Turkey And Greece-Israel Heading For A Showdown

Haider Abbas

There are conflict zones or rather war-zones fast developing in the world right now. India is facing Pakistan in Kashmir, China in Ladakh and China is facing US, Japan, Australia, Indonesia and Taiwan in its South China sea, Middle-East is on the boil since a long time, precisely after Iraq was torn to pieces, thereafter Syria became the target where Iran and Russia supported Bashshar Assad regime-while US and Israel want it finished. Israel is locked in dispute with Hezbollah in Lebanon, Palestinians in West Bank & Gaza, in Syria with Assad and with Iran over its influence.  Lot many fast developments are taking place. UAE has decided to open up Israel embassy in Dubai on August 14, 2020, just after ten days when Lebanon blasts had occurred leaving hundreds dead, more than 3,00,000 homeless and property worth billions of USD reduced to ashes. Turkey, which is now home to millions of refugees , in the wake of  years of Syrian conflict, has announced to snap ties with UAE. It is expected that very soon all the Gulf-states will throw a red-carpet to Israel, even if Donald Trump wins the November 2020 elections or not, and there might be an all out war on Iran, with US, Israel, UAE and Kingdom of Saudi Arabia (KSA) as joint-partners. Libya is in ruins. Yemen is devastated and more and more nations seem to take head-on with each other, the latest is Turkey and Greece with an aid from an unexpected quarter: Israel.

Turkey President Tayyip Erdogan has hogged the limelight lately when he on July 11, 2020, citing sovereignty, converted Hagia Sophia, a museum back into a mosque, after  Turkish SC ordered for it, and in its way invited both bouquets and brickbats from all over the world. ‘US disappointed by Turkey’ cried the headline of Khaleej Times, UNESCO expressed its deep regret over Turkey decision to change status of  historic Hagia Sophia said the News.un.org,  and Kingdom of Saudi Arabia which is involved with Turkey over the leadership of the Arab and Muslim world, decided to  force businesses not to trade with Turkey in effort to boost boycott, which came after Hagia Sophia episode. ‘Saudi Arabia has been putting pressure on local businesses not to trade with Turkey and its industries in a bid to boost its unofficial boycott. The detention of trucks carrying produce from Turkey has raised tension between the two countries. Saudi Arabia has been preventing trucks carrying fresh fruit and vegetables from crossing the Saudi border. You (one) cannot even sell Turkish goods from Germany because they ( Saudis) don’t want anything with a ‘Made in Turkey’ stamp’. This is how the Gulf-nations strangulated Turkey while the voices to make ‘Temple-Mount’ at the place of Al Aqsa mosque in East Jerusalem is gaining momentum with every passing day.

Turkey, is now to be under the scanner, as it has long back thrown-off the ‘sick-man-of-Europe tag and no more fancies for a place inside NATO. It has, after the event of Hagia-Sophia, which was opposed more by Muslim countries than Christian or Western states, given a fresh opportunity to be circumvented and curtailed, so that it can never dream of becoming the ‘once-super-power’ that it was . Turkey, has started to scout for oil and gas in the East Mediterranean sea on August 10, 2020 and has warranted a sharp response from Greece, which has prompted Ankara to warn Greece of retaliation in case its survey vessel is attacked.  While speaking in Istanbul on August 14, 2020, Erdogan said that that ‘one of the warships accompanying the exploratory Oruc Reis vessel, the Kemal Reis, had “given the necessary response” to an attack ( by Greece)”If this continues, they will receive their answer in kind,” he said, without specifying which nation’s ships had allegedly attacked Turkey’s. “We can’t let even the smallest attack go without an answer.” Turkey and Greece are vehemently at odds over overlapping claims for hydrocarbon resources in the increasingly volatile region. Greece had responded by dispatching its own military assets, resulting in a mild collision of Greek and Turkish warships which the Greek defence sources said it was an accident but Turkey called it a provocation. Turkey’s warning to Greece came as the European Union’s foreign ministers are meeting on Friday to address the emerging crisis, which has pitted Ankara against its uneasy NATO ally and the entire EU bloc’  .

France, in the wake of the emerging situation, has ‘temporarily-reinforced’ its military presence in the region, which has evoked Ankara to call France a ‘bully’ the same way it acted in Libya, north-east of Syria, Iraq or in Mediterranean and that France ‘will not get anywhere by acting like it’ German Chancellor Angela Merkel has entered the scenario calling for de-escalation of the situation. Greek PM Kyriakos Mitsotakis on August 13, 2020 issued a warning to Turkey and called for its allies which prompted action from France.  Turkey  had ‘put-off’ the exploration by last month following a truce brokered by Germany which it now tends to restart.  France has started flexing its muscles more in the region as its president Emanuel Macron was the first to visit after the Beirut blasts. Lebanon had been a French colony until 1955.

Israel  is at loggerhead with Turkey on many foreign-affairs issues, lately on the point of Al Aqsa mosque which was likened to Hagia Sophia by Erdogan and which ought to be liberated, on July 11, 2020.  Erdogan had also recently on May 26, 2020, said that Turkey won’t allow Israel to annex-parts of West Bank and that Jerusalem is a red-line for Muslims the world over,  “The world order has let down the Palestinians, and has not successfully brought peace, justice, security and order to this part of the world.”Erdogan added that Jerusalem and the Temple Mount are “holy to three religions and are the red line for all Muslims in the world.”

The impasse between Turkey-Greece gave a perfect chance to Israel to dash into the East-Mediterranean waters by the side of Greece.  Israel clearly came  forward to voice its support for Greece. Its foreign ministry released a   ‘ rare declarative statement that “Israel follows closely as tension arises in the Eastern Mediterranean. “Israel expresses its full support and solidarity with Greece in its maritime zones and its right to delimit its EEZ [exclusive economic zone],” Soon after the statement was released, Israel’s Ambassador to Greece Yossi Amrani met with Greek Foreign Minister Nikos Dendias, who later announced he would come to Israel to meet  Foreign Minister Gabi Ashkenazi. The situation in the eastern Mediterranean will be at the top of the agenda.   Israel has surprisingly remained silent on border disputes within Turkey-Greece but the response emanating from Tel Aviv right now speaks of the timings involved.

As Greece seem to be gaining ground Turkey is found to slide as its currency lira is on a historic low. The Economist in its report on August 15, 2020 has given an elaborate report  as Turkish currency is going to a downward spiral, and ‘ despite its state bank efforts to bolster Turkey’s currency, the lira fell to its lowest point since May against the dollar this week ( July 30, 2020) , prompting fears of a renewed currency crisis.

