Connect with us

Latest

News

Staff Picks

The Stalinist Witch-Hunt Against Russian Athletes

The campaign to ban Russian athletes is an unethical and grossly political affair.

Alexander Mercouris

Published

on

1,514 Views

When the doping scandal involving Russian athletes first broke I wrote a piece for Sputnik in which I said that an across the board ban on Russian athletes would be contrary to the principles of the Olympic movement and would be openly and grossly discriminatory. 

Reversing the standard of proof and barring athletes against whom there is no evidence simply because they happen to be Russians would be so obviously wrong and unjust that it would inevitably raise questions about the motives of those behind it.  These were the words I used:

“The Russian authorities are challenging some of the allegations — as it is their right to do — but look to be genuinely offering cooperation to help solve the problem. For example, they have offered to appoint a foreign specialist to head their laboratory. The right thing to do is not to impose a blanket ban but to work with the Russian authorities so that the problem can be solved. That may involve bringing criminal charges and imposing individual bans on specific persons, barring them from involvement in international sports training and competition.

If that does not happen and a blanket ban on Russian athletes is imposed instead, then it seems to me that the world’s sporting bodies will not only have retreated from their ideals but will open themselves up to questions about what their real motives are.”

Since I wrote those words it has unfortunately become all too clear that the concerns I expressed in the final paragraph were only too justified.

The Russians do not deny that there has been a doping problem in Russian sport and seem to have made a genuine effort to respond to the concerns of the international sporting bodies.  Though it is barely reported in the West, since January samples of all Russian track and field athletes are sent to Britain for testing.  Russian athletes now engaging in doping would presumably have to fool or gain the cooperation of the British authorities in order to do it.  Neither seems very likely.  The Russians have also banned the individuals they allege were involved in doping from further involvement in sport, and have brought criminal charges against some of them.

Notwithstanding these steps, since January there has been an escalating campaign to discredit Russian sports and to have Russian athletes banned from the Olympic Games, which are due to take place in Rio de Janeiro.  It first began with a media campaign against Russia’s Maria Sharapova, Russia’s iconic tennis champion.  Sharapova was banned for using meldonium, a Soviet era medicine still made in Latvia which is very commonly used in the former USSR, and which it was perfectly legal for athletes to use until just the beginning of this year.

The Russians have made it fairly clear they think the reason meldonium was placed on the list of prohibited substances is because Western athletes don’t take it as it is hardly known in the West.  By contrast many Russian athletes do take it – as do many other Russians – for purely medical reasons.  Though Sharapova only took the medicine for a period of 2 weeks after it was prohibited, a media campaign was launched against her in the West, and she was banned from international tennis competition for 2 years.

Not only does this seem grossly disproportionate but it ignores the fact that Sharapova’s explanation – that she took the medicine for purely medical reasons on the advice of her doctor and continued to take it because she missed the email informing her it was banned – is probably true.  If Sharapova had really been taking the medicine to enhance her performance she would presumably have kept the fact she was taking it secret and would have kept a careful eye out in case it was banned, taking immediate steps to conceal her use when it was banned.  That she did none of these things is a strong sign her actions were innocent as she says, and that her perfectly plausible explanation is true.  That the US sports fashion group Nike continues to work with her shows they too believe her explanation is true.

The Sharapova affair however was merely the first act to the drama.  A series of articles appeared in The New York Times and the London Times making lurid allegations of systematic Russian state involvement in doping Russian athletes, and a series of documentaries making the same claims also appeared on German television. 

These allegations are largely based on claims made by individuals the Russian authorities claim were involved in doping, including Grigory Rodchenkov, the former head of Moscow’s anti-doping laboratory.  Some of these individuals are the subject of criminal proceedings brought against them by the Russian authorities, including Rodchenkov who has fled abroad.  By contrast these same individuals in the West are called “whistleblowers”, with their allegations assumed to be true.  When the allegations and proceedings the Russians are bringing against them are reported – which is rarely – they are represented as attempts by the Russian authorities to punish and discredit them. 

