theduran--2020-03-06--Two Years Later: The Skripal Case Is Weirder Than Ever

While navigating through today ’ s propaganda-heavy world of misinformation , spin and outright creative writing which appears to have replaced conventional journalism , it is most important that two qualities are active in the mind of any truth-seeker .
The first quality is the adherence to a strong top down perspective , both historic and global .
This is vital in order to guide us as a sort of compass or North Star used by sailors navigating across the ocean .
The second quality is a strong power of logic , memory and discernment of wheat vs. chaff to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ us in the face from all directions like sand in a desert storm .
As the second anniversary of the poisoning of Sergei and Yulia Skripal has arrived , it is a useful time to take these qualities and revisit this bizarre moment of modern history which took place on a park bench in Salisbury UK and which led to one of the greatest frauds of the modern era derailing all attempts to repair relations between Russia and the west .
To do this , I decided to plunge myself into a new @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Moscow-based journalist John Helmer and published in February 2020 .
This incredible little book , which features 26 chapters written between March 2018 to February 2020 originally published on the author ’ s site Dances with Bears , unveils an arsenal of intellectual bullets which Helmer skillfully uses to shoot holes into every inconsistency , contradiction and outright lie holding up the structure of the narrative that “ there is no alternative conclusion other than that the Russian State was culpable for the attempted murder of Mr. Skripal and his daughter ” .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ of actual evidence by Theresa May in the House of Commons on March 16 , 2018 and in the months that followed , western nations were pressured to expel Russian diplomats ( 23 in Britain , 60 in the US , 33 across the EU ) , close down consulates ( one Russian consulate in San Francisco and one American consulate in St Petersburg ) and impose waves of sanctions against Russia .
Four months after the Skripals ( and one unfortunate detective named Sgt .
Nick Bailey ) were released from British @ @ @ @ @ @ @ stricken with Novichok poisoning and taken to hospital on June 30 with one of them ( Dawn Sturgess ) dying 9 days later .
This too was blamed immediately on Russia .
Helmer ’ s research systematically annihilates the official narratives with the craftsmanship of a legal attorney , taking the reader through several vital questions which shape the book ’ s composition as a whole , and which I shall lay out for you here : • Why have Sergei Skripal and his daughter Yulia fallen off the face of the Earth @ @ @ @ @ @ @ It is known that one controlled video was recorded featuring Yulia speaking , and several short calls to family were made by Yulia and her father after their poisoning… but nothing more .
Beyond the fact that it appears the Skripals were kept on an American military base in Gloucestershire for an indeterminate amount of time , Helmer points out “ at the point in their recuperation when the two of them were beginning to be explicit in their public remarks about what had happened , their communications were cut off .
Nothing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” • Despite the fact that the UK Prime Minister asserted that a European Arrest Warrant was issued for the two Russians that were alleged to have carried out Putin ’ s malevolent will onto the poor Skripals- why were no such warrants ever registered in Interpol ?
Is it because such warrants actually require evidence ?
• Why did British Intelligence sanction the tearing down of big sections of Skripal ’ s home at 47 Christie Miller Road in Salisbury due to the apparent “ dangers of deadly contaminants ” , while @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Novichok ?
If the reasoning was due to health safety , then why were similar actions not taken to the Bourne Hill police station which Sgt .
Bradley contaminated or the restaurant and pub which Sergei Skripal went to before his trip to the park … or the contaminated London hotel where the two Russian agents apparently stayed ?
• Since Novichok is an extremely fast acting substance , generally attacking the nervous system in minutes , how is it possible that the time separating the Skripals ’ moment of contamination to the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ bench was over three hours ?
!
How is this possible ?
Similarly how was it possible that Sgt .
Bailey ’ s point of contamination at Skripal ’ s home occurred a full 12 hours before he felt the need to go to the hospital ?
• What the hell was up with the strange case of the two unfortunate victims of the July 2018 Novichok poisoning in Amesbury ( 9 miles from Salisbury ) ?
Were Dawn Sturgess and her partner Charlie Rowley simply collateral damage in an MI6 effort to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ caused by a lack of any evidence of a device used to apply the nerve agent to the door handle in the first place ?
Why does Rowley ( a known heroin addict ) have no recollection where he found the perfume bottle filled with Novichok which he gifted to Sturgess on June 26 ?
Why was the perfume bottle only found by authorities on Rowley ’ s kitchen counter two days after Sturgess died on July 9th even though a search for Novichok had been carried out at his apartment beginning with @ @ @ @ @ @ @ hospital on June 30 ?
• What was the role of the Ministry of Defense ’ s Porton Down chemical laboratories in this bizarre story ?
The lab itself was located just a few miles from the crime scene , and the first responder on the scene was an off-duty Colonel named Alison McCourt who happened to be shopping nearby and rushed to the scene .
Helmer describes how Col. McCourt is head of nursing for the British Army and Senior Health Advisor which connects her closely to the Defense Science and Technology @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to have held a major chemical warfare exercise named Toxic Dagger in the area just two weeks earlier .
Are these things nothing but coincidences ?
• Porton Down labs which tested the Skripal blood samples and Novichok at the Skripal residence is part of the Ministry of Defense and to this day , no public admission of those samples ’ existence at the labs has occurred .
Requests by Helmer and others to receive confirmation of from the labs according to Freedom of Information laws have been denied outright on the grounds @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Why ?
Could it be because blood tests were never actually carried out ?
Helmer ’ s book probes this question deeply and the lack of evidence will shock you .
• How about the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons ( OPCW ) ?
Since the OPCW ran parallel tests of the apparent blood samples of the Skripals as well as the later July victims Dawn Sturgess and Charlie Rowley to get “ matches ” with the novichok traces in a perfume bottle and Skripal door handle , why has evidence @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ?
Also why was a British intelligence officer the only figure who oversaw the samples taken to the OPCW for verification ?
In fact , Helmer points out that the one Swiss contract laboratory ( Spiez ) associated with the OPCW has contradicted all British claims that any “ match ” exists between the Skripal samples and Novichok A-234 poisoning .
• Finally , Helmer asks : Why were all OPCW Executive Council votes in regards to matters surrounding the Skripal case , taken in secret , and thus in conflict with its @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the right to share in the investigation of the Novichok attack as guaranteed in Articles XIII and IX of the OPCW Chemical Weapons convention ?
Could that have something to do with the role of former OPCW Director General Ahmet Üzümcü , a Turkish NATO-phile , who Helmer notes “ has also been a member of the NATO staff in charge of expanding NATO military operations to the Russian frontier , as well as NATO operations in Ukraine and Syria.
” In 2019 , Üzümcü was inducted into the Order of St Michael @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for services to the Empire .
Helmer goes onto make the point that the overarching dynamic shaping the events of the Skripal/Novichok affair are guided by the collapsing western empire which has been working tirelessly to surround Russia with a ballistic missile shield while sabotaging all efforts by genuine patriots in the west from establishing positive alliances with Russia .
Taking the opportunity of the second anniversary of the Skripal affair to read this book is not only a valuable exercise in logic but also key into the desperate and increasingly fear-driven mind @ @ @ @ @ @ @ quickly losing its grip both on reality and the very influence it had spent generations putting in place .

