Bulletin N° 869





(2 h)

The 1982 film by Costa Gavras on the Coup d'état in Chile in 1973

  (Free film, but with a 2 or 3 minute delay before streaming.)



Subject : The Capitalist Conspiracy, Part  5: The Finance Industry & Population Control.




December 2, 2019

Grenoble, France


Dear Colleagues and Friends of CEIMSA,


In Chapter 5 of his book, Tragedy and Hope 101: The Illusion of Justice, Freedom and Democracy (2014), Joseph Plummer addresses what he believes to be “the main problem and the main solution” of the contemporary political economy of neoliberalism. He concludes that, “. . . there isn’t anything particularly complicated about how to free ourselves from financial and political servitude. In a nutshell, it boils down to this: the Network’s empire is built entirely on stolen financial power and manufactured consent.”  

Our objective is to undermine both of these, one mind and one dollar at a time, until the Network can no longer defend itself in any meaningful way.(p.108)

The “main problem,” as Plummer sees it, is the creation of “debt slavery.” He cites his principle source, Carroll Quigley (Tragedy & Hope: A History of the World in Our Time, page 157) to support this claim:


Although slavery was abolished  . . . many of the poor were reduced to peonage by contracting debts . . . binding themselves and their heirs to work for their creditors until the debt was paid. Such debt could never be paid in many cases, because the rate at which it was reduced was left to the creditor and could rarely be questioned by the illiterate debtor.(cited on p.92)


Plummer goes on to justify his reason for explaining how the “debt-money system” works:


Since most people dislike being ripped off and exploited, it’s reasonable to assume that the only reason the masses tolerate this debt-money system is because they do not understand how it works. . . . [T]his chapter will attempt to end the financial illiteracy that the Network absolutely depends on. (p.93)


He begins with the question, “What is Money?”; but quickly revises it to a better question: “What does money do?”


    In the simplest terms, money enables us to purchase products and services from other people. Using this basic description, we might go on to say money can be anything that is widely accepted as payment for products and services. Having defined money in this way, it will be easer to explain the different forms of money and why some are far more honest than others. But first, let’s quickly touch on what existed before money – “barter.”(p.94)


He briefly describes the exchange of products and services in the pre-monetary system, and then introduces the “commodity money,” where a product (such as corn) took on a value that “exceeded its consumption value” and was widely used for its “exchange value” as a form of currency. Metal became a popular commodity money – first iron, copper and tin; then eventually gold and silver coins became standard items of exchange for goods and services around the world.


     Both commodity money and barter share a couple of desirable attributes. The fist attribute is transparency. If I was to trade my goat for some of your corn, I’ll have to bring my goat and you’ll have to being some corn. The odds of either of us walking away with something else in our pockets, like a cricket, are pretty slim. Likewise, if I offer to buy something from you with a Gold Eagle (US gold coin), I must hand over a Gold Eagle. There is little chance that you will be duped into accepting a far less valuable Silver Eagle as payment for your item.


     The second desirable attribute is the intrinsic value of the items traded. There are significant natural barriers that limit the production of commodities and, as such, there intrinsic value is transferred to anyone who acquires them. The person who acquires corn does not have to grow and harvest the corn himself; the person who earns a gold coin does not have to dig the gold out of the  ground, fashion it into a coin, and convince others of its authenticity. Nobody can simply create gold, corn or a goat with the flick of a pen. For this reason, these items will always posses the intrinsic value of (the labor and the other costs that produced them.


     These two attributes (transparency and intrinsic value) made it reasonably difficult to defraud people in trade because it isn’t easy to convince somebody that you’ve paid them with a goat when, in fact, you’ve handed them a cricket. But just as barter led to the invention of commodity money, and commodity money eventually devolved into metal coins made form gold and silver, the inconveniences of gold and silver coins eventually led to the creation of a new form of money. And with it, the ability to easily defraud people (the ability to crate money with ‘the flick of a pen’) was born.(pp.96-97)

. . .


     Few realize that money comes in many different forms. A basic list would include commodity money, receipt money, fractional money, fiat money, and debt money.  . . . Some of these forms of money are far easier to abuse than others, with the last one on the list (debt money) being the worst. Debt money is actually designed to enslave those who use it. No surprise than that debt money is what the Network has chosen to crate and spread to all corners of the globe.(p.92)


After giving succinct descriptions of the various forms of money, Plummer focuses on the particularly odious features of "debt money."


     Take the inherently fraudulent characteristics of the goldsmith’s factional money system, add in the greater fraud and force of pure fiat, top it off with the mechanism designed to generate inescapable debt, and presto: you’ve got the most sophisticated monetary-enslavement system ever devised by man. And, wouldn’t you know, you also have all the components that make up our current monetary system.


     Unlike a normal fiat money system (where the ruling class simply crates its own worthless paper money, spends it into the economy, and demands that everyone accept it), our ruling class has devised something much more powerful. Rather than spend money into our economy, they loan money into our economy. This enables the Network to steal purchasing power form us twice: once when they create new money, and again as they collect interest on the entire money supply.


     Worst of all, by creating money and putting it into circulation only when a loan is made, and then destroying that same money (removing it from circulation) when the loan is repaid, the Network has designed the perfect debt trap. Any meaningful attempt to escape this debt rap, by paying down debt, will trigger an automatic ‘correction mechanism’ that guarantees failure. The chain of events is perfectly predictable: as the nation repays its banking debts (and refuses to take out new loans), the economy’s debt-based money supply will shrink. This will cause disruptions in the economy; initially the disruptions will be minor, but they will inevitably become intolerable if new money isn’t injected via new loans. (Imagine the consequences of a 10 percent reduction in the nation’s money supply . . . now imagine a 40 percent reduction, a 60 percent reduction, or an 80 percent reduction.)


     Theoretically, if new loans are not issued to reverse the automatic ‘correction mechanism’ that the Network has built into the system, and if all available funds continue to be applied toward extinguishing Network-created debt, then the debt-based money supply must eventually fall to zero.