It is under such duress Turkey is aligning with Pakistan to forge an alliance to challenge the leadership of KSA and UAE outside Organisation of Islamic Countries (OIC). KSA has stopped  to give oil to Pakistan on deferred loan and  Pakistan army chief Qamar Javed Bajwa is on a trip to KSA which is said for a ‘partnership too important to fail’ and many eyes are on its outcome.  India is also watching the precarious developments in Middle-East with utmost keenness as all its adversaries Pakistan, Turkey, Iran are in bad waters, with the exception of China.

The Pandemic Has Revealed America’s Zip Code Map of Inequality

Marshall Auerback

It is understandably tempting to drop all the blame for America’s catastrophic response to COVID-19 on the big desk in the Oval Office. But there’s more to the story than epic incompetence, grift and delusion at the highest levels of government. The stark divide in the level of health care from testing to treatment is divided by wealth and the legacy of systemic racism.

In the words of Ed Yong of the Atlantic: “Chronic under-funding of public health neutered the nation’s ability to prevent the pathogen’s spread. A bloated, inefficient health-care system left hospitals ill-prepared for the ensuing wave of sickness. Racist policies that have endured since the days of colonization and slavery left Indigenous and Black Americans especially vulnerable to COVID-19.” Yong could also add Hispanics to that list, along with virtually any person of limited economic means, regardless of race.

In the land of the free and the home of the brave, income and zip code determine everything. And this is not a new phenomenon. In a recent article in Le Monde Diplomatique, historian Thomas Frank quotes physician Dr. Michael A. Shadid, who was a longtime advocate for cooperative health care from the 1920s onward until his death. In his 1947 book, Doctors of Today and Tomorrow, Shadid made the case for socialized medicine on the grounds that “[p]oor people get sick quicker, stay sick longer, need medical aid most, get it least. Some are poor because they are sick. Others are sick because they are poor.”

Nothing has fundamentally changed since Shadid’s time. The United States continues to have the most expensive health care system in the world, yet a 2019 comparison of health indicators in the United States versus those of Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development member countries’ average reveals a system that persistently produces inferior outcomes relative to other nations (in spite of higher expenditures) and has done so for decades.

COVID-19 has both amplified and revealed these long-standing flaws, tragically reflected in its death count, but it is by no means a historical anomaly. Earlier pandemics reveal a similar pattern, suggesting a more widespread systemic problem: namely, that the high death counts relative to the rest of the world are an inescapable consequence of our for-profit, pervasively oligopolistic health care system. The problems of a for-profit health care system are exacerbated by the diversion of resources and skills into militarism, and unequal food distribution systems’ effect on diet and obesity. All of these pre-existing problems contribute to higher mortality rates, as does access to proper medical care, which is heavily circumscribed by income.

In terms of fatalities, COVID-19 now ranks as one of the most severe pandemics in modern history, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). The most deadly was the 1918 influenza pandemic: 50 million deaths globally out of a worldwide population of 1.8 billion, or 2.7 percent, while the U.S. recorded 675,000 fatalities, or 0.65 percent on a per capita basis out of a population of 103 million. The only “good” thing that can be said about the 1918 tragedy is that the United States fared relatively better than the rest of the world, by this measure.

By contrast, a notable feature of four major pandemics over the past 63 years* (the 1957-1958 H2N2 influenza virus, the 1968 H3N2 influenza virus, the 2009 H1N1 influenza virus or so-called “swine flu,” and COVID-19 today) is America’s persistent under-performance in terms of fatalities relative to the rest of the world in spite of the vastly higher sums the country devotes to health care expenditures (in both absolute terms and as a percentage of GDP). For all of the talk about American exceptionalism, the only thing “exceptional” about the U.S. health care system is this profound systemic failure.

The 1957 H2N2 flu virus caused 1.1 million deaths globally out of a worldwide population of 2.9 billion, or 0.038 percent on a per capita basis; whereas in the United States, it caused about 116,000 deaths out of a U.S. population of 178 million, or 0.065 percent on a per capita basis. The 1968 H3N2 virus resulted in 1 million fatalities worldwide out of a global population of 3.6 billion, or 0.028 percent on a per capita basis; in the United States, there were 100,000 deaths out of a population of 203 million, or 0.049 percent on a per capita basis. The 2009 H1N1 virus caused far fewer overall deaths both globally and within the U.S., with 284,000 fatalities globally and a mere 12,469 fatalities in the U.S.; per capita fatality rates were the same (.004 percent on a per capita basis). But COVID-19 has reflected the reversion to American underperformance: as of August 13, confirmed global fatalities (out of a worldwide population of 7.8 billion) were 749,776, or 0.0096 percent on a per capita basis, versus 169,488 deaths in the United States out of an existing population of 331 million, or 0.051 percent on a per capita basis.

Even more disturbing is that American fatalities are profoundly impacted by income disparities. Low-income communities and BIPOC (Black, Indigenous, and people of color) are experiencing substantially higher rates of mortality. Examining by zip code the geographic distribution of the segments of the population most likely to die from COVID-19—BIPOC, as well as people over the age of 65, and those of any age who are nursing home residents (other than those in luxury elderly care facilities)—these three overlapping segments account for most deaths. It may be that in the northern states these most vulnerable people are heavily concentrated in densely populated areas and thus are quickly exposed to infection and die relatively soon after COVID-19 starts spreading in their area. The New York experience validates that assessment.

In the southern and western states, these most vulnerable populations are more widely scattered across vast suburban and rural areas, which likely explains why the United States as a whole has experienced rolling hot spots, in which the more diffuse population centers become infected and die relatively later after the initial outbreaks of the virus that were largely experienced in heavily urbanized regions. We see this pattern manifested in a recent Arizona compilation of new cases by zip code, as AZ Family reports using analysis by CBS 5 Investigates. Arizona has been one of areas most badly affected by COVID-19 during the summer months, and the AZ Family report illustrates that the hotspots for new cases are dominated by zip codes with “large minority populations” living in areas that are rural or on the outskirts of urban centers.

Why is this significant? David Dayen of the American Prospect explains: “Rural hospitals… are in total crisis in the U.S., with 19 closures last year and 120 since 2010. As hospital networks consolidate and strive for ever-greater profits, rural hospitals that fail to bring in the necessary revenue fall away.”

In the same piece, Dayen quotes a study from Health Affairs, which reports that “49 percent of the lowest-income communities had no ICU beds… whereas only 3 percent of the highest-income communities had no ICU beds.” He highlights an extreme example of this problem, originally reported by the Houston Chronicle: the Rio Grande Valley, along the Texas-Mexico border, “home to 1.3 million residents… [with] no public hospital. Starr County is one of the only in America to have to resort to triage, choosing who to care for and who to send home to die.”

Dayen’s analysis illustrates the fundamental flaw in the system: Levels of provision are a function of profitability; they do not reflect health care priorities. Hence the lowest-income hospitals are often shut down, which means worse health care outcomes for residents in these poorly serviced areas.