From the Strategic Culture Foundation
While navigating through today’s propaganda-heavy world of misinformation, spin and outright creative writing which appears to have replaced conventional journalism, it is most important that two qualities are active in the mind of any truth-seeker. The first quality is the adherence to a strong top down perspective, both historic and global. This is vital in order to guide us as a sort of compass or North Star used by sailors navigating across the ocean. The second quality is a strong power of logic, memory and discernment of wheat vs. chaff to process the mountains of data that slaps us in the face from all directions like sand in a desert storm.
As the second anniversary of the poisoning of Sergei and Yulia Skripal has arrived, it is a useful time to take these qualities and revisit this bizarre moment of modern history which took place on a park bench in Salisbury UK and which led to one of the greatest frauds of the modern era derailing all attempts to repair relations between Russia and the west.
To do this, I decided to plunge myself into a new book called Skripal in Prison written by Moscow-based journalist John Helmer and published in February 2020.
This incredible little book, which features 26 chapters written between March 2018 to February 2020 originally published on the author’s site Dances with Bears, unveils an arsenal of intellectual bullets which Helmer skillfully uses to shoot holes into every inconsistency, contradiction and outright lie holding up the structure of the narrative that “there is no alternative conclusion other than that the Russian State was culpable for the attempted murder of Mr. Skripal and his daughter”. This line was asserted without a shred of actual evidence by Theresa May in the House of Commons on March 16, 2018 and in the months that followed, western nations were pressured to expel Russian diplomats (23 in Britain, 60 in the US, 33 across the EU), close down consulates (one Russian consulate in San Francisco and one American consulate in St Petersburg) and impose waves of sanctions against Russia.
Four months after the Skripals (and one unfortunate detective named Sgt. Nick Bailey) were released from British hospital care, two more figures were stricken with Novichok poisoning and taken to hospital on June 30 with one of them (Dawn Sturgess) dying 9 days later. This too was blamed immediately on Russia.
Helmer’s research systematically annihilates the official narratives with the craftsmanship of a legal attorney, taking the reader through several vital questions which shape the book’s composition as a whole, and which I shall lay out for you here:
Why have Sergei Skripal and his daughter Yulia fallen off the face of the Earth since their release from Salisbury hospital? It is known that one controlled video was recorded featuring Yulia speaking, and several short calls to family were made by Yulia and her father after their poisoning… but nothing more. Beyond the fact that it appears the Skripals were kept on an American military base in Gloucestershire for an indeterminate amount of time, Helmer points out “at the point in their recuperation when the two of them were beginning to be explicit in their public remarks about what had happened, their communications were cut off. Nothing more is known to this present day.” Despite the fact that the UK Prime Minister asserted that a European Arrest Warrant was issued for the two Russians that were alleged to have carried out Putin’s malevolent will onto the poor Skripals- why were no such warrants ever registered in Interpol? Is it because such warrants actually require evidence? Why did British Intelligence sanction the tearing down of big sections of Skripal’s home at 47 Christie Miller Road in Salisbury due to the apparent “dangers of deadly contaminants”, while only the door handle was tainted with Novichok? If the reasoning was due to health safety, then why were similar actions not taken to the Bourne Hill police station which Sgt. Bradley contaminated or the restaurant and pub which Sergei Skripal went to before his trip to the park … or the contaminated London hotel where the two Russian agents apparently stayed? Since Novichok is an extremely fast acting substance, generally attacking the nervous system in minutes, how is it possible that the time separating the Skripals’ moment of contamination to the moment of losing consciousness on a park bench was over three hours?! How is this possible? Similarly how was it possible that Sgt. Bailey’s point of contamination at Skripal’s home occurred a full 12 hours before he felt the need to go to the hospital? What the hell was up with the strange case of the two unfortunate victims of the July 2018 Novichok poisoning in Amesbury (9 miles from Salisbury)? Were Dawn Sturgess and her partner Charlie Rowley simply collateral damage in an MI6 effort to plug a missing hole in the narrative caused by a lack of any evidence of a device used to apply the nerve agent to the door handle in the first place? Why does Rowley (a known heroin addict) have no recollection where he found the perfume bottle filled with Novichok which he gifted to Sturgess on June 26? Why was the perfume bottle only found by authorities on Rowley’s kitchen counter two days after Sturgess died on July 9th even though a search for Novichok had been carried out at his apartment beginning with the couple’s admission into Salisbury hospital on June 30? What was the role of the Ministry of Defense’s Porton Down chemical laboratories in this bizarre story? The lab itself was located just a few miles from the crime scene, and the first responder on the scene was an off-duty Colonel named Alison McCourt who happened to be shopping nearby and rushed to the scene. Helmer describes how Col. McCourt is head of nursing for the British Army and Senior Health Advisor which connects her closely to the Defense Science and Technology Laboratory at Porton Down which also happened to have held a major chemical warfare exercise named Toxic Dagger in the area just two weeks earlier. Are these things nothing but coincidences? Porton Down labs which tested the Skripal blood samples and Novichok at the Skripal residence is part of the Ministry of Defense and to this day, no public admission of those samples’ existence at the labs has occurred. Requests by Helmer and others to receive confirmation of from the labs according to Freedom of Information laws have been denied outright on the grounds of “the public interest”. Why? Could it be because blood tests were never actually carried out? Helmer’s book probes this question deeply and the lack of evidence will shock you. How about the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW)? Since the OPCW ran parallel tests of the apparent blood samples of the Skripals as well as the later July victims Dawn Sturgess and Charlie Rowley to get “matches” with the novichok traces in a perfume bottle and Skripal door handle, why has evidence of these samples not been made available? Also why was a British intelligence officer the only figure who oversaw the samples taken to the OPCW for verification? In fact, Helmer points out that the one Swiss contract laboratory (Spiez) associated with the OPCW has contradicted all British claims that any “match” exists between the Skripal samples and Novichok A-234 poisoning. Finally, Helmer asks: Why were all OPCW Executive Council votes in regards to matters surrounding the Skripal case, taken in secret, and thus in conflict with its own charter and why was Russia denied the right to share in the investigation of the Novichok attack as guaranteed in Articles XIII and IX of the OPCW Chemical Weapons convention? Could that have something to do with the role of former OPCW Director General Ahmet Üzümcü, a Turkish NATO-phile, who Helmer notes “has also been a member of the NATO staff in charge of expanding NATO military operations to the Russian frontier, as well as NATO operations in Ukraine and Syria.” In 2019, Üzümcü was inducted into the Order of St Michael and St George by Queen Elizabeth II for services to the Empire.
Helmer goes onto make the point that the overarching dynamic shaping the events of the Skripal/Novichok affair are guided by the collapsing western empire which has been working tirelessly to surround Russia with a ballistic missile shield while sabotaging all efforts by genuine patriots in the west from establishing positive alliances with Russia.
Taking the opportunity of the second anniversary of the Skripal affair to read this book is not only a valuable exercise in logic but also key into the desperate and increasingly fear-driven mind of the London-centered deep state which is quickly losing its grip both on reality and the very influence it had spent generations putting in place.


