Mostrar mensagens com a etiqueta Biden. Mostrar todas as mensagens
Mostrar mensagens com a etiqueta Biden. Mostrar todas as mensagens

terça-feira, 24 de outubro de 2023

[CRÓNICA(Nº19) DA IIIª GUERRA MUNDIAL] A GUERRA VISTA POR OUTRO ÂNGULO

                    Foto: Intenso bombardeamento de Gaza City pela aviação israelita

CONTRASTE ENTRE DINÂMICAS DE DESENVOLVIMENTO E DE GUERRA 

 Na semana passada, o  Fórum das Novas Rotas da Seda em Pequim incluiu - para a integração Euroasiática - investimentos totalizando cerca de 100 biliões de dólares em projetos para novas infraestruturas e para desenvolvimento.

Há dois dias, o presidente Biden apresentou ao Congresso um projeto, votado por unanimidade, consistindo em ajuda militar totalizando mais de cem biliões de dólares, cerca de 60 biliões para  Ucrânia (para comprar mais armas), e para Israel uns 40 biliões (sobretudo para compra de força aérea e mísseis ).

As motivações das águias e falcões imperiais são transparentes, como aponta Pepe Escobar, no seu mais recente artigo.


PARECE-ME FATAL QUE ESTA GUERRA SE GENERALIZE A VÁRIOS VIZINHOS DE ISRAEL. 

Pois a questão central que se coloca é que nenhum muçulmano, seja qual for a sua tendência política, religiosa ou sua nação pode ver tranquilamente a aniquilação de um povo irmão (muçulmano) indefeso em Gaza, sem ficar tremendamente indignado e desejoso de vingança. Os que governam os países árabes da região podem não ser muito ardentes defensores da causa palestiniana, mas se não se mostrarem em sintonia com as massas, podem ter, internamente, que enfrentar uma rebelião. O presidente Erdogan da Turquia está ciente disso, ele sabe que o povo não esqueceu a afronta feita em 2008, com o assassinato de civis turcos, num barco destinado a entregar ajuda humanitária  a Gaza, brutalmente atacado pela marinha guarda-costeira israelita. A marinha de guerra turca está posicionada perto de Israel, ao largo de Chipre.

Seja qual for o desenrolar desta guerra assimétrica Israel-Palestina, o certo é que o campo pró-palestiniano está reforçado como nunca,  inclusive, as simpatias pelo Hamas cresceram muito. Este movimento está a conseguir efetuar  a reunificação de toda a resistência palestiniana.


PROPAGANDA DE GUERRA DO OCIDENTE 

A propaganda do Ocidente, tanto as narrativas do governo dos EUA e de governos seus vassalos, como as duma media prostituída aos poderosos, não deixa que a real complexidade da situação político-militar seja perceptível pelo público, em geral. É preciso ir á procura ativa de fontes não alinhadas com o «globalistão», para se perceber quais as cartas possuídas pelos diversos intervenientes. As mentiras repetidas das autoridades de Israel deveriam fazer com que os jornalistas ocidentais olhassem com sentido crítico as suas histórias. Mas, pelo contrário, transcrevem acriticamente essas mentiras, nunca as confrontando com factos do terreno. Esta atitude da media é semelhante às sucessivas «notícias», segundo as quais as forças ucranianas estavam prestes a causar tremenda derrota no exército russo. Isto foi dito e redito, tantas vezes e de forma obviamente enganosa. O resultado, quando a realidade veio deitar por terra tais narrativas, foi que muitas pessoas acordaram para a natureza da media de massas.


JOGO PERIGOSO DO OCIDENTE

O jogo do «Ocidente coletivo» além de nojento - porque não se importa que as forças armadas de Israel anunciem e cometam um genocídio perante o olhar do Mundo inteiro - tem uma vertente de irresponsabilidade inquietante, pois assopra nas brasas quentes da destruição de Gaza, parecendo que o seu objetivo é o de causar uma guerra regional, com possibilidade de evoluir rapidamente para uma guerra generalizada. Pensam que assim, poderão obter a dominância total e definitiva do Ocidente sobre o resto do Mundo!  

Se os políticos no poder, nos países ocidentais, fossem sujeitos à crítica livre e esclarecida, não poderiam manter-se no poder. Por isso, a matança dum povo tem de ser recoberta de um manto de mentiras!


PS1: Mecanismo de propaganda de guerra e de lavagem ao cérebro:

A media corporativa, unanimemente, toma posição a favor de Israel. Basta ler os títulos, em que sistematicamente classifica o conflito como «Guerra Israel -Hamas». Este é seu modo hipócrita de colocar a situação, escondendo a vontade (e os atos) de genocídio anti- árabe, por parte dos sionistas, desde antes de 1948. 

Habilmente, deslocam o problema, como se fosse a questão do «Hamas, organização terrorista» que estivesse em causa, quando é o próprio Estado, Governo e Forças Armadas de Israel que (coletivamente) cometem atos terroristas, criminosos e estão a exterminar civis inocentes na Faixa de Gaza. 

PS2: Uma lição esclarecedora do Coronel US Douglas Macgregor: 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=00frv5blaXM


PS3: Leia como um jornal dito «de esquerda» faz censura despudorada sobre a questão Palestiniana

https://www.globalresearch.ca/surge-suppression-how-guardian-applies-censorship/5837810


sexta-feira, 8 de setembro de 2023

JEFFREY SACHS - A liderança dos EUA está cometendo o maior erro que se possa conceber


 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MKMxMUG4cKA

A barragem de censura e de propaganda faz com que a media corporativa não se «atreva» ou não «goste» de publicar testemunhos independentes e corajosos, como o de Jeffrey Sachs.

Oiça com atenção este homem, professor universitário nos EUA, muito conhecido e respeitado e que tem mais de trinta anos de experiência, enquanto conselheiro económico dos governos soviético, russo e ucraniano, desde o início dos anos 90. 

domingo, 20 de agosto de 2023

Seymour Hersh: O VERÃO DOS FALCÕES

Seymour Hersh: Summer of the Hawks (O Verão dos Falcões)

O tomar os desejos pela realidade continua sendo a regra na equipa de política externa de Biden, enquanto continua a carnificina na Ucrânia.




O Secretário de Estado Anthony Blinken fala durante a cimeira para líderes africanos em Washington, DC, 02 de Agosto 2023. (Foto oficial do Departamento de Estado por Chuck Kennedy)

(transcrevo o artigo da página de Seymour Hersh / Substack )


It’s been weeks since we looked into the adventures of the Biden administration’s foreign policy cluster, led by Tony Blinken, Jake Sullivan, and Victoria Nuland. How has the trio of war hawks spent the summer?

