Bulletin N° 914


"The Tin Drum"




Based on the 1959 novel, Die Blechtrommel, by Günter Grass, the first book of Grass's Danziger Trilogie . This 1979 film adaptation won both the Palme d'Or, in the same year, and the Academy Award for Best Foreign Language Film the following year.    

In Volker Schlöndorff's award-winning adaptation of Nobel Prize winner Günter Grass' allegorical novel, David Bennent plays Oskar, the young son of a German rural family, circa 1925. On his third birthday, Oskar receives a shiny new tin drum. At this point, rather than mature into one of the miserable specimens of grown-up humanity that he sees around him, he vows never to get any older or any bigger. Whenever the world around him becomes too much to bear, the boy begins to hammer on his drum; should anyone try to take the toy away from him, he emits an ear-piercing scream that literally shatters glass.




Subject:  Capitalist Crimes against Humanity and the Coming Storm of Retribution.



Bastille Day 2020

Grenoble, France

Dear Colleagues and Friends of CEIMSA,

Periodically in capitalist development the emergence of authoritarian behavior is noticeable, and it comes sometimes so abruptly as to cause significant discomfort for many people. This social alienation can be judged only if there is a standard of measurement, and strong feelings of resentment emerge if apprehension and fear are not evoked in massive doses to obliterate the critical capacity of a once healthy population. Authoritarian injunctions quickly replace tentative suggestions as the social currency, thereby suffocating any independent initiative and will to participate meaningfully in decision-making processes at the local level, where we all live and work.

   Once again a sort of “managerial revolution” has been imposed from above, and it has given birth to a fashionable mode of communication with a language that has largely been weaponized (e.g.reduced to a series of signals, much in the way slave-owners once treated their chattel). We can see today how the “wage-slave” is abused linguistically and threatened with all sorts of sanctions if he/she fails to comply with commands which are embodied in the authoritarian hierarchical order.

Looking back in history one can easily note that this paradigm of domination/subordination, reflected in class-stratified relationships, has not changed a great deal over the centuries. While material conditions have certainly evolved, including a general advance in life expectancies, the fundamental pattern of class domination remains constant throughout history and is apparent to anyone interested in observing life as it unfolds before his/her eyes.

  Such a panorama of events is eloquently described by William R. Polk in his new history, Crusade and Jihad, the Thousand-Year War between the Muslim World and the Global North (Yale University Press, 2018). In Part One of this book, titled “Glorious Memories and Agonizing Awakening,” the author begins by describing the “social, economic and cultural bases of Islam.” He concludes his first chapter by emphasizing the strategic importance of language in creating illegitimate dependent power hierarchies. [For more on this indispensible power structure, which is ncesssary for successful social exploitation, see the following Ceimsa Bulletins listed @ https://www.google.com/search?q=power+hierarchies&hl=fr&btnG=Google+Search&sitesearch=http%3A%2F%2Fceimsa.org%2F ]  


Polk's first focuse on the historic use of language in establishing imperialist domination is instructive.

  So central is language to identity, particularly a homegrown language like Arabic, that many commentators belief the essential characteristic of being Arab is not religion or ethnicity but having Arabic as one’s native language. And because the Quran is written in Arabic and is taught in the religious schools throughout much of Africa and Asia and parts of Europe, Arabic is considered necessary to understand Islam.

     Consequently, we should not be surprised to find that when the Northern powers set out to conquer and control the Muslim South, they saw Arabic as a sort of defensive wall. It encircled nations and untied generations. The Chinese, Russian, British, and French imperialists each tried to suppress it and to replace it with their own languages. Unintentionally they taught the natives that language could also be used defensively.

     Observing that natives held defensively to their language, imperialists came to see that language could be as powerful a means of domination as armies. In the areas they dominated, the French sought to replace Arabic with French. So effective was this policy that the Algerian government that emerged from the French-Algerian war in 1962 was said to have contained only one cabinet minister who was fluent in Arabic. To find one’s way around Damascus, even a native had to know French, as all the street signs were written in it. And since laws and regulations were published in French, a native needed French to get any job above the level of a street sweeper.

     The British, in their attempt to solidify the rule over India, commissioned the English historian and parliamentarian Thomas Babington Macaulay in 1835 to replace the several popular Indian languages and the Arabic and Persian used for literature, religion and government with English. His aim was not cultural – although he famously remarked that ‘a single shelf of a good European library was worth the whole native literature of India and Arabia’ – but rather to create ‘a class of persons Indian in blood and colour, but English in tastes, in opinions, in morals and in intellect.’

     In short, language was the ‘soft power’ of imperialism. It could not completely replace military power, but it was far cheaper to employ, was difficult to oppose since it was applied to the very young, had a long-lasting effect, and was seen to be a benefit to those seeking employment. Even today, the members of the Indian ruling class strive, perhaps unconsciously, to fulfill Macaulay’s vision.

     The same model was taken up half a century later by the British rulers of Egypt. After invading Egypt in 1882, the British reconstituted government schools and ordered that classes be taught in English. If a child wanted to be educated outside the village religious schools, he or she had to learn English. This program continued until just before the First World War. One of the few triumphs claimed by the Egyptian statesman Saad Zaghlul, who led his people toward independence, was getting the British to allow the Egyptians to teach their children in their own language;

To most outsiders, language seems like a week tool for imperialists, with none of the glamour of marching armies. I confess that when I began my studies I did not appreciate how tenaciously people will rally to the defense of their native language. From the high ground of English I thought that what mattered was an idea or opinion, regardless of the language used to articulate it. I neglected the medium in favor of the message. What I did not fully understand was that it was not just abstract ideas but also the means of communication that influenced their application to politics. This was borne out to me in a 1952 conference of prominent intellectuals from a few Arab nations. Each participant felt more able to express his opinions in the language of the state that had dominated his country and in which he had studied. Thus the Iraqi participant lapsed into English, which he had learned in Oxford, while the Syrians and Lebanese reverted to the French they had acquired at the Sorbonne.

     Listening to their conversations, I began to realize that nationalism, a prime topic of the meeting, was not a single concept called by analogous words in different languages but a sort of ‘root’ given different meanings by the nuances of history and culture. The conference delegates had trouble precisely understanding one another in their ‘native’ dialects. I believe we all share heir dilemma when we seek precisely to understand what people are saying in other languages. It is made much more difficult when governments seek to use langue as a weapon, as the British and French and later the Russians and the Chinese did.

     In dealing with the Chinese-dominated Turkish-speaking peoples of Central Asia, Chiang Kai-shek went even further than the British and French imperialists. Following revolts in 1933 by the Kazakh peoples and the proclamations of 1944 by the Uyghurs of the short-lived East Turkish Republic, Chiang decreed that there were no such people as the Turks, even though the Chinese had a name for them, Chantou. He said that they were just part of the ‘greater Chinese race.’ He tried to force Turkish speakers to give up tier native language and lean Chinese. Chiang’s successor in the People’s Republic of China still employed his policy: they are linguistically ‘denationalizing’ the Uyghur people.

     At the same time as Chiang was suppressing the Uyghurs? Joseph Stalin was tightening the linguistic screws on the Asian peoples who had been conquered by the tsars. The better to dominate them, the Soviet Union divided what had been the common written language (Ottoman Turkish) ‘horizontally’ by converting all written materials from the traditional (Arabic-based) script first to Latin in 1926-1927 and then to Cyrillic in 1936. The emerging generation of the 1930s thus could not read materials from its own literary and political past. The Soviets also divide the language ‘vertically’: they abandoned the traditional written  forms of words and wrote each dialect phonetically, as it was spoken, in the new scripts. The new scripts greatly increased the difficulty of communication among the Central Asians: Uzbeks could no longer read what the Tajiks or Chechens wrote. Within a generation, the only means of communication among them was through Russian.

     When linguistic divide and rule was insufficient, Stalin pushed the Tatars of the Crimea toward cultural (and physical) extinction. During the Great Terror, in the 1930s, the Russians tried to wipe out distinct cultures in Central Asia. Then, during the Second World War, they deported more than two hundred thousand Tartars from Crimea and renamed all towns, rivers, and districts in Russian. To complete the erasure of Tatar culture, they destroyed Tatar manuscripts and even ripped out of the ground gravestones inscribed in Ottoman script.

     Both the peoples of the South who would preserve their culture, their identity, and their independence and those of the North who sought to dominate them realized the centrality of language. To understand that struggle, therefore, the first step is linguistic. The second step is to understand the broader reach of culture.

     The people who composed the classical poetry that embodied the Arabic language were nomads, a lifestyle made necessary by the region’s lack of dependable water supplies. Their adaptation to their harsh environment is celebrated in their poetry, which for them was often a saga of heroism. For the region’s townspeople, however, Bedouin heroism translated into dry-land piracy. The Bedouin raided or levied protection money on towns and extracted tolls on interurban traffic, but the settled population needed the Bedouin to carry their produce across the deserts to supply them with animal products. The balance of their needs and fears was always delicate and would be drastically changed by the arrival of Islam. (pp.6-9)

In the second chapter, titled “Mohammed the Messenger and His Message,” Professor Polk describes the rise of Islam and its relationship to the culture of nomads.