The other problem in Texas is that the state historically has also featured a high concentration of undocumented (largely Hispanic) immigrants (the second-highest “unauthorized immigrant” population in the U.S., behind only California), who are being forced to work even when sick, since they are, by virtue of their undocumented status, largely excluded from any and all virus-relief economic aid and access to primary health care. As ProPublica noted: “Texas is also the largest state in the nation that refused to expand health insurance for low-income residents under the Affordable Care Act… Nearly a third of adults under 65 in Texas lack health insurance, the worst uninsured rate in the country, and more than 60% of those without health insurance in the state are Hispanic.”

Furthermore, living in crowded multigenerational settings, workers infected on the job come home and risk spreading the illness to their parents and grandparents (many of whom may also have problematic immigration status in the country and risk deportation if they seek to address their health issues). Consequently, Hispanics are now suffering some of the worst health outcomes in the U.S.

With this information in context, it’s clear the more we lay blame at Trump’s feet, the further we’re going to be from confronting that COVID-19 fits neatly into a decades-old pattern of pandemic response. American health care can literally impoverish its citizens even as it undermines their physical well-being. Breaking the pattern can only happen if Americans keep putting pressure on institutionalized racism, get serious about inequality, and flip the switch on our employer-based private health care system.

Domestic Violence in the Time of the Pandemic

Cesar Chelala

One of the most neglected consequences of the rapidly evolving COVID-19 is the increasing violence against women of all ages. UN Women has called it “the shadow pandemic,” and António Guterres, the UN Secretary-General has said, “Peace is not just the absence of war. Many women under lockdown for #COVID19 face violence where they should be safest: in their own homes.”

Domestic violence is not, of course, a new phenomenon. Before the pandemic, it is estimated that 243 million women and girls (aged 15-49) across the world had been victims of sexual or physical violence during the previous 12 months, in most cases perpetrated by an intimate partner. That number has significantly increased alongside the evolution of the pandemic, due in great measure to the necessary stay at home measures imposed by the authorities.

Governments and public health authorities in Argentina, Canada, Spain, Germany, the United States, and the United Kingdom have called attention to domestic violence, and the increased demand for abused women’s emergency shelters. In countries such as Singapore and Cyprus, domestic violence hotlines have registered an increase in calls of more than 30 percent since the start of the pandemic, as have frontline workers in New South Wales, Australia. In China, police departments in the city of Jingzhou received three times as many domestic violence calls for help this past February as in the same time in 2019.

The conditions of isolation foster not only physical but also psychological violence, which can be even more devastating for the victims. In addition to direct violence, other forms of abuse include constant surveillance, strict rules of behavior, and limited access to basic items such as food, clothing and sanitary facilities. All this is complicated by the isolation measures from families and friends. As a result, shelters for abused women and health systems worldwide are now stretched to a breaking point.

It is known that interpersonal violence, particularly cases of domestic violence, increase in times of crisis with growing unemployment, rising numbers of sick people and scarcity of community resources. It is also known that many cases are underreported, making it very difficult to gather statistics that show the real impact of the problem. It is estimated that less than 40 percent of women who suffer violence report the crime or seek any help. The reasons are complex, from fear of reprisal from their abusers, to feelings of shame about the situation, to concerns that both the police and the legal system will be unresponsive to their plight. Of those women who report abuse, only 10 percent go to the police.

The situation becomes even more complex by the release of inmates from prisons which have become a hotbed for the spread of the pandemic. When some of these inmates return home, they recreate the conditions of violence that landed them in prison. That is why victims should be notified about inmate releases and local government should implement preventative and support measures when necessary.

As governments, NGOs and the private sector need to incorporate the gender perspective into all their COVID-19 responses, the U.S. should ratify the Convention on the Elimination of all Forms of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW,) one of the most important legal instruments on women’s rights. The US is the only country in the Americas which has not yet ratified this convention. As a contrast, Canada has signed that convention on July 17, 1980 and ratified it on December 10, 1981.

CEDAW obligates state parties to condemn discrimination in all forms, and to ensure a legal framework to protect women’s basic rights. It also addresses issues such as education, employment, health care, and human trafficking. The US refusal to ratify this convention leads other governments to more easily disregard CEDAW’s mandate and the obligations under it. Particularly now, at a time when violence against women and girls is rising due to the pandemic, the US should respond with concrete actions to secure the rights of women. As stated by Phumzile Mlambo-Ngcuka, Executive Director of UN Women, “We must not only survive the coronavirus, but emerge renewed, with women as a powerful force for recovery.”

White Christian Bigotry

James Haught

Racism is much stronger among America’s white Christians than among churchless whites – and it always has been. That’s the message of a new book by social analyst Robert Jones, head of the Public Religion Research Institute.

White Too Long: The Legacy of White Supremacy in American Christianity contends that white churches didn’t merely adapt the nation’s surrounding racism – but actually fostered it, locking it into the culture. Today, white Christians display more prejudice than non-Christians.

Here’s a sample: PRRI agents asked thousands of people whether police killings of unarmed black men are mere “isolated incidents” or if they reveal deep-rooted hostility to African Americans. Among white evangelicals – the heart of the Republican Party – 71 percent chose “isolated incidents.” But just 38 percent of churchless whites agreed.

Another example: Some 86 percent of white evangelicals think the Confederate flag is “more a symbol of southern pride than of racism” – but only 41 percent of unafilliated whites share that view.

When PRRI interviewers read this statement – “Generations of slavery and discrimination have created conditions that make it difficult for blacks to work their way out of the lower class” – churchless whites agreed at a much higher rate than white Christians did.

Obviously, white Americans who don’t attend church are more sympathetic to downtrodden minorities than white Christians are.

Jones grew up a Southern Baptist and studied at a Southern Baptist seminary before he awakened to the entrenched racism engulfing him. Now he is combating it.

Personally, when I grew up in the 1940s, racism was absolute in America. Blacks were treated as an inferior subspecies. They were forced to live in squalid ghettos, forbidden to enter all-white restaurants, hotels, theaters, pools, parks, clubs, schools, neighborhoods, jobs and the rest of white society. White supremacy steeped America so much that it seemed normal.

I became an adolescent newspaper reporter in the early 1950s, when the civil rights movement barely had begun. In a staff meeing, our editor vowed that our paper never would print “n—-r weddings.” Later, under a new publisher, the paper became a fierce crusader for integration and equality.

The private lake where I lived had bylaws requiring members to be “white Christians,” excluding Jews also. When I filed a proposal to admit minorities, leaders panicked and canceled the annual meeting. But the lake eventually integrated. (Technically, I didn’t fit the Christian requirement, because I was a renegade Unitarian.)

