C., Yukon Conferences, by P.R. Johannsen, p.29

[14] Funds totalling six million dollars were raised privately, concluding the project to connect the continents by rail across the Bering Strait could be done for $300 million. An editorial in the New York Times of October 24th, 1905, observed that“the Bering Strait Tunnel is a project which at some time in the future is likely to command a great deal of very purposeful consideration.”

[15] The anti-NAFTA logic wielded by Bennett is evidenced in a statement from May 1956:

“As a Government, we must safeguard vital interests of our people, and we must assure that adequate supplies of power are available for our own present and future requirements. However, we are also fully aware of the needs and requirements of our good friends to the south insofar as power is concerned, just as I am sure that they are cognizant of our needs, for example, of an outlet to the Pacific through the Alaskan Panhandle. If the interests of both parties are understood, then certainly a mutually satisfactory arrangement can be reached.”

[16] A Study in Regional Strategy, p 43

[17] Hon. R. A. Williams, Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources, interviewed on CBC “Hourglass” television programme, 18 December 1973

[18] In describing their history on the website www.naturetrust.bc.ca, we can read the motivation for the conservation areas of BC: “There was also a sense of urgency in getting the projects underway because BC was experiencing a period of rapid growth and industrial development. That is how The National Second Century Fund of British Columbia, later to be called The Nature Trust of British Columbia, was born.”

BIO: Matthew J.L. Ehret is a journalist, lecturer and founder of the Canadian Patriot Review. He is an author with The Duran, Strategic Culture Foundation, Fort Russ. His works have been published in Zero Hedge, Executive Intelligence Review, Global Times, Asia Times, L.A. Review of Books, and Sott.net. Matthew has also published the book “The Time has Come for Canada to Join the New Silk Road” and three volumes of the Untold History of Canada (available on untoldhistory.canadianpatriot.org). He can be reached at matt.ehret@tutamail.com

The post Forgotten Battles Against the Deep State Part 3: W.A.C. Bennett vs. the Malthusians appeared first on The Duran.

Categories: America, Foreign Policy

Why the S-400 Is a More Formidable Threat to US Arms Industry Than You Think

Sat, 2019-06-15 21:17

Authored by Federico Pieraccini via The Strategic Culture Foundation:

Generally, when discussing air-defense systems here, we are referring to Russian devices that have become famous in recent years, in particular the S-300 (and its variants) and the S-400. Their deployment in Syria has slowed down the ability of such advanced air forces as those of the United States and Israel to target the country, increasing as it does the embarrassing possibility of having their fourth- or fifth-generation fighters shot down.

Air-defense systems capable of bringing down fifth-generation aircraft would have a devastating effect on the marketability and sales of US military hardware, while simultaneously boosting the desirability and sales of Russian military hardware. As I have often pointed out in other analyses, Hollywood’s role in marketing to enemies and allies alike the belief that US military hardware is unbeatable (with allies being obliged to buy said hardware) is central to Washington’s strategies for war and power projection.

As clashes between countries in such global hot spots as the Middle East increase and intensify, Hollywood’s propaganda will increasingly struggle to convince the rest of the world of the continued efficacy and superiority of US weapons systems in the face of their unfolding shortcomings.

The US finds itself faced with a situation it has not found itself in over the last 50 years, namely, an environment where it does not expect to automatically enjoy air superiority. Whatever semblance of an air defense that may have hitherto been able to pose any conceivable threat to Uncle Sam’s war machine was rudely dismissed by a wave of cruise missiles. To give two prime examples that occurred in Syria in 2018, latest-generationmissiles were intercepted and shot down by decades-old Russian and Syrian systems. While the S-400 system has never been employed in Syria, it is noteworthy that the Serbian S-125 systems succeeded in identifying and shooting down an American F-117 stealth aircraft during the war in the Balkans.

There is a more secret aspect of the S-400 that is little disclosed, either within Russia itself or without. It concerns the S-400’s ability to collect data through its radar systems. It is worth noting Department of Defense spokesman Eric Pahon’s alarm over Turkey’s planned purchase of the S-400:

“We have been clear that purchasing the S-400 would create an unacceptable risk because its radar system could provide the Russian military sensitive information on the F-35. Those concerns cannot be mitigated. The S-400 is a system built in Russia to try to shoot down aircraft like the F-35, and it is inconceivable to imagine.