Followers of the Magnitsky and other affairs will be familiar with the pattern whereby individuals charged with serious crimes in Russia are called “whistleblowers” in the West.  The key point to take away however is that (as is the case in the Magnitsky affair) none of the allegations either by or against these individuals have ever been proved to be true in any contested legal proceedings in any court, even though the allegations involve serious criminal offences.

These media stories were timed to coincide with the meeting of the International Association of Athletics Federations (“IAAF”) on 17th June 2017, which upheld the ban on Russian track and field athletes attending the Olympic Games in Rio de Janeiro.  As if to make sure the decision went the “right” way, a series of hostile articles appeared just before the meeting in the British media which made serious accusations against Lord Coe, the IAAF’s President, with one British Conservative MP even threatening to have him investigated by the British Parliament.  That the intention behind the articles was to pressure Lord Coe and the IAAF to impose a blanket ban on Russian track and field athletes is strongly suggested by the way some of the articles all but accused him of covering up for the Russians in the past.  Perhaps not surprisingly, once the blanket ban on the Russian athletes was announced the media campaign in Britain against Lord Coe stopped.

The sequel to the IAAF ban is that Russian athletes have appealed against the ban to the Court of Arbitration for Sports in Lausanne.  However, in what obviously was not a coincidence, on the first day of the hearing on 18th July 2016 the international anti-doping agency WADA released a report, drawing heavily on Rodchenkov’s claims, which again alleges systematic state involvement in doping of Russian athletes, this time at the winter Olympics in Sochi. 

Even more interesting than the WADA report itself is that it finally made clear who is actually behind the campaign to prevent Russian athletes from attending the Rio Games.  The report was leaked before it was published to the US and Canadian sports authorities, who used it to lobby the International Olympic Committee (“IOC”) to have the entire Russian team, not just the track and field athletes, banned from the Rio Games.  The fact that the leak has compromised WADA’s appearance of independence, and the ethical issues involved in the sporting bodies of two countries lobbying the IOC for a blanket ban of the athletes of a third country, appears to have shocked some European sports officials.  That however is unlikely to concern those behind the campaign, not to mention their media allies.

This is becoming a very ugly affair.  Those who demand a wholesale banning of Russian athletes are not saying they will be using prohibited substances if they go to Rio.  In the case of the Russian athletes, whose samples are now being tested in Britain, that is now for all practical purposes either impossible, or at least extremely difficult.  Nor do they say what they want the Russians to do beyond what they have done already. 

Instead they demand that athletes against whom there is no evidence of previous wrongdoing and who there is now every reason to think will be competing in Rio cleanly, should be banned because of allegations of wrongdoing against other athletes and sports officials with whom they happen to share the same nationality.  That is collective punishment of people belonging to the same national group as well as guilt by association, practices formerly considered unacceptable in civilised countries.  

Those behind the campaign have even at times come close to saying that the Russians should confess that the allegations of systematic state involvement in doping are true if they want Russian athletes to be allowed to compete in Rio.  That it is profoundly wrong and unethical to bully a confession out of someone should be obvious.  In this case, if such a confession were ever given, it would almost certainly be treated as proof of the guilt  of every Russian athlete who has ever competed in international sports competitions.  A campaign to strip them of their titles and their medals would surely follow.

In fact what this affair most resembles is a Stalinist witch-hunt.  Wild allegations of a conspiracy based on the evidence of a few compromised individuals are treated as proof of guilt against an entire class of persons.  Demands for confessions and for stern punishments of those declared guilty follow.  The presumption of innocence is cast aside, the burden of proof is reversed, and due process is ignored.

One demand more than any other demonstrates how ugly this affair has become.  The IAAF and now the sports bodies of the US and Canada are not only demanding that Russian athletes prove their innocence before they can take part in the Games.  They also demand that even if athletes prove their innocence, they should only be allowed to take part in the Games as “neutrals” and not as Russians.  Thus even if proved innocent Russian athletes would have to deny their nation and their country – foregoing the right to wear its colours or hear its anthem if they win.  