     Robert Hemphill was the credit manager of the Federal Reserve Bank in Atlanta. In the foreword to a book by Irving Fisher, entitled 100% Money, Hemphill said this (as cited in The Creature From Jekyll Island on page 188) :


If all the bank loans were paid, no one could have a bank deposit, and there would not be a dollar of coin or currency in circulation. This is a staggering thought. We are completely dependent on the commercial banks. Someone has to borrow every dollar we have. . . . If the banks create ample synthetic money we are prosperous; if not, we starve. We are absolutely without a permanent money system. When one gets a complete grasp of the picture, the tragic absurdity of our hopeless situation is almost incredible – but there it is.(cited by Plummer on p.102-103)


Plummer concludes this section on “Debt Money” with a call to action.


     In the meantime, the illiterate debtors of the world slave away with no idea that the money they ‘owe’ was created out of thin air; it was never earned by the lender. They have no idea that the system itself was designed to create an ever-expanding black hole of debt, a system of financial servitude that is literally inescapable.(p.104)


He continues by citing from his earlier book, Dishonest Money: Financing the Road to Ruin, page 65 :


          Those conspiring to bring us a ‘world government’ ruled by an ‘intellectual elite and world bankers’ are not playing games. They’ve worked hard to perfect and implement their strategy of economic conquest. They’ve proven their ability to seize control of nations large and small (even far-flung empires). They certainly haven’t come all this way for nothing.(cited on p. 104)


The need to confront this Juggernaut is Plummer’s final emphasis in this chapter of Tragedy and Hope :


     There isn’t enough room here to cover here how inflation, deflation, booms, busts, and bailouts all provide additional ways for the Network to transfer wealth and power into its own hands. For now, it’s enough to reiterate the opening claim of this chapter: money is the root of the Network’s power. For them to dominate ‘all the habitable portions of the world,’ they absolutely must maintain their ability to confiscate, create, and control the money that we earn. And since they will never surrender these monetary weapons willingly, our only choice is to forcibly disarm them.(pp.104-105)




Many years before Joseph Plummer’s research on this subject, F. William Engdahl wrote, A Century of  War: Anglo-American Oil Politics and the New World Order (1994 & 2012), where he delved into secret histories of the 20th century, and specifically the hidden machinations of  central banking, giant oil companies, and U.S./British secret diplomacy. In a chapter entitled, “Running the World Economy in Reverse,” Engdahl wrote:


On October 6, 1973, Egypt and Syria invaded Israel, igniting what became known as the ‘Yom Kippur’ war. Contrary to popular impression, the ‘Yom Kippur’ war was not the simple result of miscalculation, blunder or an Arab decision to launch a military strike against the state of Israel. The entire events surrounding outbreak of the October war were secretly orchestrated by Washington and London, using the powerful diplomatic secret channels developed by Nixon’s White House National Security Adviser, Henry Kissinger.


     Kissinger effectively controlled the Israeli policy response through this intimate relation with Israel’s Washington ambassador, Simcha Dinitz. As well, Kissinger cultivated channels to the Egyptian and Syrian side. His method was simply to misrepresent to each party the critical elements of the other, ensuring the war and its subsequent Arab oil embargo.


     U.S. intelligence reports including intercepted communications from Arab officials, confirming the buildup for war, were firmly suppressed by Kissinger, who was by then Nixon’s intelligence ‘czar.’ The war and its aftermath, Kissinger’s infamous ‘shuttle diplomacy,’ were scripted in Washington, along the precise lines of the Bilderberg deliberations of the previous May in Saltsjoebaden [Sweden], some six months before outbreak of the war. Arab oil-producing nations were to be the scapegoat for the coming rage of the world, while the Anglo-American interests responsible, stood quietly in the background.(p.164)

. . .


     But while Kissinger’s 1973 oil shock had a devastating impact on world industrial growth, it had an enormous befit for certain established interests  - the major New York and London banks, and the Seven Sister oil multinationals of the U.S. and Britain. Exxon replaced General Motors as the largest American corporation in gross revenues by 1974. Her sisters were not far behind, including Mobil, Texaco, Chevron and Gulf.


     The bulk of OPEC dollar revenues, Kissinger’s ‘recycled petrodollars,’ was deposited with the leading banks of London and New York, the banks which dealt in dollars as well as international oil trade. Chase Manhattan, Citibank, Manufacturers Hanover, Bank of America, Barclays, Lloyds, Midland Bank, all enjoyed the windfall profits of the oil shock. We shall later see how they recycled their ‘petro-dollars’ during the 1970s, and how it set the stage for the great debt crisis of the 1980’s.(p.170)


Engdahl goes on to describe how powerful corporate capitalists came to control social movements in order to redirect them toward innocuous objectives.


Taking the bloom off the ‘nuclear rose’


One principal concern of the authors of the 400 percent oil price increase, was how to ensure their drastic action did not drive the world to accelerate an already strong trend towards construction of a far more efficient and ultimately less expensive alternative energy source – nuclear electricity generation.(p.170)  

. . .


     Clearly, the Anglo-American energy grip, based on their tight control of the world’s major energy source, petroleum, was threatened if these quite feasible programs went ahead.


     Nuclear energy represented in the postwar period precisely the same quality of higher technological level, which oil had been over coal when Lord Fisher and Winston Churchill argued at the end of the last century for Britain’s navy to convert to oil from coal. The major difference was that Britain and her cousins in the United States in the 1970’s, held the grip on the world oil supplies. World nuclear technology threatened to open unbounded energy possibilities, especially if plans for commercial nuclear fast breeders were realized, as well as thermonuclear fusion.(p.172)

. . .


     As one prominent anti-nuclear American form the Aspen Institute put their problem, ‘We must take the bloom off the ‘nuclear rose;’’ And take it off they did.(p.173)


Developing the Anglo-American green agenda


     Beginning [in] the 1970’s, an awesome propaganda offensive was launched from select Anglo-American think-tanks and journals, intended to shape the new ‘limits to growth’ agenda, which would insure the ‘success’ of the dramatic oil shock strategy. The American oilman present at the May 1973 Saltsjoebaden meeting of the Bilderberg group, Robert O. Anderson, was a central figure in the implementation of the ensuing Anglo-American ecology agenda. It was to become one of the most successful frauds in history.


