Aletho News

1. Former CBC reporter says outlet suppressed negative stories about COVID shots, lockdowns

By Anthony Murdoch | LifeSiteNews | May 25, 2023

OTTAWA, Ontario – A former journalist who worked for the state-funded Canadian Broadcasting Corporation (CBC) shockingly revealed that reporters were stopped from being able to cover stories critical of COVID vaccines and lockdowns, and were instead encouraged to push government "propaganda." 

The shocking revelations were made by past CBC Manitoba reporter Marianne Klowak during testimony at the National Citizen's Inquiry (NCI) on May 18 in Ottawa.  

"I know that as a public broadcaster, you'd expect us to be telling you the truth, and we stopped doing that," said Klowak.  

"And it was a number of stories that I have put forward that were blocked, but it seemed to me as a journalist who'd been there 34 years, it's like the rules had changed overnight. And it changed so quickly that it left me just dizzy." 

Klowak noted that it was her editors who prevented her from doing stories in relation to protests against the COVID mandates, as well as reports of people having adverse events to the COVID shots, as reported by doctors.  

She noted she had "witnessed in a very short time the collapse of journalism, news gathering, investigative reporting," adding that the way she "saw it" is that "we were in fact pushing propaganda." 

"Not only had we shut down one side by silencing and discrediting anyone opposing the narrative, we had elevated and designated ourselves as gatekeepers of the truth. We no longer believed our audience was capable of thinking for themselves," she told the NCI.

Klowak said a story of hers about a woman who had a COVID vaccine injury was completely neutered, or in effect "sanitized."  

"It should be just a straight story about someone who suffered an adverse reaction and we shouldn't downplay it," she noted. 

"Instead, the way I saw it, her story was buried in experts and health officials and stats, which sanitized it." 

Klowak admitted that journalists "failed to hold power to account and no one was holding the media to account."  

In July of 2022, Klowak revealed that the CBC deliberately skewed its reporting on COVID-19 inoculations.  

She said that CBC was "canceling one whole side of the debate" as the experimental COVID-19 shots became available across the world. 

The NCI is a citizen-led and citizen-funded independent initiative investigating the government's response to the COVID so-called pandemic.  

At the inquiry in Ottawa as well, Dr. Christopher Alan Shoemaker, a Canadian doctor with 45 years of experience, testified about the injuries correlated with the COVID-19 mRNA injections, notably the jab's effects on kids and reproductive health. 

Shoemaker had his medical license suspended in January of 2022 by the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario (CPSO) because he spoke out against the COVID shots.  

As for Klowak, she left the CBC in late 2021. Since then, other CBC reporters have left over what they also see as biased COVID news coverage. 

In January 2022, journalist Tara Henley quit for similar reasons, saying, "Those of us on the inside know just how swiftly — and how dramatically — the politics of the public broadcaster have shifted."  

About a month ago, retired Canadian Lt. Col. David Redman testified before the NCI that legacy media outlets such as the CBC are "ministries of propaganda."  

Many have accused the CBC and other media outlets of holding a pro-government bias because of those outlets' ties to public funds.

In 2019, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau promised that his Liberal government would give legacy media, including the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation (CBC), an extra $595 million in federal assistance over the next four years. 

Per its 2020-2021 annual report, the CBC receives about $1.24 billion in public funding every year, which is about 70% of its funding. 

Despite these efforts, the Department of Canadian Heritage recently admitted the "bailout" of media has not worked in helping to prop up legacy media outlets. 

2. Missouri v. Biden, Part 1, by Tracy Beanz

Our lawyers were in court yesterday petitioning for an injunction to halt the activities of the government's censorship-industrial complex while the case is tried.

Human Flourishing | May 27, 2023

Tracy Beanz is a reporter with Uncover DC who has been carefully following our Missouri v. Biden case. She just published a detailed Twitter thread with updates on our petition for a preliminary injunction. With her permission, I'm publishing a lightly edited version of her coverage here.

I'm happy to report that things appeared to go very well for us in court this week, as you will see below. We are hopeful that the judge will grant the requested injunction. This will be the first major step in dismantling the government's vast, unconstitutional censorship regime. – AARON KHERIATY, MD

Many of you have heard me discuss this case in detail, as I have been reporting on it diligently for the past year. However, some of you are unsure of why it is important, or what it all means. This thread will serve as a summary to this point, and a detailed explanation of the last filing in the case which is a virtual handbook to government censorship based on the limited discovery provided so far.

Missouri v. Biden was filed on May 5, 2022. Since it was initially filed, it has taken quite a trip through the court system. The complaint has been amended three times, with the most recent amendment being to transform the case into a class suit—this due to the overwhelming evidence of broad harm to the constitutional rights of all Americans. You can view the docket by using the link here.

The complaint alleged that the US Government was not only threatening and coercing social media companies to censor Americans on social media, but they were also working with social media companies to accomplish that goal. It alleged that topics surrounding covid, the origins of covid, the Great Barrington Declaration, election integrity concerns, the covid shot, the Hunter Biden laptop story (and more) were under scrutiny by the White House and other government agencies—and that the government had very publicly threatened to take action against social media companies should they not act to censor viewpoints on those topics that were disfavored by the government.

The Plaintiffs in the case (the states of Missouri and Louisiana, along with several other private plaintiffs, including Aaron Kheriaty, Jay Bhattacharya, and Martin Kulldorff) moved for expedited discovery to be able to obtain a limited set of evidence as well as depositions of certain officials. This evidence, they argued, would allow them to make the case for a temporary injunction to stop the government from infringing on the first amendment rights of Plaintiffs and their citizens.

Unlike what many have come to expect, the judge GRANTED the motion for expedited discovery and depositions. A struggle ensued between the Government and Plaintiffs, with the government fighting against the judge in this case (Judge Terry Doughty) to stop discovery and certain plaintiffs from being deposed. They took those complaints to the 5th circuit of appeals and a court in Virginia—a court that *usually* is friendly to the government.

At the appellate court level, the government argued really that NO ONE should have to leave their government jobs to sit for long depositions in this case, but certainly not the head of CISA, for example [the Cybersecurity Infrastructure Security Agency, part of the Department of Homeland Security that now coordinates the censorship-industrial complex]. The appellate court wouldn't play ball with the government, and remanded the case back to Louisiana with some guidance on how the judge should proceed. If memory serves me right this happened three times.

One particularly interesting exchange came with the deposition of former White House Press Secretary Jen Psaki. She made threats to social media companies from the podium. They sought to depose her about those threats. She left the office. The government said they had no responsive documents to explain her comments. So Missouri and Louisiana said, "then we have to depose Jen Psaki". The court agreed and ruled that now private citizen Psaki needed to testify. The government and Psaki—represented by Rhee—went to a court in Virginia to try to get that judge to stop the deposition. The judge in that case laid into both the government and Psaki. It was so stunning I literally read the transcript of the hearing in this video.

This went back to Louisiana after the Virginia judge essentially said "you won't like how I rule on this and your argument is terrible so I'm sending it back to the judge who should be making this decision." The judge in Louisiana again decided Psaki should be deposed if the government didn't have any responsive docs from the press office. Somehow, those documents must've appeared because she still has not been deposed.

Aside from this, all along the way the government has lost—over and over again. They were also caught hiding discovery materials—the judge rapped them and ordered them to produce or else—which they did. And then came the government's motion to dismiss, which the government had once withdrawn and then refilled. The judge ruled against the government and said the case will continue. He also remixed the government that this was limited discovery—and that discovery will widen significantly once the actual trial gets underway.