The IOC has up to now rejected this truly outrageous demand.  Time will show whether it stands its ground.

If the case in Lausanne were simply being decided on legal principles there is no doubt the Russian athletes would win.  Imposing a blanket ban on athletes of one country simply because they happen to be citizens of that country when there is no evidence against them is wrong at so many levels it is difficult to believe any court would allow it.  However one has to face the reality that even courts that were once genuinely independent and impartial now find themselves increasingly used as weapons in what is coming to be called “lawfare”.   It is therefore no longer possible to take anything for granted. 

We shall know the answer on Thursday 21st July 2016, when the Court will publish its decision, from which be it noted there is no appeal.

Liked it? Take a second to support The Duran on Patreon!
Advertisement
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

avatar
  Subscribe  
Notify of

Latest

Theresa May set to order ministers to vote down no-deal Brexit amendments, risking cabinet split

Delaying Brexit would be “calamitous,” and much worse than no-deal.

RT

Published

on

By

Via RT


UK Prime Minister Theresa May is reportedly set to resist mounting pressure from pro-Remain Tory ministers, and order her cabinet to vote down amendments that would block a no-deal Brexit – risking possible resignations.

Parliament will vote on May’s alternative Brexit proposals on Tuesday, as well as a series of amendments that include delaying the UK’s departure from the EU by negotiating an extension to Article 50. The UK is set to leave the EU on March 29.

The prime minister will risk splitting her cabinet – ignoring pleas over taking no-deal off the table – and instead pursue a strategy of securing changes to the contentious Irish backstop, in a bid to win over hardline Tory Brexiteers and the Democratic Unionist Party (DUP), the Daily Mail reports.

May will be hoping that such a move will provide her with enough MPs to get her deal through the House of Commons at a second attempt. The PM’s original Brexit proposals were roundly rejected last week, with the government losing by 230 votes.

UK Work and Pensions Secretary Amber Rudd has warned May that she faces a spate of cabinet resignations if she fails to allow ministers to vote on a plan that could block a no-deal Brexit.

According to the Times, pro-EU Rudd has intimated that unless May allows a free vote on a Brexit amendment, tabled by backbench Labour MP Yvette Cooper, which calls for Article 50 to be extended if no deal is reached by February 26, then mass resignations could follow.

Labour’s Shadow Chancellor John McDonnell has praised Cooper’s “sensible proposal,” claiming that it’s “increasingly likely” that his party will vote for it next week.

Cooper’s is one of eight amendments tabled in recent days. Another, put forward by Tory MP and ‘people’s vote’ advocate, Dominic Grieve, would allow Parliament to set the agenda and vote on a variety of proposals, including a second EU referendum.

It comes as Liam Fox, the international trade secretary, claimed in an interview with BBC Radio 4’s Today program, that delaying Brexit would be “calamitous,” and much worse than no-deal.

Michel Barnier, the EU chief negotiator, has claimed that Brussels will only extend Article 50 if there is a “stable majority” in the UK for a deal – adding that the UK could avoid the problems of the Irish backstop by opting for a softer Brexit.

Liked it? Take a second to support The Duran on Patreon!
Continue Reading

Latest

Louis XVI (aka Emmanuel Macron) runs to Merkels’ arms in Aachen treaty (Video)

The Duran Quick Take: Episode 63.

Alex Christoforou

Published

on

The Duran’s Alex Christoforou and Editor-in-Chief Alexander Mercouris take a quick look at French President Emmanuel Macron’s comparison of the Yellow Vests movement to the times of King Louis XVI who, as Macron rationalizes, met his tragic fate by refusing to embrace reforms.

Emmanuel Macron told 150 corporate executives gathered at Versailles (including Uber CEO Dara Khosrowshahi, JPMorgan Chase CEO James Dimon, and Coca-Cola CEO James Quincey), that “a lot of people thought that it was not a good date to gather here,” referring to the execution of French King Louis XVI, who was guillotined on January 21, exactly 226 years ago on Monday…“but when you look at French history, if at the end they ended up like that, it’s because a lot of leaders decided not to reform.”