     Anderson and his Atlantic Richfield Oil Co. funneled millions of dollars through their Atlantic Richfield Foundation into select organizations to target nuclear energy. One of the prime beneficiaries of Anderson’s largesse was a group called Friends of the Earth, which was organized at this time with a $200,000 grant from Anderson. One of the earliest targets of Anderson’s Friends of the Earth was to finance an assault on the German nuclear industry, through such anti-nuclear actions as the anti-Brockdorf demonstrations in 1976, led by Friends of the Earth leader Holger Strohm. Friends of the Earth French director was the Paris partner of the Rockefeller family law firm, Coudert Brothers, one Brice LaLonde, who in 1089 became Mitterand’s Environmental Minister. It was Friends of the Earth which was used to block a major Japan-Australia uranium supply agreement. In November 1974 Japanese Prime Minister Tanaka came to Canberra to meet Australian Prime Minister Gough Whitlam.  The two made a commitment potentially worth billions of dollars, for Australia to supply Japan’s needs for future uranium ore and enter a joint project to develop uranium enrichment technology. British uranium mining giant, Rio Tinto Zinc, secretly deployed Friends of the Earth in Australia to mobilize opposition to the pending Japanese agreement, resulting some months later in the fall of Whitlam’s government. Friends of the Earth had ‘friends’ in very high places in London and Washington.


     But Robert O. Anderson’s major vehicle to spread the new ‘limits to growth’ ideology among American and European establishment circles was his Aspen Institute for Humanistic Studies. With Anderson as Chairman, the Atlantic Richfield head Thornton Bradshaw as vice-chairman, the Aspen Institute was a major financial conduit in the early 1970’s for creation of the establishment’s new anti-nuclear agenda.


     Among the better-known trustees of Aspen at this time were World Bank President and the man who ran the Vietnam War, Robert S. McNamara. Lord Bullock of Oxford University and Richard Gardner, an anglophile American economist who later was U.S. Ambassador to Italy and Wall Street bank, Russell Peterson of Lehman Brothers Kuhn Loeb Inc., were among the carefully selected trustees of Aspen at this time, as were EXXON board member Jack G. Clarke, Gulf Oil’s Jerry McAfee, Mobil Oil director George C. McGhee, the former State Department official who was present in 1954 at the founding meeting of the Bilderberg group. Involved with Anderson’s Aspen as well from this early period, was Hamburg’s De Zeit publisher Marion Countess Doenhoff, as well as former Chase Manhattan Bank chairman and High Commissioner to Germany, John J. McCloy.


     Robert O. Anderson brought in Joseph Slater form McGeorge Bundy’s Ford Foundation to serve as Aspen’s president. It was indeed a close-knit family in the Anglo-American establishment of the early 1970’s. The initial project Slater launched at Aspen was the preparation for an international organizational offensive against industrial growth and especially nuclear energy, using the auspices (and the money) of the United Nations. Slater secured support of Sweden’s UN Ambassador Sverker Aastrom, who steered through the UN a proposal, over strenuous objections from developing countries, for an international conference on the environment.(pp.173-175)

. . .


     Indicative of this financial establishment’s overwhelming influence in the American and British media, is the fact that during this period, no public outcry was launched to investigate the probable conflict of interest involved in Robert O. Anderson’s well-financed anti-nuclear offensive, and the fact that his Atlantic Richfield Oil Co. as one of the major beneficiaries from the 1974 price increase of oil. Anderson’s ARCO had invested tens of millions of dollars into high-risk oil infrastructure in Alaska’s Prudhoe Bay and Britain North Sea, together with Exxon, British Petroleum, Shell and other Severn Sisters.


     Has the 1974 oil stock not raised the market price of oil to $11.65/barrel or thereabouts, Anderson’s, as well as British Petroleum and Exxon and the other’s investments in the North Sea and Alaska would have brought financial ruin. To ensure a friendly pres voice in Britain, Anderson at this time purchased ownership of the London Observer. Virtually no one asked if Anderson and his influential friends might have known in advance that Kissinger would create the conditions for a 400 percent oil price rise.


     Not to leave any zero growth stone unturned, Robert O. Anderson also contributed significant funds to a project initiated by the Rockefeller family at the Rockefeller’s estate at Bellagio, Italy with Aurelio Peccei and Alexander King. This Club of Rome, and the U.S. Association of the Club of Rome, in 1972 gave widespread publicity to their publication of a scientifically fraudulent computer simulation, prepared by Dennis Meadows and Jay Forrester, titled, ‘Limits to Growth.’ Adding modern computer graphics to the discredited essay of Malthus, Meadows and Forrester insisted that the world would soon perish for lack of adequate energy, food and other resources. As did Malthus, they chose to ignore the impact of technological progress on improving the human condition. Their message was one of unmitigated gloom and cultural pessimism.


     One of the most targeted countries for this new Anglo-American anti-nuclear offensive in this time was Germany. While France’s nuclear

 program was equally if not more ambitious, Germany was deemed an area where Anglo-American intelligence assets had greater likelihood of success given their history in the postwar occupation of the Federal  Republic. Almost as soon as the ink had dried on the Schmidt government‘s 1975 nuclear development program, an offensive was launched.


    A key operative in this new project was to be a young woman whose mother was German and stepfather American and who had lived in the U.S. until 1970, working for U.S. Senator Hubert Humphrey, among other things. Petra K. Kelly had developed close ties in her U.S. year’s to one of the principle new Anglo-American anti- nuclear organizations created by McGeorge Bundy’s Ford Foundation , the Natural Renounces Defense Council. The Natural resources Defense Council included Barbara Ward (Lady Jackson) and Laurence Rockefeller among its board at the time. In Germany, Kelly began organizing legal assaults against construction of the German nuclear program during the mid-1970’s, resulting in costly delays and eventual large cuts in the entire German nuclear plan.(p.176-177)



“Population control becomes US ‘national security’


In 1798 an obscure English clergyman, professor of political economy in the employ of the British East India Company’s East India College at Halleybury, was given instant fame by his English sponsors for his ‘Essay on the Principle of Population.’ The essay itself was a scientific fraud, plagiarized largely from a Venetian attack on the positive population theory of American Benjamin Franklin.