Sullivan, the national security adviser, recently brought an American delegation to the second international peace summit earlier this month at Jeddah in Saudi Arabia. The summit was led by Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman, known as MBS, who in June announced a merger between his state-backed golf tour and the PGA. Four years earlier MBS was accused of ordering the assassination and dismemberment of the journalist Jamal Khashoggi at the Saudi consulate in Istanbul, for perceived disloyalty to the state.

As unlikely as it sounds, there was such a peace summit and its stars did include MBS, Sullivan, and President Volodymyr Zelensky of Ukraine. What was missing was a representative of Russia, which was not invited to the summit. It included just a handful of heads of state from the fewer than fifty nations that sent delegates. The conference lasted two days, and attracted what could only be described as little international attention.

Reuters reported that Zelensky’s goal was to get international support for “the principles” that that he will consider as a basis for the settlement of the war, including “the withdrawal of all Russian troops and the return of all Ukrainian territory.” Russia’s formal response to the non-event came not from President Vladimir Putin but from Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs Sergei Ryabkov. He called the summit “a reflection of the West’s attempt to continue futile, doomed efforts” to mobilize the Global South behind Zelensky.

India and China both sent delegations to the session, perhaps drawn to Saudi Arabia for its immense oil reserves. One Indian academic observer dismissed the event as achieving little more than “good advertising for MBS’s convening power within the Global South; the kingdom’s positioning in the same; and perhaps more narrowly, aiding American efforts to build consensus by making sure China attends the meeting with . . . Jake Sullivan in the same room.”

Meanwhile, far away on the battlefield in Ukraine, Russia continued to thwart Zelensky’s ongoing counteroffensive. I asked an American intelligence official why it was Sullivan who emerged from the Biden administration’s foreign policy circle to preside over the inconsequential conference in Saudi Arabia.

“Jeddah was Sullivan’s baby,” the official said. “He planned it to be Biden’s equivalent of [President Woodrow] Wilson’s Versailles. The grand alliance of the free world meeting in a victory celebration after the humiliating defeat of the hated foe to determine the shape of nations for the next generation. Fame and Glory. Promotion and re-election. The jewel in the crown was to be Zelensky’s achievement of Putin’s unconditional surrender after the lightning spring offensive. They were even planning a Nuremberg type trial at the world court, with Jake as our representative. Just one more fuck-up, but who is counting? Forty nations showed up, all but six looking for free food after the Odessa shutdown”—a reference to Putin’s curtailing of Ukrainian wheat shipments in response to Zelensky’s renewed attacks on the bridge linking Crimea to the Russian mainland.

Enough about Sullivan. Let us now turn to Victoria Nuland, an architect of the 2014 overthrow of the pro-Russian government in Ukraine, one of the American moves that led us to where we are, though it was Putin who initiated the horrid current war. The ultra-hawkish Nuland was promoted early this summer by Biden, over the heated objections of many in the State Department, to be the acting deputy secretary of state. She has not been formally nominated as the deputy for fear that her nomination would lead to a hellish fight in the Senate.

It was Nuland who was sent last week to see what could be salvaged after a coup led to the overthrow of a pro-Western government in Niger, one of a group of former French colonies in West Africa that have remained in the French sphere of influence. President Mohamed Bazoum, who was democratically elected, was tossed out of office by a junta led by the head of his presidential guard, General Abdourahmane Tchiani. The general suspended the constitution and jailed potential political opponents. Five other military officers were named to his cabinet. All of this generated enormous public support on the streets in Niamey, Niger’s capital—enough support to discourage outside Western intervention.

There were grim reports in the Western press that initially viewed the upheaval in East-West terms: some of the supporters of the coup were carrying Russian flags as they marched in the streets. The New York Times saw the coup as a blow to the main US ally in the region, Nigerian President Bola Ahmed Tinubu, who controls vast oil and gas reserves. Tinubu threatened the new government in Niger with military action unless they returned power to Bazoum. He set a deadline that passed without any outside intervention. The revolution in Niger was not seen by those living in the region in east-west terms but as a long needed rejection of long-standing French economic and political control. It is a scenario that may be repeated again and again throughout the French-dominated Sahel nations in sub-Saharan Africa.

There are distinctions that do not bode well for the new government in Niger. The nation is blessed, or perhaps cursed, by having a significant amount of the remaining natural uranium deposits in the world. As the world warms up, a return to nuclear generated power is seen as inevitable, with obvious implications for the value of the stuff underground in Niger. The raw uranium ore, when separated, filtered and processed is known worldwide as yellowcake.

The corruption so often “talked about in Niger is not about petty bribes by government officials, but about an entire structure—developed during French colonial rule—that prevents Niger from establishing sovereignty over its raw materials and over its development,” according to a recent analysis published by Baltimore’s Real News Network. Three out of four laptops in France are powered by nuclear energy, much of which is derived from uranium mines in Niger effectively controlled by its former colonial overlord.

Niger is also the home of three American drone bases targeting Islamic radicals throughout the region. There are also undeclared Special Forces outposts in the region, whose soldiers receive double pay while on their risky combat assignments. The American official told me that “the 1,500 US troops now in Niger are exactly the number of American troops who were in South Vietnam at the time John F. Kennedy took over the presidency in 1961.”

Most important, and little noted in Western reporting in recent weeks, Niger is directly in the path of the new Trans-Saharan pipeline being constructed to deliver the Nigerian gas to Western Europe. The pipeline’s importance to Europe’s economy was heightened last September by the destruction of the Nord Stream pipelines in the Baltic Sea.

Into this scene came Victoria Nuland, who must have drawn the short straw inside the Biden Administration. She was sent to negotiate with the new regime and to arrange a meeting with the ousted President Bazoum, whose life remains under constant threat from the governing junta. The New York Times reported that she got nowhere after talks she described as “extremely frank and at times quite difficult.” The intelligence official put her remarks to the Times in American military lingo: “Victoria set out to save the Niger uranium owners from the barbaric Russians and got a huge single-finger salute.”

Quieter in recent weeks than Sullivan and Nuland has been Secretary of State Tony Blinken. Where was he? I asked that question of the official, who said that Blinken “has figured out that the United States”—that is, our ally Ukraine—“will not win the war” against Russia. “The word was getting to him through the Agency [CIA] that the Ukrainian offense was not going to work. It was a show by Zelensky and there were some in the administration who believed his bullshit.

“Blinken wanted to broker a peace deal between Russia and Ukraine as Kissinger did in Paris to end the Vietnam war.” Instead, the official said, “it was going to be a big lose and Blinken found himself way over his skis. But he does not want to go down as the court jester.”