Another interesting tidbit: once Fauci was deposed the government sought to seal all depositions and video—along with discovery materials arguing that the government "employees" were being threatened and harassed and faced imminent harm. But they couldn't produce any examples of that happening. The judge ruled against sealing anything except personal information like addresses.

So far I've only really discussed the procedural happenings—however what limited expedited discovery in this case has exposed (separate and apart from the Twitter files) is both unprecedented and abhorrent. The most widespread and troubling discovery? CISA has designated YOUR THOUGHTS part of the governments infrastructure. They call it "cognitive infrastructure".

They argue they can regulate what you think as they consider it under their purview. In this article I describe "The 6 Most Shocking Recent Revelations of Government Censorship," if you want the details. One character of particular importance was White House director of digital communications and strategy Rob Flaherty. Flaherty was ABUSIVE to social media companies—like they were his battered wife. Many of them resisted the calls for censorship until threats forced them into action. I was actually stunned to see how averse they were to censoring—until forced to by the government.

Recently the Plaintiffs filed their motion in support of the temporary injunction—a hearing we have been waiting on for nearly a year because of the governments delays and obfuscations. It included 1,200 FACTS about government coordinated censorship. The government responded with a 1200 page monstrosity plainly arguing they did it all—but because of foreign actors and the "safety" of the American people—lest we be exposed to harmful "misinformation." Then they asked the judge to give them another week and postpone this hearing—again, arguing they wouldn't have time to digest Plaintiffs response to their last filing.

The judge told them he wouldn't be postponing this hearing again. A few days ago Plaintiffs filed their response—and it really is an encyclopedia of their expedited and limited discovery so far. I will comment on it in detail below. But first I want to explain why this case is NOT like any other we have seen.

The judge has done the right thing the entire time. The appeals court has done the right thing the entire time. The depositions were granted, the discovery was granted, the motion to dismiss was denied—the judge has expressed several times his shock at what the plaintiffs have exposed. The judge plays by the rules and both he and the appellate court are significantly alarmed by what has come out. This isn't what we are used to, namely, a weak judge capitulating to the government. In fact, the judge hasn't capitulated ONCE. Neither has the appellate court and neither has a DC court.

What is the remedy sought by the plaintiffs? Well, if the temporary injunction is granted (I am nearly certain it will be) the remedy is to bar the government from working with social media companies to flag and censor posts. They will also be barred from working through NGO's to do the same. (Here's looking at you, Election Integrity Partnership and Stanford internet observatory and Atlantic Council)—no FBI task force inside Facebook or Twitter, no emails back and forth about "vaccine misinfo" and how to stop it. The government has to CEASE all of this unlawful behavior.

What will follow is going to be a relatively detailed breakdown of the latest filing from the plaintiffs—an answer to the governments excuses for why:

1. What they did isn't really censorship (mainly that they didn't *force* the social media companies to take action).
2. Why what they did is "OK." The guise of national security and "safety" and protecting Americans from "Mis, Dis, and Malinformation".

Share this with everyone you know. Yes, it's that important. Here is the link to the filing I will be detailing.

Plaintiffs begin with a hypothetical, and they do this because the government tried to make all of this behavior "OK" by claiming that the Trump administration did the same thing. That is an exercise in futility—the Plaintiff's don't care what administration did it, only that it happened, and besides, the Trump White House directed NONE of this activity. As an added zing (in my opinion): they used book burning as their hypothetical—this appeals directly to the left angry that we don't want pornographic books in kids libraries.

The defendants "Statement of Facts" is rife with "disinformation," a term they have used as a guise to trample the 1st amendment rights of Americans…

In the very first sentence of the brief the government filed to argue for why there should NOT be a temporary injunction halting their communication and threats to social media companies, they hide behind the "Foreign" assaults on critical election infrastructure. However evidence obtained in this case demonstrates that the Federal government overwhelmingly targets DOMESTIC speech by American citizens. Depositions and evidence obtained in the case proves that actors responsible for censorship admit that most of what they consider "misinformation" was DOMESTIC in nature, including from the Election Integrity Partnership (Keep the EIP front of mind).

The Virality Project, the "medical bureaucracy" portion of the censorship apparatus, admits that for supposed covid misinformation, the majority of the "misinformation" came from domestic actors. An important thing to remember is this: Even though what many of us were saying about masks, the shot, covid origins, etc was TRUE, even if it WEREN'T, the government is forbidden from censoring. That important tenet aside, even when the FBI moved to censor "foreign" speech, it swept up hundreds of thousands of Americans and journalists—something we will explore further in a moment.

The government admits in their brief that they brought attention to posts they didn't like on social media. And Plaintiffs made the argument that if not for the government taking an active role in flagging "wrong think" no action would have been taken—as more times than not this content DID NOT violate the social media companies' terms of service. The government also claimed that all of these agencies worked independently of one another, that there wasn't any coordination between them. As we will see, that is patently false. They didn't all simultaneously just coincidentally decide to act to get social platforms to ban what they didn't want you to see.

As the evidence proves, there was conspiracy behind the censorship. The White House campaign integrated with the Surgeon General, the CDC, and Census Bureau campaigns drew directly from White House pressure. NIAID and NIH censorship efforts draw from the CDC. CISA, FBI, DOJ, ODNI [Office of the Director of National Intelligence] and other agencies worked together and all participate in meetings together to facilitate pressure and censorship. CISA and the FBI worked together to censor the Biden laptop story. NIAID and NIH conspired together to censor the lab leak theory and Great Barrington Declaration [co-authored by plaintiff's Bhattacharya and Kulldorff]. NIAID [Fauci's former division at the NIH] is embedded in White House censorship activities. CISA and GEC [Global Engagement Center, the State Department's censorship arm] coordinate with each other and with NGOs like the Election Integrity Project. This isn't a guess. They have the evidence. This happened.

And if you thought it stopped with just executive agencies, you would be wrong. The Secretary of Homeland Security Himself describes the censorship apparatus as operating "across the federal enterprise." High level congressional staffers coordinated with the FBI and social media in secret meetings. The partnership between the White House and Congress gives coercive force to the censorship activities, and there are documents to prove it. Jen Easterly, the director of CISA [the Cybersecurity Infrastructure Security Agency], texted that CISA wanted to play a "coordinated role" so that relevant agencies could try to "PREBUNK" (that's a new one) and debunk trends of information, to prevent the "chaos" that would ensue if every agency was contacting platforms on their own.

And that is what they did: CISA became the hub for many other government agencies to filter their censorship requests through—sort of a censorship "help desk" if you will. I argue that this was the reason they attempted to stand up the "Disinformation Governance Board" several months back. They needed funding and an air of "official" to go along with their already clandestine activities. I also argue that this lawsuit is the reason they are attempting to ram through Congress the RESTRICT Act, or the misnamed "TikTok bill." It is because they need Congress to approve their censorship actions here—this lawsuit is going to make it so the censorship regime can't function.

The government argued, "but this happened before us!" It's actually somewhat untrue. The Trump White House had no involvement in any of this—the bureaucracy was acting on its own. In fact, there was a secret text between [NIH Director] Collins and [NAIAID Director] Fauci where Collins stated the White House would disapprove of what they were doing, and Fauci assured him that they have "more important things to worry about."

That's all for now, folks, lest this email get too big for your inboxes. Stay tuned tomorrow for Part 2, where Tracy's coverage of this week's events in court will continue. In the meantime, you may want to follow Tracy if you are on Twitter and thank her for her excellent coverage of this case.