    The main nation-building activity was Mohammad’s delivery of what he and his followers believed was God’s message. Islam ‘fits’ the tribal societies that his followers would encounter from the Atlantic to the frontier of China, and the Muslims community was itself cast as a sort of tribe. The mores of the effective units of tribes, the clans (qawms), were Islam’s organizational principles (usul). Members of the religious community were to consider one another brothers (ikhwan) and to behave as such. Tribal peoples found it familiar.

     They also found Islam easy to join. A convert need only affirm belief that here is only one God, deny any sharing (shirk) of his majesty with other gods, and affirm that Muhammad was his messenger to be accepted as a member of the community. A believer should say, ‘There is no god but The God and Muhammad is the Messenger of The God’ (La ilaha illa Allah wa Muhammad Rasul Allah). Beyond this fundamental credo, Islam was open to great diversity. Outside the cities of the great caliphates, the mainly rural subjects and the inhabitants of the lesser states – the Afghans, Malays, Filipinos, and others – retained the patterns of their traditional lives but with mixtures and emendations brought about by Islam. Often the formal, textual elements of Islam sat lightly on the converts’ shoulders: Bedouin tribesmen continued to deal with one another according to their pre-Islamic customs. Afghan Pashtuns similarly followed their own pre-Islamic code, the Pashtunwali, and their legal system, the Ravaj, so that, for example, their women did not property even from their husbands, as they should according to Islamic law, and vengeance –Pashto: badal) was mandatory even against fellow Muslims, although it is specifically forbidden in the Quran (4/92-93). Marriage terms, dietary rules, and patterns of dress varied widely. Mongol converts to Islam continued to be guided by the Mongol law code, the Yassa. In India and Sumatra, converts brought Hindu practices into Islam, while in Africa animistic customs continued to be practiced under Islam.

     Other customs were a product of changing circumstances. A prime and today much-discussed example is the veiling of women. Veiling was probably not practiced in the time of Muhammad and is nowhere specifically ordered in the Quran. The operative verse (24/31) orders believing women to cover their breasts and not to flaunt their ‘body ornaments’ (zinat). The veiling of faces was common in Christian Byzantium at the time of the Arab invasion and was likely adopted from the Christians by freeborn, upper-class Arab women. In Christian Portugal it was common in the sixteenth century. In medieval India, veiling women and secluding them (purdah) was an upper-class affectation probably borrowed by Muslim from the Hindu Rajputs. Thus,  ironically, the strictest of Muslim fundamentalist habit is probably an innovation (bida) and so is doctrinally ‘illegal.’ It was not practiced in a number of Muslim societies, including the Kazakhs, Tajiks, and Kirghiz of Central Asia: the Malays and Javanese of Southeast Asia; the Kurds, Iranians, and most Arabs of the Middle East; and the Arabs and Berbers of North Africa.

     As spelled out in the Quran and acted out by Muhammad in Madinah, Islam is a worldly religion. It provides a detailed system of law, social organization, and deportment. It is authoritative and has few ambiguities. The rules are easy to understand: people are not to exploit one another, so usury (riba) is forbidden: Muslims are enjoined to help one another, so everyone must pay a welfare tax (zakat); all must abide by the law (Shariah) where explicitly laid out in the Quran or exemplified by actions and sayings (Hadith) of the Prophet; Muslims are forbidden to kill one another because they are brothers; they should perform the pilgrimage, in which Muslims from all over the world assemble to express their faith, exemplify their unity, and draw strength from one another; and Muslims are commanded to struggle (perform jihad) in the cause of God (fi sabili’llah) to create the community (ummah) he ordered. These rules constitute the Islamic way – or at least the theoretical Islamic way. Over the centuries and over the vast extent of the Muslim world, these rules were often violated and not enforced. That failure, as I will show, is one of the major issues brought forward by fundamentalists, who today seek to ‘return’ to the original Islamic order.

     In his lifetime, in addition to laying out the legal structure of his community, Muhammad had another urgent task to perform: he had to protect his new community from the Meccans and their Bedouin allies, who were threatening to destroy If he did not succeed, his little community crushed or starved. As a successful merchant in Mecca, he must have learned firsthand the way Arabian society worked.

     Arabian society is usually designated as ‘tribal,’ but tribes were less social units than abstract concepts. A person might proudly  say that he belonged to such and such a tribe. The Bedouin with whom I traveled in the Arabian desert in 1970 would say they were members of the Banu Duwasir, but the Banu Duwasir, who numbered in the thousands, could seldom if ever have come together, few places had enough water to sustain such a large gathering. A tribe was only an abstract ‘nation.’ In the practical affairs of daily life, it had no way to control its subdivisions or be controlled by any institution or person. Rather, it was composed of smaller groups of kindred we call clans.

     The clan was almost certainly the earliest form of society. It existed among ‘social’ animals and typified all the human groups we know about. For hundreds of thousands of years, all of our ancestors were clansmen or clanswomen. They lived in groups, usually numbering fewer than a hundred people, who camped together, moved together and share their produce from hunting, gathering, or herding. They usually had a general idea of their territory and were intent on persevering it and maintaining access to a source of water such as a well or a spring. They were descendants of a single patriarch and his wife or wives so they were brothers, half brothers, or at least cousins. These basic ties were further augmented as the male members of the clan usually married some nearby, and usually related, woman. Sometimes, they were joined by migrants from other clans. Initially, such an immigrant did not become a fellow clan member but was regarded as a ‘protected stranger’ (jar). As we shall see, this relationship became crucial as Muslim society evolved. (pp.15-18)

In the third chapter, “The Great Days of the Caliphates,” William Polk describes the flourishing success of Islam from the second half of the 8th century until the 15th century.

     The contrast to the rest of Europe was stunning. Few in Europe could read, and those few were holed up in monasteries. The secular inhabitants who could read probably did it at the level of today’s primary school pupils. Few of the ‘signers’ of the Magna Carta, for instance, could have written more than their names, if that, and probably none of them could have read the document itself.

. . .

     Meanwhile, the Abbasids had found their flourishing state, their caliphate, in the valley of the Tigris and Euphrates Rivers and built a series of great palace cites – the most famous, Baghdad, was founded twelve years after Abu Mulsim’s revolution in 762 – from which to rule an empire that extended from the Mediterranean to the Indus River and from the tip of Arabia to the Chinese borer. Known to Europeans and Americans mainly through the fanciful tales of The Arabian Nights but to the people of the global South as the brilliant flowering of their civilization, the societies of medieval Islamic caliphates were, Muslims thought, the world as contemporary civilized people wanted it to be.

     Between the two caliphates on opposite ends of the Mediterranean, al-Andalus in the West and al-Abbasid in the East, a third caliphate, that of the Fatimids, established itself in Egypt in the tenth century. Like the other two (and also like the Islamic State today), it based its claim to legitimacy on its relationship to Muhammad, deriving its title for Muhammad’s daughter Fatima. What distinguished the Fatimid Empire most clearly from the other two was that it was the first Shiah Muslim caliphate and that it owned much to its early support by the Berbers of Africa rather than the Arabs of Asia. Shiism had spread alongside Sunnism far and wide, and the Berger stood head to head or often sword to sword with the Arab.

     Along with Ta’ng China, these three states were the greatest centers of civilization during the long Dark Ages of Europe, and their apogee marks the high point of Islamic civilization. It is an idealized memory of this period that galvanizes the pride and hope of modern Muslims. When European settlements were little more than rustic villages, Baghdad, Cairo, Cordoba, and Seville were beacons of light in a dark world. Over the following centuries, this light would spread to Shanghai, Deli, Bukhara, Samarqand, Nishapur, Heart, Isfahan, Shiraz, Konya, Istanbul, Palermo, Fez, and Timbuktu. When few Europeans could read, these cities had libraries, schools, and literary societies. Baghdad even had a flourishing book publishing industry that used (and manufactured) for the first time outside China that great invention, paper.

     Everywhere they went, Muslims established what they called ‘the realm of peace’ (Dar al-Salam) with a degree of respect for culture and even religious diversity unimagined in Christian Europe. Jews, Christians, Hindus, Buddhists, and people of other religions and races lived side by side, in a congruence that contrasted with the often violent and always threatening apartheid of Europeans. While Europeans moved relatively freely among Muslims, establishing trading posts that at times amounted to virtual colonies in Muslin lands, Muslim travelers almost never dared venture into Europe outside Muslim Spain. Jews in Europe were consigned to ghettoes and were periodically driven out even from ‘enlightened’ university towns as they were in 1071 from Cambridge, but they moved in relative freedom in Cairo and Fez. The great medieval travelers, Marco Polo and Ibn Battuta, could both journey safely to China, India, or Egypt, but only Marco Polo was safe in Venice.

