Aletho News

1. From Bird Flu to Climate Snakes

By Breeauna Sagdal | Brownstone Institute | April 24, 2024

Seasoned veterinarians and livestock producers alike have been scratching their heads trying to understand the media's response to the avian flu. Headlines across every major news outlet warn of humans becoming infected with the "deadly" bird flu after one reported case of pink-eye in a human.

The entire narrative is predicated upon a long-disputed claim that Covid-19 was the result of a zoonotic jump—the famed Wuhan bat wet-market theory.

While the source of Covid is hotly contested within the scientific community, the policy vehicle at the center of this dialectic began years prior to Sars-CoV-2 and is quite resolute in force and effect.

In 2016, the Gates Foundation donated to the World Health Organization to create the OneHealth Initiative. Since 2020, the CDC has adopted and implemented the OneHealth Initiative to build a "collaborative, multisectoral, and transdisciplinary approach—working at the local, regional, national, and global levels—with the goal of achieving optimal health outcomes recognizing the interconnection between people, animals, plants, and their shared environment."

In the aftermath of Covid-19, the OneHealth Initiative began taking shape, due largely in part to millions of tax dollars appropriated through ARP (American Rescue Plan) funding.

Through its APHIS (Animal and Plant Health Investigation System) the USDA (United States Department of Agriculture) was given $300 million in 2021 to begin implementing "a risk-based, comprehensive, integrated disease monitoring and surveillance system domestically…to build additional capacity for zoonotic disease surveillance and prevention," globally.

"The One Health concept recognizes that the health of people, animals, and the environment are all linked," said USDA Under Secretary for Marketing and Regulatory Programs Jenny Lester Moffitt.

According to the USDA's press release, the Biden-Harris administration's OneHealth approach will also help to ensure "new markets and streams of income for farmers and producers using climate smart food and forestry practices," by "making historic investments in infrastructure and clean energy capabilities in rural America."

In other words, the federal government is using regulatory enforcement to intervene in the marketplace, in addition to subsidizing corporations with tax dollars to direct a planned economic outcome—ending meat consumption.

Climate-Smart Commodities – Planning the Economy through Subsidized Intervention

Under the recently announced Climate-Smart Commodities program, the USDA has appropriated $3.1 billion in tax subsidies to one hundred and forty-one new private Climate-Smart projects, ranging from carbon sequestration to Climate-Smart meat and forestry practices.

Private investors such as Amazon founder Jeff Bezos – who just committed $1 billion to the development of lab cultured meat-like molds, and meat grown in petri dishes, to

Ballpark, formerly known for its hot dogs but is now harvesting python meat, is rushing to cash in on this new industry, and the OneHealth/USDA certification program.

Culling The Herd – Regulatory Intervention in the Marketplace 

Meanwhile, the last vestiges of America's food freedom and decentralized food sources are quietly being targeted by the full force of the federal government.

The once voluntary APHIS System is poised to become the mandatory APHIS-15, which among many other changes, "the system will be renamed Animal Health, Disease, and Pest Surveillance and Management System, USDA/APHIS-15. This system is used by APHIS to collect, manage, and evaluate animal health data for disease and pest control and surveillance programs."

Among those "many changes" that APHIS-15 is undergoing, one should be of particular interest to the public—the removal of all references to the voluntary* Bovine Johne's Disease Control Program.

"Updating the authority for maintenance of the system to remove reference to the Bovine Johne's Disease Control Program."

In addition to removing references to the once-voluntary herd culling program, the USDA is also implementing mandatory RFID ear tags in cattle and bison.

According to the USDA/APHIS-15, expanded authority places disease tracing in their jurisdiction and the radio frequency ear tags are necessary for the "rapid and accurate recordkeeping for this volume of animals and movement," which they say "is not achievable without electronic systems."

The notice clearly spells out that RFID tags "may be read without restraint as the animal goes past an electronic reader."

"Once the reader scans the tag, the electronically collected tag number can be rapidly and accurately transmitted from the reader to a connected electronic database."

However, industry leaders and lawmakers alike have said the database will be used to track vaccination history and movement, and that this data may be used to impact the market rate of cattle and bison at the time of processing.

Centralized Control of Processing/Production via Public-Private Partnership Agreements

In addition to the vast new authority of the USDA funded through the OneHealth Initiative, and the ARP, the EPA has also created its own unique set of regulatory burdens upon the entire meat industry.

On March 25, 2024, the EPA finalized a new set of Clean Water Act rule changes to limit nitrogen and phosphorus "pollutants" in downstream water treatment facilities from processing facilities. While the EPA's interpretation of authority and jurisdiction over wastewater is concerning long-term, the broader context of consolidated processing under four multinational meat-packing companies is of much greater concern for the immediate future.

With few exceptions, in the United States it is illegal to sell meat without a USDA certification. Currently, the only way to access USDA certification is through a USDA-certified processing facility.

According to the EPA, the new rules will impact up to 845 processing facilities nationwide, unless facilities drastically limit the amount of meat they process each year.

With processing capabilities being the number one barrier to market for livestock producers, and billions of dollars in grants being awarded to Climate-Smart food substitutes, the amount of government intervention into the marketplace becomes very clear.

The Rise of Authoritarianism and Economic Fascism – Control the Supply

The United States, once a consumer-demand free market society, is currently witnessing the use of government force, and intervention tactics to steer and manipulate the marketplace. Similar to 1930's Italy, this is being achieved by the state within the state, through the use of selectionism, protectionism, and economic planning between public-private partnership agreements.

The long-term and unavoidable problem with economic fascism is that it leads to authoritarian and centralized control, from which escape is impossible.

As each industry becomes centralized and consolidated under the few, consumer choice simultaneously disappears. As choice disappears, so does the ability of the individual to meet their specific and unique needs.

Eventually, the individual no longer serves a role outside of its usefulness to the state—the final exhale before the last python squeeze.