3. The Vax-Gene Files: An Accidental Discovery

By Julie Sladden| Brownstone Institute | MAY 27, 2023

In 1928 scientist Alexander Fleming returned to his laboratory after a 2-week holiday. A petri dish of bacteria accidentally left on the lab bench, somehow became cross-contaminated with Penicillium notatum mould. Fleming noticed the mould inhibited the growth of the bacteria. This accidental discovery marked the dawn of the antibiotic era and a turning point in medical, and perhaps human history.

Recently, another accidental discovery has scientists wondering whether we have turned another corner in history.

The story begins with Kevin McKernan, a scientist with 25 years experience in the genomic field and a leading expert in sequencing methods for DNA and RNA. He has worked on the Human Genome Project and more recently in medicinal genomics involving DNA sequencing.

In the process of trying to sort out a sequencing problem, McKernan used anonymously sent, Pfizer and Moderna Covid-19 bivalent vaccines to act as mRNA controls.

'Somebody sent me these thinking, this is the perfect control… It should be pure. So, if you get this to work, you'll sort out your mRNA sequencing problems,' McKernan explains in a recent interview.  'They were right about that. It did sort out our problems. But what we discovered in the process is that they weren't pure mRNA. They actually had a lot of DNA in the background.'

McKernan was shocked, 'It's not what we were looking for… I had this hunch that the new modified nucleotides they have in the mRNA may have a higher error rate, and therefore we would see more mistakes in the mRNA. So, I knew we would have to sequence like a millionfold deep… over and over again to find these mistakes. When we did that DNA popped up and I thought "Oh, that's a bigger problem. We have to focus on that." … I kind of went into panic mode, realizing that I didn't budget any time to look into this, and the world has to know about it.'

Let's pause here and look at what we're told about the Covid-19 mRNA injections.  We're assured:

• The injections are safe. Meanwhile, adverse event reporting systems around the world record previously unseen rates of adverse events and injuries;
• The injections are effective. We would ask: Effective for what? Not stopping transmission. We're not sure about preventing serious illness either evidenced by recent data and New South Wales Health reports which show a disproportionate number of hospital and ICU admissions amongst the vaccinated.
• The injection materials stay at the injection site.  Recently released documents obtained under FOI show the lipid nanoparticles become widely distributed – notably to the liver, spleen, adrenal glands, ovaries, and testes;
• The injections won't change your DNA.

Let's look at that last one a little bit closer.

The Australian TGA states you can find reputable information about Covid-19 vaccines on their 'Is it true' section of the website. It is worth a look. In answer to the question 'Can COVID-19 vaccines alter my DNA?' the TGA is clear: 'No, COVID-19 vaccines do not alter your DNA.'

They explain, 'mRNA vaccines use a synthetic genetic code called RNA to give our cells instructions about how to make the coronavirus' unique spike protein. When our body has made the protein encoded by the mRNA vaccine, it then recognises the spike protein as being foreign and launches an immune response against it. The RNA from the vaccine does not change or interact with our DNA in any way.'

Phew. Well, that's ok then, right?

Possible routes for mRNA to convert to DNA (including a process known as reverse transcription) were discounted. Until the publication of an annoying little paper in 2022 by Alden et al, an in vitro study involving human liver cells which showed Pfizer's mRNA was expressed as DNA within six hours.

At the time, this was assumed due to reverse transcription of the mRNA. However, in light of McKernan's discovery, there's a whole new possibility to consider. What if the vaccines already contained DNA? Then arguments about whether the mRNA could reverse transcribe into DNA become irrelevant.

Let's return to McKernan and take a closer look at what he found. In addition to the expected mRNA, he also found mRNA fragments, other pieces of RNA, and two forms of DNA: linearised and circular. The significance of the circular – or plasmid – DNA is important. The plasmid DNA is the 'complete recipe' used to program bacterial cells to mass produce the mRNA. This DNA should not be there. Further investigation by McKernan showed the plasmid DNA contained in the vaccines was indeed viable and capable of transformation in bacterial cells.

So, the Pfizer and Moderna vials of bivalent vaccine that McKernan tested were contaminated with DNA. DNA encoding the spike gene and potentially capable of inserting into the genome of an organism.

The question is, does this DNA have the potential to become part of the genome of a human organism and if so what might be the consequences? This would have required looking at 'genotoxicity,' something Australia's TGA says the (Pfizer) injections were not tested for, and the TGA did not ask for.

In case you are wondering, there are strict guidelines about DNA contamination levels in mRNA products. The European Medicines Agency (EMA) and FDA stated limits are 330 nanograms of DNA per milligram of RNA. In Australia, the TGA says it should be no more than 10 nanograms per dose.

(It's unclear how these limits were decided. Personally, we'd be hoping for zero DNA in our mRNA injections.)

This means that DNA should not be more than 0.033 per cent of the total nucleic acids in the dose. But McKernan's analysis demonstrated DNA contamination of up to 35 percent in the bivalent injection samples. This is up to 1,000 times higher than deemed to be 'acceptable' by the regulating authorities.

Next, McKernan analysed the monovalent (earlier) injections. The Pfizer monovalent injections were also found to be contaminated with DNA, though not as much. The levels of DNA in the Pfizer monovalent injections were 18-70 times higher than the EMA limit.

So, what happens now?

These results are in the process of being further verified by the scientific community. In the essence of speed, McKernan published his findings and methods publicly on Substack and online. He explains, 'The publication system, during the pandemic, is politicised. So, that's probably not going to get the word out very quickly. I had to do my best to document this all and make the data public.'

If McKernan's findings are verified, the implications are serious. Widespread DNA contamination would bring into question the quality of the entire mRNA injection manufacturing process, safety systems, and regulatory oversight. In addition, DNA might not be the only contaminant.

This contamination discovery begs a question. What does Australia's Office of the Gene Technology Regulator (OGTR) know about the safety of these mRNA injections? And what discussions have occurred between the TGA and the OGTR regarding the safety of these injections?

Some of these questions are being asked and will hopefully get answers. Soon, we hope.

Another question weighs heavily. What does this 'accidental discovery' mean for those who've had the mRNA injections, in terms of their health, their offspring, and future of the human genome?

Scientists and genomics experts are shocked by the discovery. McKernan too, 'I didn't expect to find Pfizer's entire blueprint for how they manufacture this thing sitting in the vial.'

Neither did we.

Dr Julie Sladden is a medical doctor and freelance writer with a passion for transparency in healthcare. Her op-eds have been published in both The Spectator Australia and The Daily Declaration. In 2022, she was elected as a Local Government Councillor for West Tamar in Tasmania.

4. Authorities Should Look Into Biden Family Corruption Instead of Hunter’s Tax Shenanigans

By Andrei Dergalin – Sputnik – 27.05.2023

As new revelations about the IRS probe into Hunter Biden's tax affairs are being brought forth, a former US state senator suggests that the Department of Justice and the FBI should probably focus their attention on more serious matters related to the US president's family.

An IRS whistleblower named Gary Shapley dropped a bombshell this week related to a tax probe into the shady affairs of Hunter Biden, son of US President Joe Biden.

Shapley, who supervised Hunter's tax probe since January 2020, has alleged he discovered signs of the investigation being "slow-walked" prior to him taking over, and that the Department of Justice tried to interfere with and thwart his probe.

Commenting on this development, former Colorado State Senator Ted Harvey told Sputnik that Shapley's surprise about how long the investigation has been taking likely stems from the fact that the latter has never previously worked on a case involving a president's son or an "elite Democrat operative."