Certainly, in the event of an armed conflict, the S-400’s ability to shoot down fifth-generation aircraft is a huge concern for the United States and her allies who have invested so heavily in such aircraft. Similarly, a NATO country preferring Russian to American systems is cause for alarm. This is leaving aside the fact that the S-400 is spreading around the world, from China to Belarus, with dozens of countries waiting in line for the ability to seal their skies from the benevolent bombs of freedom. It is an excellent stick with which to keep a prowling Washington at bay.

But these concerns are nothing when compared to the most serious threat that the S-400 poses to the US arms industry, namely, their ability to collect data on US stealth systems.

Theoretically, the last advantage that the US maintains over her opponents is in stealth technology. The effectiveness of stealth has been debated for a long time, given that their costs may actually outweigh their purported benefits. But, reading between the lines, what emerges from US concerns over the S-400 suggests that Moscow is already capable of detecting US stealth systems by combining the radars of the S-400 with those of air-based assets, as has been the case in Syria (despite Washington’s denials).

The ability of the S-400 to collect data on both the F-35 and F-22 – the crown jewels of the US military-industrial complex – is a cause for sleepless nights for US military planners. What in particular causes them nightmares is that, for the S-400 to function in Turkey, it will have to be integrated into Turkey’s current “identification friend or foe” (IFF) systems, which in turn are part of NATO’s military tactical data-link network, known as Link 16.

This system will need to be installed on the S-400 in order to integrate it into Turkey’s defensive network, which could potentially pass information strictly reserved for the Russians that would increase the S-400’s ability to function properly in a system not designed to host such a weapon system.

The final risk is that if Turkey were to fly its F-35s near the S-400, the Link 16 system would reveal a lot of real-time information about the US stealth system. Over time, Moscow would be able to recreate the stealth profile of the F-35 and F-22, thereby making pointless Washington’s plans to spend 1.16 trillion dollars to produce 3,000 F-35s.

What must be remembered in our technological age is that once the F-35’s radar waveform has been identified, it will be possible to practice the military deception of recreating fictitious signals of the F-35 so as to mask one’s own aircraft with this shape and prevent the enemy’s IFF systems from being able to distinguish between friend or foe.

Of particular note is the active cooperation between China and Russia in air-defense systems. The S-400 in particular has already been operational in China for several years now, and it should be assumed that there would be active information sharing going on between Moscow and Beijing regarding stealth technology.

It turns out that the S-400 is a weapon system with multiple purposes that is even more lethal than previously imagined. It would therefore not be surprising that, were S-400s to be found in Cuba and Venezuela, Washington’s bellicose rhetoric against these two countries would come to an abrupt halt.

But what US military planners fear more than the S-400 embarrassing their much-vaunted F35 and F22 is the doubts they could raise about the efficacy of these stealth aircraft in the minds of allies and potential buyers. This lack of confidence would deal a mortal blow to the US arms industry, a threat far more real and devastating for them than a risk of conflict with Moscow or Beijing.

The post Why the S-400 Is a More Formidable Threat to US Arms Industry Than You Think appeared first on The Duran.

Categories: America, Foreign Policy

Mike Pompeo & Tony Blair target Jeremy Corbyn for destruction (Video)

Sat, 2019-06-15 20:28

The Duran’s Alex Christoforou and Editor-in-Chief Alexander Mercouris discuss a recording that emerged last week where US Secretary for State Mike Pompeo says he would intervene to stop Labour Party leader Jeremy Corbyn from becoming UK Prime Minister.

Reported by the Washington Post, Mike Pompeo suggests he will not wait for the Labour Party leader to be elected, rather he will attempt to stop it from ever happening.

Not to be outdone, Iraq WMD architect and former UK PM, Tony Blair, has lashed out at Corbyn for attacking the record of the last Labour government. This is the latest attempt by Blair to stir controversy around Corbyn in an effort to replace him as party leader.

Remember to Please Subscribe to The Duran’s YouTube Channel.

Follow The Duran Audio Podcast on Soundcloud.

Via Politics Home...

The former Prime Minister accused his successor as party leader of suggesting that Conservative and Labour governments had been “all the same” over the past thirty years, as he declared: “Enough is enough.”

The intervention comes after Mr Corbyn told an education conference last week: “For decades we’ve been told that inequality doesn’t matter because the education system will allow talented and hard-working people to succeed whatever their background.”

And it follows Mr Corbyn’s 2018 comments to a trade union gathering, when he said Labour was now “back as the political voice of the working class”.

“For 30 years, the media and the establishment tried to tell us that class doesn’t matter any more and that we should ditch any idea of representing and advancing the interests of the working class,” Mr Corbyn had said.