2. Stop Hassling the Hoffe

An Urgent Plea to All Readers for Help

Dr. Charles Hoffe – a Noble Small-Town Canadian Physician

BY JUSTUS R. HOPE | APRIL 23, 2024

Few stories are more compelling than the tale of Dr. Charles Hoffe. He is a Canadian small-town physician who clings to old-fashioned values. Dr. Hoffe enjoys treating patients even if he loses money doing so because Medicine is a calling for him, not a way to get rich.

His father came to visit and told him that he would never make a name for himself in this backwoods – yet charming – town of Lytton located in the heart of British Columbia. Charles explained that his goal was not to glorify himself, but instead to care for others. He enjoyed stitching the fingers of locals whose skill saws had slipped. He found satisfaction in bringing new life into this world, and he stood strong with the elderly until they departed. Dr. Hoffe was equally comfortable treating the town via its tiny emergency room.

Dr. Hoffe remained fiercely loyal to all under his care, and this was never truer than during the recent COVID-19 episode. While MSM stories abounded on the pandemic causing overflowing big-city hospitals, Hoffe recognized the disconnect between the reality in his small town. He did not see the pandemic materializing with his own eyes. The town of Lytton seemed relatively untouched by anything more serious than a mild flu.

Following the roll-out of the vaccine, Dr. Hoffe noticed a more extreme disconnect. Patients were showing up sick after vaccination. On one occasion he informed a vaccine-injured patient she would not require additional injections due to having sufficient immunity from previous virus recovery. A nurse reported him and despite 30 years of exemplary service without a single patient complaint, he was summarily fired from his position at the emergency department.

However, despite his income dropping by half without the emergency room, Dr. Hoffe persisted in keeping his patients' safety first, even to his detriment. His first patient death from the pandemic came after vaccination, not from the virus.

Hoffe noticed mounting deaths, micro-clotting, and serious neurological events after the 2021 rollout, and this prompted him to write an email of concern asking his colleagues what they had seen.

Following this private email, he received a notice from the licensing authorities threatening him with disciplinary action should he cause any vaccine hesitancy through his communications.

Hoffe immediately recognized something seriously was amiss. Never in his experience had doctors been so threatened for simply asking questions. Scientific inquiry should not be punishable – and he would not be silenced – especially not when patients' lives were on the line. The personal cost to him did not matter.

Although Dr. Hoffe found himself isolated in Lytton, a village of a mere 250 residents, he decided to conduct his own pilot study.

Tiny Lytton BC by Andrew Bowden – CC-BY-SA-2.0

He theorized that levels of D-Dimer would reflect micro-clot formation, and thus he measured these levels in his patients both before and after vaccination. To his horror, 5 of 8 patients turned positive for dangerous micro-clotting following the shots. Based on this safety signal, he informed his colleagues and warned that the vaccines seemed to be causing more harm than good.

Dr. Charles Hoffe, despite his tiny practice in this tiny British Columbia town, ironically had made a national name for himself. And bigger things were about to happen. His D-Dimer study began in early 2021, around April, and by June of 2021, his town of Lytton was extinguished in a massive wildfire that seemed to selectively torch the enclave while mysteriously sparing the surrounding wilderness.

Hoffe recalls the day of the inferno. He grabbed his laptop, and D-Dimer records, and fled his burning office. He drove the four hours to his family home, only to be greeted with the news that his wife was strategically planning a divorce. He was served with papers ousting him from his residence. Faced with banishment from his marriage, his profession, and his home, he sought refuge in a small vacation cottage located some six hours' drive away. He made himself available to his patients via cell phone. But the licensing authorities quickly accused him of abandonment. Yet nothing could have been further from the truth. Like a good steward, Hoff watched over his flock with the utmost care.

Dr. Hoffe courageously stayed the course, keeping his patients first while brushing off the slings and arrows of the attack. The little income he earned following the loss of the emergency room position was about to be whittled down further as the Canadian government removed him from a previously favored physician payment list.

Meanwhile, the charred remains of the town of Lytton had been cordoned off by the authorities who blocked access – Maui style – to its displaced residents for some two years. Hoffe's local Lytton home, in a positive twist of fate, was located upwind from the disaster, and he was able to move back in and treat the locals once again.

As if the situation could not grow worse, the Canadian Medical Authorities brought charges of misinformation spreading against Dr. Hoffe and sought to revoke his license to practice medicine.

Hoff hired a caring Christian attorney who vowed to fight this. For his defense, he recruited eight world-class expert witnesses, including Dr. Pierre Kory, Dr. Peter McCullough, Dr. Jessica Rose, and Dr. James Thorpe. They provided some 970 pages of compelling testimony, all pro-bono in light of Hoffe's extreme financial circumstances.

Despite all this, the court used the tool of Judicial Notice to derail his defense. This meant that none of this expert witness evidence was admissible because as a matter of law the vaccines were by definition considered safe and effective – and this issue could not be legally contested.

To add further insult, the medical authorities sought to charge Dr. Hoffe with the costs of their investigation on top of revoking his license. These costs could easily exceed one or two hundred thousand dollars. In other words, the Canadian Medical Authorities are planning a one-two punch designed to bankrupt and silence Dr. Hoffe once and for all.

Which brings me to my request. If you value noble physicians like Dr. Hoffe who possess the moral fiber and strength of character to stand strong for their Hippocratic Oaths no matter the personal cost, then please reach out and help.

If everyone in our group contributed 10 dollars to Dr. Hoffe's legal defense fund, we could send a message that patients care, and value physicians who stand for truth. We could spare Dr. Hoffe so he could help us fight another day. These payments are exclusively for defraying the costs of Dr. Hoffe's legal fees, and not for his personal financial benefit.

All Donations are welcome to the Dr. Charles Hoffe Legal Defence Fund.

Full Interview here.