At that time, I didn’t notice that white churches fostered segregation any more than all other elements of society did. But I defer to the greater knowledge of Jones, who has spent his life studying this field.

As PRRI agents surveyed thousands of Americans, Jones created a “racism index” to identify which groups are most bigoted. White evangelicals scored highest at 78 percent. Irreligious whites rated 42 percent. He told CNN:

President Trump, who has put white supremacy front and center, has brought these issues from just barely below the surface into plain view…. White Christians have inherited a worldview that has Christians on top of other religions, men over women, whites over blacks.

Kashmir Dispute: A Result Of Broken Promises

Sameer Ul Haq

In the words of JL Nehru, “Kashmir is not commodity for sale or to be bartered. It has an individual existence and its people must be the final arbiters of their future”.

As on this week Pakistan and India are celebrating 73 years of their Independence. The partition of Indian subcontinent in 1947 witnessed the end of the British Colonial rule and the subsequent birth of Muslim majority Pakistan and Hindu majority India respectively. However, the horrifying outcome in the whole partition process culminated into the birth of Kashmir dispute which had catastrophic and devastating consequences for Kashmiris in general. The partition left a number of legacies behind but the more catastrophic one is the contested legacy of Kashmir conflict which is lingering from seven decades between the two nuclear and which had claimed hundreds of thousands of lives so far. Not much has changed in the intervening seven decades for those living in the both sides of the divided Kashmir who are stuck in the middle of the violence and upheaval.

Immediately after the partition there started one of the greatest migrations in the annals of the world history, as millions of Muslim’s trekked to west and East Pakistan (now Bangladesh). While millions of Hindus and Sikhs headed towards the opposite direction, many hundreds of thousands never made it to the destined end. History records that both the communities were aggressors and victims and between a million and half people were killed. The honour and dignity of tens of thousands of women were trampled mercilessly. Not only this, the partition led to the overwhelming refugee crisis as well.

Just after six weeks of Mountbatten plan (also known as 3rd June plan) the British government transferred the power to the two countries on 14th and 15th 1947 and Pakistan and India became the Independent Nations. With the Independence act of 1947 the British paramountcy over the princely states lapsed and they become independent and were free to accede either of the two dominions or to remain independent (however the third option always remained theoretical). Generally speaking, at the time of partition there were around 562 princely states. One of the outlined features of the Mountbatten plan was that “the princely states should enjoy the liberty to join either India or Pakistan or ever remain independent. Most of the princely states joined the dominion of India and Pakistan without any major hindrance except three states namely Kashmir, Jaungrah and Hyderabad. Later on Nawab of Jaungrah decided to join Pakistan but India gloated over the democratic credentials and did not care for Nawab’s words and the aspiration of his people and annexed it through military action. The pretext of justification was that Muslim ruler can’t decide the fate of the population. The erstwhile state of Hyderabad which was ruled by Nizam wanted to remain free from the both dominions but suffered the same fate as that of Jaungrah.

The princely state of Jammu and Kashmir at the time of partition was ruled by an autocratic Hindu Monarch Maharaja Hari Singh, whose majority of subjects were not his co-religionists but happened to be the adherents of Islam. Hari Singh preferred to remain independent from both the dominions due to many reasons. From Aug. 15 to Oct. 26 (1947) the state of J&K was free from both the newly formed two nations. However the plans of Maharaja were initially thwarted by an indigenous uprising of what Christopher Snedden calls a ‘Poonch Rebellion’ with active support from across the border, as traditional social links of the Poonch Muslims were far more than with what was new Pakistan than with any part of the state of Jammu and Kashmir. Therefore, during the month of October 1947, Maharaja covetously and without caring from emotions and sentiments of his Muslim subjects signed a temporary instrument of accession, with a condition that Plebiscite would be held and the people of Kashmir will be given the right to self-determination..

Many scholars, academicians, historians and political analysts contest the validity and veracity of the accession agreement on the grounds that the Hindu Maharaja (a monarch per se) ruling over Muslim majority state had no moral and legal authority to the accession document. Alaster Lamb, a well-known historian of modern times in his magnum opus book contests the signature of Maharaja on the instrument document of 26 Oct 1947 .While as Andrew Whitehead, the author of “A Mission in Kashmir” claims, “I tried to see original documents of accession but the Indian state failed to show him.” Some believe that accession actually never happened at all while others call the signatures as forged and fake.

When the first batch of Indian forces flew to Srinagar on 27 October, Mountbatten wrote to Maharaja that as soon as law and order is being restored in Kashmir the question of states accession should be settled by considering the wishes and aspirations of the masses. On 2 November 1947 Indian Prime Minister Jawaharlal Lal Nehru repeated Mountbatten’s assurance in a broadcast, “we have decided that fate of Kashmir is ultimately to be decided by the people of state”. Prior to this, Nehru had even assured the PM of Pakistan, Liauqat Ali Khan on October 31, 1947 that India’s pledge to hold a plebiscite in Kashmir on whether it should accede to India or Pakistan is not merely a pledge to your government but also to the people of Kashmir. Nehru while addressing the Indian Parliament on August 1952 made it clear, “it was inevitable that the princes and others,  whoever they might be whether they acknowledge it or not, whether they wanted it or not,  it is immaterial and must acknowledge the suzerainty, the sovereign domain of the Republic of India.”

The focal point of the whole debate is that Kashmir issue is an unfinished agenda of partition. It was India and not Pakistan that took the Kashmir dispute to the United Nations. Nothing can be more ironic than the fact that it is India which is averse to the United Nation’s intervention on Kashmir issue. Indian state is now desperate to change the whole narrative of the Kashmir issue. On January 1948 the security council of the United Nations was called upon by the government of India to intervene in Kashmir conflict in order to seek a peaceful settlement to the dispute. On 21 April 1948, the Security Council adopted a resolution 47, which called for an immediate ceasefire in Kashmir and for the withdrawal of the troops of both countries so that the UN sponsored referendum could be held. It further stressed that arrangements should be made and the Kashmiri people should be asked whether they want to stay with India or with Pakistan. Ironically after the lapse of 73 years the Kashmir dispute is caught between the devil and the deep sea and the people are like being hostages to the New Delhi’s highhandedness. .

Since, both India and Pakistan from past seven decades have fought four wars so far which had resulted in the killings of hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians and the destruction of property worth billions of dollars, Indian state in order to kill the dissent in Kashmir had let loose the reign of terror and is following the policy of brutal suppression. It had not worked democratically and positively and had undermined the dozens of UN resolutions which had only made Kashmir’s resolution a far reality. Indian government is using the muscle power from last 73 years and is pushing the oppressed Kashmiris to the dead end. Kashmir dispute have the potential to ignite the flames of nuclear war which will bring disaster not only in the two warring countries but in the whole South Asia. History is witness to the fact that seven decades had passed and the promises made with Kashmiris is yet to be fulfilled.