But, in a new video posted online by his Institute for Global Change, Mr Blair pushed back at the criticism of his time in office.

“I don’t often respond to the leader of the Labour Party’s attacks on the last Labour government, but enough is enough,” he said.

Pouncing on Mr Corbyn’s comments, the ex-PM said: “Note the ‘decades’, the ’30 years’. In other words, Thatcher Government, last Labour Government, 10 years of Tory austerity. It’s all the same.

“All one unbroken line. All one policy. All one ideology.

“This is bad politics and worse history – and it is time to set the record straight.”


Mr Blair – a frequent critic of Jeremy Corbyn’s record as Labour leader – reeled off a string of achievements by governments he led, saying that 1997 to 2010 had seen “the most dramatic improvements in our public services with the largest ever peacetime investment in them”.

He talked up the Government’s work to cut pensioner and child poverty, provide compensation for miners hit by breathing problems – and defended Labour’s changes to the tax and benefit system while in office.

“The poorest 10% of households gained by something like 13% in their incomes, whilst the richest 10% lost by almost 9%,” he said.

Mr Blair added: “We made the UK more equal, more fair and more socially mobile. And we never, ever said inequality didn’t matter or that tackling it was not a priority of the Government.

“And by the way, what we did at home, we also did abroad, trebling help to the poorest countries, mobilising the international community in support of action against global poverty and becoming the first major developed nation to hit the 0.7% of GDP aid target.

“Of course, like any government we had faults, failures and did things people disagreed with.

“But don’t tell me or those who worked with me or those who were part of the Labour Party at the time, that we did nothing for the poorest in our country or the world. We did and we’re proud of it.”

Tony Blair: Jeremy Corbyn's comments that inequality & social mobility have been ignored for decades are the latest charge in what is now a mantra: that the Thatcher, Labour & current Govts are all the same.

This is bad politics & worse history. Time to set the record straight

Categories: America, Foreign Policy

Modi-Xi-Putin Meeting At SCO Summit Vital For Re-Shaping the World Order

Sat, 2019-06-15 16:08

Submitted by Matthew Ehret…

An important convergence of nations occured during the June 13-14 annual Shanghai Cooperation Summit in Bishkek Kyrgyzstan where Presidents Vladimir Putin, Xi Jinping and Prime Minister Naradra Modi met at an event designed to bring together the majority of the Eurasian world under a banner of cooperation. Kyrgyzstan is especially important as it is a gateway uniting the east and west via the Belt and Road Initiative and China-Kyrgyzstan Comprehensive Strategic Partnership. This event comes hot off the heels of Putin and Xi Jinping’s historic meeting at the Kremlin on June 5 where the two leaders solidified their unbreakable friendship which is quickly reshaping the entire world order.

Modi’s announcement of bilateral meetings at the upcoming summit shows great promise as the previous meeting he held with Xi Jinping in Wuhan in 2018 was a leading factor behind the diffusing of tensions being cooked up between both governments by Anglo-American manipulation and which many were fearing could lead to war.

With a newly elected Modi government which is committed to resolving the tension between the two countries, the Xi-Putin-Modi meeting is an especially important bridge into the emerging G20 summit in Osaka Japan on June 28-29 where President Trump has announced he will likely join in bilateral meetings with the 3 leaders. Providing those forces representing the most regressive elements of the U.S. deep state and military industrial complex do not sabotage it, then this meeting could be of extreme value for the world. The need to overcome Trump’s current myopic trade war strategy which is negatively affecting all three countries was a focus of discussion this June 13-14.

Putin Sets the Tone

Putin set the tone for the needed discussion at the upcoming G20 when he discussed the global breakdown of the western financial order, stating on June 6: “the degeneration of the universalist globalisation model and its turning into a parody, a caricature of itself, where common international rules are replaced with the laws, administrative and judicial of one country or a group of states.”

Putin went on to warn of a “fragmentation of the global economic space by a policy of completely unlimited economic egoism and a forced breakdown. But this is the road to endless conflict, trade wars and maybe not just trade wars. Figuratively, this is the road to the ultimate fight of all against all.”

Making the point that only a philosophy of cooperation holds any chance of a durable future, Putin said: “drafting a more stable and fair development model. These agreements should not only be written clearly but should also be observed by all participants. However, I am convinced that talk about an economic world order like this will remain wishful thinking unless we return to the centre of the discussion, that is, notions like sovereignty, the unconditional right of every country to its own development road and, let me add, responsibility for universal sustainable development, not just for ones own development.”