3. A Warped View of Patriotism on Pat Tillman

By Jacob G. Hornberger | FFF | April 24, 2024

A recent op-ed in the Los Angeles Times demonstrates what is a warped interpretation of the term "patriotism." The op-ed is about former football player Pat Tillman, who was killed in Afghanistan twenty years ago. It's written by Bill Dwyre, a former sports editor for the Times.

Dwyre reminds us that Tillman was motivated to join the military after the 9/11 attacks. He gave up a $3.6 million football contract to join the U.S. military and was hoping to be sent to Afghanistan to fight the terrorists.

Dwyre writes, "It was a can't-miss story of patriotism. Americans applauded from the safety and comfort of our homes and communities." (Since he uses the pronoun "our," presumably Dwyre fell into the "safety and comfort" group rather than the "patriot" group.)

Unfortunately, however, Dwyre doesn't explain why Tillman's act was one of "can't miss" patriotism. Apparently for him it's a self-evident truth.

No declaration of war

The U.S. Constitution is the supreme law of the land. It is the higher law that we the people impose on government officials. We are expected to obey their laws, and they punish us when we fail to do so. By the same token, they are supposed to obey our law, the Constitution.

The Constitution requires a congressional declaration of war as a prerequisite to a president's waging war against any other nation-state. If a president and his army wage war without a congressional declaration of war, they are acting in violation of the law.

It is undisputed that President Bush did not secure a congressional declaration of war from Congress before he ordered his military to invade Afghanistan. That made their war illegal under our form of government.

How can participating in an illegal war be considered "patriotic"? Dwyre doesn't explain that.

The U.S. was the aggressor under Nuremberg

Moreover, the common perception is that Bush invaded Afghanistan because the Taliban regime, which was governing the country, had been complicit in the 9/11 attacks by having knowingly harbored Osama bin Laden, who U.S. officials suspected had orchestrated the attacks.

Not so. Bush initiated his war because the Taliban regime refused to comply with his unconditional demand to deliver bin Laden into the hands of the Pentagon and the CIA. Yet, there was no extradition treaty between Afghanistan and the United States and, therefore, Afghanistan was operating within its rights under international law to refuse Bush's unconditional extradition demand.

Nonetheless, knowing that the Pentagon and the CIA would torture bin Laden into confessing to the crime, Afghanistan offered to deliver him to an independent nation for a fair trial. In making the offer, Afghanistan sought the same amount of proof that would be required in a normal extradition hearing. The U.S. government refused the offer, perhaps because it was unable to provide such proof.

Therefore, given that Afghanistan had the authority under international law to refuse Bush's extradition demand, that makes Bush's invasion illegal under the war-of-aggression provision of the Nuremberg War Crimes Tribunal.

How can participation in an unconstitutional and illegal war be considered "patriotic"? Unfortunately, Dwyre fails to explain.

If one assumes that the 9/11 attackers were the ones who did the attacking (as compared to the attacks being an "inside job," as some believe), it's worth pointing out that they were motivated by the death and destruction that the U.S. government's foreign policy had wreaked in the Middle East. But of course, a real "patriot" does not bring up that discomforting fact and instead blindly supports the government's claim that the terrorists attacked us out of hatred for our "freedom and values."

Tillman's opposition to the Iraq War

One of the fascinating aspects of Dwyre's op-ed glorifying Tillman's patriotism is what he leaves out of the op-ed. Tillman was an outspoken opponent of Bush's invasion and war of aggression against Iraq. Dwyre doesn't even mention that, which is revealing.

Keep in mind, after all, that Bush's war on Iraq was also waged without a congressional declaration of war, making it illegal under our form of government. Bush's claim that he was waging to war to enforce UN resolutions falls flat because only the UN can enforce its resolutions. The fact is that the U.S. war on Iraq was an even clearer case of a war of aggression under the Nuremberg principles than the U.S. war on Afghanistan.

Despite Tillman's fierce objections to the U.S. war on Iraq, the U.S. military nonetheless ordered him to "serve" in Iraq, which he did. Keep in mind though that every U.S. soldier takes an oath to support and defend the Constitution and is under a legal and moral obligation to refuse to obey unlawful orders. Tillman chose to obey the unlawful order to deploy to Iraq.

U.S. government lies

After his "service" in Iraq, Tillman was deployed to Afghanistan, where he continued to speak out against the U.S. war on Iraq. It was there that he was killed. As Dwyre points out, the U.S. military initially lied about his death, claiming falsely that he was killed by enemy fire. In fact, what actually happened is that he was killed by his own men in what was described as "friendly fire."

In 2006, Tillman's brother, Kevin Tillman, wrote a scathing op-ed on truthdig.com, in which he echoed his brother Pat's view of the Iraq war: "Somehow American leadership, whose only credit is lying to its people and illegally invading a nation, has been allowed to steal the courage, virtue and honor of its soldiers on the ground."

Why would't Dwyre mention Pat Tillman's (and his brother's) fierce opposition to the U.S. war on Iraq in his op-ed? My hunch is that it's because he considers opposition to U.S. wars to be unpatriotic and, therefore, Tillman's apparent lack of "patriotism" with respect to Iraq doesn't fit conveniently within his patriotism narrative. Under Dwyre's warped interpretation of patriotism, apparently it's only those who blindly support the U.S. national-security state's foreign wars and its interventionist foreign policy who should be considered "patriots." Apparently, those who reject such wars and choose instead to remain in the "safety and comfort" of their homes instead of fighting them should be considered non-patriots.

4. Hamas holds dozens of high-ranking Israeli officers in Gaza: Report

The Cradle | April 24, 2024

A source within Palestinian resistance movement Hamas told Al-Araby Al-Jadeed on 24 April that the group holds around 30 Israeli army generals and officers from the Shin Bet security service as prisoners in the Gaza Strip.

"The movement alone has about 30 generals and Shin Bet officers, who were captured on October 7, from military units and some highly sensitive military sites," the source said.