The Bangladesh Crisis: Growth Without Development, Youth Bulge, and Degeneration

Taj Hashmi

In view of the prevalent political deadlock, growth-oriented economic development, or growth-without-development – which is simultaneously stagnating and misleading due to inflated GDP growth estimate by the Government – and the absence of the rule of law and accountability of the government, especially since 2007, Bangladesh finds itself in a political cul-de-sac. Why so? The prevalent stalemate under a one-party dictatorship, which abducts and executes dissidents and suspected “troublemakers” through extra-judicial means (only the fortunate few returns alive) is only comparable with what Germany and Italy went through in the 1930s-1940s, and Bangladesh during its Liberation War in 1971. While scholars and laymen having exposure to the history of Bangladesh during the colonial and postcolonial periods, and even those who grew up in the country during the first twenty years after the Liberation, are often optimistic about the future of the country. They think since Bengalis fought against all odds – against nature and bad rulers – in the past, particularly against the British colonial rule, oppressive elites, landlords and moneylenders, and last but not least, against the Pakistani occupation Army, Mujib’s proto-Gestapo forces, and Ershad’s corrupt autocracy, people’s resilience will pay off at the end of the day.

One is not sure if the Bangladeshi nation will repeat its glorious history! One believes the qualitative differences between the Bangladeshis in the not-so-distant past up to the 1990s (when dictator Ershad was toppled by a peaceful mass movement) and their counterparts today are the countervailing factors in the 2020s. We know to hope for a change for the better inspires people to fight, sacrifice, and win at the end. The bulk of the people in what is Bangladesh today fought the British, Pakistanis, and indigenous autocrats up to the 1990s. However, they were disillusioned again and again. As Pakistan disappointed them so did the corrupt regimes in post-Liberation Bangladesh. Once bitten twice shy! Meanwhile, there have been some major qualitative changes in the demography of the country. There has been a substantial youth bulge, around 40 per cent of the population are in the age-group of 18 and 29. Then again, thanks to the rapid and sharp qualitative decline in the standard of higher education since the fast adoption of Bengali as the medium of college education under the Ershad regime, the overwhelming majority of Bangladeshi college/university graduates from Bengali medium institutions are simply not employable in the private sector (where the employees’ efficiency is the prime concern of the employers). No wonder, tens of thousands of skilled Indians work in Bangladesh and remit several billion dollars to India out of Bangladesh!

The World Bank in its 2019 Report has revealed some distressing and frightening statistics with regard to the rate of unemployment among university graduates from the affiliated colleges of the National University, whose proficiency in English is next to zero. As of March 2019, their unemployment rate is 46 per cent, over two million job seekers enter the market every year. There has been a mass exodus of bright students and almost all the children from the well-to-do classes in the country, who can afford to leave Bangladesh as students and/or prospective employees in North America, Europe, Australia, and elsewhere. Although we do not have any correct statistics, one may assume the number of employable and/or students educated in the English medium schools and universities who are abroad should be in the multiple millions. They are both economic and political immigrants, who are least likely to come back to their motherland to ever live there permanently. So, the country, in short, is infested with the crises of gainful employability of bright people, governance, and security. Those who could change the system by overthrowing the fascistic one-party regime are either out of the country/waiting for their exit visa or are suffering the pain of unemployment and under-employment. Millions of these young people are either drug-addicted or desperately competing against each other for scarce job opportunities. Many of them have joined organized criminal groups and/or the ruling party as activists for making quick money through extortion and corrupt means by using the law-enforcers as their shield. The youths, like their parents and other senior family members, are fast getting thoroughly immoral and degenerated.

And, we know, immoral people neither have the wherewithal nor the will to change society for a better future! Thus, any equation of economic crisis and lack of security of life, honour and property with corresponding social unrest, rebellion, or revolution in Bangladesh is bound to be an oversimplified one! The country during the post-Zia period, on the one hand, has more wealth, much higher GDP growth rate than ever before in the last 200-odd years, and a much higher rate of literacy as well; but on the other, the absolute and proportionate numbers of educated people in the country have declined tremendously since the 1980s. Thus, for the honest and patriotic people, hopelessness has replaced hope, and escapism and fear have replaced their resilience and will to change for the better. Only someone with a crystal ball might be able to tell us what is in store for Bangladesh, which is one of the most over-populated, backward, and underdeveloped countries in the world, in the coming decades! Meanwhile, thanks to absolute degeneration and dysfunctionality in every sphere of society, seemingly, people have become totally insensitive to rampant corruption and human rights violation by law-enforcers or ruling party activists. Bangladesh today – despite high GDP growth due to the income generated by garment factories’ slave labour and ill-paid expatriate workers abroad is comparable with any dysfunctional country in the world.

Globally Governments Gang-up with AstraZeneca; Indemnifying It Against COVID-19 Vaccine Dangers!

P. S. Sahni

“Cancel all … agreements that compromise the fundamental interests of the Indian people, particularly those imposed on behalf of global corporations …”

• • A People’s Manifesto for Ecological Democracy by Countercurrents Collective

Oxford University, England backed by the British Government in collaboration with multinational drug corporation AstraZeneca (British, Swedish origin) is reported to have completed Phase-1, II trials of its newly-discovered COVID-19 vaccine – so reports a British medical journal, Lancet in its online edition dated 20 July, 2020.

A British news agency, Reuters informed the world about these developments. AstraZeneca then tied up with Serum Institute of India (SII), Pune, India (a private enterprise) for mass production of this vaccine and also to conduct the next phases of clinical trials. The Drug Controller of India is reported to have asked SII to start from phase II and proceed on to phase III of these trials. SII has entered into a new partnership with Gavi, the Vaccine Alliance & the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation to speed up the process of manufacture and delivery of up to 100 million doses of COVID-19 vaccine for India and other third world countries – at least 92 in number.

A mass producer of this vaccine will face a conflict of interest. Since it already has enough orders, what prevents fudging of data to ensure that all the phases of the trial go without a hiccup? Honest trials might entail loss of windfall gains. Besides how much ethically and scientifically could such trials proceed when there is a monumental order for supply dangling like a carrot in front of the enterprise – and this when even the results of Phase II (being repeated in India, though white skinned people in Britain have already been tested) have not been reported/scrutinized in any medical journal. What if the results of Phase II trials in India are anything but, encouraging or are different from those in U.K.

As if this was not scandalous enough AstraZeneca wants – rather demands – indemnity against side effects of this vaccine for the next four years! What audacity; what gumption? Recall that top level officials of MNC Bayer faced jail terms handed over at Nuremberg Trials. How can AstraZeneca escape liability were any catastrophe to occur?