It was at this moment of doubt, the official said, that Bill Burns, the CIA director, “made his move to join the sinking ship.” He was referring to Burns’s speech earlier this summer at the annual Ditchley conference near London. He appeared to put aside his earlier doubts about expanding NATO to the east and affirmed his support at least five times for Biden’s program.

“Burns does not lack self-confidence and ambition,” the intelligence official said, especially when Blinken, the ardent war hawk, was suddenly having doubts. Burns served in a prior administration as deputy secretary of state and running the CIA was hardly a just reward.

Burns would not replace a disillusioned Blinken, but only get a token promotion: an appointment to Biden’s cabinet. The cabinet meets no more than once a month and, as recorded by C-SPAN, the meetings tend to be tightly scripted affairs and to begin with the president reading from a prepared text.

Tony Blinken, who publicly vowed just a few months ago that there would be no immediate ceasefire in Ukraine, is still in office and, if asked, would certainly dispute any notion of discontent with Zelensky or the administration’s murderous and failing war policy in Ukraine.

So the White House’s wishful approach to the war, when it comes to realistic talk to the American people, will continue apace. But the end is nearing, even if the assessments supplied by Biden to the public are out of a comic strip.

© 2023 Seymour Hersh

NOTE TO SCHEERPOST READERS: We are happy to be able to run some of Sy Hersh’s pieces from his new Substack venture. Please, if you can, sign up at seymourhersh.substack.com so you can support Sy Hersh’s work and the ability to bring it here on ScheerPost. Thank you!

quinta-feira, 10 de novembro de 2022

O MUNDO VISTO ATRAVÉS DAS PAREDES DUM AQUÁRIO

 


Estamos num mundo dividido, mas não segundo as linhas ideológicas traçadas por Biden num discurso recente, entre «autocracias» e «democracias». Ele queria de facto que as pessoas identificassem «autocracias» com todos os governos que não se conformam com a «rules based order» ou seja, o que os EUA consideram como «ser-se bem comportado». Pelo contrário, seriam «democracias» todos os que alinham com o imperialismo americano, seja qual for o seu registo de violações dos direitos humanos mais básicos, a começar nos próprios EUA!

Mas, para mim, não existe diferença onde Biden quer colocar a grande divisão. Existem países com governos que se comportam razoavelmente dentro do que se convenciona ser a «democracia representativa» no outro lado da «nova cortina de ferro», enquanto -do lado de cá - há bastantes cujo governo e as práticas se podem claramente identificar como «autocráticos». A visão dicotómica é falsa, pois qualquer país pode virar de ser uma relativa «democracia», para uma autocracia, quando existe um reforço das tendências autoritárias. Estas tendências, digam o que disserem, existem mesmo nas chamadas democracias ocidentais e nós temos abundantes provas disso, com a crise do COVID e com a histeria instrumentalizada contra a Rússia, não só contra o governo, como contra as pessoas e a cultura russas. Temos aqui uma prova cabal de que muitos governos do ocidente, dito «democrático», se comportaram como autocráticos, em relação à sua própria população. Em relação ao exterior, têm assumido posturas agressivas, belicistas e imperialistas, ou auxiliares da potência imperial.

Perguntarão: E do outro lado? Não há atropelos aos direitos humanos, não há governos autocráticos? Os que assim argumentam, provavelmente não se estão a aperceber de que é uma falácia, ou seja, não é um verdadeiro argumento. Sobretudo, não anula quaisquer dos factos comprovados em relação aos regimes do que convencionamos chamar «Ocidente», que inclui a Austrália, o Japão e outros, e que deveríamos antes chamar «Alinhados com os EUA». 

Demonstração da falácia

Primeiro, existe uma barragem de propaganda tal, que aqui, nos nossos países não somos informados mas desinformados, intoxicados de propaganda contra os países e governos que não se conformam ao modelo americano, sobretudo a China, a Rússia, o Irão e outros. Como tal, é impossível distinguir, em muitos casos, a realidade da propaganda. A não ser que cada um de nós se transformasse em jornalista e fosse visitar esses países, fazendo inquéritos e avaliando o pulsar da vida dessas populações. Isso é impossível, claro. Mas, pessoas que são jornalistas profissionais, não estão nos diversos pontos do globo a fazer um trabalho sério. A sua objetividade - sem viés ideológico ou partidário - deveria ser inquestionável, sobretudo, onde existam governos «autocráticos». Mas eles, quase sempre, só enviam - pelos seus media respetivos - uma visão distorcida, onde os aspetos negativos são amplificados e os positivos minimizados, ou passados sob silêncio. 

Segundo, mesmo que a imagem desses regimes, por eles enviada, fosse rigorosa e objetiva (hipótese infelizmente só teórica), tal não seria argumento válido: Se um determinado indivíduo se portar muito mal, não é por isso que eu sou um «santo». O mesmo se passa com os governos, os regimes dos diversos países: Não é por um regime A perseguir cidadãos ou não respeitar direitos humanos dos mesmos, que o regime B, onde nos encontramos, tem legitimidade para fazer igual, até mesmo que num grau menor. A legitimidade das ações do Estado e do governo, do ponto de vista formal e jurídico, é o que caracteriza um Estado de Direito. Este existirá, de facto, se os governos respeitarem e fizerem respeitar as constituições respetivas, se não permitirem derivas, nem desrespeito pelos direitos dos cidadãos. 

Em terceiro lugar, faço notar que a democracia não é nem nunca foi, artigo de consumo que se possa exportar. Não foi nunca assim. Os exércitos da República Francesa triunfante não exportaram a «democracia» na ponta das suas baionetas. O mesmo se pode dizer com todos os governos coloniais, que supostamente iriam «civilizar» os povos, o que implicava ensiná-los a viver em «democracia», segundo a metrópole. Mais recentemente, a invasão do Afeganistão pelas tropas da NATO, chefiadas pelos EUA, não trouxe senão devastação, nenhum bem-estar ou progresso e, sobretudo, o regime que ficou após o fim de 20 anos de ocupação dos ocidentais, foi o governo Talibã, ou seja, da mesma natureza que eles tinham derrubado na «guerra-relâmpago» de 2001... O mesmo descalabro (1) se pode verificar com o resultado de guerras na ex-Jugoslávia, Líbia, Iraque, Síria, etc.  Note-se que isto não é um argumento formal, mas substancial.