     Since the time of Muhammad, who made a treaty with the non-Muslim community of Madinah, Islam had evolved a pattern for regulating the lives of non-Muslims. Jews and Christians lived as protected communities (dhimmis). Except in military affairs, each community was allowed to live according to its own customs, arrange for its own community services, maintain its own religious institutions and govern itself. It apportioned taxes internally as it saw fit, provided it collected what the state demanded of it, and its headman, usually a community-chosen religious figure, represented it to the leaders of the Muslim community.

     The practice was partly shaped by geography and history. At the advent of Islam, Christian Byzantium and the Zoroastrian Sasanian empire were the established world powers. As the Islamic caliphate expanded, conquering much of the Byzantine Empire and all of the Sasanian Persian empire, it acquired resident Christian, Zoroastrian, and Jewish communities. Whole communities of Hindus were also eventually incorporated into Muslim states. Except in the heat of warfare, the Islamic states customarily left these people free to practice their religions, wear their distinctive dress, speak their own languages, enforce their own laws and customs, and govern themselves under their own authorities. The system was far from perfect, but Christians and Jews generally lived securely in communities within Muslim states, whereas Jews were always at risk and often persecuted, occasionally driven away, or even slaughtered in Christian states. Where they were dominant, Christians were safer, but even slight doctrinal difference often resulted in brutal persecutions or massacres of the ‘heretics.’ Indeed, the prototype of the later Crusades was the Catholic Church-inspired French attack on the Cathar Christians who lived in southwestern France. It was also there that the Inquisition got its start.

     Over the centuries, many Christians and Jews converted to Islam. That Islam forcibly converted them is amyth; actually, the <Islamic states preferred that the conquered peoples remain non-Muslim because that sttus required them to pay an extra tax in lieu of military service. In practice, Muslim rulers and Muslims in general often fell short of what the religion proclaimed, but historically, Islam has been the most tolerant of the three religions.

     Even short of warfare, Christianity has been generally intolerant and violent in its relationship with both Jews and Muslims. Christians forced European Jews into ghettos, made them wear distinctive dress, and behaved toward them like the Mafia toward shopkeepers. They forced the resident Jews to pay what amounted to protection money. They also humiliated them, raised mobs to attack them, and often drove them away.

     Meanwhile, within Islam, diverse sects, orders , and schools proliferated. As with Catholicism and Protestantism, the division in Islam between Sunnism and Shiism would both create great social tensions and promote the spread of religion because people with different cultural and ethnic o(orientations would find one or the other version compatible with their existing political, social, and economic order. As in Protestantism, in Shiism subsidiary or at least related cults would also flourish, so that distinct national groups could find dogmas to express their separate identities. We see this tendency today in the diversity of groups – Druze, Ismailis, Alawis, and others – who have found niches in Islam.

     Ethically;, the Muslim community – the single ummah that was the ideal of Islam – was never established. The very success of Islam as a warring society made impossible the achievement of Islam as a homogeneous society. We see this in the division between bedouin and city dwellers, in the Sunni-Shii split, in the division of the three great caliphates, and in the ethnic separation of Arab, Berber, Iranian, Turk, and others.(pp.32-35)

The Muslim policy of religious toleration ran into a exception, however, in India in the 11th century.

     What really astonished the Arab and Persian Muslim traders was Hinduism. Hinduism is the very antithesis of Islam. Whereas Islam makes an absolute proclamation of monotheism, Hinduism is polytheistic. It portrays its multiple gods as idols, whereas,  . . . followers of Islam ‘congregat[ed] for prayer at fixed intervals, in a rectangular building which contained no idols.’ The Quran clearly spells out how polytheist idol worshiper are to be dealt with: they must be forced to convert, and if they refuse, they are to be killed. Early in the eleventh century, when Hindus refused to give up their gods, Muslims, particularly recently converted Turks and Afghans, killed thousands of them and destroyed their temples.

    Even in those early days, it was becoming clear that the sword is not effective against religious belief or political ideas. Military ‘solutions’ kill a lot of people but rarely win wars. Even more rarely do they solve the problems at which they were aimed. Few rulers in history have absorbed this lesson, but one of the wiser contemporary rulers then did. Mahmud, the ruler of the Afghan city-state of Ghazni, soon realized that Muslims would have to coexist with Hindus if they were to stay in India. His strategy cost nothing : he simply pretended to be unaware that the Hindus were polytheists and worshiped statues. He ‘awarded’ them the status of Christians and Jews as though they too were a ‘People of the Book [the Old Testament],’ This decision created an acceptable degree of peace in India for hundreds of years. (p.46)

The “great days of the caliphates” came to an end in the 15th century when “The North Moves South,” the title of chapter 5 of Polk’s book.

     Until the fifteenth century, the Muslim world was composed of some of the world’s richest and most advanced societies. The Mughal Empire alone at least matched China and far surpassed Europe in the production of wealth. Iran boasted a literary and artistic standard that was the exemplar in Asia. The Ottoman Empire controlled an area about the size of Europe and did so both relatively economically and with a degree of tolerance unknown in Europe. Islam sat lightly but firmly on the Crimean Tatars and on the peoples of Southeast Asia and the Philippines.

     Rural people in the Muslim world as a whole closely resembled their European counterpart. French peasants lived in villages as African and Asian peasants did and worked surrounding fields with simple plows pulled by draft animals or by hand; their standard of living, at least in food consumption, was probably about the same. Both were largely illiterate and both were organized in religiously based traditions.

     However, there were two significant differences in the European and Afro-Asian experiences. The first was a result of the shortage of water; much of the population of North Africa and of West and Central Asia lived in widely separated villages that often depended in part on transhumance or were nomadic. European villages , who had access to rivers, were able to tap ground water, and were fed by relatively heavy rain, were more densely placed and more fixed. There were essentially no European nomads. Second, in urban life, these proportions were reversed. Cities in the Muslim world were far larger than in Europe. Constantinople (later known as Istanbul), Isfahan, and several Indian cities had reached a million people, whereas European cities were still small. Only Venice and Milan had two hundred thousand inhabitants. Parisians numbered about seventy thousand, and the population of London was about half that size. Seville had about thirty-five thousand and Lisbon perhaps twenty-five thousand residents. Urban people made up only about one in twenty Europeans in the sixteenth century; nineteen in twenty were peasant farmers or serfs. Muslim Asia was not quite the reverse, but it was considerably more urban than Christian Europe.

     Size mattered. Several of the Muslim societies, led by Mughal India, developed coherent, nation-wide systems of distribution unmatched in Europe. In the manufacture and distribution of textiles, Mughal India had already in the sixteenth century crated a pattern of economic life that was moving slowly toward something like the eighteenth-century European Industrial Revolution. Then, rather suddenly, the North began to change, while the South did not.(pp.50-51)

The military and economic domination of the South by the northern imperialist nations moved rapidly and has left lasting scars.

     It has been estimated that in the middle of the eighteenth century India produced about a quarter of the world’s wealth, while Britain produce less than 3 percent. Then the Industrial Revolution began a major transformation, indeed a reversal of the terms of trade between the North and the South. Local manufacture in the south was driven out and replaced by European goods and services. As Shashi Tharoor has written, ‘Britain’s rise for 200 years was financed by the depredation in India. . . . Britain’s Industrial Revolution was built on the destruction of India’s thriving manufacturing industries. . . . The British destruction of textile competition from India led to the first great deindustrialization of the modern world . . . master weavers became beggars.’ Whereas India had supplied colorful cloth to England, it and most of the South now bought cloth form England and paid for it mainly with raw materials. All over the South a revolution in tastes and styles quickly followed. The French-manufactured fez replace the locally made turban; Yemen coffee beans gave way to coffee imported from French colonies; the Kashmiri shawl, the mark of a gentleman, went out of style. Even the bedouin’s head cloths were woven in Birmingham. In the one year of 1833 an estimated ten thousand men –perhaps 20 percent of the skilled workforce – were forced into idleness in Damascus and Aleppo. Traditional trade routes were abandoned or reversed/ By 1854 French and British steamers had, in the words of a British consul, ‘annihilated the local carrying trade,’ and the last camel caravan went from Baghdad to Damascus in 1857.

     These changes caused a dramatic fall in the standard of living and health of the naïve populations. In India, William Digby wrote that nineteenth-century peasant got only about half as much to eat as their grandfathers and even less than their great-grandfathers. Even the leading English strategist of Imperialism, Thomas Babington Macaulay, comments that ‘thirty millions of human beings were reduced to the extremity of wretchedness.’

     What happened economically was extended and formalized militarily. When the Egyptians struck out on their own to create a modern industrial sector, the British intervened militarily to suppress it.

     In India, Britain first conquered Bengal and then set about destroying the great Mughal Empire. When the Indians revolted in 1857, the British killed hundreds of thousands of villagers, murdered the entire ruling family, and then incorporated the Mughal Empire into the British Empire. Already intent on blocking Russian expansion, the British then pushed toward Central Asia and the Middle East. They fought Afghan Muslims along the Northwest Frontier for generations; took over and ruled Egypt; defeated the Muslim revivalist movement, the Mahdiyah, in the Sudan; established hegemony in the Persian Gulf, dominated Iran; and ultimately acquired control over what became Iraq, Jordan, and Palestine. 