theduran--2020-03-06--Boris Johnson Accused of Covering Up Bullying Allegations

Submitted by InfoBrics , authored by Johana Ross , journalist based in Edinburgh , Scotland… ‘ The Home Secretary is doing an outstanding job ’ : Boris Johnson ’ s repeated response to the allegations of bullying by Priti Patel across three different government departments in recent times .
At Prime Minister ’ s Questions on Wednesday opposition leader Jeremy Corbyn asked if Johnson was even aware of some of the allegations regarding Patel ’ s conduct , and if so , why did he appoint her ?
The resignation of Sir Phillip Rutnam , as Home Office permanent secretary @ @ @ @ @ @ @ years ’ service , was a sure sign something was not right in Patel ’ s department .
Rutman is now suing the Home Office for constructive , unfair dismissal as he accuses Patel of being involved in ‘ a vicious and orchestrated briefing campaign ’ against him .
It emerged on Wednesday that Priti Patel is also facing allegations dating back to her time as International Development Secretary , which she resigned from back in 2017 over an unauthorised trip to Israel .
The BBC reported that during her time there she @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of others , of putting heavy pressure in emails and of creating a general sense that “ everyone is hopeless ” .
’ Prior to that position , Patel was employment minister , during which time she has been accused of bullying an official in the Department for Work and Pensions who subsequently received a payout of £25,000 after a suicide attempt .
Jeremy Corbyn said at PMQs that if the allegations were indeed true , that ‘ this suggests a shocking and unacceptable pattern of behaviour across three government departments – on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ pounds of hard-earned taxpayers ’ money has been spaffed up the wall to buy their silence.
” The opposition leader also called for an independent enquiry .
According to The Guardian newspaper , Westminster sources say the Conservative party was warned about the bullying allegations when Patel was in the DWP , before she was promoted to Home Office minister , but it failed to take any action .
So how has Patel survived ?
Clearly , it is in part due to her loyalty to Johnson .
This tough Brexiteer has stuck @ @ @ @ @ @ @ said he would be ‘ sticking by Patel the other day .
A staunch admirer of Margaret Thatcher ; Patel ’ s Britain-first , anti-immigration stance has been just what Johnson has been looking for in a Home Secretary .
Never mind the fact that her parents themselves were immigrants , and under her rules would not have been granted entry to Britain .
Indeed her latest advert on the new immigration rules – which will take effect – in 2021 is quite frankly disgusting .
It boasts allowing entry to only the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ if being highly qualified on paper suddenly makes you a better , more worthy human being .
The scandal over the Home Secretary has just been one of many indications of a somewhat unhealthy setup at Number 10 .
Only a few weeks ago the Chancellor for the Exchequer , Sajid Javid , resigned , after rejecting Number 10 ’ s instructions to sack an advisor .
Javid stated that ‘ no self-respecting minister could have accepted such a condition .
His resignation came on the back of rumours of a rift between @ @ @ @ @ @ @ advisor Dominic Cummings .
A later statement delivered in the House of Commons hinted at such discord as Javid said Johnson ’ s plans to bring the PM ’ s office and the Treasury closer together were a threat to the ‘ national interest ’ .
Indeed it has been suggested in The Express that Javid ’ s resignation ‘ brilliantly represents Cummings ’ Treasury masterplan – as in 2014 the Brexit guru had already made his intentions to reform the cabinet and to “ break the power of the Treasury ” clear @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a survivor .
Having survived the Brexit election , to lead the country out of the EU ; having survived allegations of racism and sexual harassment ; having survived criticism over his lack of leadership during last month ’ s floods and claims of him being a ‘ part-time Prime Minister ’ ; it seems the blonde buffoon is indefatigable .
And it has set a precedent for others in his team .
One quite honestly gets the impression that the Johnson cabinet could almost get away with anything now .
Even the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ internal one , rather than an independent one , and led by Michael Gove , who has already come out to vehemently defend the Home Secretary – so how unbiased is that likely to be ?
The real test for the Johnson cabinet now will be , however , in the form of something utterly intangible ; a completely new phenomenon which rivals any terrorist threat or military adversary : coronavirus .
Sweeping across Europe now , it will not only pressurize our health services but will impact every aspect of our daily @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to suffer , they say on a par with the last economic crash in 2008 .
The competence of the current government , therefore , could not be faced with a better test .