Em quarto lugar, o argumento de que existe uma real «democracia», quando um regime tem eleições, é um sofisma. Pois estas podem muito bem ser falsificadas, pode haver restrições explícitas, ou não, a certos partidos concorrerem, ou não existirem liberdades de opinião e de imprensa, etc. E tudo isto, pode ser num grau maior ou menor, pois raramente as situações são classificáveis como «preto ou branco», «positivo ou negativo», «bom ou mau». A «democracia» nos EUA, entre outras vicissitudes, foi objeto de distorções eleitorais (2) muito graves. Por exemplo, em 2000 com a fraude que afastou Al Gore e permitiu a eleição de G. W. Bush ou com a fraude que permitiu afastar Trump, em 2020. Trata-se de fraude comprovada; Trump recebeu maior votação que qualquer outro presidente anterior, que se tenha submetido a sufrágio. Digo isto, não por simpatia por Al Gore, nem por Donald Trump: Mas, são comentadores políticos, dentro da sociedade americana, que o dizem.

A vontade do povo e a expressão desta, é que deveriam ser os fatores distinguindo a democracia, de todas as outras formas de governo. Por isso, sou convicto «abstencionista» nos assuntos internos dos outros povos. Eles são compostos por pessoas adultas, tão capazes como eu de raciocinar: Saberão bem o que é melhor para seu país.

As «intervenções solidárias», que significam apoiar grupos dissidentes em determinados países, são formas de ingerência. Note-se que estas ingerências não são realizadas por idealismo, mas para derrubar ou, no mínimo, colocar entraves aos governos dos países em causa. Ora, assim como as sanções, este tipo de intervencionismo funciona, na prática, como ponta-de-lança das ambições imperiais.

Não há dúvida de que a propaganda também é dirigida aos cidadãos do «império ocidental». Especialistas em informação encarregam-se de moldar a opinião pública dos próprios países, usando toda a panóplia, desde a difamação, a falsa informação (fake news), a repetição de «clichés» (por exemplo: «Putin é isto ou aquilo...»), até a uma tendenciosa seleção de notícias, onde nada do que contradiga a narrativa fabricada, é deixado filtrar.

Se os peixes de aquário falassem, eles diriam que vivem em plena liberdade e que seu universo os satisfaz plenamente.

Os cidadãos do «ocidente», que estão satisfeitos e consideram que seus governos estão do lado do «bem», da «justiça», da «democracia», etc. são como os peixes de aquário, acima referidos. Quanto a estes últimos, serão espécimes das nossas águas ou de ambientes exóticos. E quanto aos primeiros, serão como robots ou zombies, não genuínos cidadãos.

----------------------
(1) Veja o vídeo seguinte sobre as guerras secretas do império: U.S. Secret Wars EXPOSED  
(2) Gonzalo Lira comenta AQUI as eleições para o Congresso. O problema com as fraudes, é que perante denúncia, as consequências legais apenas serão extraídas se o sistema não estiver corrompido.

quarta-feira, 13 de julho de 2022

O IMPÉRIO «WOKE» QUANDO O MOVIMENTO PELA JUSTIÇA SOCIAL CONFLUI COM O NEOCONSERVATISMO


 Esta conversa em profundidade ajuda a compreender como a esquerda (pelo menos, a institucional) tem sido cooptada. 
Não se aplica apenas aos EUA. A influência estende-se muito para além do público e da política interna americanos. 
Muita da chamada «esquerda» europeia está completamente capturada e funciona dentro dos moldes mentais do chamado intervencionismo «humanitário». 
O crime de guerra na Jugoslávia, em 1999, onde a NATO levou a cabo um ataque não motivado, contra um país que não atacou nenhum dos seus membros, foi o ato inaugural do imperialismo, na sua nova fase: 
- As intervenções «humanitárias» sucederam-se durante vinte e poucos anos, após aquele ato bárbaro contra a ex-Jugoslávia: Afeganistão, Iraque, Líbia, Síria, Iémen, Ucrânia, e os vários golpes e tentativas de golpes em todo o mundo para derrubar governos que não agradavam ao estado profundo neocon.

quinta-feira, 23 de dezembro de 2021

ECONOMIA: TRÊS DEMOLIÇÕES EM CURSO

 1-  EVERGRANDE E CRISE DO IMOBILIÁRIO NA CHINA

Na China, as poupanças das famílias têm estado investidas a 75% no imobiliário. Nos EUA e na Europa, o imobiliário representa cerca de 25% dos ativos das famílias.

Nas condições do boom inicial da economia chinesa, dos anos 90 até há bem pouco tempo, investir no imobiliário era a maneira «segura» de se obter mais-valias, visto que havia um crescimento enérgico da economia. Por outro lado, mantinha-se a tradicional tendência dos chineses em aforrar. Quanto a investimentos em ativos financeiros, as bolsas não inspiravam confiança a muitas pessoas, o capitalismo na China é algo recente.

Perante a enorme dívida de «Evergrande» , gigante do imobiliário chinês, Xi Jin Pin deu a entender que não haveria um resgate pelo Estado, quer de Evergrande, quer doutros, que partilhavam o colossal mercado. Isto significa que muitas pessoas de posses modestas terão suas poupanças fortemente diminuídas. Muitas venderam ao desbarato apartamentos, outras ficaram a dever ao banco somas bem superiores ao valor do imóvel que tinham comprado, com dinheiro emprestado. Muitos bancos, sobretudo ao nível regional, estão em maus lençóis e vão precisar de um resgate estatal. 

O resultado das falências atuais e em perspetiva, é que muita capacidade instalada nas empresas de imobiliário vai ter de ser reorientada. Muitas destas empresas acabarão por ser adquiridas por empresas estatais, ou por parcerias públicas-privadas. Vai haver uma realocação dos meios de produção, num sector que estava há muito tempo a desperdiçar matérias-primas, capitais e mão-de-obra. 

Portanto, aquilo que me parece mais provável é que esta crise irá doer a muitos, mas - por outro lado - haverá uma aceleração do programa do PCCh de dinamizar o mercado interno, de modo que a produção industrial chinesa não esteja tão virada para as exportações, mas também para o consumo interno.  

2-  A DESTRUIÇÃO DA LIRA TURCA

Na Turquia, Erdogan sonha ser o «guia» do Islão político, quer fazer renascer o esplendor do império otomano. A sua demagogia levou-o a provocar uma crise monetária, económica e financeira, ao teimar que os juros altos é que causam a inflação. Os economistas, no mundo inteiro, estão de acordo em que é exatamente o contrário: Os juros altos vão estimular a poupança e logo, fazer diminuir a massa monetária em circulação. Haverá menos dinheiro para comprar os bens na economia. O efeito, quando os juros aumentam, é de diminuição da inflação. 