     The Venetian attack on Franklin’s essay had been written by Giammaria Ortes in 1774. Malthus’s adaptation of Ortes’ ‘theory’ was refined with a facade of mathematical legitimacy which he called the ‘law of geometric progression,’ which held that human populations invariably expanded geometrically, while the means of subsistence were arithmetically limited or linear. The flaw in Malthus’ argument, as demonstrated irrefutably by the spectacular growth of civilization, technology and agriculture productivity since 1798, was Mathus’ deliberate ignoring of the contribution of advances in science and technology to dramatically improve such factors as crop yields, labor productivity and such.


     By the mid-1970’s, indicative of the effectiveness of the new propaganda onslaught form the Anglo-American establishment, American government officials were openly boasting in public press conferences that they were committed ‘neo-Malthusians,’ something for which they would have been laughed out of office a mere decade or so earlier. But nowhere did the new embrace of British Malthusian economics in the United States show itself more brutally than in Kissinger’s National Security Council.


     On April 24, 1974, in the midst of the oil crisis, White House National Security adviser, Henry Alfred Kissinger, issued a National Security Council Study Memorandum 200 (NSSM 200), on the subject of ‘Implications of Worldwide population Growth for U.S. Security and Overseas Interests.’ It was directed to all cabinet secretaries, the military Joint Chiefs of Staff as well as the CIA and other key agencies. On October 16, 1975, on Kissinger’s urging, President Gerald Ford issued a memorandum confirming the need for ‘U.S. leadership in world population matters,’ based on the contents of the classified NSSM 200 document. The document made Malthusianism, for the first time in American history, an explicit item of security policy of the government of the United States. More bitter the irony, was the fact that it was initiated by a German-born Jew. Even during the Nazi years, government officials in Germany were more guarded about officially espousing such goals.


     NSSM 200 argued that population expansion in select developing countries which also contain key strategic resources necessary to the U.S. economy, posed potential U.S. ‘national security threats.’ The study warned that under pressure from an expanding domestic population, countries with needed raw materials will tend to demand better prices and higher terms of trade for their exports to the United States. In this context, the NSSM 200 identified a target list of 13 countries singled out as ‘strategic targets’ for U.S. efforts at population control. This list, drawn up in 1974, no doubt, as with all other major decisions of Kissinger, also involving close consultation with the British Foreign Office, is instructive.


     Kissinger explicitly stated in the memorandum, ‘how much more efficient expenditures for population control might be than (would be funds for) raising production through direct investments of additional irrigation and power projects and factories.’ British 19th century Imperialism could have expressed it no better. By the middle 1970’s the government of the United States, with this secret policy declaration, had committed itself to an agenda which would contribute to its own economic demise as well as untold famine, misery and unnecessary death throughout the developing sector. The 13 target countries named by Kissinger’s study were Brazil, Pakistan, India, Bangladesh, Egypt, Nigeria, Mexico, Indonesia, Philippines, Thailand, Turkey, Ethiopia and Colombia.(pp.177-179)






The 14 + items below present discussions and interpretations of current events, the context of which - the political and economic relationships within the system of financial corporate hegemony - is presented in the books we have introduced above. The force of these current events will inevitably change our lives, for better or for worse. To escape the trap of alienation, we should be mindful of any room for maneuver that might present itself and we should make the most of it to take greater control of our lives by influencing the collective context in which we live at any moment. Today, as we see social movements being taken over by corporate interests - thereby being “hollowed out” and losing their substance and their initial purpose which was originally guided by popular control – it is incumbent upon all of us to remain skeptical of motivations and to challenge publically the corrupting influence of corporate, for-profit interests, based on labor exploitation and cynical methods of  population control.




Francis Feeley


Professeur honoraire de l'Université Grenoble-Alpes
Ancien Directeur des Researches
Université de Paris-Nanterre
Director of The Center for the Advanced Study
of American Institutions and Social Movements

The University of California-San Diego





Huge public, corporate and household debt looks like the ‘new normal’ for the global economy – until the next crisis


by Anthony Rowley


The World's Shrinking Population


with Darrel Bricker and John Ibbitson co-authors of, "Empty Planet: The Shock of Global Population Decline"

Dire predictions about an impending overpopulation crisis have loomed large in the human imagination for centuries. Darrel Bricker and John Ibbitson co-authors of, "Empty Planet: The Shock of Global Population Decline," say these predictions have been greatly exaggerated. In fact, the global population is on the decline. They join The Agenda to discuss a shrinking planet and the myriad challenges it poses.


The awful truth re: Bill Gates and eugenics


by Mark Crispin Miller


Depopulation Crisis – When Numbers Don’t Add Up, You’ve been Cheated

by Jean Perier


A former "poster child" for Indira Gandhi's "population control" speaks out on what they're doing to Greta Thunberg


from Ajay Goyal


"Recession Watch: Fed Rate Cuts Indicate Unhealthy Economy"


with Larry King



Open Letter From Sixty Doctors:

Medical doctors seriously concerned "Mr Assange could die in prison"


Open letter to the UK home secretary about the plight of the WikiLeaks’ publisher in London’s Belmarsh prison



Pilger: The Lies About Assange Must Stop Now


by John Pilger


21st Century Wire

Newspapers and other media in the United States, Britain and Australia have recently declared a passion for freedom of speech, especially their right to publish freely.  They are worried by the “Assange effect”.

It is as if the struggle of truth-tellers like Julian Assange and Chelsea Manning is now a warning to them: that the thugs who dragged Assange out of the Ecuadorean embassy in April may one day come for them.

A common refrain was echoed by the Guardian last week. The extradition of Assangesaid the paper, “is not a question of how wise Mr. Assange is, still less how likable. It’s not about his character, nor his judgement. It’s a matter of press freedom and the public’s right to know.”