. . .

     For the Italians in Libya, war was no game; it became genocide. Benito Mussolini, as leader of the Fascist Party and Il Duce, tried in nearly twenty years of counterinsurgency to wipe our the Islamic revival movement, the Sanusiyah, and killed two-thirds of the population. Other colonial campaigns were just as ugly.

    In Java, when the natives tried to reassert their independence, the Dutch killed about three hundred thousand ‘rebels’ between 1835 and 1840; they similarly suppressed tens of thousands of Sumatran ‘rebels’ between 1873 and 1914. In Algeria, after the bitter fifteen-year war that began in 1830, the French stole all the farmlands, razed hundreds of villages, massacred untold numbers of natives, and imposed an apartheid regime on the survivors. In Central Asia, the Russians and Chinese impoverished or drove away previously thriving populations, while in their bitter war in the Caucasus, recounted by Leo Tolstoy, the Russians virtually wiped out whole societies and drove into exile perhaps a million Circassians.

     ‘Subduing the natives” was a brutal affair that reached its nadir in the Congo, where roughly one in ten inhabitants was a Muslim. Between 1884 and 1904 the Belgians are estimated to have killed at least twice as many natives as the Nazis killed Jews and Roma –some ten to fifteen million people. They also engaged in systematic rape, cut off the hands or feet of unproductive natives, and stripped the Congo of raw materials. In a less dramatic but more destructive move, the British crated ‘what one can only call the British Colonial Holocaust, [in which,] thanks to economic policies ruthlessly enforce by Britain, between 30 and 35 million Indians needlessly died of starvation . . . [while] millions of tones of wheat were exported from India to Britain even as famine raged.’ When some Englishmen of conscience objected and mounted relief operations of their own, the British government threatened them with imprisonment.

Tony Abbott and the White Man's Burden |

The White Man’s Burden

. . .

     The European thrusts into the Muslim world were nearly continuous. Except in the Philippines, these were not American wars, but the American role in the slave trade that brought millions of Africans to the Western Hemisphere is now being reevaluated. No one knows much about the enslaved peoples of Africa, but certainly a significant portion of them were Muslims. And in the Philippines, in half a century of war against the Muslims, Stephen Kinzer has written, America joined the already established imperial powers.

     Hardly a conversation passes almost anywhere in Africa or Asia without reference to northern imperialism. As one young man who had studied business at an American university put it to me, ‘The bottom line is that no Muslim ever tried to enslave or slaughter your people. You might think of the attack on the World Trade Center, 9/11, as a counterattack. It was terrible and most of us are ashamed of it, but just remember – it killed about 25 hundred people whereas imperialists killed at least 25 million of our relatives and tried to destroy our way of life and our religion. Do you care about that?’(pp.61-65)


The 19 + items below offer opportunities for readers to evaluate the many constraints that now govern our lives. Confronted with ruling-class fantasies of total social control, we must vigilantly search to discover the dynamics of contradictions beyond their control and prepare ourselves to take advantage of the opportunities which will necessarily appear in order to achieve our emancipation from the historic abuse this class of owners has visited upon us and people like us for too long. Today, we are engaged in an ideological war for the political consciousness of the masses. The corporations and their oligarchs have money to influence our thinking; and, of course, they also have control of the police. We have the truth, the will to be free, and we have one another in large numbers. Our first enemy is our alienation, which isolates us and leaves us thinking we are destined to remain powerless.

The essays and articles below should assist in correcting this distortion and offer us much to think about and to discuss with one another.



Francis Feeley


Professeur honoraire de l'Université Grenoble-Alpes
Ancien Directeur de Re
Université de Paris-Nanterre
Director of The Center for the Advanced Study
of American Institutions and Social Movements
The University of California-San Diego




Interview 1562 – James Corbett Tackles Event 201, The Great Reset, and the End of Humanity


with James Corbett joins Ernie Hancock

(58 :18)


Every American Should Watch Abby Martin's Afghanistan War Exposed: An Imperial Conspiracy


by Abby Martin

(36 :08)


Fahrenheit 11/9

Clinton, Obama pledge unity behind Trump presidency


by Michael Moore



From: Medea Benjamin, CODEPINK [mailto:info@codepink.org]
Sent: Tuesday, July 07, 2020
Subject: Israel just bombed Iran. How can we stop a war?




Last Thursday, Israel exploded a massive bomb at the Iranian Natanz nuclear site. It doesn’t get more dangerous than this and we have to act fast to prevent Israel from starting and dragging the U.S. into war. Join us tomorrow, Wednesday, July 8, for a discussion with NIAC’s Sina Toossi on what’s happening and tell the Senate to act FAST to affirm that TRUMP MAY NOT GO TO WAR WITHOUT CONGRESSIONAL APPROVAL.


Last Thursday, Israel bombed Iran. Not only did they attack Iran, but they targeted and hit the Natanz nuclear facility located about 200 miles outside of Tehran. 

It doesn’t get more dangerous than this. Iran could retaliate at any moment and Netanyahu could achieve his goal of dragging the U.S. into another disastrous Middle East war. Act now. Tell the Senate to support Sen. Tom Udall’s amendment to the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) affirming that Trump may NOT take the U.S. to war with Iran without Congressional approval.

Tomorrow, Wednesday, July 8th at 1:00 PM ET (10 AM Pacific) we will be hosting a webinar discussion with researcher and analyst Sina Toossi of the National Iranian-American Council. Sina and Medea will discuss the situation of Israel attacking Iran right now: why now, what are they trying to accomplish, what’s at risk, and what can we do to deescalate the situation and prevent war. RSVP right now!


The explosion at the Natanz nuclear facility was the third incident of its kind in Iran recently. There was also an explosion near the Iranian Parchin military site in northeast Tehran and a fire at a Tehran medical clinic that killed 19 people. A Middle Eastern intelligence official told the New York Times that Israel was behind the Natanz attack — Israel has not denied it — and it is possible that Israel was behind the two other recent explosions as well. Iran says that they have and will soon release the details of what happened at Natanz, but one thing already seems to be clear: despite the COVID-19 pandemic raging throughout the world, Israel seems hell-bent on war. 

Trump (and other U.S. presidents before him) have sent Israel the message that if they go to war — even a war that they outright provoke — the massive U.S. war machine will back them. “If we think for a minute that the Trump administration isn’t ready and willing to go to war, think again,” Senator Udall stated upon introducing his amendment. On June 30, 2020, Brian Hook, the Trump administration’s Special Representative for Iran, affirmed that “The military option is always on the table.” “With this kind of continuing saber-rattling,” Udall said, “We must send a clear message to the president and his administration that initiating war against Iran is beyond the powers this president or any president holds.”

The Trump administration doesn’t actually have the sole power to go to war. In 1973 Congress passed The War Powers Act to limit the Executive branch’s power to drag the U.S. into an armed conflict. The War Powers Act states that a president can only commit the U.S. military to action abroad through a congressional declaration of war or "a national emergency created by attack upon the United States, its territories or possessions, or its armed forces."

Without the promise of U.S. military support, Netanyahu may think again about starting a war with Iran. Send a message right now to your Senators telling them to VOTE YES to include, in the 2021 NDAA, Tom Udall’s amendment to invoke the 1973 War Powers Act to prevent an unconstitutional U.S. war with Iran and join us tomorrow, July 8, at 1 PM ET for a discussion with NIAC’s Sina Toossi

Towards peace and diplomacy, 
Medea, Ariel, Ann, Angela, Asia, Carley, Caty, Cody, Emily, Jodie, Kelsey, Leonardo, Makena, Mary, Michelle, Nancy, Paki, Teri, and Yousef


“US Prepares For War, Not For COVID-19”


with Richard Wolff



The American Economy in Four Words: Neofeudal Extortion, Decline, Collapse


by Charles Hugh Smith



“The Black Plague”



by Eric Burdon & The Animals


with the black plague lyrics @



17 Contradictions and the End of Capitalism by David Harvey – A Review


 by Radical Review and Mad Blender






“2008 & 2020: The Combination That Changed Capitalism Forever”


with Yanis Varoufakis



News From Underground

From: Mark Crispin Miller
Sent: Friday, July 10, 2020
Subject: [MCM] The war on cash is actually a war on free humanity

Here, first, is a piece by Catherine Austin Fitts from three years ago, about a 

troubling story Aaron Russo told on InfoWars eleven years before. Fitts' piece

is a fitting preface to "Here's What No Cash Actually Means," which came out



These are no mere paranoid ramblings. Check out this breathless item from the

Business section of last Sunday's New York Times:



The full interview with Russo, all of it worth watching, is here:




The War On Cash: Aaron Russo Explains Why the Rockefellers Want People Microchipped



February 4, 2017


By Catherine Austin Fitts

Aaron Russo was a great man. He was a talented, successful movie producer turned freedom fighter. He had the heart of a lion and a bountiful love of humanity, I considered him a friend. So did many people seeking to understand how we best ensure human freedom.  Before he died, he gave an interview to Alex Jones in which he describes a conversation he had with a member of the Rockefeller family . He  was told that the end game is to have people microchipped for complete control.