A destruição do valor da lira, por muitos discursos e truques que Erdogan faça, está garantida. Parece óbvio que esta política vai exacerbar a inflação, cronicamente alta na Turquia. A inflação acelerou bastante, desde Setembro passado. No presente, o valor oficial da inflação ronda os 20%, mas será maior, na realidade. 

Alguns observadores colocam a hipótese de ser um ataque deliberado ao poder de compra da população, para embaratecer o custo do trabalho e propulsionar assim as exportações turcas. Mas eu penso que esta destruição do valor da lira atingiu uma proporção tal, que não pode ser benéfica. Veremos o que acontece no próximo ano.

Não seria impossível que, perante a situação catastrófica, Erdogan decida criar uma nova unidade monetária. Talvez com indexação ao ouro, visto que o banco central da Turquia tem comprado ouro em grande quantidade nos últimos anos?
- Neste caso, a «nova lira turca» e as obrigações de dívida soberana, terão muita procura se possuírem a garantia de serem cambiáveis em ouro.
A destruição do valor da lira terá um desfecho: Não poderá manter-se tal situação por muito tempo. Ela implica um sofrimento enorme para as classes mais pobres, um descontentamento popular e o risco da desestabilização política associada.

3- O «QUANTATIVE EASING» VAI CONTINUAR 

As manobras de J. Powell e da «FED» pretendem manter uma espectativa sobre a capacidade de controlo da inflação nos EUA, o que na realidade não possuem. Os investidores americanos, ou estrangeiros, com ativos denominados em dólares gostariam que assim fosse. 

Porém, o euro- dólar não é controlável por ninguém, por nenhum banco central. Os «euro -dólares» são, muitos deles, emitidos fora da jurisdição dos EUA: São triliões de dólares, em mãos estrangeiras (não apenas na Europa, mas em todo o mundo), presentes em todos os mercados, dos mercados de divisas, aos de matérias primas. As possibilidades de controlar os movimentos dos euro- dólares, pela FED ou por qualquer outra entidade dos EUA, são zero. A acumulação de triliões em divisa americana, fora dos EUA, deu-se ao longo de decénios: desde Bretton Woods (1944), o dólar foi moeda de reserva mundial e principal divisa comercial internacional.

A política externa de Biden, teleguiada pelos «neoliberais- neoconservadores», entrincheirados no aparelho de Estado americano, tem sido no sentido de hostilizar a Rússia e a China. A Rússia despejou, há algum tempo, o excesso de dólares que detinha no banco central, comprando muito ouro. As suas vendas de gás e petróleo à China e a outros parceiros, representam uma parte importante das suas exportações: os pagamentos não estão a ser efetuados em dólares, mas nas respetivas moedas dos países, ou em ouro. Os chineses tinham acumulado mais de 1,2 triliões de dólares, em «bonds» do Tesouro americano, devido ao seu excedente comercial crónico com os EUA. Estes bonds têm sido escoados: primeiro convertidos em dólares e depois gastos para investimento nas Novas Rotas da Seda. 

O congelamento ou a diminuição do comércio sino-americano afeta os chineses, mas é mais prejudicial para os EUA, que não têm a infraestrutura industrial (exportaram-na para a China!) para substituir as importações vindas do gigante asiático. 

O resultado disto é a continuação da produção (digital) de dólares, sem contrapartida, em bens ou serviços: É a destruição lenta do valor do dólar, em relação ao que valia  no início do século XX. 

Aquando da criação da FED (1913), o dólar tinha um determinado valor em relação ao ouro, correspondente a uma determinada capacidade aquisitiva. Desde então, calcula-se que terá perdido ~97% do seu valor. Ao ponto de um dólar de hoje, comprar aquilo que podia ser adquirido apenas por 2 cents em 1971, quando Nixon unilateralmente desindexou o dólar do ouro.

Sabemos que está aberta, há algum tempo, a corrida para a desvalorização das divisas - o euro, o yen, a libra, etc. etc. A destruição de valor irá «justificar» a introdução - em simultâneo, ou num curto intervalo de tempo - de divisas digitais dos bancos centrais.
Estão - os bancos centrais e os governos - a contar com isso para iludir as pessoas. Mas, as dívidas não se vão embora. O que vai acontecer é que os sistemas de pensões de reforma e de segurança social, o Wellfare State, vão ser sacrificados. Será um «default» encapotado. Ou seja, a promessa feita às pessoas já reformadas e aos futuros reformados, não será cumprida. A mesma coisa, em relação aos subsídios de desemprego e aos apoios na doença e na invalidez.
Portanto, as perdas de uns (do lado mais fraco) serão camufladas, mas não se irão embora, como é evidente: Serão dívidas que os Estados e os sistemas públicos ou privados de Pensões e Segurança Social, esperam fiquem «extintas» pelo falecimento dos seus beneficiários.

quarta-feira, 16 de junho de 2021

SARS-Cov-2: BIOARMA PRODUZIDA EM FORT DETRICK (USA) E LARGADA EM WUHAN?

Mike Whitney and Ron Unz
                       

 

“…..we are left with the strong likelihood that Covid came from a laboratory (and) was designed as a bioweapon… China was the intended target (and) America seems the likely source of the attack… The most likely suspects would be rogue elements of our national security establishment… The virus and its dispersal devices might have been obtained from Ft. Detrick and CIA operatives… would have been sent to Wuhan to release it.” Ron Unz, Editor of The Unz Review; from the text

Question 1– What makes your theory about the origins of SARS-CoV-2 so controversial, is not that it suggests that the pathogen was created in a lab, but that it is, in fact, a bioweapon that was deliberately released by US agents prosecuting a secret war on presumed enemies of the United States. Here’s the “money quote” from your article titled, “American Pravda: George Orwell’s Virus Lab-Leak”:

“…..we are left with the strong likelihood that Covid came from a laboratory along with a good possibility that it was designed as a bioweapon, yet we lack serious indications that any lab-leak occurred. So if the original Wuhan outbreak was due to the deployment of a powerful bioweapon but not one that had accidentally leaked from any lab, then surely China was the intended target, the victim rather than the perpetrator….

Given our ongoing military and geopolitical confrontation with China, America seems the likely source of the attack… The most likely suspects would be rogue elements of our national security establishment, probably some of the Deep State Neocons whom Trump had placed near the top of his administration.

This small handful of high-level plotters would have then drawn upon the resources of the American national security apparatus to actually carry out the operation. The virus and its dispersal devices might have been obtained from Ft. Detrick and CIA operatives or members of special forces would have been sent to Wuhan to release it…. In effect, what happened was a Dr. Strangelove-type scenario, but brought to real life.” (“American Pravda: George Orwell’s Virus Lab-Leak”, Ron Unz, The Unz Review)

So, here’s the question: Do you think recent developments lend credibility to your explosive theory or do you now believe that Covid-19 was merely “accidentally” leaked through human error?