The source added that "these people in particular are in highly secured places, far from the hands of the occupation, and it is impossible to reach them under any circumstances," and that Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and his government have been hiding information from their people regarding "the identities of some of the prisoners."

This concealment comes as part of efforts "to avoid provoking anger among the ranks of the combat forces." He added that the military representative on Israel's prisoner negotiation team, Nitzan Alon, is frustrated with Netanyahu's "laxity" toward the issue.

The Israeli government has said that 129 Israeli prisoners remain captive in Gaza.

According to the source, Israel does not really know the exact number of prisoners left in Gaza after the prisoner exchanges in late November. He adds that Tel Aviv has not specified the number of imprisoned military officials, as part of a strategy "to classify some of the soldiers or officers … as civilians, in order to reduce the price of negotiating for them during the talks."

The source also denied Hebrew media reports that only 20 prisoners are alive and that Hamas only proposed releasing 20, as opposed to 40, during the latest rounds of truce talks in Cairo.

Truce negotiations remain stalemated by Israel's repeated rejection of Hamas' main terms, which the resistance group continues to hold fast. These terms include an end to the war and a permanent ceasefire, a withdrawal of all troops from Gaza, a return of the displaced to their homes, and reconstruction of the strip.

"The only way [for Israel] to liberate the occupation prisoners is through serious negotiations followed by a full commitment to a ceasefire and reconstruction," he said.

He also confirmed that the resistance remains in fighting form, and has not been defeated.

"The resistance is still fine, and is still in control in a disciplined manner within integrated structures in the field of operations." Israel has repeatedly claimed that the southernmost city of Rafah is Hamas' final stronghold, and is planning an operation against the desperately overcrowded city, posing the threat of a severe humanitarian catastrophe.

The source also confirmed that top Hamas leader Yahya Sinwar is "not isolated from reality" or hiding within the tunnels of Gaza, as some have claimed. According to the source, Sinwar has met with some of the fighters of Hamas' military wing, the Qassam Brigades, has "inspected" some of the areas where clashes took place, and "is carrying out his work as a leader of the movement in the field."

5. UK suspends legal assessments on Israel’s compliance with international law

MEMO | April 24, 2024

In a shocking revelation during a hearing at the High Court, it has come to light that the UK government has suspended legal assessments over whether Israel is breaching International Humanitarian Law (IHL). The hearing was part of legal proceedings initiated in December by Palestinian human rights organisation Al-Haq and UK-based Global Legal Action Network (GLAN) against the UK after repeated written requests to suspend arms sales to Israel due to grave breaches of international law and UK rules.

According to the Campaign Against Arms Trade (CAAT), Trade Government lawyer James Eadie admitted to a "hiatus" in legal assessments of Israel's compliance with IHL for reasons he "couldn't go into," stating that "decisions of some importance have been delayed for some time." Eadie also mentioned that these delayed decisions were due "imminently" – likely in mid to late May.

The hearing also disclosed that the Secretary of State for Business and Trade last reviewed and approved arms sales to Israel on 8 April, three months after the International Court of Justice (ICJ) opened an instigation into possible genocide carried out by the apartheid state. However, according to information provided in court, this review only covered IHL violations committed up to 28 January, as the judge stated that the legal case into this review would only cover violations up to this date.

Notably, a determination that Israel is in violation of International Humanitarian Law would require the UK to suspend any arms sales to Israel. Details revealed during the hearing indicate that the UK government has sold weapons to Israel without a thorough review of the many breaches of international law documented by rights groups.

CAAT has strongly criticised the government's actions. "This government likes to claim we have a robust arms export licensing system. This claim is now in tatters," CAAT's Media Coordinator, Emily Apple, said. "Israel is committing horrific war crimes with the aid of UK weapons and yet our government has suspended legal assessments of its compliance with international law, and delayed vital decisions."

"It is outrageous that it has taken a court case for these revelations to come to light. David Cameron and other foreign office ministers have repeatedly avoided scrutiny on this issue. They are making a mockery of international law and a mockery of parliamentary scrutiny."

While the case brought by GLAN and Al-Haq has been given permission to proceed, with a full hearing scheduled for October, CAAT emphasises the urgency of the situation. "We cannot wait until October for an arms embargo. Our government and the UK arms trade is complicit in genocide and they know it. We all need to keep up the pressure and demand that they stop prioritising the profits of arms dealers over Palestinian lives," stated Apple.

The revelations from the High Court hearing have raised serious questions about the UK government's commitment to upholding international law and its role in enabling the ongoing violence in Israel and Palestine through the continued sale of arms to Israel.

British Foreign Secretary, David Cameron, has repeatedly dodged questions about the legality of UK arms sales to Israel. Leaked reports show that the British government has received advice from its own lawyers stating that Israel has breached international humanitarian law in Gaza but has failed to make it public.

The comments, made by the Conservative Chair of the House of Commons Select Committee on Foreign Affairs, Alicia Kearns, at a Tory fundraising event on 13 March are at odds with repeated ministerial denials and evasion on the issue.

"I remain convinced the government has completed its updated assessment on whether Israel is demonstrating a commitment to international humanitarian law, and that it has concluded that Israel is not demonstrating this commitment, which is the legal determination it has to make," Kearns said in March. "Transparency at this point is paramount, not least to uphold the international rules-based order."

6. Pakistan under risk of sanctions over trade deal with Iran: Washington

The Cradle | April 24, 2024

Washington threatened Pakistan with sanctions on 23 April over a trade agreement recently signed with Iran.

"We advise anyone considering business deals with Iran to be aware of the potential risk of sanctions. Ultimately, the Government of Pakistan can speak to their own foreign policy pursuits," State Department spokesman Vedant Patel said on 23 April.

The warning came after Iranian President Ebrahim Raisi arrived in Pakistan on 22 April and met with top officials, including Pakistani Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif.