It could be taken as a given that heads of ninety-two odd countries, mostly former colonies of Great Britain, have either given/are in the process of giving a tacit approval to this humongous medical monstrosity masquerading as a trial. In 1930s, Hitler could boast of roping in one MNC, to wit Bayer, for unethical medical experimentation. In a role reversal now in the year 2020 one MNC – AstraZeneca – has forced ninety-two odd geographical entities to sign on the dotted line. AstraZeneca is in effect actually extorting blank, signed death warrants of citizens from their respective governments.

It is true that the USA – a onetime British colony – has also allowed trials of Oxford vaccine on its citizens. In 2005 a law was enacted in USA to the effect that if a vaccine manufacturer produces a vaccine during an acute medical crises of national importance, and the vaccine produces serious side effects the manufacturer stands indemnified in public interest. (Evidence enough that MNCs control and run governments.) In other words the American people were allowed to be used as guinea pigs in such circumstances. No other country has such a law. But AstraZeneca has been arm twisting governments of 92 countries in first go to enact similar legislation. Expect an Ordinance to the effect in India around 8 p.m. any day in the near future.

Just a Google search on the shenanigans of AstraZeneca – a plain compilation of number of times AstraZeneca has been sued in courts of law and ordered to pay compensation to governments and patients, even going in for out-of court settlement – would be sufficient to put anyone on guard. Only a head of state with an IQ well below that of a congenital idiot would put its people on the chopping block.

It is commonsensical knowledge what side effects could ensue from any new drug/vaccine. The new vaccine could set off – any new disease, disability or death; abortion and fertility issues; congenital defects; genetic mutations in future generations. Mercifully of course the vaccine could prove to be useless and harmless. But who is going to pay compensation if any such problem arises in first four years of the use of this vaccine? As AstraZeneca demands indemnity for this period governments globally would have to ensure payment of damages – which could see governments go bankrupt.

Astra and the thalidomide disaster

Astra AB – predecessor of AstraZeneca – based in Sweden distributed a drug Neurosedyn, which was a prescription free sedative; the drug was developed in Germany and sold under the name thalidomide in other countries. “In late 1961 this drug was connected to a number of birth defects in Germany and was withdrawn from the German market. Three weeks later Astra’s Neurosedyn was withdrawn in Sweden, after having been on the market slightly less than three years.” It turned out that about 100 Swedish children had suffered deformation from their mother’s taking the drug during their pregnancy. Worldwide 10,000 deformed children were born. Astra had to reach a settlement with the victims in 1969. “This turn of events led to a revision of safety thinking in drug development, and to date it is still considered as the worst tragedy and scandal in the history of the Swedish pharmaceutical industry.” Has AstraZeneca in the year 2020 forgotten its own history! (Wikipedia – Astra AB)

‘Great Britain’ needs to be reminded that the sun had set on the empire long time back; it is now a small island nation – even sliced off from EU; at best a lapdog of USA. Gone are the days when inhabitants of its colonies could be used as fodder for its WW-I, WW-II armies; it should no longer dare demand clinical trials on non-whites, Africans, Asians, South Americans, people of its erstwhile colonies, or even those who were colonized by other colonial powers as obnoxious as the British and those countries derogatorily referred to as under-developed or less-developed. Will someone please explain to those carrying the white man’s burden that even if a charitable clinic offers free medical services to the poorest of the poor and the poor person dies, the charity provider cannot escape responsibility and accountability. In the case of Oxford vaccine the buck stops at Buckingham Palace! Is the Queen listening or is she still in hiding in a remote corner of Windsor Castle – as per media reports last pouring in – when the coronavirus pandemic had just hit Great Britain.

British Government suppressed information about the 1918 pandemic

A hundred years earlier the British government tried its best to ensure that the world would not know about the 1918 flu pandemic which affected an estimated five hundred million people and killed up to fifty million worldwide. News of the pandemic, it was felt, could adversely affect its war efforts on so many fronts then. It was Spain – which had no such interest – which let the world know that a flu pandemic is on. The term ‘Spanish Flu’ does not connote that the flu started in Spain – rather Spain sent the news to the whole world. So Great Britain actually helped spread the 1918 flu pandemic! Can it be trusted in 2020? Should it not be apologizing to the world community at least now for its treacherous role then?

Mark Honigsbaum writes in Regulating the 1918–19 Pandemic: Flu, Stoicism and the Northcliffe Press:

“The first Britons knew of the flu was in late May when the Daily Express and the Daily Mail ran brief reports about a ‘mysterious epidemic’ in Spain. Wary of frightening the public, the British Medical Journal (BMJ) dismissed the reports as ‘alarmist’ while The Lancet ignored them entirely.”

Late in the spring of 1918 the Spanish wire news service Agencia Fabra sent cables to Reuter’s news service headquarters in London about the spread of flu cases. Reuters subserved the interest of its British rulers; a decade later the Associated Press (AP) followed in the footsteps of Reuters under Hitler’s Germany. Both these news agencies butchered journalist ethics.

Oxford University develops/discovers a vaccine for COVID-19 and then hands it over to AstraZeneca on a silver platter. Since the whole world knows by now that AstraZeneca has made it clear that it has to be indemnified for the first four years of the use of its vaccine, is Oxford University comfortable with this diktat of the MNC? Worse, or is it party to this conditionality? The historical role of middle class academicians/professionals is to raise questions on the establishment. Has Oxford University professors all but forgotten it?

How Billionaires Took Over Liberalism and Destroyed It

Eric Zuesse

They’ve done it via the ‘news’-media — their propaganda-operations. So, this is about how billionaires do that; how they’ve done it.

Ever since at least the time of Thucydides in the 5th century BC, the wealthiest have ruled, and did it by conquest and plunder. The acquisition of exceptional wealth was by theft: it was coercion, which could be either physical against the body (violence), or mental against the mind (deception). Exceptional wealth was acquired by some form of theft. The wealthiest controlled the government, which then enforced that theft as legal “ownership.” That’s how the economy worked. The government is the ultimate authority on who owns what. None of this has changed over the millennia. However, the technologies today are different, depending less on the wielding of steely weapons, and more on the statement of stealthy words, than in the ancient past. Increasingly, control is being achieved by deceiving the public. (For example, America’s leading liberal politician, Joe Biden, was one of the U.S. Senate’s leading segregationists and back-room opponents of the NAACP, but claims to be a supporter of “civil rights”, and is thus voted for by the overwhelming majority of America’s Blacks — but America’s press hides his segregationist record, and so they don’t know about it. Those voters’ ignorance is that politician’s strength, and it all comes from America’s billionaires.) Today’s methods of deceiving (and thus controlling) the public are considerably more sophisticated and professional than in the past. The aristocracy (the billionaires) do it nowadays mainly by means of their buying and selling, and hiring and firing, of the news-media, which thus have far more importance than in ancient times, because deceit is today’s main way to control the public.