Ron Unz– As everyone knows, over the last month the entire “mainstream narrative” of the Covid outbreak has been completely overturned. Just a few weeks ago, anyone suggesting the virus was artificial was denounced and ridiculed as a “conspiracy theorist” and any such statements were automatically banned by Facebook.

But exactly these same prohibited ideas are now widely accepted and promoted by leading figures in the media and political establishments. The 45-year veteran of the New York Times who spearheaded its Covid coverage has now admitted that he was completely mistaken, and that the virus probably came from a lab. The three billion Facebook users can now openly discuss this possibility.

The total collapse of this “natural virus” propaganda-bubble was produced by a self-published 11,000 word article by longtime science journalist Nicholas Wade. Yet the astonishing thing is that almost none of the crucial facts he cited in his article were new. Nearly all of Wade’s important evidence had been publicly available for a full year, but was simply ignored by our entire political and media establishment, partly because Trump took that position and they all hated Trump.

So the virus probably came from a lab. But the question now becomes “which lab?” Just as the MSM had promoted the totally unsubstantiated belief that Covid was natural, the MSM has now begun promoting the equally unsubstantiated belief that Covid accidentally leaked from China’s Wuhan Institute of Virology. However, the evidence of any such Wuhan lab-leak is so thin as to be almost invisible.

It’s true that Chinese researchers at that lab were experimenting with related bat viruses, but many American researchers were doing very similar experiments, and for decades bat viruses have also been the central focus of America’s huge biowarfare program.

Wuhan is an enormously large metropolis of 11 million, much larger than New York City, and the Wuhan lab is located 20 miles(!) from the Huanan Seafood Wholesale Market, which was the earliest epicenter of the Wuhan outbreak. A distance of 20 miles seems pretty far for an accidental lab-leak.

Immediately after the initial Wuhan outbreak, the virus began infecting Iran’s top political elites, and killing a number of them. Isn’t it implausible that a random lab-leak in Wuhan would so quickly jump to the Holy City of Qom on the other side of the world?

There are many other aspects of the timing of the outbreak that seem very inconsistent with a random, accidental lab-leak.

Until a few weeks ago, the MSM and Facebook shut down anyone who disagreed with the “natural virus” theory, even though the evidence for an artificial virus had always been much stronger. They’ve now said “Oops! We were wrong. The virus probably came from a lab.” So I think they’ll now have a much harder time shutting down any debate about which lab.

Once people became aware of the basic facts of the virus, belief that it was artificial quickly collapsed. And once people become aware of the basic facts of the initial Covid outbreak, I think that belief in an accidental lab-leak will also begin to collapse.

Question 2–You seem to have anticipated my next question, but I’ll go ahead and ask it anyway. In another one of your articles, you say this:

“As the coronavirus gradually began to spread beyond China’s own borders, another development occurred that greatly multiplied my suspicions. Most of these early cases had occurred exactly where one might expect, among the East Asian countries bordering China. But by late February Iran had become the second epicenter of the global outbreak. Even more surprisingly, its political elites had been especially hard-hit, with a full 10% of the entire Iranian parliament soon infected and at least a dozen of its officials and politicians dying of the disease, including some who were quite senior. Indeed, Neocon activists on Twitter began gleefully noting that their hatred Iranian enemies were now dropping like flies.

Let us consider the implications of these facts. Across the entire world the only political elites that have yet suffered any significant human losses have been those of Iran, and they died at a very early stage, before significant outbreaks had even occurred almost anywhere else in the world outside China. Thus, we have America assassinating Iran’s top military commander on Jan. 2nd and then just a few weeks later large portions of the Iranian ruling elites became infected by a mysterious and deadly new virus, with many of them soon dying as a consequence. Could any rational individual possibly regard this as a mere coincidence?”

My question is this: Is this the smoking gun? In other words, do these two “attacks” on enemies of the United States strongly suggest Washington’s involvement?

Ron Unz– Well, it’s certainly an *extremely* odd coincidence for those who claim the global Covid outbreak was caused by an accidental, random lab-leak of a virus in Wuhan, China.

Iran is on the other side of the world from China, and very few Chinese visit the Holy City of Qom. So it’s extremely strange that the Covid virus would have jumped so extremely quickly from a Wuhan lab-leak to Iran’s top political leadership, which suffered the next major outbreak.

A few weeks afterward, the third major world outbreak began in Northern Italy, but 200,000 Chinese live and work in that region, and many had just returned from their Lunar New Year holiday in China. The Chinese population in Qom is absolutely negligible by comparison. The Italian outbreak makes perfectly logical sense while the one in Qom does not.

None of this constitutes proof, but it raises huge doubts about the likelihood of the random lab-leak hypothesis. By contrast, the deliberate release of a viral bioweapon seems a much more plausible explanation of both these outbreaks.

America has the world’s largest and most comprehensive biowarfare program, and America’s two leading international adversaries—China and Iran—were almost simultaneously hit by a mysterious, deadly virus. Suspicion seems to point in a pretty obvious direction.

If the Colombo crime family of NYC is locked in a bitter feud with the Genoveses, and two capos of the latter are found shot to death in a 24-hour period, maybe they both suddenly decided to commit suicide. But most sensible observers would also tend to consider other possibilities.

Question 3– Shortly after you published your explosive piece suggesting US Intel agents may have been involved in releasing Covid-19 among the Chinese and Iranian people, your website was deplatformed by Google and banned on Facebook? Would you briefly explain what happened and will you also tell us whether you think that your alleged offense was:

1– Suggesting that SARS-CoV-2 was created in a lab?
2– Or, suggesting that Washington might have used SARS-CoV-2 as a bioweapon directed at its geopolitical rivals?

In my opinion, ruling elites don’t really care if people think Covid was man-made. What they’re concerned about, is that people will think it was intentionally released. That is the thought they don’t want us to think.

Ron Unz– Obviously, all this is entirely speculative. But for six years our website had been publishing a wide variety of extremely controversial articles on all sorts of different subjects, and we had never had any problems with either Facebook or Google.

Then in late April 2020, I published my first long article laying out the substantial evidence that the global Covid outbreak might have been due to an American biowarfare attack against China (and Iran), and that article got very strong early traffic, with more Facebook Likes in the first few days than anything I had previously published.

But about ten days after it ran, our website was suddenly banned by Facebook. A few days later, our entire website was deranked by Google, so that all our web pages would appear near the very bottom of Google searches and almost no one would see them. The coincidental timing of these actions seems very suspicious.