The statements, views and opinions expressed in this column are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of this site. This site does not give financial, investment or medical advice.
Submitted by InfoBrics, authored by Johana Ross, journalist based in Edinburgh, Scotland…
‘The Home Secretary is doing an outstanding job’: Boris Johnson’s repeated response to the allegations of bullying by Priti Patel across three different government departments in recent times. At Prime Minister’s Questions on Wednesday opposition leader Jeremy Corbyn asked if Johnson was even aware of some of the allegations regarding Patel’s conduct, and if so, why did he appoint her? The resignation of Sir Phillip Rutnam, as Home Office permanent secretary on Saturday, a man with 33 years’ service, was a sure sign something was not right in Patel’s department. Rutman is now suing the Home Office for constructive, unfair dismissal as he accuses Patel of being involved in ‘a vicious and orchestrated briefing campaign’ against him.
It emerged on Wednesday that Priti Patel is also facing allegations dating back to her time as International Development Secretary, which she resigned from back in 2017 over an unauthorised trip to Israel. The BBC reported that during her time there she was ‘humiliating civil servants in front of others, of putting heavy pressure in emails and of creating a general sense that “everyone is hopeless”.’ Prior to that position, Patel was employment minister, during which time she has been accused of bullying an official in the Department for Work and Pensions who subsequently received a payout of £25,000 after a suicide attempt. Jeremy Corbyn said at PMQs that if the allegations were indeed true, that ‘this suggests a shocking and unacceptable pattern of behaviour across three government departments – on each occasion, tens of thousands of pounds of hard-earned taxpayers’ money has been spaffed up the wall to buy their silence.” The opposition leader also called for an independent enquiry. According to The Guardian newspaper, Westminster sources say the Conservative party was warned about the bullying allegations when Patel was in the DWP, before she was promoted to Home Office minister, but it failed to take any action.
So how has Patel survived? Clearly, it is in part due to her loyalty to Johnson. This tough Brexiteer has stuck by Boris Johnson, just as he said he would be ‘sticking by Patel the other day. A staunch admirer of Margaret Thatcher; Patel’s Britain-first, anti-immigration stance has been just what Johnson has been looking for in a Home Secretary. Never mind the fact that her parents themselves were immigrants, and under her rules would not have been granted entry to Britain. Indeed her latest advert on the new immigration rules – which will take effect – in 2021 is quite frankly disgusting. It boasts allowing entry to only the ‘best and brightest’ – as if being highly qualified on paper suddenly makes you a better, more worthy human being.
The scandal over the Home Secretary has just been one of many indications of a somewhat unhealthy setup at Number 10. Only a few weeks ago the Chancellor for the Exchequer, Sajid Javid, resigned, after rejecting Number 10’s instructions to sack an advisor. Javid stated that ‘no self-respecting minister could have accepted such a condition. His resignation came on the back of rumours of a rift between him and Boris Johnson’s controversial advisor Dominic Cummings. A later statement delivered in the House of Commons hinted at such discord as Javid said Johnson’s plans to bring the PM’s office and the Treasury closer together were a threat to the ‘national interest’. Indeed it has been suggested in The Express that Javid’s resignation ‘brilliantly represents Cummings’ Treasury masterplan – as in 2014 the Brexit guru had already made his intentions to reform the cabinet and to “break the power of the Treasury” clear’.
If anything, Johnson is a survivor. Having survived the Brexit election, to lead the country out of the EU; having survived allegations of racism and sexual harassment; having survived criticism over his lack of leadership during last month’s floods and claims of him being a ‘part-time Prime Minister’; it seems the blonde buffoon is indefatigable. And it has set a precedent for others in his team. One quite honestly gets the impression that the Johnson cabinet could almost get away with anything now. Even the investigation into Priti Patel will be an internal one, rather than an independent one, and led by Michael Gove, who has already come out to vehemently defend the Home Secretary – so how unbiased is that likely to be?
The real test for the Johnson cabinet now will be, however, in the form of something utterly intangible; a completely new phenomenon which rivals any terrorist threat or military adversary: coronavirus. Sweeping across Europe now, it will not only pressurize our health services but will impact every aspect of our daily lives. Our economy is also likely to suffer, they say on a par with the last economic crash in 2008. The competence of the current government, therefore, could not be faced with a better test.
Read Later Add to Favourites Add to Collection Report


theduran--2020-03-06--CIA conducts cyber-espionage on China for 11 years

Submitted by InfoBrics , authored by Lucas Leiroz , research fellow in international law at the Federal University of Rio de Janeiro… The Chinese cybersecurity company Qihoo 360 published a note stating that the CIA has been conducting cyber espionage in strategic sectors of China for 11 years .
The allegations come from a survey conducted by the company based on the “ Vault7 ” series of documents , published by WikiLeaks , detailing a wide range of activities conducted by the CIA in electronic surveillance and cyber warfare .
On its website , the Chinese company claims that Chinese @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a criminal group of hackers called APT-C-39 , which is known to belong to the CIA .
Among the areas victimized by illegal CIA surveillance are aviation , scientific research , oil industry , internet companies and government agencies .
The attacks were traced back to 2008 .
The regions most affected by espionage are Beijing , Guangdong , Zhejiang .
In the survey , cyber weapons found to be used exclusively by the CIA , such as Fluxwire and Grasshopper , were detected , leading to the possibility of a hacking organization @ @ @ @ @ @ @ also able to locate the working hours of the spies , which , interestingly , coincides with the American workday .
In the company ’ s website we can read : “ Qihoo 360 data have shown that the cyber-weapons used by the organization and the cyber weapons described in the CIA Vault 7 project are almost identical .
The CIA Vault 7 weapons show from the side that the United States has built the world ’ s largest cyber weapons arsenal .
It has not only brought serious threat to the global @ @ @ @ @ @ @ APT organization ’ s high technical capabilities and professional standards ( … ) In addition , considering the uniqueness and time span of the use of the APT-C-39 cyber weapon , Qihoo 360 gave the conclusion that the group ’ s attack was initiated by the state-level hacking organization ” .
However , the results achieved by the research are even more accurate .
The Chinese company managed to track down the person individually responsible for using these cyber weapons , an American hacker named Joshua Adam Schulte .
The data suggest that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ cybernetic weapons .
At the time of the attacks , Joshua was a member of the National Clandestine Service ( NCS ) – a unit that belongs to the CIA – working on the Science and Technology Directorate .
( DS & T ) ; today , he is serving time for espionage in the USA .
The hacker ’ s active participation in American cyber war projects poses him as a significant threat with international dimensions , in addition to raising questions about the true nature of his arrest .
The reflections @ @ @ @ @ @ @ are very interesting .
Cyber space was recognized a few years ago as a battleground for modern warfare – as important or more than land , sea and air ; in this intangible zone , entire nations face each other through attacks , espionage and constant surveillance , using true hidden armies , unknown to the general public , and very powerful weapons , which are capable of causing real problems in the material world .
The most curious thing is that all of this takes place in a lawless area , where @ @ @ @ @ @ @ legal or moral boundaries .
Countries such as China , Russia and North Korea have long been criticized in the West for undertaking projects to create and develop “ intranets ” , that is , national computer networks , unplugged from the world network .
In the West , false experts claim that such projects have a “ dictatorial ” content , being a form of censorship .
However , cases like this remind us of the importance of such projects and the need for legal status for the cyber world .
If @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , international law must provide basic rules so that the coexistence between nations in this new battlefield takes place in a peaceful , simple and ethical way , with mutual respect between the belligerents .
The absence of such legal delimitations legitimizes that absolutely any act of war or espionage involving the cyber world is carried out – mainly by the prevailing hegemonic power .
However , such absence of mechanisms in the international sphere also justifies the establishment of intranets and unplugged networks , since , in the absence of a relevant @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the decision of local governments , according to their interests .
The United States is seeking to assert itself as a global cyber police ; it wants to assert in the virtual world the same hegemony that they have at sea .
To this end , they undertake spy , attack and information theft projects , institutionalizing criminal hacking networks as secret units of this hidden war .
China is certainly not the only target .
The discovery of hacker invasion in the networks of the main industrial sectors in this country is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and deeper .
Not only great military and economic potencies have their internal information stolen , but also less developed countries are victimized by the American global cyber police , who quietly and perversely acts to gain control over the entire world .