What the Guardian is trying to do is separate Assange from his landmark achievements, which have both profited the Guardian and exposed its own vulnerability, along with its propensity to suck up to rapacious power and smear those who reveal its double standards.

The poison that has fueled the persecution of Julian Assange is not as obvious in this editorial as it usually is; there is no fiction about Assange smearing faeces on embassy walls or being awful to his cat.

Instead, the weasel references to “character” and “judgement” and “likeability” perpetuate an epic smear which is now almost a decade old.  Nils Melzer, the United Nations Rapporteur on Torture, used a more apt description. “There has been,” he wrote, “a relentless and unrestrained campaign of public mobbing.”  He explains mobbing as “an endless stream of humiliating, debasing and threatening statements in the press”. This “collection ridicule” amounts to torture and could lead to Assange’s death.

Having witnessed much of what Melzer describes , I can vouch for the truth of his words. If Julian Assange were to succumb to the cruelties heaped upon him, week after week, month after month, year upon year, as doctors warn, newspapers like the Guardian will share the responsibility.

A few days ago, the Sydney Morning Herald’s man in London, Nick Miller, wrote a lazy, specious piece headlined, “Assange has not been vindicated, he has merely outwaited justice.”  He was referring to Sweden’s abandonment of the so-called Assange investigation.

Miller’s report is not untypical for its omissions and distortions while masquerading as a tribune of women’s rights. There is no original work, no real inquiry: just smear.

There is nothing on the documented behaviour of a clutch of Swedish zealots who hi jacked the “allegations” of sexual misconduct against Assange and made a mockery of Swedish law and that society’s vaunted decency.

He makes no mention that in 2013, the Swedish prosecutor tried to abandon the case and emailed the Crown Prosecution Service in London to say it would no longer pursue a European Arrest Warrant, to which she received the reply: “Don’t you dare!!!” (Thanks to Stefania Maurizi of La Repubblica)

Other emails show the CPS discouraging the Swedes from coming to London to interview Assange – which was common practice – thus blocking progress that might have set him free in 2011.

There was never an indictment. There were never charges. There was never a serious attempt to put “allegations” to Assange and question him – behaviour that the Swedish Court of Appeal ruled to be negligent and the General Secretary of the Swedish Bar Association has since condemned.

Both the women involved said there was no rape.  Critical written evidence of their text messages was wilfully withheld from Assange’s lawyers, clearly because it undermined the “allegations”.

One of the women was so shocked that Assange was arrested, she accused the police of railroading her and changing her witness statement. The chief prosecutor, Eva Finne, dismissed the “suspicion of any crime.”

The Sydney Morning Herald man omits how an ambitious and compromised politician, Claes Borgstrom, emerged from behind the liberal facade of Swedish politics and effectively seized and revived the case.

Borgstrom enlisted a former political collaborator, Marianne Ny, as the new prosecutor. Ny refused to guarantee that Assange would not be sent on to the United States if he was extradited to Sweden, even though, as The Independent reported, “informal discussions have already taken place between the US and Swedish officials over the possibility of the WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange being delivered into American custody, according to diplomatic sources.” This was an open secret in Stockholm. That libertarian Sweden had a dark, documented past of rendering people into the hands of the CIA was not news.

The silence was broken in 2016 when the United Nations Working Party on Arbitrary Detention, a body that decides whether governments are meeting their human rights obligations, ruled that Julian Assange was unlawfully detained by Britain and called on the British government to set him free.

Both the governments of Britain and Sweden had taken part in the UN’s investigation, and agreed to abide by its ruling, which carried the weight of international law. The British foreign secretary, Philip Hammond, stood up in Parliament and abused the UN panel.

The Swedish case was a fraud from the moment the police secretly and illegally contacted a Stockholm tabloid and ignited the hysteria that was to consume Assange. WikiLeaks’ revelations of America’s war crimes had shamed the hand-maidens of power and its vested interests, who called themselves journalists; and for this, the unclubbable Assange would never be forgiven.

It was now open season. Assange’s media tormenters cut and pasted each other’s lies and vituperative abuse. “He really is the most massive turd,” wrote the Guardian columnist Suzanne Moore. The received wisdom was that he had been charged, which was never true. In my career, reporting from places of extreme upheaval and suffering and criminality, I have never known anything like it.

In Assange’s homeland, Australia, this “mobbing” reached an apogee. So eager was the Australian government to deliver its citizen to the United States that the prime minister in 2013, Julia Gillard, wanted to take away his passport and charge him with a crime – until it was pointed out to her that Assange had committed no crime and she had no right to take away his citizenship.

Julia Gillard, according to the website Honest History, holds the record for the most sycophantic speech ever made to the US Congress. Australia, said she to applause, was America’s “great mate”. The great mate colluded with America in its hunt for an Australian whose crime was journalism. His right to protection and proper assistance was denied.

When Assange’s lawyer, Gareth Peirce, and I met two Australian consular officials in London, we were shocked that all they knew about the case “is what we read in the papers”.

This abandonment by Australia was a principal reason for the granting of political asylum by Ecuador. As an Australian, I found this especially shaming.

When asked about Assange recently, the current Australian prime minister, Scott Morrison, said, “He should face the music”. This kind of thuggery, bereft of any respect for truth and rights and the principles and law, is why the mostly Murdoch controlled press in Australia is now worried about its own future, as the Guardian is worried, and The New York Times is worried. Their concern has a name: “the Assange precedent.”

They know that what happens to Assange can happen to them. The basic rights and justice denied him can be denied to them. They have been warned. All of us have been warned.

Whenever I see Julian in the grim, surreal world of Belmarsh prison, I am reminded of the responsibility of those of us who defend him. There are universal principles at stake in this case. He himself is fond of saying: “It’s not me. It’s far wider.”

But at the heart of this remarkable struggle – and it is, above all, a struggle – is one human being whose character, I repeat character, has demonstrated the most astonishing courage. I salute him.

This is an edited version of an address John Pilger gave at the launch in London of In Defense of Julian Assange, an anthology published by Or Books, New York.