The meeting held by Macron was called together in part to alleviate investors’ fears after 10 weeks of Yellow Vest protests throughout France and spreading across Europe.

According to RT,  the nationwide protests have sometimes turned violent, and according to Macron’s office, have caused concern among foreign investors hoping to cash in on Macron’s business-friendly reforms.

Notably, Macron reassured his CEO guests that he would “not roll back what we have done in the past 18 months” – unpopular labor and tax reforms that have been cited as sparking the Yellow Vest protests.

Macron also said that the Yellow Vest movement had been spurred by middle-class anger over globalization, arguing that similar sentiments have given rise to Brexit and populist governments across Europe.

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

Follow The Duran Audio Podcast on Soundcloud.

Via Zerohedge


French President Emmanuel Macron’s push for what he previously called “a real European army” got a big boost on Tuesday amid France and Germany signing an updated historic treaty reaffirming their close ties and commitment to support each other during a ceremony in the city of Aachen, a border town connected to Charlemagne and the Holy Roman Empire. But the timing for the renewal of the two countries’ 1963 post-war reconciliation accord is what’s most interesting, given both the rise of eurosceptic nationalism, the uncertainty of Brexit, and just as massive ‘Yellow Vests’ protests rage across France for a tenth week.

Macron addressed this trend specifically at the signing ceremony with the words, “At a time when Europe is threatened by nationalism, which is growing from within… Germany and France must assume their responsibility and show the way forward.”

German Chancellor Angela Merkel and French President Emmanuel Macron attend a signing of a new agreement on bilateral cooperation and integration, known as Treaty of Aachen. Image via Reuters

Germany’s Angela Merkel agreed, adding in her own remarks: “We are doing this because we live in special times and because in these times we need resolute, distinct, clear, forward-looking answers.” The agreement, which is being described as sparse on specifics or detail, focuses on foreign policy and defense ties between Berlin and Paris.

“Populism and nationalism are strengthening in all of our countries,” Merkel EU officials at the ceremony. “Seventy-four years – a single human lifetime – after the end of the second world war, what seems self-evident is being called into question once more.”

Macron said those “who forget the value of Franco-German reconciliation are making themselves accomplices of the crimes of the past. Those who… spread lies are hurting the same people they are pretending to defend, by seeking to repeat history.”

And in remarks that formed another affirmation that the two leaders are seeking to form an “EU army” Merkel said just before signing the treaty: “The fourth article of the treaty says we, Germany and France, are obliged to support and help each other, including through military force, in case of an attack on our sovereignty.”

The text of the updated treaty includes the aim of a “German-French economic area with common rules” and a “common military culture” that Merkel asserted could “contribute to the creation of a European army”.

Later before a press pool, Merkel endorsed the idea of a joint European army further:

We have taken major steps in the field of military cooperation, this is good and largely supported in this house. But I also have to say, seeing the developments of the recent years, that we have to work on a vision to establish a real European army one day.

She clarified that the new military organization wouldn’t exist as a counterpart to or in competition with NATO, similar to prior comments she made before European parliament.

Previously in November she had assured, “This is not an army against NATO, it can be a good complement to NATO.” This was also in support of Macron’s early November statements wherein he said of the proposed EU army, “We have to protect ourselves with respect to China, Russia and even the US” — words that were issued on the heels President Trump’s initial announcement that the US would withdraw from the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty (INF).

Despite such such assurances analysts say the natural and long term by-product of a “real European army” — as Macron and Merkel suggesting — would be the slow eroding and demise of US power in the region, which would no doubt weaken the NATO alliance.

The closest thing to a current “EU army” that does exist (if it can be called even that) – the Common Security and Defence Policy (CSDP) – is generally perceived as more of a civil and emergency response joint EU member mechanism that would be ineffectual under the threat of an actual military invasion or major event.

Meanwhile perhaps a prototype EU army is already in action on the streets of Paris, revealing what critics fear it may actually be used for in the future..