"Both sides agreed to increase the volume of bilateral trade to 10 billion US dollars in the next five years," Sharif's office said in a statement.

Raisi and Sharif also discussed during the visit the importance of energy cooperation between Tehran and Islamabad.

A gas pipeline project between the two, dating back over a decade and aimed at allowing the flow of Iranian gas into Pakistan, has been consistently held up by the US.

A US official revealed last month that Washington has set a "goal" to prevent the construction of the Iran–Pakistan gas pipeline. The project has been delayed by nearly a decade in large part due to US economic pressure.

"I fully support the efforts by the US government to prevent this pipeline from happening," US Assistant Secretary Bureau of South and Central Asian Affairs, Donald Lu, said during a congressional hearing on 19 March. "We are working toward that goal," he stressed.

On Wednesday, Iran and Pakistan issued a joint statement calling on the UN Security Council "to prevent Israel's regime from its adventurism in the region and its illegal acts attacking its neighbors and targeting foreign diplomatic facilities."

The statement also called "for an immediate and unconditional ceasefire, unimpeded humanitarian access to the besieged people of Gaza, return of the displaced Palestinians, as well as ensuring accountability of the crimes being committed by the Israeli regime. They reiterated their support for a just, comprehensive, and durable solution based on the aspirations of the people of Palestine," according to the Pakistani Ministry of Foreign Affairs.

7. The sanctions regime against the DPRK under threat

By Konstantin Asmolov – New Eastern Outlook – 24.04.2024 

On March 28, 2024, Russia vetoed the extension of the mandate of the UN panel of experts to monitor the sanctions against the DPRK until April 30, 2025. This is important, because according to the established procedure, the decision to extend the term of office of the so-called 1718 Sanctions Committee must be made by April 30, otherwise it will be unable to continue with its activities.

What is the 1718 Sanctions Committee?

Resolution 1718 was adopted in October 2006 in response to the nuclear threat posed by North Korea. The Resolution prohibited the supply, sale or transfer to the DPRK of any military equipment and weapons, and also of materials, equipment, goods and technology that could be used in North Korea's weapons of mass destruction programs. Since then, the UN Security Council has adopted a number of other resolutions tightening the sanctions on North Korea.

The eight-member Panel of Experts supporting the UN Sanctions Committee on North Korea was established in 2009 pursuant to UN Security Council Resolution 1874, which was adopted in response to the DPRK's second nuclear test, to monitor compliance with the sanctions imposed on the DPRK by the UN member states. A panel of eight UN Secretary General-approved experts from the permanent members of the United Nations Security Council – the United States, Britain, France, China and Russia, as well as South Korea, Japan and Singapore (theoretically) – collects, studies, analyzes data on the implementation of sanctions against the DPRK, submits a twice-annual report on sanctions violations to the United Nations Security Council based on information from UN member states and other open source materials, and makes recommendations on the sanctions issue.

Since its founding the group has reportedly uncovered a number of sanctions violations, including those related to the DPRK's nuclear and missile programs and other prohibited activities such as the import of luxury goods and ship-to-ship transfers of sanctioned items.

The UN Security Council votes annually to extend the Panel's mandate, and in 2023 Russia voted in favor of the extension.

Two days before the vote, NK News, citing "informed sources at the UN," reported that Russia and China had proposed adding "sunset" clauses to the sanctions regime against the DPRK as a precondition for extending the Panel's mandate. They proposed adding an expiration date to the de facto open-ended sanctions regime, and requiring a new consensus of the UN Security Council member states in order to renew the sanctions for a further term. Russia also proposed reducing the frequency of the group's reports submission from twice to once a year.

The NK News article noted that the US, UK and France refuse to accept these proposals, which means that Moscow will be likely to veto the extension of the Panel's mandate.

The Russian proposals were rejected and Russia blocked a draft resolution submitted by the United States, although 13 of the 15 UN Security Council members voted in favor of it. The representative of China, who abstained from voting, expressed support for Russia's position, saying that the proposal to set an expiration date for sanctions on North Korea was "highly practical and quite feasible."

Russia's arguments

Explaining the reason for Russia's exercise of its veto right Russia's permanent representative to the UN, Vasily Nebenzya, said that the authors of the document did not take into account Moscow's proposal to set a time limit for the sanctions against North Korea, which remain indefinite.

As Vasily Nebenzya stated before the vote, it was "long overdue" for the Council to update the sanctions regime against the DPRK in light of the realities of the situation.

However, all attempts by Russia and China to link the level of sanctions pressure with the current behavior of the DPRK "have always been met with the absolute unwillingness of Western countries to depart from their destructive and punitive logic towards the DPRK."

The 1718 Committee's Panel of Experts, tasked with monitoring the sanctions policy, "failed to perform its direct duties" and was unable to "develop sober assessments of the state of the sanctions regime," and as a result "its work was reduced to playing along with the West's policies, repeating biased information, and analyzing newspaper headlines and low-quality pictures."

Unfortunately, the present author has to agree with this statement, because the Panel's reports included almost exclusively "investigations" made by sensationalist media outlets, with no critical analysis and an overreliance on the phrase "highly likely."

According to the Russian representative, the West, led by the United States, is trying to "strangle" the DPRK through unilateral restrictions, propaganda and threats against the country's leadership.

Given the above background, Russia proposed that the Council embark on an open and honest review of its sanctions measures against the DPRK, but "the US and its allies did not want to hear us and did not include our proposals in the draft resolution which was put to a vote today. Under these conditions, we do not see any 'added value' in the work of the Committee's Panel of Experts and cannot support the American draft."

Russian Foreign Ministry spokesperson Maria Zakharova has twice commented on the problem, emphasizing that "the Council can no longer act according to its established patterns with regard to the Korean Peninsula issue." The security situation in the region has not improved over the long years of sanctions (the DPRK's missile and nuclear capabilities have only grown, the present author would add), and the devastating humanitarian consequences of the sanctions on the DPRK's civilian population are evident. Moreover, it is not the DPRK that is aggravating the current situation, but rather the increasingly aggressive military activity of the United States and its allies that is leading to a new round of escalation in the region.