The statements, views and opinions expressed in this column are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of this site. This site does not give financial, investment or medical advice.
Submitted by InfoBrics, authored by Lucas Leiroz, research fellow in international law at the Federal University of Rio de Janeiro…
The Chinese cybersecurity company Qihoo 360 published a note stating that the CIA has been conducting cyber espionage in strategic sectors of China for 11 years. The allegations come from a survey conducted by the company based on the “Vault7” series of documents, published by WikiLeaks, detailing a wide range of activities conducted by the CIA in electronic surveillance and cyber warfare.
On its website, the Chinese company claims that Chinese industrial sectors are being spied on by a criminal group of hackers called APT-C-39, which is known to belong to the CIA. Among the areas victimized by illegal CIA surveillance are aviation, scientific research, oil industry, internet companies and government agencies. The attacks were traced back to 2008. The regions most affected by espionage are Beijing, Guangdong, Zhejiang.
In the survey, cyber weapons found to be used exclusively by the CIA, such as Fluxwire and Grasshopper, were detected, leading to the possibility of a hacking organization at state level. The survey was also able to locate the working hours of the spies, which, interestingly, coincides with the American workday.
In the company’s website we can read: “Qihoo 360 data have shown that the cyber-weapons used by the organization and the cyber weapons described in the CIA Vault 7 project are almost identical. The CIA Vault 7 weapons show from the side that the United States has built the world’s largest cyber weapons arsenal. It has not only brought serious threat to the global network security, but also demonstrate the APT organization’s high technical capabilities and professional standards (…) In addition, considering the uniqueness and time span of the use of the APT-C-39 cyber weapon, Qihoo 360 gave the conclusion that the group’s attack was initiated by the state-level hacking organization”.
However, the results achieved by the research are even more accurate. The Chinese company managed to track down the person individually responsible for using these cyber weapons, an American hacker named Joshua Adam Schulte. The data suggest that Joshua created, developed and applied these cybernetic weapons. At the time of the attacks, Joshua was a member of the National Clandestine Service (NCS) – a unit that belongs to the CIA – working on the Science and Technology Directorate. (DS&T); today, he is serving time for espionage in the USA. The hacker’s active participation in American cyber war projects poses him as a significant threat with international dimensions, in addition to raising questions about the true nature of his arrest.
The reflections we can draw from reading this news are very interesting. Cyber space was recognized a few years ago as a battleground for modern warfare – as important or more than land, sea and air; in this intangible zone, entire nations face each other through attacks, espionage and constant surveillance, using true hidden armies, unknown to the general public, and very powerful weapons, which are capable of causing real problems in the material world. The most curious thing is that all of this takes place in a lawless area, where absolutely everything is allowed, without any legal or moral boundaries.
Countries such as China, Russia and North Korea have long been criticized in the West for undertaking projects to create and develop “intranets”, that is, national computer networks, unplugged from the world network. In the West, false experts claim that such projects have a “dictatorial” content, being a form of censorship. However, cases like this remind us of the importance of such projects and the need for legal status for the cyber world.
If the cyber world is a war zone, international law must provide basic rules so that the coexistence between nations in this new battlefield takes place in a peaceful, simple and ethical way, with mutual respect between the belligerents. The absence of such legal delimitations legitimizes that absolutely any act of war or espionage involving the cyber world is carried out – mainly by the prevailing hegemonic power. However, such absence of mechanisms in the international sphere also justifies the establishment of intranets and unplugged networks, since, in the absence of a relevant international treaty, the merit remains for the decision of local governments, according to their interests.
The United States is seeking to assert itself as a global cyber police; it wants to assert in the virtual world the same hegemony that they have at sea. To this end, they undertake spy, attack and information theft projects, institutionalizing criminal hacking networks as secret units of this hidden war. China is certainly not the only target. The discovery of hacker invasion in the networks of the main industrial sectors in this country is just a sign of something much bigger and deeper. Not only great military and economic potencies have their internal information stolen, but also less developed countries are victimized by the American global cyber police, who quietly and perversely acts to gain control over the entire world.
Read Later Add to Favourites Add to Collection Report


theduran--2020-03-06--Average of 2019-nCov deaths in Italy is 81: identikit from ISS