"Everybody that's part of the Democrat machine never has their day in court because the machine protects them. And this shouldn't be a surprise to anybody," he explained while speaking on Sputnik's Fault Lines podcast.

Harvey did note, however, that he would rather have the FBI look into the "actual criminal behavior of the Biden family" and into how said family allegedly put the US national security at risk, adding that, he does not particularly care about "any tax evasion from the president's son."

"I want the FBI and the Justice Department to look into the real issues with the Biden family and the corruption that we've seen there," he added.

Meanwhile, Steve Gill, attorney and CEO of Gill Media, observed that while mainstream American media used to like whistleblowers, that same media now appears rather critical of them due to the media's job essentially being to "protect the Biden family at all costs."

He also pointed to allegations of foreign governments "dishing millions of dollars to the grandchildren of Joe Biden," telling Sputnik's Final Countdown podcast that it would be interesting to find out "exactly what these under-age grandchildren were doing to generate income from foreign governments."

5. Henry Kissinger, Statesman, Centenarian, War Criminal

By Declan Hayes | Strategic Culture Foundation | May 27, 2023

So, Henry Kisisinger has done it. He has emulated Vietnam's legendary General Võ Nguyên Giáp by reaching 100 years of age and not out. Congratulations! Happy birthday! Roll out the red carpet and give him a 100 gun salute! Oh say can you see, by the dawn's early light….

But after all that superficial 4^th of July, Apple Pie, Disneyland tinsel, go look at that guy's rap sheet to get a grasp of how he and his have drowned the world with the blood of the innocents.

NATO awarded this bastard its 1973 Nobel Peace award for helping to end the Third Indo-China War, that led to independence for Vietnam, Laos and Cambodia. In point of fact, it was not Kissinger's alleged diplomacy but the heroic armed forces of Vietnam, led by the inestimable General Giáp, and armed and abetted by the Soviet Union and China, that ended that unremitting genocide the United States and its coalition of the willing (the United States, the ANZAC criminals, France, South Korea, the Philippines, Germany, Taiwan, Malaysia, Italy and Singapore) waged against the women of children of My Lai and tens of thousands of other Vietnamese villages, hamlets and towns. If Kissinger is hale and hearty enough to still opine on matters like Ukraine, then he is fit enough to swing for his culpability in America's mass use of chemical and biological weapons in Cambodia, Vietnam and Laos. If he lived like a dog, then he should have no complaints about being hanged like one.

And, after hanging him over Indo-China, Kissinger should be dug up and hanged again over Chile, where he and his Chicago school of economic hit-men orchestrated the overthrow of Allende, the pauperisation of the Chileans and the installation of the CIA trained fascist butcher Pinochet.

Och sure that was so long ago, would you not leave the old war criminal alone to enjoy his old age, something that bastard denied so many millions of others? Chile and Vietnam are so yesterday.

If only they were. Leaving to one side the tens of thousands of Vietnamese babies who are born with congenital diseases as a result of Kissinger spraying Monsanto's Agent Orange on their grandmothers and even forgetting that Kissinger's Yankee mates this very day oppose Chinese aid to Cambodia, a country whose people they unmercifully slaughtered with the active help of their media shills, Kissinger's neck must still answer for his complicity in the crimes of Pakistan, whose military, led by the United States, committed the most unspeakable outrages in Bangladesh, East Pakistan, which was the Donbas of its day, and which these gangsters are now perpetrating in Pakistan itself.

And then there is Israel, with whom Kissinger directly colluded not only against Egypt, Jordan and Assad's Syria in the Yom Kippur war, but where he also colluded against POTUS Nixon. If that is not another hanging offence, what is?

Let's momentarily forget, if we can, the hanging hyperbole and look at Kissinger the man if we can assume, for the sake of argument, he is a man and not the anti-Christ incarnate. Although many others before him, from at least the time of Cardinal Richelieu, had the ear of the king, it is fair to say that Kissinger's control of Nixon was a turning point for the worst in the affairs of man. Kissinger, often with Nixon's connivance and as often without, manipulated the Beltway's movers and shakers to a degree that the world had previously not witnessed and people are still being slaughtered in Donbas, in Pakistan and in Latin America as a result.

Out were the self-made politicians, folk like Eisenhower, Kennedy, de Gaulle, Harold Wilson and Willy Brandt, who had excelled, as often as not in the field of battle, but always under their own steam, owing favours to no one. In were the mandarins, the Yes Prime Ministers, snivelling wretches like Kissinger, who owed their prominence to backroom deals and favours cut, thanks to the Epsteins and other shadowy king makers of the Beltway's netherworld.

Let's look at the U.S. military to illustrate this important point. There are currently 39 active duty four-star officers in the uniformed services of the United States: 13 in the Army, 3 in the Marine Corps, 10 in the Navy, 12 in the Air Force, 1 in the Coast Guard, 2 in the Space Force, and none in the Public Health Service Commissioned Corps.

This bloated number, which is far in excess of what the Yanks had at the height of the Second World War, is explained by the Kissinger effect, creeping Jesuses like Kissinger playing their own game, rather than playing for Team America. The objective of the top brass is not to win wars, to defend America or any such thing but it is to enrich themselves and the defence companies they will be parachuted into upon retirement.

The same goes for the Beltway's movers and shakers, those creeping Jesuses who have inherited Satan's relay baton from Kissinger and who, like him, consider American domestic and foreign policy, along with America's piggy bank, to be their own personal plaything. If you look at those at the Beltway's centre, anti-Christs like Victoria Nuland, Lindsey Graham and John Bolton, you can trace a slime trail via the Bush Presidencies all the way back to Kissinger and Nixon. Though America might periodically change its king, its permanent government of war mongers and piggy bank robbers stays firmly in place.

But what then of General Giáp? Wasn't he too around almost forever? Yes, but Giáp was tested not once, but always against the Japanese, the French and the hated Americans. And, because each and every time he proved his mettle, he is, arguably, the most outstanding leader of the twentieth century.

Although Giáp might conceivably have liked to have ended his adult life, as he began it, as a history teacher in provincial Vietnam, fate dictated otherwise. Not so with the Beltway's creeps, Kissinger's droppings, who have to this very day to see a war they did not like or profit from.

So, as the world's hypocrites salute this degenerate's 100^th birthday on May 27^th, let's first of all remember the millions of Cambodians, Laotians, Vietnamese, Egyptians, Syrians, Jordanians, Palestinians, Pakistanis, Bangladeshis and Chileans who died the most horrible of deaths because of this conniving creep, and then let's also say an Ave for the millions of others whose lives were sacrificed on the altars of Blair, Bush, Clinton, Obama and Kissinger's other criminal clones.

6. America Has a Political Assassination Problem

Suspicions about Dr. Buttar's death are not unwarranted

BY KEVIN BARRETT | MAY 27, 2023

Dr. Lucy Morgan Edwards has impeccable establishment credentials (Ph.D International Relations, Exeter; former political advisor to the EU Ambassador in Kabul). She's calm, sensible, down-to-earth, and blessed with uncommonly good judgment. If the invaders and occupiers of Afghanistan had listened to her, things might have turned out differently. (See her book The Afghan Solution for details).

So why, her establishment ex-colleagues must wonder, does Dr. Morgan-Edwards suspect that Dr. Rashid Buttar, the famous COVID dissident physician, may have been assassinated? Does she really take seriously Dr. Buttar's ravings about a COVID vaccine depopulation plot? What could have led her to wander so far off the reservation?