Many experts agree with this assessment. For example, Andrei Lankov, a prominent Russian-speaking researcher on the DPRK, told NK News that the increasing politicization of the Panel of Experts' work has rendered it unable to reliably monitor the extent of the DPRK's sanctions evasion. In his view, the differences of opinion within the DPRK Panel of Experts "reflect the main problem with the UN in its current form: it can only work if there is a consensus of the major powers."

What was the reaction of the "international community"?

As Russian military expert Vladimir Khrustalev notes, the suspension of the Panel of Experts' mandate significantly undermines the viability and certain legal aspects of the sanctions regime in its previous form.

But, of course, the reaction of US and South Korean officials and experts has been to condemn Russia. Western analysts say the absence of the 1718 Committee, whose main task is to monitor sanctions violations, would make it easier for Russia to engage in arms deals with the DPRK – long accepted in the West as an established fact.

US Department of State spokesman Matthew Miller expressed disappointment over Russia's veto of the resolution and China's abstention, calling the Committee the "gold standard" for providing fact-based, independent analysis and recommendations.

South Korea's Foreign Ministry expressed "deep regret" over the veto: "The Panel of Experts has fulfilled its role in monitoring the DPRK, which… continues to violate sanctions through various illegal actions such as nuclear and missile provocations, arms exports, sending workers abroad, cyberattacks and military cooperation with the Russian Federation, and is building up its nuclear and missile potential."

Yang Moo-jin, president of the University of North Korean Studies, said that the key factor behind the lifting of the UN's sanctions monitoring of North Korea was not only by the rapprochement between Pyongyang and Moscow, but also by growing hostility between the United States and Russia, which "pushed the latter to establish closer ties with North Korea. Their strategic relationships are inherently interconnected. In addition, there is growing criticism in the UN Security Council that the sanctions are useless."

Maria Zakharova's second statement was a response to such rhetoric. In addition, Russia pointed out the inadmissibility of such criticisms on the part of the United States, which for the past five months has been blocking UN Security Council resolutions on the situation in the Gaza Strip, thereby covering up the mass deaths of Palestinian civilians caused by Israeli actions.

In turn, the DPRK expressed its gratitude to Russia. As the DPRK's permanent representative to the UN, Kim Song, said, "we highly appreciate the decision of the Russian Federation to veto the Security Council's draft resolution on the 1718 Committee." Kim recalled that Pyongyang has never recognized either the sanctions imposed by the Security Council or the work of the sanctions committee.

Does all this mean the end of the sanctions regime?

Unfortunately not. Of course, the West is stoking fears that "the end of the Expert Panel will encourage North Korea to continue to engage in prohibited acts with impunity and frustrate international efforts to deter growing nuclear and missile threats." However, Seoul, Washington and other like-minded countries will step up their coordination by imposing individual or multilateral sanctions in order to keep "turning the screws" on Pyongyang. As Kim Eun-hye stated in a briefing, "Despite the suspension of the Panel, we will continue to honor the sanctions against North Korea and make every effort to create an environment in which North Korea has no choice but to refuse to move in the wrong direction."

Most likely, the panel of experts will simply be replaced. Victor Cha already proposes to fill the vacuum with an "alternative mechanism" involving countries with similar positions on the issue, such as the US, South Korea, Japan, Australia, etc., who will cooperate by sharing information.

Eric Penton-Voak also suggests that as an alternative to the Expert Panel the activities of think tanks and media specializing in the area be stepped up, which could make the enforcement of the sanctions more effective.

The first steps in this direction have already begun. On April 5, 2024, the US State Department stated that "amid the growing need for tighter international cooperation to address North Korean threats following Russia's recent veto of a resolution on the annual renewal of a UN panel monitoring the enforcement of sanctions against the North" US Senior Official for North Korea Jung Pak will visit Romania, Poland, and Sweden. She will negotiate on challenges from North Korea's "unlawful nuclear weapons and ballistic missile programs, malicious cyber activity, and deepening military and political partnership with Russia."

Some experts, however, are more pessimistic. Frank Aum, a senior expert at the US Institute of Peace, notes that "the termination of the panel further erodes the multilateral sanctions regime against North Korea and forces the United States and other countries to pursue more unilateral, bilateral or monolateral efforts to crack down on North Korea." In his view, "this scenario represents not just a crisis for advocates of pressure and sanctions against North Korea, but also the broader functioning of the UNSC and the post World War II international order."

The present author rather agrees with these views. Yes, the UN structure will be replaced by a private shop whose verdicts will be even more biased, but less binding. The US is unlikely to lift the sanctions, considering any movement in this direction ideologically unacceptable. But another deep crack has appeared in the façade of the UN as an independent arbitration institution.

Konstantin Asmolov, Candidate of Historical Sciences, Leading research fellow at the Center for Korean Studies of the Institute of China and Modern Asia of the Russian Academy of Sciences.

8. As Ukraine’s Defeat Looms, Imaginary War Unravels

By Kit Klarenberg | Al Mayadeen | April 24, 2024

On April 11th, US General Christopher Gerard Cavoli, chief of Washington's European Command and Supreme Allied Commander Europe, addressed US lawmakers on Ukraine's dire battlefield situation, warning Kiev "could lose" without further Wunderwaffe. Along the way, he made a number of startling disclosures about the size of Russia's military, and losses, which detonated numerous narratives universally and unquestioningly perpetuated by the mainstream media from the very start of the proxy war to this day.