Whereas conservative media rely unashamedly upon the existing popular mythology, liberal media need to rely upon that but to pretend not to, and to be instead ‘humanitarian’ and ‘enlightened’ in a more tolerant and open-minded sense: they specialize in hypocrisy — it’s liberal aristocrats’ particular style of art-form; they’re the ‘not conservative’ type of aristocrats. They pretend to be what they aren’t (champions of democracy — which they actually despise and crave to overcome, if it exists at all).

Progressive media (to the extent they exist at all, which is only very slight, anywhere) avoid both hypocrisy and mythology: they are openly anti-aristocratic, and rejecting also any mythology — they are populist, while not affirming the popular (or any) mythology. (By contrast: conservative ‘populists’ are committed to the existing popular mythology, and can therefore be manipulated by openly conservative aristocrats — they can be “Tories,” or even “Nazis,” and they can therefore vote against their own “class interests.” It’s stupid, but conservative ‘populists’ nonetheless do it routinely.)

As a result of this (since the progressives’ appeal — rejecting both the aristocracy and the mythology — is so small), politics almost invariably pits conservatives against liberals, and therefore promotes dictatorship (rule of the nation by its aristocracy), either way.

This means that, almost invariably, it’s either the conservative aristocrats, or else the liberal aristocrats, who rule a country. (Democracy — rule by the public — is thus very rare.)

Perhaps the most famous of all liberal news-media during the Twentieth Century was Britain’s Guardian newspaper, which was anti-imperialist — and that’s a core component of progressivism, because the aristocracy derive wealth not only by exploiting their domestic public, but also (if they are internationally successful, meaning control vassal-nations) by exploiting foreign publics. These aristocrats exploit foreign publics by controlling foreign governments. That’s called “imperialism.”

The Guardian newspaper was widely considered, until recently, to be not only liberal, but even progressive. It promoted government-expenditures for the benefit of the people, instead of for international conquest (which billionaires much prefer). Consequently, the aristocracy hated it, and wanted to take it over.

Tragically, that newspaper was, in fact, taken over, culminating in 2016, by American billionaires’ ‘charities’, and promptly it became perhaps the world’s most-rabidly pro-imperialistic propaganda-sheet (even worse than America’s own Washington Post and New York Times, both of which were infamous villains, which had, for example, helped to promote George W. Bush’s lies to invade and destroy Iraq for WMD that didn’t even exist except in their own lies about the matter — and those were definitely lies, not mere errors such as the liars and their propaganda-media claimed afterward). They are constantly whipping up hatred against Russia’s Government and against any nations (like Iraq 2003, Libya 2011, Syria 2012, Ukraine 2014, and Venezuela 2015, were, and like China and Iran are now) that were friendly toward Russia — because Russia is the main country that America’s billionaires want to conquer and control that they don’t yet  control. So, they constantly propagandize against Russia, where they all want “regime change” (meaning, actually, conquest).

Just as for at least the past 2,500 years, conquest is the aristocracy’s chief goal. All aristocrats support imperialism. (Any who would oppose it would no longer be accepted within the aristocracy. It would hurt them in their business-dealings with other aristocrats. Amongst their fellow aristocrats, they would be rejected.)

This journalistic transformation at the Guardian, from anti-imperialist, to becoming a champion of the Military-Industrial Complex (which is owned and controlled by the billionaires), is typical.

Understanding this transformation toward pure propaganda is helpful in order to understand the functioning of today’s most destructive Government, the U.S. Government — the country (whose Government is controlled by its billionaires — no democracy) that has perpetrated far more invasions and coups, and done far more damage in and to the world, than all other Governments in the world combined, ever since the end of World War II. It has mass-murdered tens of millions of people, not only via invasions, but by coups that were followed by U.S.-imposed brutal dictatorships (which served the U.S. aristocracy) — and all the while with the U.S. regime pretending to advance ‘democracy’ and ‘human rights’ (such as in Iraq 2003-, Libya 2011-, and Syria 2012-). (After all: it’s liberal; it is hypocritical — it pretends to be progressive but isn’t.)

Though this incredibly hypocritical global-tyrannical U.S. regime is accepted world-wide, as if it weren’t today’s equivalent of Nazi Germany (only bigger than that), it is by far the world’s most evil Government, much as Nazi Germany’s Government was, in its time. Whereas America under President FDR (who was sincerely an enemy of Nazi Germany) was largely a democracy, America is now an aristocracy of its billionaires — a dictatorship by its own super-rich (and they are vicious, comparable to what Germany’s Nazis were, though using far more-liberal rhetoric).

A typical example of today’s Guardian (which is no longer a newspaper but just an online propaganda-site funded by those billionaires’ ‘charities’, and by readers who are stupid enough to donate and pay in order to be deceived by ‘news’ they read there) is two ‘news’-reports that were published in the Guardian on the same day, and unconnected with one-another except that they were both fact-less, undocumented, and rabidly hateful against Russia’s Government — that’s to say, against the bête noire of American-and-allied (such as UK) billionaires.

On 16 July 2020, the Guardian headlined both “Russian state-sponsored hackers target Covid-19 vaccine researchers” and “UK says Russia sought to interfere in 2019 election by spreading documents online”. Both were probably lies, but certainly unverified by any clear facts — totally uninformative, and just strings of allegations, pure war-propaganda — much of it stenographically citing from official government sources in the U.S. and UK dictatorships (just like the “WMD in Iraq” lie was).

The Guardian is now a typical liberal ‘news’-medium, which means that it is at least as imperialistic as the openly conservative ‘news’-media (such as Rupert Murdoch’s Times of London) are.

To show how such propaganda is created and spread, and has been used with enormous success by the millions of hired agents (including publicly elected governmental officials) of the U.S. aristocracy, a few examples will be cited here that have already been sufficiently studied and exposed to be frauds — such as those two ‘news’-stories in the July 16th Guardian have not yet been exposed, but (based on that ‘news’-medium’s record) probably also are frauds.

On August 7th, I headlined “‘Russiagate’ Hoax Unravels, but Their Anti-Russia Sanctions Don’t,” and documented, in considerable detail, the fraudulence of the main U.S. Government hoax against Russia, a hoax that was promulgated in the Mueller Report and in all of the Democratic-Party-created “Russiagate” case against America’s current atrocious (Republican-Party-billionaire-representing) President, Donald Trump (accusing him of being ‘a puppet of Putin’).