The expected push back came swiftly and fiercely as Marine Le Pen, the leader of France’s National Rally party, slammed the updated Aachen treaty as “an act that borders on treason”, while others worried this is an attempt to create a “super EU” within the bloc.

Alexander Gauland of Germany’s Alternative für Deutschland (AfD), for example, warned:

As populists, we insist that one first takes care of one’s own country… We don’t want Macron to renovate his country with German money … The EU is deeply divided. A special Franco-German relationship will alienate us even further.

Italy’s far-right interior minister, Matteo Salvini, warned earlier this month that his country could seek an “Italian-Polish axis” to challenge the whole premise of a “Franco-German motor” that drives European centralization.

Also notable of Tuesday’s signing is that the Aachen document prioritizes Germany being eventually accepted as permanent member of the U.N. Security Council, which it mandates as a priority for French-German diplomacy. Such a future scenario on the security council would shift power significantly in favor of a western bloc of allies the US, Britain, and France, which Germany would vote alongside.

Liked it? Take a second to support The Duran on Patreon!
Continue Reading

Latest

The Integrity Initiative and the British Roots of the Deep State: How the Round Table Infiltrated America

Kissinger’s takeover of the State Department ushered in a new era of British occupation of American foreign policy.

Published

on

With the nearly weekly revelations that the British Foreign Office, MI6, and GCHQ have been behind the long standing agenda to undermine the Presidency of Donald Trump and undo the peaceful alliance between nationalist leaders in America, Russia, China and elsewhere, a new focus on the British hand in undermining the United States has become a serious thought for many citizens. In the first week of the new year, fuel was added to this fire when internal memos were leaked from the British-run Integrity Initiative featuring a startling account of the techniques deployed by the anti-Russian British operation to infiltrate American intelligence institutions, think tanks and media.

For those who may not know, The Integrity Initiative is an anti-Russian propaganda outfit funded to the tune of $140 million by the British Foreign office. The January 2019 leak, featuring documents dated to the early period of Trump’s election, demonstrate that this organization, already active across Europe promoting anti-Russian PR and smearing nationalist leaders such as Jeremy Corbyn, was intent on spreading deeply into the State Department and setting up “clusters” of anti-Trump operatives. The documents reveal high level meetings that Integrity Initiative Director Chris Donnelly had with former Trump Advisor Sebastien Gorka, McCain Foundation director Kurt Volker, Pentagon PR guru John Rendon among many others.

The exposure of the British hand behind the scenes affords us a unique glimpse into the real historical forces undermining America’s true constitutional tradition throughout the 20th century, as Mueller/the Five Eyes/Integrity Initiative are not new phenomena but actually follow a modus operandi set down for already more than a century. One of the biggest obstacles to seeing this modus operandi run by the British Empire is located in the belief in a mythology which has become embedded in the global psyche for over half a century and which we should do our best to free ourselves of.

Debunking the Myth of the “American Empire”

While there has been a long-standing narrative promoted for over 70 years that the British Empire disappeared after World War II having been replaced by the “American Empire”, it is the furthest thing from the truth. America, as constitutionally represented by its greatest presidents (who can unfortunately be identified by their early deaths while serving in office), were never colonialist and were always in favor of reining in British Institutions at home while fighting British colonial thinking abroad.

Franklin Roosevelt’s thirteen year-long battle with the Deep State, which he referred to as the “economic royalists who should have left America in 1776″, was defined in clear terms by his patriotic Vice-President Henry Wallace who warned of the emergence of a new Anglo-American fascism in 1944 when he said:

“Fascism in the postwar inevitably will push steadily for Anglo-Saxon imperialism and eventually for war with Russia. Already American fascists are talking and writing about this conflict and using it as an excuse for their internal hatreds and intolerances toward certain races, creeds and classes.”