"We do not see significant losses in the air domain, especially their (Russian) long-range and strategic aviation fleets…Russia's strategic forces, long-range aviation, cyber capabilities, space capabilities, and capabilities in the electromagnetic spectrum have lost no capacity at all," Cavoli said. In all, while the Russian air force had lost "some aircraft", this represented "only about 10% of their fleet":

"The overall message I would give you is [Russia's military has] grown back to what they were before… their overall capacity is very significant still, and they intend to make it go higher… Russia is reconstituting [its forces] far faster than our initial estimates suggested. The army is actually now larger — by 15% — than it was when it invaded Ukraine… Russia launches very large-scale attacks every few days keeping with their production rate… They produce, they save up, they launch a big attack."

Such is the pace at which events move these days, many may have forgotten that in December 2023 a US intelligence report, conveniently declassified right when Volodymyr Zelensky was touring Washington desperately attempting to drum up support for yet more "aid", suggested Russia had lost 90% of its prewar army, with combat deaths in excess of 300,000. The report claimed Moscow's personnel and vehicle losses were so severe, it would take 18 years to replenish what was hemorrhaged over the invasion to date.

Independent analyst Will Schryver has coined the term "Imaginary War" in respect of the proxy conflict. It is a battle primarily concerned with convincing Western citizens that free, democratic Kiev is making a heroic stand against Russian barbarism, which it can and will win. Ukraine, with NATO's backing, was until recently excelling in this effort. Every step of the way though, they've been losing the real war – and badly.

'Intelligence Updates'

Social media is a core component of the Imaginary War. Academic research shows Twitter is home to a massive pro-Ukraine bot army, endlessly pumping out pro-Kiev, anti-Russian messaging. The same is no doubt true of every social media platform. This helps create the illusion of nigh-universal support for Ukraine globally, when outside the West, populations and governments are either neutral, or outright supportive of Russia, perceiving the conflict to be a strike against NATO, and Western imperialism.

Furthermore, over the first 18 months of the conflict, mainstream journalists, pundits, and politicians heavily depended on the unsubstantiated pronouncements of "Oryx", an anonymous Twitter account analysing on-the-ground imagery, for loss figures on both sides. Its posts suggested from day one, destruction of Russian tanks, jets, armoured vehicles and more was many orders of magnitude higher than that suffered by Ukraine, indicative generally of the war being an unmitigated disaster for the invaders.

A representative March 17th 2022 Washington Post investigation boldly declared Russia had to date "lost thousands of soldiers and thousands of vehicles while failing to make significant progress," based almost entirely on Oryx's findings. Similarly, a BBC article the next month prominently touted figures produced by Oryx suggesting Ukraine had "destroyed, damaged or captured at least 82 Russian aircraft, including jets, helicopters and drones," while only sacrificing 33 of its own.

A nameless Western intelligence official told the BBC Kiev desperately required "long and mid-range air defences", in "large quantities." UAF Captain Vasyl Kravchuk, reportedly possessed of a "surprisingly ready smile" when he spoke to Britain's state broadcaster, signed off by stating, "past wars have shown, whoever dominates the air wins the war." The underlying propaganda message, that Ukraine was so far comfortably prevailing in the skies, but needed Western help to keep it up – and therefore emerge victorious overall – couldn't have been clearer.

Oryx's findings were even routinely cited by Britain's Ministry of Defence in daily Twitter "intelligence updates", which were widely shared, and subsequently featured in and informed the content and headlines of many news reports. For example, in April 2023 an update asserted, "Russia has lost 10,000+ military vehicles since its illegal invasion of Ukraine began, according to tracker Oryx." The post was viewed over one million times. Parliament's 2023 Intelligence and Security Committee report boasted that "the impact" of these "unprecedented" updates was "substantial".

The report went on to note how the Ministry of Defence intelligence estimates "informed decisions made by [government] ministers and Armed Forces chiefs" on London's "posture towards Russia." One can only hope Oryx's output did not formally influence Britain's proxy war strategy in Ukraine. Audits by eagle-eyed internet sleuths have demonstrated the account consistently perpetuated wildly inaccurate, inflated figures, by counting photos and footage of the same damaged vehicles shot from different angles as individual, separate Russian losses, while misrepresenting Ukraine's destroyed Soviet-era vehicles as Russian.

Conspicuously, Oryx abruptly ceased its work when Ukraine's much-vaunted, long-delayed "Spring" counteroffensive began in June 2023. A cynic might suggest, given Kiev was equipped with heavily hyped Western Wunderwaffe for the effort, whoever was running the operation – and/or the individuals and entities ultimately managing them – concluded the same dishonest tactics couldn't work this time round. In October 2023, the account was deleted outright without warning or explanation, meaning its bogus archive can no longer be critically scrutinised at all.

'Classic Hero'

Coincidentally, that same month, a number of anonymous, high profile "OSINT" accounts similarly focused on Ukraine likewise abruptly shuttered, or announced their intention to do so. This included Calibre Obscura. Beloved by NAFO, the account similarly emphasised Russian embarrassment and failure. A video Calibre Obscura published in September 2022 of a fleeing Russian tank crashing into a tree set to farcical music went viral, generated much mainstream coverage, and was presented by Zelensky at a press conference celebrating that month's successful counteroffensive in Kharkiv.

With the Imaginary War nearing over, and the Zionist genocide in Gaza beginning, it was of course necessary to wind down "OSINT" operations entirely, or focus them elsewhere. The silence of Bellingcat, a British and US government-funded validator of NATO narratives, on Israel's crimes, despite a wealth of photo and video footage attesting to the monstrousness, is palpable, and illuminating.

In December 2023, novelist Lionel Shriver authored a lament for The Spectator, on how she "got caught up" in the proxy conflict's "story", which "had a spectacular opening chapter, a classic hero… and as wicked a villain as Shakespeare could have contrived." However, Kiev's catastrophic counteroffensive – which saw over 100,000 Ukrainians die to recover 0.25% of lost territory – meant she was now "quietly losing interest in this conflict," along with many others in Europe and the US:

"This is supposed to be a David and Goliath story. But David and Goliath is a crap story if the giant wins… Predictable, a bit disheartening and not really a story at all, just the way the world works. Besides, a Western audience wants to see the good guy win, both to mete out justice and to enjoy victory by proxy. Ukraine's anguishing self-defence is not a novel. But it's not satisfying our fictional appetites."