See also:   www.dontextraditeassange.com


"Julian Assange Case: Abby Martin, Snowden, Chomsky, Jill Stein, Varoufakis, Horvat & Richter Respond"



Australian PM rejects Pamela Anderson’s appeal that his government defend Assange


by Oscar Grenfell


In Defense of Julian Assange





Appeal to Archbishop of Canterbury to Support Release of Julian AssangeConsortiumnews



‘We’re working for the dark side’: Spanish firm accused of spying on Assange by German broadcaster boasted of US intelligence ties



‘Psychologically Tortured’ Assange Victim of British ‘Rogue State’, London Conference Hears –



The following are remarks given at a conference on Thursday night at St. Pancras Church in London by some of Assange’s biggest defenders, including journalist and filmmaker John Pilger, former British diplomat Craig Murray, the UN special rapporteur on torture, Nils Melzer, clinical psychologist Lissa Johnson, former Ecuadorian diplomat Fidel Narvaez, Lisa Longstaff, spokesperson for Women Against Rape and historian Mark Curtis. The video presentations are a production of Gordon Dimmack, and are republished here with his permission.



US abuses justice systems to target its enemies, like it did with HuaweiAssange’s father



Visiting Britain’s Political Prisoner


by John Pilger


Groundswell of support for WikiLeaks publisher Julian Assange


by Oscar Grenfell





Richard Wolff On Reaganomics



Capitalism Is a Blessing


with Richard Wolff


Fascism & Anti-Fascism: A Decolonial Perspective


by Rowland “Ena͞emaehkiw” Keshena Robinson


"Abby Martin & Richard Wolff Discuss Socialism in 2019"



Slavoj Zizek: Will the global Left allow right-wing nationalists to take control of society's discontent?






The Antisemitic Card


by Finian Cunningham


It is a ludicrous situation when anyone criticizing Israeli state violations against Palestinians or neighboring countries is then instantly discredited as being “antisemitic”.

We see this in Britain and the United States all the time. Congresswomen like Ilhan Omar and Rashida Tlaib have been denounced for being “anti-Jewish”, including by President Trump, simply because they protested Israeli policy of occupying Palestinian lands or for having a malign influence on US foreign policy.

In Britain, Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn and his party have once again this week been vilified as “antisemitic” in prominent news media.

The reality is that Corbyn is neither racist or anti-Jewish. The specious allegation stems from him and sections of Labour being vehemently critical of Israel and its conduct towards Palestinians.

If elected in the general election next month, Labour says it will cut military trade with Israel and move to officially recognize a Palestinian state.

This conflation of valid criticism of the Israeli state with being “anti-Jew” is a cynical distortion which is wielded to give Israel impunity from international law. It plays on moral blackmail of critics by equating the historical persecution of Jews and in particular the Nazi holocaust with the sanctity of the modern Israeli state.

That distortion is exposed by many Jews themselves who have spoken out in the US and in Britain to defend the right of people to criticize Israeli policies. They understand the vital distinction between the Israeli state and the much wider existence of Jewishness. They understand that to be opposed to Israeli state practices is in no way to mean animus towards Jews in general.


Smeared by ‘Israel lobby’? Dutch cartoonist scoffs after being branded ‘Nazi sympathizer’ over Netanyahu caricature



Bolivia restores relations with Israel




Morales cut off relations with Israel in 2008 after an Israeli attack on occupied Gaza. He also classified Israel as a terrorist nation.


Reversing Pro-Palestinian Stance of Evo Morales, Bolivia's Coup Government Moves to Restore Ties With Israel


by Jake Johnson


Morales cut off diplomatic ties with Israel over its deadly 2009 assault on the occupied Gaza Strip and called for top Israeli officials to be charged with genocide.





Omidyar’s Intercept Teams Up with War-Propaganda Firm Bellingcat


by Whitney Webb


Despite promoting itself as an “independent” and open-source investigation site, Bellingcat has received a significant portion of its funding from Google, which is also one of the most powerful U.S. military contractors and whose rise to prominence was directly aided by the CIA.


America Is Never Going Back to Normal


by Tom Engelhardt


"Chris Hedges & Abby Martin: No Way Out Through Elections"



Deep State Coup D’Etat: Subverting the U.S. Presidency from JFK to Trump


with Michael Welch, Mark Robinowitz, and Prof Peter Dale Scott





Bolivian Coup Plotters Were Trained by US Military and Served as Attaches in FBI Police Programs

Bolivian Coup Plotters Were Trained by US Military and Served as Attaches in FBI Police Programs


by Jeb Sprague


Pompeo congratulates Bolivia for expelling Cuban doctors






Washington, the Cesspool of the World, Will Never Rat on Itself


by Paul Craig Roberts


Former US Attorney Joe diGenova predicts that US Justice (sic) Department Inspector General Michael Horowitz’s report on the Obama regime’s FISA court violations and US Attorney John Durham’s criminal investigation of the Russiagate hoax perpetrated by the CIA, FBI, Democratic National Committee, and presstitute media will be “very bad for people in the Obama administration. . . . it’s going to be devastating . . . it’s going to ruin careers.”

For the sake of accountable government, I hope that Mr. diGenova is right. But I have my doubts. Cabinet departments and government agencies are not very good at investigating themselves. Attorney General Barr’s job is to protect his department. He knows, and will be often told, that to bring indictments against Justice Department officials would discredit the Justice Department in the public’s mind. It would affect the attitude of juries toward DOJ prosecutions. John Durham knows the same thing. He also knows that he will create a hostile environment for himself if he indicts DOJ officials and that when he joins a law firm to capitalize on his experience as a US Attorney, he will not receive the usual favors when he represents clients against DOJ charges. Horowitz knows that his job is to coverup or minimize any illegalities in order to protect the Department of Justice from scandals.

In Washington coverups are the rule, and the DOJ coverup might already have begun. One sign of a coverup is to announce a future release date of the report. This has now occurred with Horowitz’s report on the FISA violations. The purpose of such announcements is to allow the report to be discredited in advance and to be old news by the time it appears.