The fact is that already in 1944, a policy of Anglo-Saxon imperialism had been promoted subversively by British-run think tanks known as the Round Table Movement and Fabian Society, and the seeds had already been laid for the anti-Russian cold war by those British-run American fascists. It is not a coincidence that this fascist Cold War policy was announced in a March 5, 1946 speech in Fulton, Missouri by none other than Round Table-follower Winston Churchill.

The Empire Strikes

When the Round Table Movement was created with funds from the Rhodes Trust in 1902, a new plan was laid out to create a new technocratic elite to manage the re-emergence of the new British Empire and crush the emergence of American-inspired nationalism globally. This organization would be staffed by generations of Rhodes Scholars who would receive their indoctrination in Oxford before being sent back to advance a “post-nation state” agenda in their respective countries.

As this agenda largely followed the mandate set out by Cecil Rhodes in his Seventh Will who said “Why should we not form a secret society with but one object: the furtherance of the British Empire and the bringing of the whole uncivilized world under British rule, for the recovery of the United States, and for the making of the Anglo-Saxon race but one Empire?”

With the help of an anglophile, racist president in America, leading figures organizing these think tanks first advanced a program to create a “League of Nations” as the solution to the “nationalist problem” which humanity was told “caused” World War One. Nationalist forces in America rejected the idea that the constitution should be rendered obsolete and the plan for global governance failed. However that did not stop the Round Table Movement from trying again. Leading Round Table controller Lord Lothian (British Ambassador to the USA) complained of the “American problem” in 1918.

”There is a fundamentally different concept in regard to this question between Great Britain and the United States  as to the necessity of civilized control over politically backward peoples…. The inhabitants of Africa and parts of Asia have proved unable to govern themselves…. Yet America not only has no conception of this aspect of the problem but has been led to believe that the assumption of this kind of responsibility is iniquitous imperialism.

They take an attitude towards the problem of world government exactly analogous to the one they [earlier] took toward the problem of the world war. If they are slow in learning we shall be condemned to a period of strained relations between the various parts of the English-speaking world. [We must] get into the heads of Canadians and Americans that a share in the burden of world government is just as great and glorious a responsibility as participation in the war”.

A Chinese leader of the American-inspired republican revolution of 1911 named Sun Yat-sen warned of the likes of Lord Lothian and the League of Nations in 1924 when he said “The nations which are employing imperialism to conquer others and which are trying to maintain their own favored positions as sovereign lords of the whole world are advocating cosmopolitanism [aka: global governance/globalization -ed] and want the world to join them… Nationalism is that precious possession by which humanity maintains its existence. If nationalism decays, then when cosmopolitanism flourishes we will be unable to survive and will be eliminated”.

New Name. Same Beast

By 1919, the Round Table Movement changed its name to the Royal Institute for International Affairs (aka: Chatham House) with the “Round Table” name relegated to its geopolitical periodical. In Canada and Australia, branches were created in 1928 under the rubrics of “Canadian and Australian Institutes for International Affairs” (CIIA, AIIA). However in America, where knowledge of the British Empire’s subversive role was more widely known, the name “American Institute for International Affairs” was still too delicate. Instead the name “Council on Foreign Relations” was chosen and was chartered in 1921.

Rhodes Scholar William Yandall Elliot surrounded by a few of his leading disciples: Sir Kissinger, Zbigniew Brzezinski Samuel Huntington and Pierre Trudeau

Staffed with Rhodes Scholars and Fabians, the CFR (and its International Chatham House counterparts) dubbed themselves “independent think tanks” which interfaced with Rhodes Scholars and Fabians in academia, government and the private sector alike with the mission of advancing a foreign policy agenda that was in alignment with the British Empire’s dream of an Anglo-American “special relationship”. One such Rhodes Scholar was William Yandall Elliot, who played a major role mentoring Henry Kissinger and a generation of geo-politicians from Harvard, not the least of whom include Zbigniew Brzezinski, Pierre Elliot Trudeau and Samuel (Clash of Civilizations) Huntington.