The Istituto superiore di sanità in Italy has published an “ identikit ” of mortality associated with 2019-nCov based on an analysis of 105 Italian patients who died upto March 4 , 2020 : -The average age of deceased and positive patients is 81 years ; 73.3 % are men ; in more than two thirds of cases they have three or more pre-existing diseases .
-The average age of the deceased is 20 years higher than the the average age of the virus positive patients.-The majority of deaths ( 42.2 % ) occurred in the age group between 80 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ between 70 and 79 , 8.4 % between 60 and 69 , 2.8 % between 50 and 59 and 14.1 % over 90 years .
-Women who died after contracting COVID-2019 infection are older than men ( median age women 83.4 – median age men 79.9 ) .
-The average number of pathologies observed in this population is 3.4 ( median 3 , Standard Deviation 2.1 ) .
-Overall , 15.5 % of the sample had 0 or 1 pathologies , 18.3 % had 2 pathologies and 67.2 % had 3 or more @ @ @ @ @ @ @ hypertension ( present in 74.6 % of the sample ) , followed by ischemic heart disease ( 70.4 % ) and diabetes mellitus ( 33.8 % ) .-The median time from the onset of symptoms to hospitalization was 5 days and the median of the time between hospitalization and death was 4 days .
“ Although preliminary , these data confirm the observations made so far in the rest of the world on the main characteristics of patients – comments the president of ISS Silvio Brusaferro - , in particular on the fact @ @ @ @ @ @ @ diseases are more at risk .
These are very fragile people , who often live in close contact and who we must protect as much as possible “ .
( The report concerns deceased patients and is based on data obtained through the compilation of a questionnaire developed specifically for the purpose of detecting death cases ) .
Several doctors who have given media interviews have emphasized that these deaths are associated with 2019-nCov and not necessarily attributed directly to the virus .
2019-nCov refers to the virus .
COVID-19 refers to the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ possible to test positive for 2019-nCov without necessarily suffering from COVID-19 .

The statements, views and opinions expressed in this column are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of this site. This site does not give financial, investment or medical advice.
The Istituto superiore di sanità in Italy has published an “identikit” of mortality associated with 2019-nCov based on an analysis of 105 Italian patients who died upto March 4, 2020:
-The average age of deceased and positive patients is 81 years; 73.3% are men; in more than two thirds of cases they have three or more pre-existing diseases.
-The average age of the deceased is 20 years higher than the the average age of the virus positive patients.-The majority of deaths (42.2%) occurred in the age group between 80 and 89 years; 32.4% were between 70 and 79, 8.4% between 60 and 69, 2.8% between 50 and 59 and 14.1% over 90 years.
-Women who died after contracting COVID-2019 infection are older than men (median age women 83.4 – median age men 79.9).
-The average number of pathologies observed in this population is 3.4 (median 3, Standard Deviation 2.1).
-Overall, 15.5% of the sample had 0 or 1 pathologies, 18.3% had 2 pathologies and 67.2% had 3 or more pathologies. The most represented comorbidity is hypertension (present in 74.6% of the sample), followed by ischemic heart disease (70.4%) and diabetes mellitus (33.8%).-The median time from the onset of symptoms to hospitalization was 5 days and the median of the time between hospitalization and death was 4 days.
“Although preliminary, these data confirm the observations made so far in the rest of the world on the main characteristics of patients – comments the president of ISS Silvio Brusaferro -, in particular on the fact that the elderly and people with pre-existing diseases are more at risk. These are very fragile people, who often live in close contact and who we must protect as much as possible “.
(The report concerns deceased patients and is based on data obtained through the compilation of a questionnaire developed specifically for the purpose of detecting death cases).
Published March 6, 2020
http://www.salute.gov.it/portale/nuovocoronavirus/dettaglioNotizieNuovoCoronavirus.jsp?lingua=italiano&menu=notizie&p=dalministero&id=4163
Several doctors who have given media interviews have emphasized that these deaths are associated with 2019-nCov and not necessarily attributed directly to the virus. 2019-nCov refers to the virus. COVID-19 refers to the Corona virus disease. It’s possible to test positive for 2019-nCov without necessarily suffering from COVID-19.
Read Later Add to Favourites Add to Collection Report


theduran--2020-03-07--Homelessness In Britain From Brighton To Brent

In Britain , homelessness used to be a problem almost exclusively for older people and for those with what are euphemistically termed mental health issues .
True , there was the 1966 dramatisation Cathy Come Home which highlighted a wider issue , but generally speaking , after the Second World War , homelessness was not that big a deal for ordinary people .
The rise of Margaret Thatcher changed that .
While this pragmatic Grantham housewife brought much needed necessary reforms to the economy , it was as always the people at the bottom who paid the price of those @ @ @ @ @ @ @ resign by her own Cabinet on November 28 , 1990 , but new Prime Minister John Major did not repair the damage she had done in that respect .
In August 1992 , rock musician Luke Morley explained a song his band Thunder had released the previous year .
Low Life In Low Places was inspired by seeing people sleeping rough .
He ’ d once seen that in New York but not in Catford , South London , a bus ride from his birth place ; “ unfortunately now you do ” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Blair in 1997 did not appreciably change the prospects for those who are now known as rough sleepers , and in spite of promises by the succeeding Conservative Administrations , rough sleeping is up all round .
The seaside resort of Brighton has become a magnet for the homeless , including a surprising and frankly sadly large number of young women .
One such young woman was Paige Greenaway ( pictured above ) who had featured in a documentary series about the problem .
Love And Drugs On The Street : Girls Sleeping @ @ @ @ @ @ @ had issues that were not of her own making , a congenital condition known as Triple X Syndrome .
When she was interviewed for the documentary , she was heavily pregnant ; she was told her new baby would be taken into foster care .
There was talk of things looking up for her , but last month , Paige hanged herself .
The girl who had been homeless for seven years , and had spent much of that time sleeping in a tent pitched in a cemetery , had been moved into @ @ @ @ @ @ @ she received came too late for her .
She was just 23 years old .
In the London Borough of Brent , a much older individual , a man , has been made effectively homeless not by his mental condition but due to an unbelievably sick move by jobsworths at his local council .
He can not be named for legal reasons , but it will suffice to say that for the past five weeks and more he has been languishing in a Berkshire hospital with severe problems relating to his heart .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ quite wealthy , running his own firm , but in the past few years things have not been so good , which led to him working longer and longer hours , and now he is paying the price .
He is likely to be in hospital for at least another few weeks , and when he is discharged he will have nowhere to go because bailiffs have been brought in to strip his home .
There is a long story here due to red tape , but he was informed he did not @ @ @ @ @ @ @ even though he obtained this in 1999 .
Being incapacitated he was unaware of what might be euphemistically termed new developments , and not bothering even to inquire about his whereabouts , the council simply forged ahead .
Normally a process such as this takes considerable time and is subject to appeal , but not when the victim is out of the picture .
The local press have been made aware of this but declined even to look into it .
Brighton and Brent are only around eighty miles apart , but the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ breadth of the country .
While it is noble to tackle the problem , it would be far more noble in the first instance not to contribute to it .