If Aaron says this conversation happened – then it did.


Before you embrace the idea of a cashless society, you need to appreciate that all digital money is a step to a greater goal – one that will destroy human freedom. If you think surveillance capitalism is unpleasant now, wait until the big banks and the intelligence agencies have the power to turn off your ability to transact or access your funds if they don’t like something you thought or said this morning in the “privacy” of your own home.


The war on cash is a war on humanity – don’t let it happen. While we are at it, it is time to outlaw private banks' monopoly to create currency.  If this is where they want to go, it is time for their monopoly to go.


Here's What No Cash Actually Means

Wednesday, July 08, 202



A cashless society means no cash. Zero. It doesn’t mean mostly cashless and you can still use a ‘wee bit of cash here & there’. Cashless means fully digital, fully traceable, fully controlled. I think those who support a cashless society aren’t fully aware of what they are asking for. A cashless society means:

* If you are struggling with your mortgage on a particular month, you can’t do an odd job to get you through.

* Your child can’t go & help the local farmer to earn a bit of summer cash.

* No more cash slipped into the hands of a child as a good luck charm or from their grandparent when going on holidays.

* No more money in birthday cards.

* No more piggy banks for your child to collect pocket money & to learn about the value of earning.

* No more cash for a rainy day fund or for that something special you have been putting £20 a week away for.

* No more nixers on the side because your wages barely cover the bills or put food on the table.

* No more charity collections.

* No more selling bits & pieces from your home that you no longer want/need for a bit of cash in return.

* No more cash gifts from relatives or loved ones.

What a cashless society does guarantee:

* Banks have full control of every single penny you own.

* Every transaction you make is recorded.

* All your movements & actions are traceable.

* Access to your money can be blocked at the click of a button when/if banks need ‘clarification’ from you which will take about 3 weeks, a thousand questions answered & five thousand passwords.

* You will have no choice but to declare & be taxed on every pound in your possession.

* The government WILL decide what you can & cannot purchase.

* If your transactions are deemed in any way questionable, by those who create the questions, your money will be frozen, ‘for your own good’.




with David Icke



California Bill to Establish Nation's Second Public Bank Applauded as 'Historic Challenge to Wall Street Domination'


by Jake Johnson





A letter to Joe Biden: Stop your blind support for Israel


by Medea Benjamin and Ariel Gold


Is Israel’s West Bank ‘annexation’ really an invasion?


with George Galloway



Did Irish minister distort truth over Israel's settlement imports?


by Ciaran Tierney


Oppose apartheid, not just annexation

A woman pushes at the metal bars of a caged turnstile


by Chance Charley


“Israel will pretend that illegal annexation is a compromise”


with Norman Finkelstein


Israel's annexation plan for occupied West Bank

A demonstrator holds a Palestinian flag in front of Israeli forces during a protest against Israel's plan to annex parts of the illegally occupied West Bank, near Tulkarem [File: Mohamad Torokman/Reuters]



Home demolitions spike ahead of annexation


by Maureen Clare Murphy


Palestinian Scholar Noura Erakat: Israeli Forces Killed My Cousin on His Sister’s Wedding Day



with Noura Erakat, Palestinian American human rights attorney and legal scholar



Ahmed Erekat, Nephew of Top Palestinian Official, Shot by Israeli Forces at Checkpoint and Left to Die

Saeb Erekat's nephew, killed during an attack at a checkpoint, seems to  have made a farewell video (updated) – 24/6 Magazine






The UN has found that the US killing of Qassem Soleimani broke international law. It’s right, but nothing will happen as a result


by Scott Ritter


Les parallèles entre Minneapolis et Jérusalem sont loin d’être superficiels


par Jonathan Cook


English version

Parallels between Minneapolis and Jerusalem are more than skin deep


by Jonathan Cook



From: Richard Greeman
Sent: Wednesday, July 08, 2020
Subject: Soulèvements contre la brutalité policière raciste aux Etats-Unis!


Voici six semaines que l’explosion de soulèvements contre le racisme et la brutalité policière systématique continue à flamber aux États-Unis. Loin de s’éteindre, ce mouvement, provoqué par l’assassinat policier de George Floyd le 25 mai à Minneapolis, s’enracine et s'étend dans les moindres petites villes sous la bannière de « Black Lives Matter »  

A diffuser!



America’s Policing Budget

Has Nearly Tripled to $115 Billion



What does community control of police look like?


 by Anya Parampil






“Beware of Right Deviations That Have Emerged from

the Three-Headed Crisis of US Imperialism”


by Danny Haiphong


“The Corona Constitution


with James Corbett joins Matt Asher on The Filter podcast






Watch Dr. Cornel West on Useful Idiots


with Katie Halper, Matt Taibbi, and Cornel West



Dr. Cornel West joins the show for a wide-ranging conversation about his new podcast The Tightrope, what went wrong for Bernie’s campaign and why he had endorsed Sanders again in 2020, and the tactical efficacy of violent vs. nonviolent protesting.


Watch Noam Chomsky On The Real News Network


with Mark Steiner and Noam Chomsky



Why the Bill Gates global health empire promises more empire and less public health


by Jeremy Loffredo and Michele Greenstein


News From Underground

From: Mark Crispin Miller
Sent: Thursday, July 09, 2020
Subject: [MCM] On the vast web woven by Bill Gates, the most dangerous philanthropist in modern history.

Stop him before he kills still more.



From Dr. Gary Kohls

“Duty to Warn”

Bill Gates — The Most Dangerous Philanthropist in Modern History?

(And He’s Calling the Shots on the COVID Pandemic and Lock-down)


Analysis by Dr. Joseph Mercola Fact Checked - April 21, 2020 (3044 words)





   Bill Gates’ answers to the problems of the world are consistently focused on building corporate profits through toxic means, be it chemical agriculture and GMOs, or pharmaceutical drugs and vaccines

   Gates has used “charity” as a way to gain tremendous political power

   The true beneficiaries of Gates' philanthropic endeavors tend to be those who are already rich beyond comprehension, including Gates’ own charitable foundation

   Over the past 20 years, the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation has given close to $250 million in charitable grants to companies in which the foundation holds corporate stocks and bonds, yet it gets tax breaks for the charitable donations it makes money from

   Vaccines are one of Gates’ mainstay “solutions” to most diseases. Gates has gone on record saying the U.S. needs disease surveillance and a national tracking system that could involve vaccine records embedded in our bodies

 “The Gates Foundation is giving money to companies that it owns stocks in and will benefit financially from.”

 “Companies that have received “donations” that in turn made money for the Gates Foundation include Merck, Novartis, GlaxoSmithKline, Vodafone, Sanofi, Ericsson, LG, Medtronic, Teva and "numerous startups."

 "We don't want to have a lot of recovered people … we're trying — through the shut-down in the United States — to not get to 1% of the population infected ... I believe we will be able to avoid that with having this economic pain." – Bill Gates

 “Life will not go back to normal until we have the ability to vaccinate the entire global population against COVID-19.” – Bill Gates

 “Far from being a force for good, Gates appears to have chosen to use his wealth and intellect to further a distasteful social control plan to benefit his own nefarious agendas.”


While philanthropy is considered noble, some philanthropists appear to be doing far more harm than good with their donated millions. Bill Gates, who cofounded Microsoft in 1975, is perhaps one of the most dangerous philanthropists in modern history, having poured billions of dollars into global health initiatives that stand on shaky scientific and moral ground.

 Gates’ answers to the problems of the world are consistently focused on building corporate profits through highly toxic methods, be it chemical agriculture and GMOs (genetically-modified organism), or pharmaceutical drugs and vaccines. Rarely, if ever, do we find Gates promoting clean living or inexpensive holistic health strategies.


 Gates Donates Billions to Private Companies and Vaccine Start-ups.

 A March 17, 2020, article in The Nation titled, "Bill Gates' Charity Paradox," details "the moral hazards surrounding the Gates Foundation's $50 billion charitable enterprise, whose sprawling activities over the last two decades have been subject to remarkably little government oversight or public scrutiny."

 As noted in this article, Gates discovered an easy way to gain political power — "one that allows unelected billionaires to shape public policy" — namely charity. Gates has described his charity strategy as "catalytic philanthropy," one in which the "tools of capitalism" are leveraged to benefit the poor.

 The only problem is that the true beneficiaries of Gates' philanthropic endeavors tend to be those who are already rich beyond comprehension, including Gates' own charitable foundation. The poor, on the other hand, end up with costly solutions like patented GMO seeds and vaccines that in some instances have done far more harm than good. (For a few examples, see the following references.) The Nation reports:

 "Through an investigation of more than 19,000 charitable grants the Gates Foundation has made over the last two decades, The Nation has uncovered close to $2 billion in tax-deductible charitable donations to private companies … which are tasked with developing new drugs, improving sanitation in the developing world, developing financial products for Muslim consumers, and spreading the good news about this work.