The answer, of course, is that Lucy Morgan-Edwards has experienced the extreme untrustworthiness of today's Western elites first-hand. Given the outrageous mendaciousness and utter corruption of the Western oligarchy and its propaganda-pumping mainstream media, the notion that a faction of Big Pharma biowarriors may have simultaneously developed COVID and mRNA vaccines for nefarious purposes is hardly implausible. Indeed, a fair bit of evidence points in that direction. And when one of the most prominent voices warning of such possibilities, Dr. Rashid Buttar, claimed he was poisoned during an appearance on CNN, and then dropped dead a few months later at age 57, you don't have to be paranoid to wonder whether "they" might have been out to get him.

It is an article of faith in mainstream media that only crazy people worry about politically suspicious deaths… at least in the USA. If an enemy of Putin or Xi or Assad or the Iranian government or any other "hostile" regime dies suspiciously, we are supposed to automatically assume the worst. But as we all know, politically-motivated assassinations by insiders could never occur in America. Or as Frank Zappa memorably put it, "It can't happen here."

How do we know that it can't happen here? Because the CIA told us so! In CIA Document 1035-960, "Countering Criticism of the Warren Report," distributed in January 1967 to Agency moles illegally infiltrating the media, we learn that only crazy "conspiracy theorists" harbor suspicions about such events as the murder of President John F. Kennedy. And since only a conspiracy theorist would care that the CIA invented the whole "conspiracy theory" meme in order to cover up its own murder of a sitting president, we can all sleep well knowing that bad things never happen in America.

One of Dr. Rashid Buttar's supporters, Robert F. Kennedy Jr.,* knows better than anyone that America has a political assassination problem. His father and uncle, America's two most promising post-WWII leaders, were shot dead in the two-part coup d'état that defined the 1960s and shaped the course of subsequent American history.

The 1960s were also defined by the assassinations of America's two most charismatic black leaders, Malcolm X and Martin Luther King, Jr. Both were killed not only because they were mobilizing African-Americans to demand change, but because they had begun to criticize the US empire and side with Third World insurgents rising up against it.

The 1960s assassination epidemic illustrates the fact that the American empire's domestic assassination problem is related to its murderous activities abroad. The majority of the most prominent suspected political assassinations in America have been related to foreign policy rather than domestic issues, power-plays, or grudges between factions. The reason most of these people have been killed, it appears, is that they were viewed as a threat to the US empire (and/or to the Zionist occupation of Palestine).

Let's consider a few of the most prominent suspected assassinations and the likely motive.

December 21, 1945: Gen. George S. Patton, Jr. is shot dead with a blunt object during a rigged car crash. William Donovan and his OSS, which would become the CIA, were probably responsible. Patton's opposition to the genocidal occupation policies in Germany, and his intention to run for president on an off-script platform, were the likely motives.

May 22, 1949: Secretary of Defense James Forrestal plunges to his death from a 16th floor window. Strongly opposed to the creation of Israel, Forrestal was probably killed by Zionists.

November 22, 1963: President John F. Kennedy is murdered in Dallas, almost certainly by a coalition of US imperial hardliners and Zionists panicking over Kennedy's efforts to eliminate Israel's nuclear program.

February 21, 1965: Malcolm X is killed in the Audubon Ballroom, New York, in the wake of his attempts to unite Muslims and blacks with Third World anti-US-empire forces. As usual, elements of the CIA are lead suspects.

June 6, 1968: Robert F. Kennedy is shot from behind by a gun pressed against the back of his head, shortly after a hypnotized Palestinian patsy distracted onlookers by firing randomly from 10 feet in front. The same hardline-CIA-plus-Israel group that killed JFK was almost certainly responsible.

December 10, 1968: Thomas Merton is murdered in Bangkok, Thailand. The world's most influential Catholic (with the possible exception of the Pope), Merton had turned hard against the Vietnam war before he was killed. Once again, elements of the CIA were likely responsible.

October 16, 1972: US Rep. Hale Boggs (D-LA), a member of the Warren Commission who privately rejected and scoffed at its findings, is killed in a rigged plane crash. He was presumably on the Hit List of many dozens, if not hundreds, who were killed as part of the JFK-RFK assassination coverup.

July 20, 1993: Vince Foster is murdered in Washington, DC, probably for knowing too much about the Clinton crime family and its links with CIA drug smuggling.

April 3, 1996: Secretary of Commerce Ron Brown dies in a rigged plane Croatia after a failed bid to broker a corrupt deal between the CIA-linked Clinton crime family and Croatian dictator Franjo Tudjman. Once again, the CIA and its corrupt international dealings are on display.

October 25, 2002: Senator Paul Wellstone, along with his wife, daughter, and campaign staff, die in a rigged plane crash in Minnesota. Wellstone's desire to investigate 9/11, and his opposition to the looming war on Iraq, almost certainly motivated his killers.

December 19, 2008: High-level Republican software consultant Micheal Connell dies in a rigged plane crash shortly before he is scheduled to testify against Karl Rove. Connell allegedly rigged the 2004 presidential elections by hacking voting machines. (That election was probably rigged in order to prevent the appearance of voters rejecting and rebuking the 9/11 and 9/11-wars perpetrators in and around the Cheney-Bush Administration.)

July 10, 2016: Seth Rich, the suspected DNC Wikileaker, is shot dead. Deep State backers of the empire's anointed candidate, Hillary Clinton, are obvious suspects.

The above list obviously comprises only a minuscule fraction of likely US domestic political assassinations since World War II. Plausible reports that such towering figures as Franklin D. Roosevelt and J. Edgar Hoover were poisoned, that Jack Ruby and Hugo Chavez were dosed with fast-acting cancer, and that the CIA has a weapon that can induce heart attacks indistinguishable from natural ones suggest that America's "Murder Incorporated" can easily disguise assassinations as natural deaths. So the real number of US political assassinations is quite possibly orders of magnitude larger than even the longest list of suspected hits compiled by the most paranoid conspiracy theorist.

If we asked "Bodycount Bill" Clinton why America has so many officially-unsolvable political assassinations, he might perchance reply: "It's the empire, stupid." A cursory review of the above list belabors the obvious: Getting seriously in the way of the empire's dirty deeds in general, and wars in particular, can get you snuffed. People rarely get offed because of their views or actions on tax policy, social questions, educational reform proposals, or other domestic issues. Messing with your local sheriff or school board or state legislator or even governor probably won't place your life in jeopardy. But if you stand in the way of empire as an "actionable threat," you'd better wear body armor and stay out of small planes.

The domestic assassination epidemic represents classic imperial "blowback"—what Malcolm X called "the chickens coming home to roost." To maintain an international empire, a great many high-IQ people with psychopathic tendencies are trained to, in the immortal words of Mike Pompeo, "lie, cheat, steal"… and, last but far from least, kill. Since the US empire has killed roughly 60 million people worldwide since World War II, according to the well-documented Chomsky-Vltchek estimate, the empire seems to have trained a considerable number of highly proficient murderers. These well-paid liars, cheaters, stealers, and killers are unlikely to magically change their skunk-stripes every time they return across the US border. Trained to commit assassinations abroad, they inevitably find ways to use their black ops skills at home.