Ultimately, the only solution is win-win cooperation based upon a new operating system outside of the purview of the defunct model of globalisation. If players continue to attempt to operate with the mindset that the western financial system now sitting upon a $700 trillion derivatives bubble will not collapse, and instead attempt to make solutions while remaining on the deck of the Titanic, then only tragic chaos could ensue.

BIO: Matthew J.L. Ehret is a journalist, lecturer and founder of the Canadian Patriot Review. He is an author with The Duran, Strategic Culture Foundation, Fort Russ. His works have been published in Zero Hedge, Executive Intelligence Review, Global Times, Asia Times, L.A. Review of Books, and Sott.net. Matthew has also published the book “The Time has Come for Canada to Join the New Silk Road” and three volumes of the Untold History of Canada (available on untoldhistory.canadianpatriot.org). He can be reached at matt.ehret@tutamail.com

The post Modi-Xi-Putin Meeting At SCO Summit Vital For Re-Shaping the World Order appeared first on The Duran.

Categories: America, Foreign Policy

Boris takes commanding lead in UK PM race, but can he deliver Brexit? (Video)

Fri, 2019-06-14 19:01

The Duran’s Alex Christoforou and Editor-in-Chief Alexander Mercouris discuss Boris Johnson’s impressive first ballot win in the Tory leadership contest to take over the UK Prime Minister job, after Theresa May’s embarrassing tenure, and complete failure to deliver on Brexit.

Remember to Please Subscribe to The Duran’s YouTube Channel.

Follow The Duran Audio Podcast on Soundcloud.

Via BBC…

Boris Johnson has secured the highest number of votes in the first MPs’ ballot to select the Conservative Party leader and next prime minister.

Three contenders – Mark Harper, Andrea Leadsom and Esther McVey – were knocked out in the secret ballot of Tory MPs.

Mr Johnson received 114 votes, significantly more than his nearest rival Jeremy Hunt, who came second with 43. Michael Gove was third with 37.

Seven candidates progress to the next round of voting next week.

The two who prove most popular after the last MPs’ ballot will go to Conservative Party members in a final vote later this month.

The winner of the contest to succeed Theresa May is expected to be announced in the week of 22 July.

Sources close to Health Secretary Matt Hancock told the BBC’s Laura Kuenssberg he was “mulling over” whether to withdraw from the contest after coming sixth with 20 votes.

Home Secretary Sajid Javid, who came fifth with 23 votes, is understood to be staying in the race for now. Some have suggested his candidacy – with support from Mr Hancock – could take on Mr Hunt to become second in the ballot.

Mr Johnson, a former foreign secretary who served for eight years as London mayor, said he was “delighted” to win but warned that his campaign still had “a long way to go”.

Foreign Secretary Mr Hunt said: “Boris did well today but what the result shows is, when it comes to the members’ stage, I’m the man to take him on.”

Environment Secretary Mr Gove said it was “all to play for” and he was “very much looking forward” to candidates’ TV debates on Channel 4 on Sunday and on BBC One next Tuesday.

All 313 Conservative MPs voted in the first ballot, including Mrs May, who refused to say whom she had backed.

The fourth-placed candidate, former Brexit secretary Dominic Raab, said he was “proud and honoured” and he had a “good base to build on”.

Mr Javid said: “I look forward to continuing to share my positive vision and my plan for uniting the country.”

Mr Hancock thanked his supporters, saying it was “terrific to have more votes from colleagues than I could have hoped for”.

And International Development Secretary Rory Stewart, the seventh-placed candidate, told the BBC’s Politics Live he was “completely over the Moon” to have got through the first vote.

He said he had had only six declared votes ahead of the poll, but “more than three times that” had voted for him in the secret ballot.

The margin of success took his fellow candidates by surprise – but not the core of Boris Johnson’s team.

After many, many weeks of private campaigning, introducing Boris Johnson to the world of the spreadsheet, this morning one of his organisers wrote the number 114 and sealed it in an envelope.

At lunchtime, the announcement revealed the controversial former foreign secretary had indeed received exactly that number.

That is not just a marker of the level of Mr Johnson’s support but for the sometimes clownish politician, whose reputation has risen and fallen and then risen again, it’s a sign that it is different this time.

Further ballots are scheduled to take place on 18, 19 and 20 June to whittle down the contenders until only two are left.

The final pair will then be put to a vote of members of the wider Conservative Party from 22 June, with the winner expected to be announced about four weeks later.

The post Boris takes commanding lead in UK PM race, but can he deliver Brexit? (Video) appeared first on The Duran.

Categories: America, Foreign Policy