 “The Gates Foundation even gave $2 million to Participant Media to promote Davis Guggenheim's previous documentary film 'Waiting for Superman,' which pushes one of the foundation's signature charity efforts, charter schools — privately managed public schools. This charitable donation is a small part of the $250 million the foundation has given to media companies and other groups to influence the news.

 ”It's been a quite unprecedented development, the amount that the Gates Foundation is gifting to corporations … I find that flabbergasting, frankly,' says Linsey McGoey, a professor of sociology at the University of Essex and author of the book 'No Such Thing as a Free Gift.'

 “They've created one of the most problematic precedents in the history of foundation giving by essentially opening the door for corporations to see themselves as deserving charity claimants at a time when corporate profits are at an all-time high.'"

 Companies that have received large donations from the Gates Foundation include GlaxoSmithKline, Unilever, IBM, Vodafone, Scholastic Inc. and NBC Universal Media.


 Those Calling the Shots Stand to Gain the Most.

 In the video above, Spiro Skouras reviews how the global COVID-19 pandemic being used to snatch freedom and liberty away from us, and the role Gates is playing in the process.

 "We have been encouraged to sacrifice our liberty for a false sense of security, being conditioned more and more each day to rely on the state for protection and now many of us find ourselves relying on the state to pay our bills," Skouras says.

 "Some are beginning to see that there may be more to the official story than what we are led to believe. The very few may have seen this coming and are waiting for the next phase of what very well could be another step closer to global governance.

 “The exact same individuals and government agencies, in addition to global institutions who stand to benefit the most, are the ones calling the shots."

 Gates, surely, fits the description of someone who is both calling the shots and stands to gain handsomely from the COVID-19 pandemic. How? First, by investing in the same industries he's giving charitable donations to and, second, by promoting a global public health agenda that benefits the companies he's invested in and supports.


 How Gates' Foundation Benefits from Its Own Donations.

 For example, in 2014, a Mastercard affiliate, MasterCard Labs for Financial Inclusion, received a $19 million donation "to 'increase usage of digital financial products by poor adults' in Kenya,"

 The Nation reports, adding:

 "The credit card giant had already articulated its keen business interest in cultivating new clients from the developing world's 2.5 billion unbanked people, McGoey says, so why did it need a wealthy philanthropist to subsidize its work? And why are Bill and Melinda Gates getting a tax break for this donation?"

 Indeed, those are sensible questions that need serious review. The Mastercard donation also appears to have benefited the Gates Foundation, making an investigation into Gates' "philanthropy" all the more necessary.

 As explained by The Nation, at the time of that donation, the Gates Foundation had "substantial financial investments in Mastercard through its holdings in Warren Buffett's investment company, Berkshire Hathaway."

 That's not the only questionable donation on record. The Nation found "close to $250 million in charitable grants from the Gates Foundation to companies in which the foundation holds corporate stocks and bonds."

 In other words, the Gates Foundation is giving money to companies that it owns stocks in and will benefit financially from.

 As a result, the Foundation and Gates himself continue to increase their wealth. Part of this growth in wealth also appears to be due to the tax breaks given for charitable donations. In short, it's a perfect money-shuffling scheme that limits taxes while maximizing income generation.

 Companies that have received donations that in turn made money for the Gates Foundation include Merck, Novartis, GlaxoSmithKline, Vodafone, Sanofi, Ericsson, LG, Medtronic, Teva and "numerous startups," The Nation writes, adding:

 "A foundation giving a charitable grant to a company that it partly owns — and stands to benefit from financially — would seem like an obvious conflict of interest …

 “Tax scholars like Ray Madoff, a law professor at Boston College, indicate that multibillionaires see tax savings of at least 40 percent — which, for Bill Gates, would amount to $14 billion …


Madoff, like many tax experts, stresses that these billions of dollars in tax savings have to be seen as a public subsidy — money that otherwise would have gone to the U.S. Treasury to help build bridges, do medical research, or close the funding gap at the IRS …

“If Bill and Melinda Gates don't pay their full freight in taxes, the public has to make up the difference or simply live in a world where governments do less and less (educating, vaccinating, and researching) and super-rich philanthropists do more and more.

 “I think people often confuse what wealthy people are doing on their own dime and what [they're] doing on our dime, and that's one of the big problems about this debate,' Madoff notes.

 “People say, 'It's the rich person's money [to spend as they wish].' But when they get significant tax benefits, it's also our money. And so that's why we need to have rules about how they spend our money.'"


 Take Action — Demand an Investigation.

 If donating to for-profit companies sounds oddly illegal to you, you'd be right. Gates is a tax evader for doing so — he's simply getting away with it. The nonprofit foundation is a disguise to avoid taxes while funding the research arms of for-profit organizations that his foundation is invested in.

 In reality, Bill and Melinda Gates should be given federal prison sentences, and while not directly spelled out, I believe that's really the point of The Nation's article. Using nonprofit money to advance research for companies you're invested in is illegal.

Gates is a staunch and longtime defender of the drug industry, and his intent to further the pharmaceutical agenda can clearly be seen in the current COVID-19 pandemic.


 Gates' COVID-19 Plan — Vaccinate Global Population.

 As reported by Forbes, The Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation has committed $100 million to fight the global COVID-19 outbreak. As much as $20 million will reportedly go to agencies such as the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the World Health Organization to be used for front-line detection, containment and treatment efforts.

 Another $20 million is earmarked for at-risk populations in Africa and South Asia while the remaining $60 million is to be used for vaccine development, diagnostics and other treatments.

Vaccines are clearly one of Gates' mainstay "solutions" to most diseases. Gates has gone on record saying the U.S. needs disease surveillance and a national tracking system that could involve vaccine records embedded on our bodies (such as invisible ink quantum dot tattoos described in a Science Translational Medicine paper.)

 In fact, he's stated that life will not go back to normal until we have the ability to vaccinate the entire global population against COVID-19. Dr. Anthony Fauci, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID), has echoed this exact sentiment as well, as if they're reading the same cue card. (Note that Dr Fauci is one of 5 members of the Executive Council of the Gates Foundation.)

 It would not surprise me if they were, seeing how the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation collaborates with both the NIAID and WHO "to increase coordination across the international vaccine community and create a Global Vaccine Action Plan."

 Fauci is on Gate's Leadership Council board charged with developing this vaccine action plan, as is WHO's former director general Dr. Margaret Chan. As explained in a Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation press release:

 "The Global Vaccine Action Plan will enable greater coordination across all stakeholder groups — national governments, multilateral organizations, civil society, the private sector and philanthropic organizations — and will identify critical policy, resource, and other gaps that must be addressed to realize the life-saving potential of vaccines."

 Gates influence over global health policies has been criticized for years, yet nothing has been done to limit it. If anything, his power has only grown, and warnings that his corporate interests may undermine public health policy now appears to have come true. As reported by Politico in 2017:

 "Some billionaires are satisfied with buying themselves an island. Bill Gates got a United Nations health agency in Geneva. Over the past decade, the world's richest man has become the World Health Organization's second biggest donor, second only to the United States and just above the United Kingdom …

“The Gates Foundation has pumped more than $2.4 billion into the WHO since 2000 … This largesse gives him outsized influence over its agenda … The result, say his critics, is that Gates' priorities have become the WHO's …

 “Some health advocates fear that because the Gates Foundation's money comes from investments in big business, it could serve as a Trojan horse for corporate interests to undermine WHO's role in setting standards and shaping health policies."


 Vaccinate or Become a Social Outcast?

 According to statements made by Gates, societal and financial normalcy may never return to those who refuse vaccination, as the digital vaccination certificate Gates is pushing for might ultimately be required to go about your day-to-day life and business.

 An April 4, 2020, article by Off-Guardian comments on Gates' March 24, 2020, interview with Chris Anderson, the curator of TED (which runs TED Talks) above:

 "Shockingly, Gates … suggests people be made to have a digital ID showing their vaccination status, and that people without this 'digital immunity proof' would not be allowed to travel. Such an approach would mean very big money for vaccine producers."

 Again, vaccine producers stand to make enormous amounts of money from any given pandemic, pandemic, and the Gates Foundation is both funding and making investment profits from vaccine makers. Is it any wonder then that Gates is trying to indoctrinate people into thinking there are no other answers? When asked by Anderson about the economic ramifications of the COVID-19 pandemic, Gates says:

 "It is really tragic that the economic effects of this are very dramatic ... But … bringing the economy back … that's more of a reversible thing than bringing people back to life. So, we're going to take the pain in the economic dimension, huge pain, in order to minimize the pain in disease and death dimension."


 As noted by Off-Guardian, Gates' statement:

 "… goes directly against the imperative to balance the benefits and costs of the screening, testing and treatment measures for each ailment — as successfully promulgated for years by, for example, the Choosing Wisely campaign — to provide the maximum benefit to individual patients and society as a whole. Even more importantly … there may be dramatically more deaths from the economic breakdown than from COVID-19 itself …

 “Millions could potentially die from suicide, drug abuse, lack of medical coverage or treatment, poverty and lack of food access, on top of other predictable social, medical and public-health problems stemming from the response to COVID-19."