The ever-worsening epidemic of foreign political assassinations that accompanied the rise of the US empire post-WWII is ably summarized in Ron Unz's recent article "Assassinating Vladimir Putin?" Unz notes that "this American policy represented a radical change from the practice of past centuries, with the major Western countries having abandoned the use of assassination in the 17th century after the end of the bloody Wars of Religion." He aptly remarks that the ascent of neocon supporters of Israel, the worst assassination outlaw state in history, is a likely factor driving the US government's ever-accelerating assassinations—the great majority of which target Muslim enemies of Israel. Given the palpable strategic idiocy of America's drone assassination program, one wonders whether the Israelis are deliberately making the US commit senseless acts that will enrage the Muslim world against America in order to distract from Israel's crimes against the Palestinians.

Though Unz is right that the West largely abandoned assassination after the Wars of Religion, it's worth noting that the re-emergence of assassination has coincided with a decline in religious belief and observance among the elites charged with making such decisions. The neocons, the worst offenders, are avowed atheists who believe that the nonexistence of God frees man to be as evil as he wants to be. Whole articles, even books, could be written on the return of political assassination as a symptom of moral and spiritual decline.

But this is not the place for those articles and books. Instead, I will terminate this essay with proverbial extreme prejudice by tersely noting that yes, it is the empire, stupid, and that if we want to solve the assassination problem, or at least mitigate it, we need to roll back—or, better yet, end—the empire.

*I'm asserting that RFK Jr. supported Dr. Rashid Buttar's right to speak his mind and at least some of his claims, not that he agreed with all of Dr. Buttar's positions. Some of Buttar's statements, including arguments that all COVID vax recipients will be dead within a few years, were obviously fallacious.

7. Canada’s ‘shocking’ new report on foreign interference has found none

By Rachel Marsden | RT | May 27, 2023

The special rapporteur tasked by the Trudeau government with looking into foreign interference in Canadian politics didn't find much. But he said he'll nonetheless hold a "series of public hearings with Canadians" to talk about the "problem of foreign interference," which he couldn't really qualify with much actual evidence.

Former Canadian governor general David Johnston took all of two months to come up with his report, sparked by allegations that China had meddled in recent Canadian federal elections. The hysteria had reached such fever pitch that Ottawa expelled Chinese diplomat Zhao Wei after allegations arose in the Canadian press that China had threatened the Hong Kong-based family of Canadian member of parliament, Michael Chong. But after talking to Canadian spy services, Johnston said he found "no intelligence indicating that the PRC took steps to threaten his family."

He did find evidence that Chinese officials had "sought to build profiles" on this MP and others. Oh wow, stop the press! Because some people might be shocked to learn that the actual job of diplomats serving in foreign countries is to liaise with local officials to advocate in favor of cooperation that's self-serving to at least some degree, although ideally mutually beneficial as well. And to do that, you probably want to make sure that you know something about the guy to at least the same degree that a used car salesman would make an effort to know what would interest or appeal to a specific customer – if only because national interests should ideally be worth as much as a Twingo.

Your neighbor compiling a dossier on you is creepy. A diplomat compiling a dossier on a government official he's dealing with is just basic professionalism.

Johnston also found that there was no shady partisan favoritism of one party over any other by Chinese officials in Canada, contrary to reporting that suggested favoritism of Liberals over Conservatives. It's not as though either of the establishment parties is friendly towards China. Johnson said Chinese officials were more interested in supporting pro-China candidates, but also had to point out to the pearl-clutchers that a foreign diplomat saying he or she favors a particular candidate in a foreign election isn't actually foreign interference. After all, Western officials couldn't shut up about how much they wanted former President Donald Trump to lose to whomever the Democrats put up against him in the last two US elections. So if that's not foreign interference, then why should other countries be held to a different standard just because they aren't in the same club?

There have been press allegations that China sought the electoral defeat of certain candidates, like former Conservative MP Kenny Chiu, who sponsored foreign agent registry legislation. However, Johnston found that, while "it is clear that PRC diplomats did not like Mr. Chiu, who is of Hong Kong descent and not from mainland China… it is much less clear that they did anything particular about it" beyond not inviting him to their sponsored events.

Despite the lack of qualified evidence of interference in the report, and the focus on a single country – China – Johnston nonetheless came to the conclusion that "there is no doubt that foreign governments are attempting to influence candidates and voters… This is a growing threat to our democratic system and must be resisted as effectively as possible by government."

No need to dig further, Johnston figures, discounting a public inquiry in favor of "public hearings." But doesn't that risk just batting around all the various fallacies and misconceptions that have been put out there by the Western press and officials – like those that Johnston himself had to correct in his report? Without an objective and full inquiry, the opportunity to exploit hearings to promote propaganda seems substantial. What about Ukrainian influence on Canadian politicians? Or Israeli influence?

Johnston focuses exclusively on China, and takes the odd swipe at Russia, in passing, but never mentions the kind of foreign interference brought to light at the recent French National Assembly commission into the same subject.

"Foreign interference, yes, I encountered it. Most of the time, it came from a friendly and allied country called the United States. I was listened to with President Sarkozy for five years by the NSA," said Sarkozy's former prime minister Francois Fillon. He confirmed WikiLeaks disclosures from US intercepts published in 2015 indicating that the National Security Agency was conducting electronic surveillance of French officials from the American embassy in Paris. Or that it was listening in on conversations of German allies at the highest level, including those of then-Chancellor Angela Merkel.

"I was not directly affected by Russian interference," Fillon clarified, noting that like all great powers, Russia tries to "assert its point of view," but that didn't happen with him personally when he was in office. So then why make such a big deal about it, unless it's just for propaganda purposes?

Canada, like Europe, suffers from tunnel vision when it comes to protecting its own interests and independence. The proof lies in the fact that both have failed to diversify away from their chronic over-reliance on the US. While it makes sense that the country sharing the world's longest land border with the US would go for the low-hanging fruit when it comes to trade, it would nonetheless be interesting to qualify the pressures on Canadian officials and critical interests that have resulted in the Canadian establishment marching in lockstep with Washington, repeating the same propaganda and naming the same foes.

The idea that the US – the most powerful country on Earth – has absolutely no influence on its resource-rich next-door neighbor is absurd. The fact that the influence is so systemic that it's not even worth a glance or a mention in a report into foreign interference is glaring. Does the Canadian government care to look under that rock? Or are they just going to keep scapegoating Russia and China when the most existential, insidious threat to Canadian independence lies inward and southward?

8. UKRAINE CLAIM OF ATTACK ON RUSSIAN SHIP, THE IVAN KHURS, DEBUNKED

By Larry Johnson | SONAR | May 26, 2023

Let's give the Ukrainian Government of Volodomyr Zelensky credit for one thing — they are world class liars. Yesterday I wrote about the attempted attack on the Russian ship, the Ivan Khurs, by three maritime drones and simply acknowledged that there was a video that claimed to show one of the drones hitting a ship. It was implied that the ship was the Ivan Khurs but there was no identifying information to corroborate the claim.

Today we know the truth. Ukraine lied. The Ivan Khurs pulled into port in the Black Sea on its own power with no visible damage.

This is a consistent pattern for Ukraine. Remember the Ghost of Kiev? That intrepid Ukrainian ace that allegedly shot down six Russian combat aircraft during the first month of the Special Military Operation? Turns out that was footage lifted from a video game and most of the Western media, not to mention several gullible politicians, gobbled up the lie and exulted over Ukraine's faux victory.

Normally a person or institution regularly exposed as a prevaricator would be denounced and ignored. But not Ukraine. Zelensky and company insisted a year ago that Russia had not taken Mariupol despite conclusive video evidence of the remnants of Ukraine's neo-Nazi AZOV battalion surrendering to the Russian Chechens as they limped out of the Azovstal steel plant.