The statements, views and opinions expressed in this column are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of this site. This site does not give financial, investment or medical advice.
In Britain, homelessness used to be a problem almost exclusively for older people and for those with what are euphemistically termed mental health issues. True, there was the 1966 dramatisation Cathy Come Home which highlighted a wider issue, but generally speaking, after the Second World War, homelessness was not that big a deal for ordinary people.
The rise of Margaret Thatcher changed that. While this pragmatic Grantham housewife brought much needed structural reforms to the economy, it was as always the people at the bottom who paid the price of those reforms. Margaret Thatcher was forced to resign by her own Cabinet on November 28, 1990, but new Prime Minister John Major did not repair the damage she had done in that respect. In August 1992, rock musician Luke Morley explained a song his band Thunder had released the previous year. Low Life In Low Places was inspired by seeing people sleeping rough. He’d once seen that in New York but not in Catford, South London, a bus ride from his birth place; “unfortunately now you do” he added.
The election of Tony Blair in 1997 did not appreciably change the prospects for those who are now known as rough sleepers, and in spite of promises by the succeeding Conservative Administrations, rough sleeping is up all round. The seaside resort of Brighton has become a magnet for the homeless, including a surprising and frankly sadly large number of young women.
One such young woman was Paige Greenaway (pictured above) who had featured in a documentary series about the problem. Love And Drugs On The Street: Girls Sleeping Rough was screened in 2017/8. Paige had issues that were not of her own making, a congenital condition known as Triple X Syndrome. When she was interviewed for the documentary, she was heavily pregnant; she was told her new baby would be taken into foster care.
There was talk of things looking up for her, but last month, Paige hanged herself. The girl who had been homeless for seven years, and had spent much of that time sleeping in a tent pitched in a cemetery, had been moved into an apartment. Sadly, what help she received came too late for her. She was just 23 years old.
In the London Borough of Brent, a much older individual, a man, has been made effectively homeless not by his mental condition but due to an unbelievably sick move by jobsworths at his local council. He cannot be named for legal reasons, but it will suffice to say that for the past five weeks and more he has been languishing in a Berkshire hospital with severe problems relating to his heart. Not quite sixty, he was once quite wealthy, running his own firm, but in the past few years things have not been so good, which led to him working longer and longer hours, and now he is paying the price.
He is likely to be in hospital for at least another few weeks, and when he is discharged he will have nowhere to go because bailiffs have been brought in to strip his home.
There is a long story here due to red tape, but he was informed he did not have planning permission for his premises, even though he obtained this in 1999. Being incapacitated he was unaware of what might be euphemistically termed new developments, and not bothering even to inquire about his whereabouts, the council simply forged ahead. Normally a process such as this takes considerable time and is subject to appeal, but not when the victim is out of the picture. The local press have been made aware of this but declined even to look into it.
Brighton and Brent are only around eighty miles apart, but the problem of homelessness stretches the length and breadth of the country. While it is noble to tackle the problem, it would be far more noble in the first instance not to contribute to it.
Read Later Add to Favourites Add to Collection Report


theduran--2020-03-07--Are Most of America’s Black Voters Racists? Yes, They Now Clearly Are.