 Gates Explains Economic Shutdown.

 At 33:45 in the interview, Gates goes on to reveal what appears to be a stunning insider’s insight into the current economic shutdown:

 “We don’t want to have a lot of recovered people … To be clear, we’re trying — through the shut-down in the United States — to not get to 1% of the population infected ... I believe we will be able to avoid that with having this economic pain.”

 In other words, if we are to believe Gates, we’re sacrificing the financial stability and sanity of hundreds of millions of Americans in order to prevent the infection rate from hitting 1% of the population.

 Keep in mind, the death rate for COVID-19 now appears to be on par with seasonal influenza, according to Fauci,22 so the vast majority of those infected end up recovering after mild illness, and have antibodies that should provide them with long-lasting immunity. Clearly, if you want to make money from a vaccine, you don’t want people to develop immunity naturally, and this is precisely what Gates is admitting to. As noted by Off-Guardian:

 “Gates and his colleagues far prefer to create a vast, hugely expensive, new system of manufacturing and selling billions of test kits, and in parallel very quickly developing and selling billions of antivirals and vaccines.

 “And then, when the virus comes back again a few months later and most of the population is unexposed and therefore vulnerable, selling billions more test kits and medical interventions.”


 Gates Leads Medical Tyranny Agenda.

 The short video above summarizes some of the points I've touched on in this article so far and reviews how the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation influences public health policy at the very highest levels through a vast web of personal and organizational interconnections.

 Gates has a history of "predicting" global pandemics with vast numbers of deaths,24 and with his call for a tracking system to keep tabs on infected/noninfected and vaccinated/unvaccinated individuals, he's ensuring an unimaginably profitable future for the vaccine makers he supports and makes money from via his Foundation investments.

 In an April 9, 2020, Children's Health Defense article, Robert F. Kennedy Jr. further details Gates' vaccine agenda. As noted by Kennedy:

 "Vaccines, for Bill Gates, are a strategic philanthropy that feed his many vaccine-related businesses (including Microsoft's ambition to control a global vaccination ID enterprise26) and give him dictatorial control of global health policy."

 The vaccination ID enterprise Kennedy mentions refers to a program called ID2020, launched in 2019, which is designed to "leverage immunization as an opportunity to establish digital identity."

 This digital identity system is said to carry "far-reaching implications for individuals' access to services and livelihoods," so to think that Gates' call for implantable COVID-19 vaccine certificates would be limited to that alone would likely be a grave mistake.

 It's not so far-fetched to imagine a future in which your vaccine certificate simply replaces personal identifications such as your driver's license, state ID card, Social Security card and passport.

 Far from being a force for good, Gates appears to have chosen to use his wealth and intellect to further a distasteful social control plan to benefit his own nefarious agendas, and people all over the world are finally starting to see his true colors.





News From Underground

From: Mark Crispin Miller
Sent: Sunday, June 28, 2020

Subject: [MCM] 46 doctors and other experts claim COVID-19 global death rate is 0.01%, and NOT the 3.4% imagined by the WHO






COVID-19 mutates:

Two strains detected



Rick Sanchez



Aerosols, Droplets, Fomites: What We Know About Transmission



by Pien Huang


Are we being lied to about how coronavirus is spread?


by Levi Quackenboss


LancetGate: “Scientific Corona Lies” and Big Pharma Corruption. Hydroxychloroquine versus Gilead’s Remdesivir


by Prof Michel Chossudovsky






The Last American Vagabond

Stanford Says COVID Death Rate ‘Almost ZERO’ For Those Under 40 & Israeli PreCrime Used On Americans

The Daily Wrap Up


with Ryan Christian






Glenn Greenwald breaks down new 'bogus' charges against

Julian Assange


with Glenn Greenwald



ASSANGE EXTRADITION: Assange Hit With New Superseding Indictment Broadening Computer Intrusion Charges


by Joe Lauria


Collateral Murder video & US Military cover up


with Chris Hedges





News From Underground

From: Mark Crispin Miller
Sent: Thursday, July 09, 2020
Subject: [MCM] The "science" of COVID-19 has been a catastrophic fraud


An admirably clear and thorough critique of the pseudo-science deployed to crash our world. Those who funded it, and those who cooked it up, must be held accountable.


Please share this far and wide.





Post navigation


Politics Influences the Science of COVID-19

by Josh Mitteldorf

Aging Matters


Posted on July 8, 2020



Many of us are still shell-shocked by the changes in our lives that have been imposed this spring. We’re reacting to each unexpected event as it comes. But to anyone who has stepped back to make sense of this web of contradictory messages that pour out of our newsfeeds, it is clear that the government agencies and corporate news media are slanting their message toward fear. I am particularly concerned when they do this at the expense of honesty. This is a moment for the scientific community to be engaging in spirited dialog among diverse voices. Only with open debatei can we hope to shed light to guide the momentous public policy decisions that are being made, directing our culture and global economy into unexplored territory. But instead of robust debate, what I see is a monolithic message, and censorship of the few brave scientists who dissent from that message. I’m ashamed to say that the scientific community has been part of the problem.

I’m writing here about two issues: 

Numbers reported by CDC have been gamed to make it appear that America is in the second wave of a pandemic. Instead of reporting COVID deaths, they began reported COVID cases. Then they conflated recovered individuals (who test positive for antibodies) with current cases (who test positive for the active virus). No wonder numbers are rising!


(2) A new report featured prominently in Nature purports to show that lockdowns have stemmed the spread of the virus and have saved lives. The article is by the same team whose flawed models produced apocalyptic predictions last March that justified lockdowns in Europe and the US. The new computer model assumes from the start that the number of COVID deaths would have expanded exponentially from their March levels, and that social distancing is the only factor responsible for lower death rates. That is, it assumes exactly what it purports to prove. Where is accountability? Why is this perspective promoted in the world’s most prestigious journal, while reasonable doubts are swept aside?

Part One—CDC reporting

The global death rate from COVID-19 is down to about 4,000 per day. It is not even among the top ten causes. COVID is lower than traffic deaths, lower than diarrhea. Even compared to other respiratory infections, COVID is now a minority.


News From Underground

From: Mark Crispin Miller
Sent: Wednesday, July 08, 2020
Subject: [MCM] “Treat COVID-19 patients early, with HCQ/zinc/AZT, and they'll do fine: Texas doc who's treated 75 cases—all now alive and well—tells us some urgent truths” (MUST-SEE)


We don't need more lockdowns, or masks, or—God forbid—that dubious vaccine. The proper therapy is cheap, and quick, if you treat COVID-19 patients well before they get so sick they wind up in the hospital, where they may well be doomed.






To Abolish the Medical industrial Complex


 by Gwendolyn Wallace




“This Uprising Is Unprecedented In US History”


with Michael Brooks and Noam Chomsky



Coronavirus – The Aftermath. A Coming Mega-Depression...


by Peter Koenig


Billionaires make bank in pandemic while homelessness spikes in LA


with Richard Wolff



The Deep Corruption of Gov't Stimulus Programs


with Richard Wolff



How the Fed Serves Capitalism


with Richard Wolff






France-Turkey tensions mount after NATO naval incident



by John Irish and Robin Emmott


US war drive against China accelerates


by Peter Symonds


Socialism in Venezuela


with Richard Wolff





Project Venezuela: Right-Wing Activists Push Wikipedia to Blacklist MintPress, other Alternative Media


by Alan Macleod


The Trust Project: Big Media and Silicon Valley's Weaponized Algorithms Silence Dissent


by Whitney Webb


American Exceptionalism Is on the Ropes and the End of the Petrodollar Is Nigh


by Raul Diego


Birth Of An Insurgency: The US-Israeli “Secret Deal” To Manipulate Protests In Iran


by Whitney Webb


Israel's attacks on Iran's nuclear sites signal a new phase of conflict


by Richard Silverstein


The White Helmets’ Underground “Hospitals” in Syria’s Idlib


by Vanessa Beeley


How Victims of the US’ “Maximum Pressure” Campaign Are Coping with Coronavirus


by Vanessa Beeley





News From Underground

From: Mark Crispin Miller
Sent: Thursday, July 09, 2020
Subject: [MCM] Voldemort is coming after J.K. Rowling; and Twitter evidently works for him.


I meant to send this out back when it ran a few weeks back. So here it is,

belatedly; and, attached, you'll also find a fresh pro-Rowling tweet that no 

one can retweet for forward.