Rinse and repeat with Bakhmut. Russia's Wagner Group was busy hoisting victory flags over the fallen city while Ukrainian political and military leaders continued to insist that their boys were still in the fight. Nope, they were dead, captured or retreating. It was only today that a Ukrainian official, ex-Prosecutor General Yuriy Lutsenko, finally conceded that Bakhmut was kaput.

The lies and self-delusion are not restricted to Ukraine. In the United States a bi-partisan group of legislators called on Dementia Joe to send Army Tactical Missile System (ATACMS) to Ukraine:

Yesterday, members of the Commission on Security and Cooperation in Europe, also known as the U.S. Helsinki Commission, Chairman Representative Joe Wilson (SC-02), Ranking Member Representative Steve Cohen (TN-09) and Commissioner Representative Victoria Spartz (IN-05) sent a letter to President Biden, requesting he grants the transfer of MGM-140 Army Tactical Missile System (ATACMS) to Ukraine.

In the letter, Commissioners thank the Administration for its beginning steps on getting F-16s to Ukrainian defenders and emphasize the importance of ATACMS on targeting Russian frontlines in occupied Ukraine as well as pushing back Russian supply chain systems which fuel their genocidal war. During the Commissioners' recent trip to Ukraine and meeting with President Zelensky, ATACMS were requested for an immediate battlefield advantage. These powerful weapons could provide the advantage Ukraine needs to secure its freedom, and the only remaining hurdle to their delivery is the President's approval.

This should put Russia and China on notice that it is not just Joe Biden and his inept National Security team that are intent on escalating the war in Ukraine. There also is a vocal, bipartisan group of legislators who are pressing to expand the war and are oblivious to the risk inherent in their proposal of Russian retaliation. The Washington Establishment is still willing to bet the lives of Ukrainians on their illusory vision that Russia is teetering towards defeat and their belief that Ukraine is just one Wunderwaffen miracle weapon from total victory.

I am sad to report to those of you who live outside of the Untied States that most Americans are clueless about the implications of the United States apparent strategy of escalation. Most assume that if Russia can bomb Ukrainian cities then fair play dictates that Ukraine should be able to do the same. The point they miss is that Ukraine is incapable of such attacks without the help of the United States and other NATO countries. Increasing Ukraine's ability to strike further inside Russian territory will inevitably lead Russia to retaliate against those responsible for making those attacks possible. That means an inevitable clash with NATO. I believe that the United States should be doing everything in its power to avoid that. But it is doing the exact opposite and the potential for something terrible looms larger with each passing day.

9. Drone Boats Used in Attack on Russian Ship Ivan Khurs Launched With US Support

Sputnik – 27.05.2023

MOSCOW – The unmanned boats used in Ukraine's failed attack on the ship of the Russian Black Sea Fleet "Ivan Khurs" were launched from a naval operations center in Ochakov opened with US support in 2018, an informed source told Sputnik.

"These devices were launched from the naval operations center, opened with the participation of the United States in Ochakov back in 2018. They were controlled using built-in Starlink satellite internet modules received by Kiev from the United States," the source said, adding that target designation for these drone boats was provided by American reconnaissance equipment.

The source further indicated that Ukraine has received a batch of new marine drones of Western production for carrying out naval attacks and provocations in the Black Sea.

"Despite the boasting of Kiev representatives about the use of drones of their own, that is, Ukrainian production, their profile suggests otherwise," the source said. "The appearance of Ukrainian Mikola-type naval drones assembled from components supplied to Kiev by NATO does not correspond to the profile of those that attacked the Ivan Khurs."

The new drones were likely produced by the United Kingdom "which has extensive experience in the creation and combat use of such systems in various regions of the world ocean," the source said.

It was also pointed out that the location of the attack points toward an escalation of the Russian-Ukrainian conflict and the expansion of its geography.

"The sabotage against the Russian Navy in the exclusive maritime economic zone of Turkey, more than 200 nautical miles from the area of ​​the Russian-Ukrainian conflict, is a continuation of the provocative course of the Anglo-Saxons to escalate and expand its geography," the source said.

Earlier this week, the Russian Defense Ministry said that Ukraine had unsuccessfully tried to attack the Ivan Khurs, which ensured the safety of the Turkish Stream and Blue Stream gas pipelines, using unmanned boats.

The Russian Defense Ministry indicated the foiled attack ended with all of the offending boats being destroyed by the Russian military 140 kilometers (87 miles) northeast of the Bosphorus Strait.

The "Ivan Khurs" vessel has since continued to execute its duties despite the earlier sabotage attempt.

10. Why Are US Military Personnel Heading to Peru?

By Nick Corbishley – naked capitalism – May 26, 2023

The ostensible goal of the operation is to provide "support and assistance to the Special Operations of the Joint Command of the Armed Forces and National Police of Peru," including in regions recently engulfed in violence.

Unbeknown, it seems, to most people in Peru and the US (considering the paucity of media coverage in both countries), US military personnel will soon be landing in Peru. The plenary session of Peru's Congress last Thursday (May 18) authorised the entry of US troops onto Peruvian soil with the ostensible purpose of carrying out "cooperation activities" with Peru's armed forces and national police. Passed with 70 votes in favour, 33 against and four abstentions, resolution 4766 stipulates that the troops are welcome to stay any time between June 1 and December 31, 2023.

The number of US soldiers involved has not been officially disclosed, at least as far as I can tell, though a recent statement by Mexico's President Andrés Manuel Lopéz Obrador, who is currently person non grata in Peru, suggests it could be around 700. The cooperation and training activities will take place across a wide swathe of territory including Lima, Callao, Loreto, San Martín, Huánuco, Ucayali, Pasco, Junín, Huancavelica, Iquitos, Pucusana, Apurímac, Cusco and Ayacucho.

The last three regions, in the south of Peru, together with Arequipa and Puno, were the epicentre of huge political protests, strikes and road blocks from December to February after Peru's elected President Pedro Castillo was toppled, imprisoned and replaced by his vice-president Dina Boluarte. The protesters' demands included:

• The release of Castillo
• New elections
• A national referendum on forming a Constitutional Assembly to replace Peru's current constitution, which was imposed by former dictator Alberto Fujimori following his self-imposed coup of 1992

Brutal Crackdown on Protests

Needless to say, none of these demands have been met. Instead, Peru's security forces, including 140,000 mobilised soldiers, unleashed a brutal crackdown that culminated in the deaths of approximately 70 people. A report released by international human rights organization Amnesty International in February drew the following assessment:

"Since the beginning of the massive protests in different areas of the country in December 2022, the Army and National Police of Peru (PNP) have unlawfully fired lethal weapons and used other less lethal weapons indiscriminately against the population, especially against Indigenous people and campesinos (rural farmworkers) during the repression of protests, constituting widespread attacks."

As soon as possibly next week, an indeterminate number of US military personnel could be joining the fracas. According to the news website La Lupa, the purported goal of their visit is to provide "support and assistance to the Special Operations of the Joint Command of the Armed Forces and National Police of Peru" during two periods spanning a total of seven months: from June 1 to September 30, and from October 1 to December 30, 2023.

The secretary of the Commission for National Defence, Internal Order, Alternative Development and the Fight Against Drugs, Alfredo Azurín, was at pains to stress that there are no plans for the US to set up a military base in Peru and that the entry of US forces "will not affect national sovereignty." Some opposition congressmen and women begged to differ, arguing that the entry of foreign forces does indeed pose a threat to national sovereignty. They also lambasted the government for passing the resolution without prior debate or consultation with the indigenous communities.