At that point, I think we were one of the most popular websites to have ever been banned by Facebook. For example, our traffic far exceeded that of the venerable New Republic, a century old publication that had spent decades as America’s most influential opinion magazine. Although Facebook did publish an official report explaining that month’s bans, our name was barely mentioned, with almost all the pages of discussion devoted to obscure foreign websites in Georgia, Mauritania, or Myanmar, or those located in America’s major geopolitical adversaries such as Russia or Iran. The report explained the reasons for banning VDARE, “a website known for posting anti-immigration content” and then banned our own website for being “similar.”

This explanation seemed very strange. We do regularly republish VDARE articles, but since the beginning of 2020, these had only amounted to 41 of our 1,751 total articles and posts, representing just 0.2% of our content, and few of these VDARE pieces had anything to do with immigration. Meanwhile, Google provided no explanation at all for our sudden purge from their search results.

It seems likely that the sudden purges by Facebook and Google were due to our very extensive Covid coverage over the previous couple of months, culminating in my major article. Among English-language websites, the vast majority of mainstream outlets had been reporting that the virus was obviously natural and denouncing anyone who suggested it came from a lab as “crazy conspiracy theorists.”

Meanwhile, large numbers of right-wing, anti-China, or pro-Trump websites regularly claimed that the Covid outbreak was due to a lab-leak in Wuhan, and sometimes suggested that the virus was a Chinese bioweapon. I think we almost alone in focusing upon America’s huge and well-documented biowarfare program, sometimes publishing important articles that had been rejected elsewhere, and pointing suspicion in that direction.

Because we were banned by Facebook and Google, what should have became a debate over three origin Covid possibilities—a natural virus, a Chinese virus, or an American virus—became a year-long debate between only the first two.

Given enormous negative impact the Covid epidemic has had on America and the rest of the world, it’s easy to understand why our political leadership would be extremely concerned if people merely began to even consider the possibility that the virus may have been produced by an American government lab, let alone deliberately released. And persuading Facebook and Google to block such theories would make perfect sense.

Question 4– There’s a part of your theory I have a problem with. You say: “CIA operatives or members of special forces (may) have been sent to Wuhan to release “(the virus) This could be true, but why do you exclude the possibility that Chinese scientists may have been working either secretly with their US counterparts (Baric, Fauci?) or that the Chinese leadership is cooperating with foreign elites and Intelligence agencies to help them implement authoritarian policies in their own countries? Is that too far-fetched for you to even consider?

Ron Unz– Well, anything’s possible, but there’s simply no evidence of that.

Given the extreme recent hostility between the American and Chinese governments, I think it’s very unlikely that any senior officials of the two countries would be secretly cooperating behind the scenes in releasing the Covid virus.

Since the Trump Administration spent much of the Spring claiming that the Chinese had “covered up” the outbreak, large teams of investigative journalists from our top media outlets devoted many weeks of effort to tracking down the facts. Based upon all available evidence the Chinese government only discovered the existence of this mysterious, unsuspected new virus near the end of December, and almost immediately informed the World Health Organization.

Once the Chinese realized that Covid was highly contagious and spreading around Wuhan, they reacted very quickly. Some local officials tried to ignore or minimize the problem, costing them about a week, but once the national government discovered the danger, it quickly ordered massive public health measures, locking down the entire city of 11 million, and soon expanding the lockdowns to the region and then the entire country, confining 700 million Chinese to their homes for several weeks. This allowed them to completely stamp out the virus, and within a few months, the country was almost back to normal.

Meanwhile, the American government mostly ignored the entire potential problem and the possibility that the virus would back into the U.S. Our CDC botched the production of testing-kits, so for many weeks we had no way of knowing if the virus was starting to spread here. Trump and his supporters engaged in wishful thinking, claiming that the virus wasn’t dangerous and might disappear “like magic.” The American government only started to take the problem seriously after the horrific outbreak in Northern Italy.

Since the American government was harshly denouncing China during this entire period and reacting so differently to their Covid outbreaks, I think it’s very unlikely that American and Chinese leaders had planned the Covid outbreak together or were secretly cooperating in any way.

On the other hand, it’s certainly true that for many years Chinese scientists and American scientists had worked together on viral research, and jointly published papers. But that’s true of scientists all around the world, and until the last few years, China and America had generally been on pretty friendly terms. I don’t think it’s particularly surprising that the American NIH provided some funding to the viral research of the Wuhan lab, and until the Covid outbreak, nobody would have cared about that. As far as I know, America provides research grants to scientists all around the world, and other countries, including China, do the same thing with American research.

And despite all the media hype, I also didn’t see anything particularly surprising in those Fauci emails that were recently released. American financial support for the virus research of the Wuhan lab had never been a secret, and I’ve been reading about it for over a year. However, once Trump and Pompeo began claiming that devastating Covid epidemic had been caused by a Wuhan lab-leak, the situation obviously changed. If they were correct, then everyone in America even somewhat associated with the Wuhan lab could share some of the gigantic blame, including Fauci. So it’s hardly surprising that Fauci and all the others began hiding their connection and also using their influence to try to (dishonestly) persuade the media that the virus was natural, thereby protecting the Wuhan lab and also themselves.

That worked for about a year, and nobody paid attention to the issue. But now that the media has come around to the virus being artificial, the Wuhan lab has become a prime suspect, putting Fauci and the others back in the hot-seat. Fauci seems a dishonest federal bureaucrat, but our entire government is filled with such people, and the focus on Fauci seems ridiculous. I think it’s quite unlikely that Covid was produced in Wuhan or leaked out, so Fauci’s dishonesty was totally unimportant.

Finally, while it’s remotely possible that America intelligence agencies had some spies in Wuhan or even the Wuhan lab, there seems no evidence of this. In fact, the only secret intelligence we allegedly received about events in Wuhan came from a third-country source, which demonstrates our own total lack of information and agents. If we did release the Covid bioweapon in Wuhan, it’s pretty unlikely that we were able to recruit local Chinese agents to carry out the operation.

For about a year, most experts had agreed that the Covid outbreak in Wuhan probably began in late October or early November of 2019. By a remarkable coincidence, there were 300 American military servicemen visiting Wuhan for the World Military Games, which ended in late October. That visit would have provided perfect cover for America to slip a couple of operatives into the group, and have them release the virus in the city. With thousands of foreign military personnel traveling around and doing sightseeing, any risk of detection would have been minimal. That seems much more plausible than the risk of finding and using local Chinese operatives.

What would Americans think if 300 Chinese military officers paid an extended visit to Chicago, and immediately afterwards a mysterious, deadly viral epidemic suddenly broke out in that city?