The Round Table in Canada and the Coup Against FDR

In Canada, five leading Rhodes Scholars were busy creating the League of Social Reconstruction as a self-described “Fabian Society of Canada” in 1931 which was meant to be a fascist/technocratic answer to the chaos of “greedy nationalism” that supposedly caused the economic collapse of Black Friday in 1929. During the same time in America, a different path to fascism was taken by these networks during the early 1930s. This plan involved installing a General named Smedley Butler into power as a puppet dictator steered by the Anglo-American establishment. Luckily for America and the world, General Butler blew the whistle on the coup against Franklin Roosevelt at the last minute.

Kissinger’s British Takeover of America

Though it took a few assassinations throughout the post war years, Kissinger’s takeover of the State Department ushered in a new era of British occupation of American foreign policy, whereby the republic increasingly became the “Dumb Giant” acting as “American Brawn for the British brains” using Churchill’s words. While a nihilistic generation of youth were tuning in on LSD, and an old guard of patriots surrounding Wallace and Kennedy had fallen to the “red scare” witch hunt, geopolitical theory was fed like a sweet poison down the throat of a sleeping nation, replacing a policy of peace and “win-win cooperation” advanced by true nationalist patriots as FDR, Wallace and the Kennedys, with an imperial clone masquerading as a republic.

Sir Kissinger did nothing less than reveal his total allegiance to the British Empire on May 10, 1981 during a Chatham House conference in Britain when he described his relationship with the British Foreign office in the following terms: “The British were so matter-of-factly helpful that they became a participant in internal American deliberations, to a degree probably never practiced between sovereign nations… In my White House incarnation then, I kept the British Foreign Office better informed and more closely engaged than I did the American State Department… It was symptomatic”.

During this period, Kissinger worked closely with CIA director George Bush Senior, who was later rewarded for his role in advancing the British-planned first war on Kuwait with a knighthood. This war set the stage for the second wave of Middle East wars beginning with the Anglo-Saudi orchestrated operation known as 9/11 and the ushering in of the new “post-nation state order” by Kissinger and Blair.

This was the era which was celebrated by both Kissinger and Bush in sundry places as “the New World Order”.

The Dystopic New World Order Threatened by a New Deal of the 21st Century

It is this dystopic geopolitical order which has been challenged by the Russia-China alliance which arose in earnest with Xi Jinping’s 2013 announcement of the Belt and Road Initiative as the Grand design for large scale infrastructure projects internationally and in September 2015 with Vladimir Putin’s intervention into Syria which defeated the Hobbesian regime change paradigm which poisoned the west. In 2016, the election of nationalist American President Donald Trump opened the door for the first time in over 50 years to a true national coalition of sovereign nations to eliminate the cancer of colonial thinking forever from the earth.

It is this same British-run deep state which owns Robert Mueller, who along with the Integrity Initiative, Five Eyes and other Deep State operatives are dedicated to overthrowing President Trump from office and undoing the great potential now facing the world as outlined by the Schiller Institute and American statesman Lyndon LaRouche: 1) an FDR-style re-organization of the bankrupt banking system and 2) the unleashing of a global New Silk Road as the New Deal of the 21st Century.


BIO: Matthew J.L. Ehret is a journalist, lecturer and founder of the Canadian Patriot Review. His works have been published in Executive Intelligence Review, Global Research, Global Times, The Duran, Nexus Magazine, Los Angeles Review of Books, Veterans Today and Sott.net. Matthew has also published the book “The Time has Come for Canada to Join the New Silk Road” and three volumes of the Untold History of Canada (available on untoldhistory.canadianpatriot.org). He can be reached at[email protected]

Liked it? Take a second to support The Duran on Patreon!
Continue Reading

JOIN OUR YOUTUBE CHANNEL

Your donations make all the difference. Together we can expose fake news lies and deliver truth.

Amount to donate in USD$:

5 100

Validating payment information...
Waiting for PayPal...
Validating payment information...
Waiting for PayPal...
Advertisement

Advertisement

Quick Donate

The Duran
EURO
DONATE
Donate a quick 10 spot!
Advertisement
Advertisement

Advertisement

The Duran Newsletter

Trending