What’s stunning there is that, with such a horrid President as Trump, the Democrats selected this hoaxed case to bring against him, in order to force him out of office — as if there weren’t authentic crimes that he had been perpetrating during his Presidency (and even before). They refused to bring any of the authentic cases against him, because they — the Democratic Party itself, its own Senators and Representatives and the Democratic National Committee — were themselves participating in those crimes (such as this and this and this and this). So, they instead brought this “Russiagate” case (which had been manufactured by the prior, Democratic Party, President’s Administration, in conjunction with MI6; and, so, Democratic Party officials could bring it), which is entirely disprovable. All of their ‘news’-media (such as the New York Times, and the Washington Post, and even the formerly British Guardian) therefore hid the hoaxiness of the charges, so as to sucker the Democratic Party’s voters (their readers) into supporting their own Democratic-Party-billionaire-serving politicians, instead of the Republican Party ones, who instead represented Republican Party billionaires. The villain was Russia (their bête noire), instead of Hillary Clinton and their own controlling aristocracy.

That “Russiagate” case in the United States was co-created by America’s CIA and Britain’s MI6; so, not only was it a real crime by the (traitorous) U.S. Government against its own American public, but it was a fictitious crime also by a foreign Government (Russia, ‘the enemy’), against the American people. And, as I have also documented, there are many such governmental crimes. And the more that they can be blamed against countries that America’s aristocracy wants to conquer (such as “Russiagate” was), the better it is for America’s aristocrats. So, this is the routine reality now (and under Trump it has increasingly been also against Iran and China), so as to pump up the Military-Industrial Complex, which is virtually owned by the aristocracy.

I document many things that are consistently denied in America’s mainstream ‘news’-media, and therefore none of those media will publish these articles (though all of my articles are submitted to all of them); but, just today as I am writing, a webmaster at a non-mainstream site objected because I provide “too many” links. Even though he operates an online news-site, he fails to know or respect the fact that ONLY online text-articles possess even the ability to enable their readers to check out easily — just by the reader’s clicking onto a link — the evidence for any reasonably questionable allegation that is being made in the given article (such as this one). Broadcast journalism doesn’t do that. Paper-and-ink journalism also doesn’t. Therefore, all of the traditional ‘news’-media don’t empower their audiences to be intelligently skeptical, and to have easy access to the actual evidence behind any reasonably questionable assertion that is being put forth by them.

Furthermore, even when traditional ‘news’-media establish online sites, any links there are often uninformative, such as to that site’s own archive of references to a given term that is being linked in their article. They assume that you trust one Party or the other, and they provide no easy means of digging deeper — because they don’t want their audience to be able to understand. Those are all billionaire-controlled ‘news’-media. So, all of them lie routinely, in order to advance the business-interests of those owners and control their audience. It’s like they are just nonstop advertisements instead of real news-media. And, since there are no links to their ultimate sources, those audiences would have to become investigators, themselves, in order to separate out which allegations are facts and which allegations are frauds. Readers don’t have the time to do that; and listeners don’t have any way in which they can do it, even if they did have the time. In other words: those audiences will choose to believe and to disbelieve whatever they want. This is the reason for the increasing political-Party polarization. It has become so bad in America now, so that the current U.S. Presidential election is between two rabidly racist contenders: the openly conservative one, Donald Trump, who hardly even tries to hide his racism, versus the other, Joe Biden, who does try to hide the fact that he was one of the U.S. Senate’s leading segregationists and was even allied on segregation-issues with the Senate’s leading segregationist, the Republican Party’s Senator Jesse Helms. Only by means of the ‘news’-media’s hiding Biden’s White-supremacist background, can they pretend that the two Parties are offering the electorate a ‘progressive’ option, in the billionaires’ 2020 Presidential (s)‘election’. Non-racist Americans are offered, by the billionaires’ two Parties, only White-supremacist options (the overtly segregationist Trump, or else the covertly segregationist Biden) to vote for to become the next President.

The entire national public then increasingly consists of people who are prejudiced in whatever ways that they are — increasingly set in their existing false beliefs — their existing myths. To allow billionaires to place their heavy thumbs upon the scales of truth and justice that they own, by means of their control over ‘news’-media, is a sure way for any democracy to degenerate into dictatorship, so that the public are fighting more against each other than against the aristocracy. This is what billionaires want and what has happened. Some things change, but others remain the same. And rule-by-the-richest seems to be in the latter category.

So: this is how one of the very few remaining progressive news-media became switched, in just the past few years, to being whored to the liberal aristocracy. The Guardian, RIP, was almost the opposite of today’s Guardian.

On August 10th, Jonathan Cook, who used to be a Guardian journalist when it was its previous, progressive newspaper, headlined “How the Guardian betrayed not only Corbyn but the last vestiges of British democracy”, and he exposed his former employer as the opposite of what it had been and as having become perhaps even the chief tool by billionaires to destroy the post-Tony-Blair Labour Party which had been led by the progressive Jeremy Corbyn, and as having reflected the Labour Party billionaires’ preference instead to defeat Corby’s Labour Party, in order to help to install as Prime Minister the far-right Tory Boris Johnson so as to restore, as being that Conservative Party’s opposition, the pro-imperialist Labour Party that had joined itself full-force to George W. Bush’s lie-based invasion of Iraq in 2003. “Racism was endemic in the language and behaviours of Labour’s senior, rightwing officials,” whom today’s Guardian had helped to make the Labour Party’s current leaders. This new Guardian was the opposite of the old Guardian, which had given a voice “for control of the Labour party so that it might really represent the poor and vulnerable against rule by the rich.” Today’s Guardian was instead instrumental in killing–off  that Labour Party, and thereby leaving UK with no progressive party at all, and without even a single Party that has any actually functioning progressive wing to it, at all.

The way that billionaires took over liberalism and destroyed it is by their having taken control over non-conservative media (most of which were liberal, but a few of which were even progressive, as the Guardian used to be) and stripped out of them any opposition that those media previously had had toward imperialism, and replaced that by championing imperialism, so long as it’s of the ‘right’ kind, namely sanctions and coups and invasions by ‘our’ country, against countries that never even threatened one’s own country (but that are friendly toward Russia). By definition, attempting to conquer a country that isn’t attempting to conquer that aggressor-country is the biggest of all international war-crimes; it’s “aggressive war” — and Nazi leaders were hanged for it at Nuremberg — but it’s entirely unpunished when the world’s most powerful country (and its allies) are doing it, such as now. A popular term for it (i.e., for the supreme crime that was being prosecuted at the Nuremberg Tribunals) today is “neoconservatism,” and the only way in which it differs from the Nazi Party is that America’s aggressions are aiming at different targets to destroy.

The easiest way to end democracy is to take control over the news-media so as to make them instead ‘news’-media; and, therefore, that’s the way it has been done.