The de facto Boluarte government and Congress are treating the arrival of US troops as a perfectly routine event. And it is true that the US military has long held a presence in Peru. For example, in 2017, U.S. personnel took part in military exercises held jointly with Colombia, Peru and Brazil in the "triple borderland" of the Amazon region. Also, the US Navy operates a biosafety-level 3 biomedical research laboratory close to Lima as well as two other (biosafety-level 2) laboratories in Puerto Maldonado.

But the timing of the operation raising serious questions. After all, Peru is currently under the control of an unelected government that is heavily supported by Washington but overwhelmingly rejected by the Peruvian people. The crackdown on protests in the south of the Peru by the country's security forces — the same security forces that US military personnel will soon be joining — has led to dozens of deaths. Peru's Congress is refusing to call new elections in total defiance of public opinion. Just a few days ago, the country's Supreme Court issued a ruling that some legal scholars have interpreted as essentially criminalising political protest.

As Peru's civilian institutions fight among themselves, Peru's armed forces — the last remaining "backbone" in the country, according to Mexican geopolitical analyst Alfredo Jalife — has taken firm control. And lest we forget, Peru is home to some of the very same minerals that the US military has identified as strategically important to US national security interests, including lithium. Also, as I noted in my June 22, 2021 piece, Is Another Military Coup Brewing in Peru, After Historic Electoral Victory for Leftist Candidate?, while Peru's largest trading partner is China, its political institutions — like those of Colombia and Chile — remain tethered to US policy interests:

Together with Chile, it's the only country in South America that was invited to join the Trans-Pacific Partnership, which was later renamed the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership after Donald Trump withdrew US participation.

Given as much, the rumours of another coup in Peru should hardly come as a surprise. Nor should the Biden administration's recent appointment of a CIA veteran as US ambassador to Peru, as recently reported by Vijay Prashad and José Carlos Llerena Robles:

Her name is Lisa Kenna, a former adviser to former US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, a nine-year veteran at the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), and a US secretary of state official in Iraq. Just before the election, Ambassador Kenna released a video, in which she spoke of the close ties between the United States and Peru and of the need for a peaceful transition from one president to another.

It seems more than likely that Kenna played a direct role in the not-so-peaceful transition from President Castillo to de facto President Boluarte, having met with Peru's then-Defence Minister Gustavo Bobbio Rosas on December 6, the day before Pedro Castillo was ousted, to tackle "issues of bilateral interest".

On a Knife's Edge

After decades of stumbling from crisis to crisis and government to government, Peru rests on a knife's edge. When Castillo, a virtual nobody from an Andean backwater who had played an important role in the teachers' strikes of 2017, rode to power on a crest of popular anger at Peru's hyper-corrupt establishment parties in June 2021, Peru's legions of poor and marginalised hoped that positive changes would follow. But it was not to be.

Castillo was always an outsider in Lima and was out of his depth from day one. He had zero control over Congress and failed miserably to overcome rabid right-wing opposition to his government. Even in his first year in office he faced two impeachment attempts. As Manolo De Los Santos wrote in People's Dispatch, Peru's largely Lima-based political and business elite could never accept that a former schoolteacher and farmer from the high Andean plains could become president.

On December 7, they finally got what they wanted: Castillo's impeachment. Just hours before a third impeachment hearing, he declared on national television that he was dissolving Congress and launching an "exceptional emergency government" and the convening of a Constituent Assembly. It was a preemptive act of total desperation from a man who held no sway with the military or judiciary, had zero control over Congress, and had even lost the support of his own party. Hours later, he was impeached, arrested by his own security detail and taken to jail, where he remains to this day.

Castillo may be out of the picture but political instability continues to reign in Peru. The de facto Boluarte government and Congress are broadly despised by the Peruvian people. According to the latest poll by the Institute of Peruvian Studies (IEP), 78% of Peruvians disapprove of Boluarte's presidency while only 15% approve. Congress is even less popular, with a public disapproval rate of 91%. Forty-one percent believe that the protests will increase while 26% believe they will remain the same. In the meantime, Peru's Congress continues to block general elections.

Peru's "Strategic" Resources 

As regular readers know, EU and US interest in Latin America is rising rapidly as the race for lithium, copper, cobalt and other elements essential for the so-called "clean" energy transition heats up. It is a race that China has been winning pretty handily up until now.

Peru is not only one of China's biggest trade partners in Latin America; it is home to the only port in Latin America that is managed entirely by Chinese capital. And while Peru may not form part of the Lithium Triangle (Bolivia, Argentina and Chile), it does boast significant deposits of the white metal. By one estimate, it is home to the sixth largest deposits of hard-rock lithium in the world. It is also the world's second largest producer of copper, zinc and silver, three metals that are also expected to play a major role in supporting renewable energy technologies.

In other words, there is a huge amount at stake in how Peru evolves politically as well as the economic and geopolitical alliances it forms. Also, its direct neighbour to the north, Ecuador, is undergoing a major political crisis that is likely to spell the end of the US-aligned Guillermo Lasso government and a handover of power to Rafael Correa's party and its allies.

And the US government and military have made no secret of their interest in the mineral deposits that countries like Peru hold in their subsoil. In an address to the Washington-based Atlantic Council on Jan 19, Gen. Laura Richardson, head of the U.S. Southern Command, spoke gushingly of Latin America's rich deposits of "rare earth elements," "the lithium triangle — Argentina, Bolivia, Chile," the "largest oil reserves [and] light, sweet crude discovered off Guyana," Venezuela's "oil, copper, gold" and the fact that Latin America is home to "31% of the world's fresh water in this region."

She also detailed how Washington, together with US Southern Command, is actively negotiating the sale of lithium in the lithium triangle to US companies through its web of embassies, with the goal of "box[ing] out" US adversaries (i.e. China and Russia), concluding with the ominous words: "This region matters. It has a lot to do with national security. And we need to step up our game."

Which begs the question: is this the first step of the US government and military's stepping-up-the-game process?

The former president of Bolivia Evo Morales, who knows a thing or two about US interventions in the region, having been on the sharp end of a US-backed right-wing coup in 2019, certainly seems to think so. A few days ago, he tweeted the following message:

The Peruvian Congress' authorisation for the entry and stationing of US troops for 7 months confirms that Peru is governed from Washington, under the tutelage of the Southern Command.

The Peruvian people are subject to powerful foreign interests mediated by illegitimate powers lacking popular representation.

The greatest challenge for working people and indigenous peoples is to recover their self-determination, their sovereignty and their natural resources.

With this authorization from the Peruvian right, we warn that the criminalization of protest and the occupation of US military forces will consolidate a repressive state that will affect sovereignty and regional peace in Latin America.

Mexico's President Andrés Manuel Lopéz Obrador, who refuses to acknowledge Boluarte (whom he calls the "great usurper") as Peru's president and has recently faced threats of direct US military intervention in Mexico's drug wars from US Republican lawmakers, had a message for the US government this week: "[Sending soldiers to Peru] merely maintains an interventionist policy that does not help at all in building fraternal bonds among the peoples of the American continent."

Unfortunately, the US government does not seem interested, if indeed it ever has been, in building fraternal bonds with the peoples of the American continent. Instead, it is set on upgrading the Monroe Doctrine for the 21st century. Its strategic rivals this time around are not Western European nations, which are now little more than US vassals (as a recent paper by the European Council of Foreign Relations, titled "The Art of Vassalisation", all but admitted), but rather China and Russia.