Another sign of a coverup is the use of leaks to shift the focus from high level officials to lowly underlings, and this has happened with the Horowitz report, which has leaked that a low level FBI attorney is under criminal investigation for allegedly falsifying a document related to the surveillance of former Trump campaign official Carter Page in 2016. According to the leak, the FBI attorney has acknowledged that he did alter the document. In other words, it seems we are being prepared for a false story that the plot against Trump originated in lower levels and not with CIA Director John Brennan, FBI Director James Comey, FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe, Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein, and Deputy Attorney General Sally Yates, and the rest. This is the way the coverups of the US torture prison, Abu Ghraib, in Iraq was handled and the My Lai massacre in Vietnam. Only the underlings take the hit as if they were in charge acting on their own, independently of their superiors.

Another sign that a coverup is in place is Attorney General Barr’s assurance that Jeffrey Epstein killed himself and that evidence to the contrary is just a series of coincidences that, misunderstood, resulted in a conspiracy theory. Caitlin Johnstone gives this short shrift

Barr claims to have personally reviewed security footage that no one entered the area where Epstein was imprisoned. Previously we were told that the security cameras were not turned on, so what security footage did Barr review? Can the rest of us see the “evidence”?

Barr also in his pronouncement evaded the remarks of the Chief Medical Examiner, who stated clearly that the damage to Epstein’s neck is not consistent with suicide but is associated with strangulation.

There was no reason whatsoever for Epstein to kill himself. He had so much dirt on the Western political elite that he could not be given his day in open court. So he was murdered. The question is, why was he picked up and murdered? Was he using the pedophile information to exact blackmail payments from those he had provided with underage sex? Is it possible for an elite society to be more corrupt than the Western elite society is? How can the West survive when its elites are corrupt beyond comprehension?

That Epstein did not kill himself is completely obvious, so when AG William Barr covers up Epstein’s murder, this is an indication that he will cover up the military/security complex/DNC/presstitute coup against President Trump.

From what I know of Washington, I am certain that Washington, the cesspool of the world, will never rat on itself.


Epstein Tapes? Sordid Case Takes A Bizarre Turn After Mystery 'Hacker' Emerges


by Tyler Durden





American Exceptionalism Driving World to War – John Pilger


by Finian Cunningham


Australian-born John Pilger has worked for over five decades as a reporter and documentary film-maker covering wars and conflicts all over the world. In the following interview, the award-winning journalist says the world is arguably at a more perilous geopolitical juncture than even during the Cuban Missile Crisis in 1962 at the height of the Cold War. This is because American “exceptionalism” – which, he points out, mirrors that of Nazi Germany – has developed into a hyper-rogue phase. The relentless denigration of Russia by American and Western media show that there are few red lines left to restrain aggression towards Moscow, as there were, at least, during the past Cold War. Russia and China’s refusal to bow down to Washington’s dictate is infuriating the would-be American hegemon and its desire for zero-sum world domination.

John Pilger also gives his wide-ranging views on the systematic deterioration of Western mainstream journalism which has come to function as a nakedly propaganda matrix for power and corporate profit. He further condemns the ongoing persecution and torture of fellow-Australian publisher Julian Assange who is being held in a maximum-security British prison commonly used for holding mass murderers and convicted terrorists. Assange is being persecuted for telling the truth and for exposing huge crimes by the US and Britain, says Pilger. It is a grim warning of a covert war that is being conducted against independent journalism and free speech, and, more ominously, indicative of a slide towards police-state fascism in so-called Western democracies.



Question: In your documentary film, The Coming War on China (2016), you assess that the United States is on a strategic collision path with China for control of Asia-Pacific. Do you still see the threat of war looming between these two powers?

John Pilger: The threat of war may not be immediate, but we know or should know that events can change fast: a chain of incidents and missteps can ignite a war which can spread unpredictably. The calculations are not in dispute: an “enemy” has barely 12 minutes to decide whether and where to order a nuclear retaliation.

Question: Recently, US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo accused China of being “truly hostile to America’s interests”. What in your view is motivating US concerns about China?

John Pilger: The State Department once declared, “To seek less than preponderant power would be to opt for defeat.” At the root of much of humanity’s insecurity is, remarkably, the self-belief and self-delusion of one nation: the United States. America’s notion of itself is often difficult for the rest of us to comprehend. From the days of President Teddy Roosevelt, the “sacred mission” has been to dominate humanity and its vital resources, if not by intimidation and bribery then by violence. In the 1940s, American “war intellectuals”, such as the diplomat and historian George F Kennan, described the necessity of American dominance of the “Grand Area”, which is most of the world, notably Eurasia, and especially China. Non-Americans were to be cast in “our image”, wrote Kennan; America was the exemplar. Hollywood has reflected this with striking accuracy.





"Money trail of Ukraine corruption engulfs Obama White House"


with Alex Christoforou and Alexander Mercouris


Krystal Ball rips report saying Obama would intervene to stop Sanders


The Hill, with Krystal Ball





News From Underground


From: newsfromunderground@googlegroups.com
Sent: Monday, November 25, 2019
Subject: [MCM] MUST-SEE video of Dr. Beverly Rubik's lecture on 5G!


From Les Jamieson:


Hi all -- The 5G lecture last week by Dr. Beverly Rubik to a packed house at Union Theological Seminary was a great success due to her excellent, highly informative presentation about the science and health risks of 5G microwave radiation. Watch it now on YouTube.  A must-see!! 




Next, we'll be having a meeting with film, discussion, and most importantly - organizing! I'm hoping people will want to team up on letter writing. In the meantime, I urge everyone to lobby elected officials from NY City Council, NY State Senate, and Congress. Share your concern about 5G, smart meters. Point out that Verizon is advertising "We do 5G right." The truth is, "Verizon can't do 5G right because it's untested for safety of humans, the environment, and all living things which are affected by radio frequencies."