This rampant censorship by Big Tech, along with what now calls itself 

"the left," is indefensible, and far more dangerous than the coronavirus

(another issue that it's risky to discuss forthrightly). It used to be the right

that called for censorship (remember Ari Fleischer, Dubya's reptilian press secretary, saying, "People should watch what they," soon after 9/11?), and liberals who deplored it. It's been noted often, and correctly, that it's now liberals and "progressives" who believe in "free speech" only for themselves, as loyal members of the Outer Party.




p.s. There's some irony in this op ed appearing in the Daily Mail, which,

along with Rupert Murdoch's Times, came after me and other academics 

for promoting irresponsible "conspiracy theories" about Syria, 9/11 and 







ANDREW DOYLE: “JK Rowling row shows how Britain is in the grip of a frightening new kind of religion that demands moral purity and permits no dissent.”

By Andrew Doyle For The Mail On Sunday22:02 27 Jun 2020, updated 09:15 28 Jun 2020


Every day there seems to be a new entry into the lexicon of social justice to add to the already burgeoning list that includes ‘no- platforming’, ‘trigger warnings’, ‘hate speech’ and ‘cultural appropriation’. One of the latest is the barb directed at author J. K. Rowling, who has been accused of being ‘radicalised online’.

This alarmist phrase – previously associated with jihadi terrorists – brings to mind all manner of transgressions. Had she joined a fanatical death-cult, or endorsed a national policy of eugenics, or embedded subliminal Nazi propaganda into her forthcoming new children’s book?

No. Rowling’s so-called ‘radicalisation’ is her belief that there are biological differences between men and women.





A President Who Makes Us Puke—Just Like He Was Hired To Do


by John F. Harris





Foundations Fund Phony
'Left' Media Gatekeepers

(Link to the chart of foundations funding "left" media gatekeepers:)



News From Underground

From: Mark Crispin Miller
Sent: Friday, July 10, 2020
Subject: [MCM] "Why we stay asleep when COVID-19 is trying to wake us up" (MUST-READ)


A beautiful analysis of why, and how, we must break free from our abusers.



Why We Stay Asleep When Covid-19

Is Trying to Wake Us Up



by Kelly Brogan, MD, Ali Zeck, Sayer Ji



There’s a phrase we all keep hearing: It doesn’t make sense.

We’ve heard it from citizen journalists, from hospital and police force whistleblowers, and from otherwise compliant and law abiding self-quarantiners whose personal, lived experience simply isn’t adding up to what they are being told is happening by mainstream media.

So what is it that doesn’t make sense?

Is it:

that many medical experts have actually downgraded the potential threat of Covid-19 from initial projections by orders of magnitude, including Dr. Anthony Fauci himself, in a New England Journal of Medicine report where he wrote that “the overall clinical consequences of Covid-19 may ultimately be more akin to a severe seasonal influenza (which has a case fatality rate of approximately 0.1%) …” yet we are seeing unprecedented, draconian style control measures being implemented by executive order?

that there were staged planning events in October 2019 including Urban Outbreak and Event 201nationwide CDC Quarantine Program job postings from November of 2019, a coronavirus patent

World Bank pandemic bonds, well in advance of when this pandemic supposedly started, and spontaneously erupted and disseminated globally in a manner that could never be explained through person to person contagion?

that doctors are being told to code all deaths as covid without so much as the facade of testing when up to 99% of case fatalities are in individuals with multiple pre-existing conditions, the vast majority of them elderly?

that hospitals are supposedly full to the brim with intubated patients when hospital staff are being laid off or furloughed, and whistleblowers are speaking to iatrogenic harm and death (including through intubation) being systematically committed by physicians?


·        that the plan for “return to normal” is being dictated by an unelected software technocrat who happens to also fund GMOs (including non-meat synthetic products), 5G, all of the labs currently working on the vaccine, implantable tracking devices, and the WHO?

·        that people were dying en masse from all manner of preventable illnesses ranging from obesity to hunger to properly prescribed medications with no historical precedent for governmental intervention around these far deadlier epidemics, but now we are to believe that the government cares so much about us that it will “keep us safe” even against our will?

·        that we should consent to be traced and tracked as law-abiding, healthy civilians even when convicted felons and many sex offenders are not?

·        that facial coverings ranging from a scarf to a reused surgical mask with mm pore sizes are going to “keep out” what we are calling a virus which is nm in diameter? 1

·        that mask-wearing has been enforced when the Surgeon General, the WHO and even Fauci say to not wear them, and elected officials congregated on television have never worn them?

·        that Walmart, Target, and Costco are open while small businesses, parks, and beaches have been shuttered since March 14th, many of which will remain permanently closed due to the irreversible economic impacts of the shutdown?

·        that the list of the virus’s associated symptoms have grown and changed, all the while without there being unequivocal evidence of the virus’s point-of-origin in isolation in Wuhan or proof of global contagion?

·        that 5G networks are being installed during a time of “essential work only” in every major metropolitan area while we are quarantined in our homes?

·        that the immune system thrives on diversity of exposure, sunlight, time in nature and in loving company of others, but we are being told to hide alone, indoors?

·        that 30 million people in this country alone have suddenly lost their jobs through “essential business” restrictions, however there happened to be a 1000 page piece of legislation spontaneously prepared to institute the roll out of a system of government handouts and cashless currency?

·        that numbers of cases are determined through testing methods that do not confirm Covid-19, have tested positive in fruit and animals, and which the test inventor said should not be used to identify a specific disease?





En pleine pandémie, des millions d’Américains privés d’eau potable


par Solani Bourébi





News From Underground

From: Mark Crispin Miller
Sent: Friday, July 10, 2020
Subject: [MCM] Trump pulls millions from the WHO, gives billions to Gates' GAVI


Too many people on the right, and some few on the real left, have let themselves
be fooled by Orange Julius' pretense that he's opposed to mandatory vaccination.
Thus the right deludes itself just as so many on the left fell for the fake-out by
Barack Obama—and, right now, the fantasy that Bernie's going to move Joe Biden
to the left (which, in fact, will mainly mean a more "diverse" cast of supporting 
players, a few more federal pennies for the have-nots—digital pennies, probably
—and, of course, the "Green New Deal," which is another faux-left plutocratic 

It's way past time for both the right and left—or, rather, real conservatives, and
genuine progressives—to snap out of the pipe dream that America's quadrennial 
pro wrestling match presents real choices, that either party cares at all about
our lives, regardless of which color, and that the President of the United States
is actually in charge. JFK—"that little Kennedy," as Allen Dulles chucklingly
referred to him a few years after Dallas—was the last one who believed that
he was serving as our Chief Executive, and tried to use his power for peace,
and in the interests of the people. What happened to him made quite clear to 
all of his successors—Trump included—that they're really not allowed to
rule, but only star in the ongoing theatricale. 

Thus, contrary to my subject line, it isn't really Trump who's pumping money
into GAVI, but, mainly, our never-once-elected medical dictator Tony Fauci—
the Robert Moses of US healthcare. 



Vaccine Bait & Switch: As Millions Pulled From WHO, Trump Gives Billions To Gates-Founded GAVI

Posted on July 7, 2020 AuthorDerrick BrozeComments(6) 905 Views
In mid-May US President Donald Trump announced that the US would be ending their financial support for the World Health Organization (WHO) and COVID-19 relief. The move was lambasted in the mainstream press as an out of touch politician pulling funding from a vital global health organization during the middle of a pandemic. To Trump’s supporters the decision was met with the typical cheering and celebrated as another Trump victory against the “globalists.” To understand what is actually going on we need to examine Donald Trump’s actions, not his tweets or media statements.
Let us start by looking at the funding provided by the US government to the WHO in previous years. The latest numbers from fiscal year 2018 (numbers are not available for 2019-20) show an estimated $281.6 million to the WHO from the US. The records indicate that after the US government, the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation and GAVI, the Vaccine Alliance, are the 2nd and 3rd top financiers of the WHO. The US defunding the WHO actually tightens the technocrats already firm grip on another global institution.
This means when Donald Trump stated the US will no longer fund the WHO, the Gates Foundation and GAVI stepped into the top financial role. Additionally, GAVI was founded by and largely funded by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation in 2000. Either way, Bill Gates is the top donor and will continue to expand his influence and dominance of global health policy. As reported in Part 2 of my Bill Gates investigation, in 2010 the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation launched the “Decade of Vaccines” and called for a “Global Vaccine Action Plan.” Since that time they have only grown their network and influence on WHO, GAVI and other organizations in order to shape public health policy in a way that reaps profits for the Gates themselves.
While Trump’s supporters viewed the US withdrawal from WHO financing as a win for nationalism or a black eye to the globalists, the truth is a bit more nuanced.
In early June, the Trump administration declared support for GAVI to the tune of a $1.16 billion USD donation. Trump’s support for GAVI came via the first ever virtual Global Vaccine Summit. At this summit GAVI surpassed the goal of $7.4 billion, instead raising $8.8 billion USD and securing commitments from most major nations around the world. GAVI even received a $5 million dollar donation from the Rockefeller Foundation. GAVI stated that the funding will go to “routine immunization programs” and will also help the public-private partnership “play a major role in the rollout of a future Covid-19 vaccine.”



Pentagon Memo Warns of “Real Possibility” of Second Wave of Covid-19



"Ladies and Gentlemen,

This Is The Plague"


 with Michael Moore and Laurie Garrett