Question 5— Alot of people who read this interview are going to think, “The United States is not capable of crime like this.” But, over the years, US-funded laboratories have created, modified and stockpiled all manner of toxic agents including “six mass-produced, battle-ready biological weapons”, namely, anthrax, tularemia, brucellosis, Q-fever, VEE, botulism and God knows what else. The United States has also authorized highly controversial human research programs that involved people and groups who were never informed that they were being used as guinea pigs in a government lab experiment. As Jeanne Guillemin said more than three decades ago:

“The entire experimental legacy is dismaying, from the hundreds of dead monkeys at Fort Detrick to … the vaccinated volunteers in Project Whitecoat, strapped to chairs amid cages of animals in the Utah sunlight as Q fever aerosols are blown over them. Most chilling are the mock scenarios played out in urban areas: light bulbs filled with simulated BW agents being dropped in New York subways, men in Washington National Airport spraying pseudo-BW from briefcases, and similar tests in California and Texas and over the Florida Keys.”

US biological weapons were allegedly used in Korea, Vietnam and Cuba although the evidence is not conclusive. The history of these weapons does increase the probability that rogue elements in the national security state, could put them to use if they thought there was some advantage in doing so.

So what do you say to those people who think that the United States would never use a bioweapon, like SARS-CoV-2 , against an enemy?

Ron Unz– Sure, many Americans might regard it as “unthinkable” that their country could have used a biological weapon against China. But it is very widely recognized that for decades America has had the world’s leading biological warfare program, and in fact during the 1950s, it received government resources comparable to our nuclear weapons development efforts.

There seems quite a lot of evidence that those American bioweapons were used during the Korean War, though the claims have been disputed and they anyway turned out to be rather ineffective compared to conventional weapons. There are also claims bioweapons were used against Cuba and perhaps Vietnam.

In any event, our biological warfare capability certainly does exist, with the Ft. Detrick facility being our leading lab. Trump’s lackadaisical response once Covid began leaking back into the U.S. hardly suggests that he initially realized it might be a dangerous bioweapon, so he seems to have been entirely ignorant of the facts. Therefore, the attack against China (and Iran) would have been a rogue operation, probably carried out by elements of the national security apparatus associated with the Deep State Neocons at the top of his administration.

If someone sufficiently senior had been behind the plot, I think it would have been easy for the conspirators to have drawn upon America’s military resources to carry out the operation, with all those lower-level participants believing that they were part of a fully-authorized strike against America’s leading geopolitical adversaries, just as our government soon afterward assassinated Iran’s top military commander. Probably someone such as such as Secretary of State (and former CIA Director) Mike Pompeo or National Security Advisor John Bolton would have had been able to orchestrate the attack.

Such individuals had the means, motive, and opportunity, so it seems absurd for the media to so totally ignore this possibility.

Here’s something to consider. The worst biowarfare attacks in American history occurred just after 9/11, with Anthrax mailings to important political and media figures stampeding Congress into the passing the Patriot Act. The Anthrax attacker attempted to implicate Islamic terrorists in his attacks, but the FBI soon determined that the Anthrax came from our own Ft. Detrick facility, and eventually declared that a government biowarfare researcher named Bruce Ivins was responsible and closed the case, just after he supposedly committed suicide. Whether or not Ivins was actually guilty may be disputed, but the attack was almost certainly carried out by rogue elements of our national security apparatus. So it hardly seems impossible that the Covid outbreak had somewhat similar origins.

As a rogue operation, the Covid attacks could have been organized by a very small handful of individuals, with virtually none of the exhaustive bureaucratic planning that would normally take place. Under such circumstances, the plotters might have casually minimized the possible risk that the disease would leak back into America or our NATO allies, resulting in the disaster which eventually occurred. After all, the previous SARS and MERS coronavirus epidemics had left both America and Europe almost totally unscathed.

There’s one particularly telling clue that has been almost entirely ignored by both the mainstream and alternative media. Most experts believe that the Covid outbreak in Wuhan probably began in late October or early November, but since infections took some time to spread and the virus was initially undetectable, no one in the Chinese government was aware of the outbreak until the end of December. However, several American government sources later revealed to ABC News that as early as November 2019, our Defense Intelligence Agency had distributed a secret report to government officials warning that a “cataclysmic” disease outbreak was taking place in Wuhan. The Pentagon afterwards denied the story, but Israeli TV independently confirmed that the report indeed existed and had been distributed to our NATO allies and Israel. The secret DIA report was prepared in “the second week of November,” at a time when probably only a couple of dozen people were starting to feel a little sick in Wuhan, a city of 11 million, and more than a month before anyone in the Chinese government discovered the outbreak. These facts seem almost impossible to explain if the virus was either natural or was accidentally leaked from the Wuhan lab.

I think that the combination of all this evidence, together with additional material, strongly supports the hypothesis that the Covid outbreak resulted from an American biowarfare attack against China (and Iran), probably a rogue operation orchestrated by the Deep State Neocons in the Trump Administration.

Whether or not others agree with me, it seems absurd and ridiculous for this very serious possibility to be so completely excluded from virtually the entire mainstream and alternative media. I suspect that the reason for this total silence is that the evidence supporting this theory is sufficiently compelling that merely presenting it would quickly convince much of the Western public that a biowarfare attack was the most likely scenario. Therefore, the reaction has been a total blackout of these facts, which have remained unmentionable.

The Biden Neocons have now replaced the Trump Neocons at the helm of our government, but very little has changed in our dangerously anti-China foreign policy. And with the mainstream media wholeheartedly in the Biden camp, their attacks against China on all sort of dubious grounds have intensified. Indeed, the huge outpouring of current media support for the Wuhan lab-leak hypothesis—which argues that Covid was secretly developed by the Chinese, possibly as a bioweapon—only became possible after their hated enemy Trump had left office.

America has the world’s largest biowarfare program, the Trump Administration focused on China as our greatest geopolitical threat, and the Deep State Neocons whom Trump hired were notoriously reckless individuals. It would hardly take a great deal of thought for the media to connect these dots and begin at least considering the obvious possibility they suggest.


PS1: An interesting article about the origins of COVID by Andreas Canetti

 Thirdly, a virus leaked from the Wuhan Lab cannot explain why it was found in September-November 2019, in Italy, France, and the US already before the Wuhan outbreak. The hypothesis of Lathman & Wilson cannot explain the complicated history of the virus by letting it “jump” from Yunnan to the Wuhan Lab in 2012, and then accidently being released from the lab in late 2019. Shi Zhengli on the other hand has difficulty to explain why the virus seems to have appeared in Europe before China.