Alternative Cinema - 5G/Smart Meter Series

When: Sat. Dec. 14th, 1 - 4pm

Where: Revelation Gallery, 224 Waverly Place (West Village)


One thing to discuss is how Maui City Council was presented with cease and desist letters to block 5G, and how this can be replicated everywhere. Ideally, these letters should come from lawyers, but if we got hundreds, better yet thousands of people to take this action, we can make an impact. See more here:




I'm also attaching the report on a court victory against the FCC. This is a very promising development which gives the movement a lot to build on. 


Looking forward,

Les Jamieson 


'A distinctly American phenomenon': Our workforce is dying faster than any other wealthy country, study shows


by Jorge L. Ortiz





by Meera Jagannathan





Why are Iraqi protesters targeting Iranian buildings?


by Arwa Ibrahim





I talked to everybody I could in Syria, That's how you find out the truth


by Robert Fisk


I’ve spent months these past eight years in Syria’s amputated cities. They are a scar on all our lives – the Russians, the Syrians, the armed Islamists, the western powers that spent more time trying to destroy Syria than the Syrian regime.

The bodies buried deep within these heaps of concrete, the survivors, and those invisibly but forever mentally wounded have paid the price of our military cruelty and indifference. Many of those who fled these gaunt cities are now in Europe – or at the bottom of the Mediterranean. And we don’t even know – or care? – about the statistics. Did 350,000 die here? Or 450,000? Or 500,000? These figures have all been used, a careless 150,000 separating the first from the last.

Beirut, Mostar, Sarajevo, Aleppo, Homs, and now Mosul and Raqqa – we are forced to ask ourselves if these sepulchral ruins are something we have come to regard as natural, something we accept or have accepted for hundreds of years: that destruction is a natural part of history.

I hope I don’t believe this. I’ve driven thousands of miles across Syria, with no minders (they are mostly called up into the army) and no protection to reach front lines where Syrian government soldiers, often wounded, have run and crawled through the broken concrete to show me Isis flags in the next field or broken house.


"Syrian Gas Attack Was Staged Says 2nd Whistleblower At OPCW"


with Jimmy Dore





China chugs Saudi oil, drawing MBS into its orbit


by Alison Tahmizian Meuse


Henry Kissinger Gets It... US ‘Exceptionalism’ Is Over


Information Clearing House Editorial


Former US Secretary of State Henry Kissinger made prudent remarks recently when he said the United States is no longer a uni-power and that it must recognize the reality of China as an equal rival.

The furor over a new law passed by the US this week regarding Hong Kong and undermining Beijing’s authority underlines Kissinger’s warning.

If the US cannot find some modus vivendi with China, then the outcome could be a catastrophic conflict worst than any previous world war, he admonished.

Speaking publicly in New York on November 14, the veteran diplomat urged the US and China to resolve their ongoing economic tensions cooperatively and mutually, adding: “It is no longer possible to think that one side can dominate the other.”

A key remark made by Kissinger was the following: “So those countries that used to be exceptional and used to be unique, have to get used to the fact that they have a rival.”

In other words, he is negating the erroneous consensus held in Washington which asserts that the US is somehow “exceptional”, a “uni-power” and the “indispensable nation”. This consensus has grown since the early 1990s after the collapse of the Soviet Union, when the US viewed itself as the sole super-power. That morphed into a more virulent ideology of “full-spectrum dominance”. Thence, the past three decades of unrelenting US criminal wars and regime-change operations across the planet, throwing the whole world into chaos.

Kissinger’s frank assessment is a breath of fresh air amid the stale and impossibly arrogant self-regard held by too many American politicians who view their nation as an unparalleled power which brooks no other.

The seasoned statesman, who is 96-years-old and retains an admirable acumen for international politics, ended his remarks on an optimistic note by saying: “I am confident the leaders on both sides [US and China] will realize the future of the world depends on the two sides working out solutions and managing the inevitable difficulties.”



Press Release
London, 29 November 2019
Appeal to Archbishop of Canterbury
for Liberation of Julian Assange

            Today in London, a letter signed by 60 intellectuals from 15 countries was delivered to Lambeth Palace calling on His Grace, Justin Welby, Archbishop of Canterbury, to use his moral influence to end the unjustified imprisonment of Julian Assange in Belmarsh Prison.

            Signatories included Nobel Peace Prize laureate Mairead Maguire, Noam Chomsky, Daniel Ellsberg, film-maker Oliver Stone, human rights defender Francis Boyle, former chair of the Human Rights Committee of the Council of Europe Parliamentary Assembly Dick Marty, popular German Bundestag member Sahra Wagenknecht and William R. Polk, descendent of the 11th President of the United States and former President of the Adlai Stevenson Institute of International Affairs.


Text of Letter
To the Most Reverend Justin Welby,
Archbishop of Canterbury

            We the undersigned respectfully call on the moral authorities of the United Kingdom to use their influence to obtain immediately release of Julian Assange, citizen of Australia, from Belmarsh prison where he is being unjustly and cruelly incarcerated.
            Julian Assange is not charged with any crime or even misdemeanor in Britain, and has fully served his sentence for his single offense: jumping bail to avoid extradition to the United States via Sweden.  He was not and is not charged for any crime in Sweden.  The sole charges against him originate in the United States, on purely political grounds, aimed at punishing Julian Assange for publication of accurate information provided by informed sources.  This is a regular practice of all mainstream media, which now shamefully fail to speak out in defense of Mr. Assange, even when they published exactly the same information that he did.
            It is quite clear that in their current treatment of Julian Assange, the United Kingdom is debasing itself as a mere instrument of political repression exercised by the United States.
            Your Grace,
            The current imprisonment of Julian Assange is a blot on the nation’s judicial system, a disgrace to British decency.  This scandal may be largely hidden today but will surely emerge in history unless measures are taken immediately by the highest representatives of the British people to correct this major injustice.
            We ask you to respectfully transmit this message to Her Majesty, Queen Elizabeth II.
            We appeal to your sense of justice and of national honor to uphold the best traditions of British democracy and respect for human rights by calling for the immediately freeing Julian Assange.
            With great concern,

On behalf of signatories (list follows)
Diana Johnstone                                                       Moritz Müller
74 rue Marcadet                                                           Ireland
75018 Paris, France