Shriver concluded that it was "time to urge the Zelensky government to enter talks to bring this depressing war to its depressing conclusion," as "dragging out an entrenched stalemate merely racks up a higher body count and destroys more Ukrainian homes and infrastructure to no purpose." She added, "sitting back and giving Ukrainians just enough weaponry to keep fighting to the last man and woman, only for the country to finally end up where we always knew it would, is not just immoral. It's murder."

It is indeed immoral, and murder, to keep the unwinnable, real war Ukraine has been fighting since February 2022 grinding on, as anti-imperialist, anti-war activists and journalists have been intoning every step of the way. That confirming this self-evident fact came at the expense of so many lives, marking it as a criminal tragedy. Unhappily for Shriver and many others, with the total collapse of the frontline impending any day now, and Russia seeking Kiev's "unconditional surrender", the "story" may not end with Ukraine electively entering talks.

9. Revealed: Israel’s hidden history of attacks on Iran

By Robert Inlakesh | MintPress News | April 17, 2024 

Iran's retaliatory attack on Israel was framed in the West as a reckless attempt to spark a major regional war, but in reality, Israel has been attacking Iran for decades.

As is routinely the case with Western-backed wars, the corporate media's timeline begins at the moment that suits their narrative. We have seen this play out recently, with the attempt to rob the Gaza war of all contexts before October 7, 2023. Similarly, when it comes to Israel's conflict with Iran, the two have been embroiled in what is referred to as a "shadow war," the details of which are pretty shocking.

While the international media's attention was riveted on Iran's retaliatory strikes against Israel, drawing great focus to some 300 drones and missiles used in the attack, no major deal was made of Israel's strike on April 1 against the consular segment of Iran's embassy in Damascus, Syria, that killed a dozen people, including seven Iranian officials of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC). In this unprecedented act of aggression against Iranian soil, breaking international diplomatic norms, the Israelis were shielded by the U.S. government at the United Nations Security Council, blocking any condemnation of this act.

Despite an admission from British Foreign Secretary David Cameron that had the UK embassy been attacked similarly, they too would retaliate, the double-standard argument that Iran shouldn't respond continues to dominate the airways.

This is as Iran's IRGC has received condemnation for seizing a container ship in the Persian Gulf associated with the Zodiac Maritime shipping company of Israel billionaire Eyal Ofer and his family. In 2021, the Mercer Street oil tanker, which Zodiac Maritime also operated, was struck by Iranian drones, prompting similar condemnation. Yet, little was to be said regarding the Israeli-owned company's role in collaborating with the Israeli military and intelligence establishment to ferry arms and operatives around the region and carry out assassinations or reconnaissance missions.

However, the Israel-Iran "Shadow War" did not begin with recent events. Israel has been carrying out brutal assassinations of civilian scientists on Iranian soil since 2010 while also carrying out acts of espionage that have endangered innocent civilians in the country.

As early as in the years 2010, 2011 and 2012, Israeli Mossad agents have been planting viruses designed to cause malfunctions in Iranian oil and nuclear power facilities. Another kind of provocative action occurred in 2018, when it was reported that an Israeli Mossad team had raided an archive facility in Tehran, stealing documents that pertained to its nuclear power program.

In 2020, the New York Times and Washington Post reported that Israel planted bombs inside Iran's Natanz Nuclear facility, which almost caused an environmental and humanitarian catastrophe. Later that year, the Israeli Mossad assassinated Iran's top nuclear scientist, Mohsen Fakhrizadeh, in Tehran. Then, in April of 2021, another explosion occurred at the Natanz facility, which the New York Times reported was Israel's doing.

The Israelis have also trained members of the MEK terrorist group to carry out attacks on civilian targets inside Iran. The list of Mossad-linked cells that have been arrested by the Iranian authorities or carried out acts of espionage and sabotage is simply too numerous to cover at length. Early last year, U.S. officials even told Reuters that a suicide drone attack targeting a factory in the city of Isfahan was an Israeli attack.

More recently, in late December, Israel launched airstrikes on Damascus and assassinated IRGC official Seyed Razi Mousavi. And in January, Israel launched airstrikes in Damascus, murdering five Iranian military personnel members and Syrian citizens. Then, in early February, Israel was accused of blowing up gas pipelines in Iran. None of these actions, which would likely illicit a response by most nations, provoked Iran to launch a direct strike on Israel.

In addition to all of this, Israel has been the world's top cheerleader for the West's crushing sanctions that have significantly impacted Iran's civilian population, specifically access to lifesaving medical supplies. AIPAC, the powerful Israeli Lobby group in the United States, worked hard to prevent the 2015 Iran Nuclear Deal from passing, then pushed for the Trump administration to unilaterally withdraw before pressuring the Biden administration to refrain from reviving the deal despite this being a campaign promise. Israel even played a role in the Trump administration's assassination of Iran's top general tasked with battling ISIS, Qassem Soleimani.

Yet, despite Israel's long history of documented attacks against Iran and around 30 years of false predictions as to when Iran is supposedly going to develop a nuclear weapon, which is the premise for Western sanctions, the corporate media is still trying to sell the public on the lie that Israel is an innocent victim and that there was no justifiable reason for Iran to retaliate.

10. Conformity Colleges: the Occupation and Destruction of the Academy by the Radical Left

UK Column | April 11, 2024

Ben Rubin speaks with Professor David Barnhizer about the ideological capture of American universities, and its implications for the future of higher education and Western civilisation itself.

The UK Column is an independent multimedia news website supported by its members.