Without the support of Blacks in the recent Democratic Party primaries , Joe Biden would still be the political failure in U.S. Presidential campaigning that he had always been .
As the Republican political pro , Pat Buchanan , wrote of Biden on March 5th , “ Before last Saturday , he had not won a single primary in three presidential campaigns.
” That “ last Saturday ” referred to the South Carolina primary .
Biden ’ s first-ever win of a Presidential primary turned Biden ’ s dead-in-the-water 2020 Presidential campaign into an almost-certain win of the Democratic Party @ @ @ @ @ @ @ majority of the votes for Biden in the South Carolina primary came from that state ’ s black Democrats , who are the majority of that state ’ s registered Democrats .
( Sanders ’ s win of that state ’ s white Democrats was by a smaller margin . )
The Democratic National Committee and its 700+ superdelegates and its members of Congress ( representing the Party ’ s billionaires , who finance their careers ) had been waiting for this moment before they would become more public about their backing of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ so the official endorsements started suddenly then to pour forth , as if Biden already were the Party ’ s nominee .
Consequently , going into the March 3rd Super Tuesday primaries in 14 states , the opinion polls , which had , until then , shown Sanders as being likely to win almost all of the states , turned suddenly to show Biden as being likely to win almost all of them — which then did happen .
By as late as February 9th , which was the time by which it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the most votes in the February 3rd Iowa caucuses , the national polls of Democratic Party voters had shown Joe Biden strongly as # 1 , with Bernie Sanders a distant # 2 nationwide ; but , then , promptly after February 9th , the polls showed a huge lead for Sanders as the new # 1 , and Biden as being around 8 % below him and the new # 2 ; but , then , Biden won the South Carolina primary on February 29th , in a landslide and now he @ @ @ @ @ @ @ being 88 % likely to win the nomination on the first ballot at the Convention , and as being around 10 % likely to get the win of the nomination on a second ballot , and Sanders as having the remaining 2 % as being his likelihood to become the Democratic Party ’ s nominee .
Whereas Biden won 60 % of Blacks ’ votes in the South Carolina primary , he won only 26 % of Whites ’ votes there .
( Biden won 58 % of the voters aged 65+ ; @ @ @ @ @ @ @ aged under 30 .
So : age was the second-most important factor . )
Consequently , Biden ’ s South Carolina landslide was very much a victory by the state ’ s black Democrats and a loss by the state ’ s white Democrats .
There was the exact opposite of a “ rainbow coalition ” in South Carolina .
And that state ’ s Blacks handed the nomination to the candidate that the Democratic Party ’ s billionaires had preferred but didn ’ t think could beat Sanders and so they had @ @ @ @ @ @ @ few others ; and , of course , the billionaires Steyer and Bloomberg later entered the field themselves , hoping to be the individual who could block Sanders .
But South Carolina ’ s Blacks did the job that the Party ’ s billionaires ( and even the Republican Party ’ s billionaires ) could not do without them — virtually handed the nomination to what the billionaire-controlled press ( likewise serving the billionaires and seeking to sink Sanders ) calls a ‘ moderate ’ ( which implies that any candidate who is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ — is an ‘ extremist ’ ) .
A stunning analysis of the ‘ racial ’ composition of the polling-support that ’ s indicated nationwide in the Biden-versus-Sanders electoral contests up through March 6th , as shown by the excellent webpage at the Economist magazine regarding the U.S. Presidential primaries , presents the following percentages of support by Whites , Blacks , and Hispanics , throughout the country : That totaled to 84 % for Biden , and 76 % for Sanders , an 8 % advantage overall for Biden , because of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ or nearly threefold ( 2.59 ) , ratio of Blacks preferring Biden to Sanders .
The votes by America ’ s Blacks — and not merely the political preferences by the Democratic Party ’ s billionaires whom the Democratic National Committee ( DNC ) actually serve — are the two essential and indispensable reasons why the general-election choice for the American public on November 3rd will now almost certainly be Biden versus Trump ( both of whom are acceptable to America ’ s billionaires ) , instead of Sanders versus Trump ( only @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s billionaires ) .
Among the Democratic Party ’ s non-Black voters , there was 57 % support for Sanders , versus only 48 % support for Biden .
Whereas Biden was by far the choice of black Democrats , Sanders was strongly the choice both of white Democrats and of Hispanic Democrats .
That brings us to the question of why black voters are so strong and so loyal for Joe Biden : The commonest hypothesis explaining Blacks ’ overwhelming support for Biden is that Biden was Obama ’ s VP @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , Blacks ’ “ Job Approval ” of Obama was 84 % while Obama ’ s “ Job Approval ” by “ All Americans ” [ including Blacks ] was exactly half of that , 42 % ; so , amongst non-Black Americans , it had to have been far below 42 % non-Black support .
If Obama ’ s actual job-performance had been far better for Blacks than for non-Blacks , then this overwhelming job-performance support of Obama from Blacks would be understandable without relying upon a hypothesis that Blacks are clearly @ @ @ @ @ @ @ such a case , they just would have been experiencing more improvement than non-Blacks did — but this clearly wasn ’ t the case .
And in that fact there exists a non-discussed scandal , indicating deep-seated racism amongst most Blacks , a racism that has enabled America ’ s billionaires to choose both Parties ’ nominees , and not merely the Republican Party ’ s nominee ( Trump ) .
Here is that scandal : Blacks experienced less improvement under Obama than non-Blacks did .
The best single article documenting this difference @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , and headlined “ How Obama Destroyed Black Wealth ” .
With a performance-record like that , non-racist Blacks would simply despise Obama , as having been an “ Uncle Tom.
” The high approval-ratings for Obama among Blacks show that Blacks overwhelmingly support him — and that they vote for Biden over Sanders — because the vast majority of Blacks are almost blinded by skin-color ( and ignore actual job-performance ) in their political perceptions and judgments ( such as of Obama , and of Biden who clings to Obama ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s not only that single magazine-article in Jacobin which was onto this high degree of racism amongst America ’ s Blacks .
Even as early as 6 September 2012 , Politico had headlined “ Gripes aside , blacks still back Obama ” and noted the disparity which seemed to be evident , even that early , between Blacks ’ perceptions versus the realities — and reported Blacks ’ rationalizations for their exceptionally high Presidential performance-ratings of Obama .
Then , on 12 December 2014 , Pew Research bannered “ Wealth inequality has @ @ @ @ @ @ @ end of Great Recession ” and noted that , “ The wealth of white households was 13 times the median wealth of black households in 2013 , compared with eight times the wealth in 2010 , according to a new Pew Research Center analysis of data from the Federal Reserve ’ s Survey of Consumer Finances .
Likewise , the wealth of white households is now more than 10 times the wealth of Hispanic households , compared with nine times the wealth in 2010.
” Pew tried to make their presentation of Obama @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for it to slip by its readers little noticed , but it was there in the data , quite clearly , for anyone who cared about the matter .
Obama was a President for rich Whites , and least of all for Blacks .
It ’ s shown right there ( but even more so in this more-comprehensive study ) .
Then , on 1 November 2016 , Turkey ’ s equivalent to America ’ s AP , the Anadolu Agency , headlined “ Blacks still hoping for change after 2 Obama terms @ @ @ @ @ @ @ : “ Barack Obama won the White House on a promise of hope and change and with the overwhelming support of black voters .
But as he prepares to leave the Oval Office , many of those in his base are still hoping for change .
Obama won the 2008 elections by receiving 97 percent of the black votes .
His favorability rating among blacks is still above 80 percent.
” Even the high-income-liberal oriented The Atlantic magazine ( hardly hostile toward America ’ s Democratic Party , but more like a mouthpiece @ @ @ @ @ @ @ December 2016 , “ How Barack Obama Failed Black Americans : The country ’ s first black president never pursued policies bold enough to close the racial wealth gap.
” While that obtusely written article failed to provide any clarity on the nature or extent of Obama ’ s failure of Blacks ’ hopes ( such as the Jacobin ’ s article did provide ) , it expressed the opinion that Obama wasn ’ t as good for Blacks as he was for Whites .
Such an an Establishmentarian publication , as that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ speaking , rather bold .
The way that the ‘ progressive ’ The Nation magazine ‘ explains ’ Blacks ’ voting so heavily for Biden is by putting forth the racism-accepting deception , that “ Black Voters Didn ’ t Vote for Biden in South Carolina Because They ‘ Lack Information ’ : Black voters opted for Biden because they have no faith that white voters will do the right thing and vote for a true progressive.
” Black voters had actually “ opted for Biden ” because Biden hugged his former boss @ @ @ @ @ @ @ dominated their perceptions ; reality did not , at all .
Even America ’ s ‘ progressive ’ press serves America ’ s billionaires — the Democratic Party ones .
In order to understand what type of President Barack Obama actually was , one must recognize that he was the best liar in American politics in recent times if not in all of American history .
Therefore , making the distinction between mere symbolism ( his words ) versus reality ( his actual policies — what he pushed for behind the scenes , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ even though verbally he spouted it ) is essential in order to understand Obama ’ s Presidency .
I have , on many occasions ( such as those here just linked-to ) reported that Barack Obama lied intensely and pursued policies that benefited banksters at the expense of the poor , but by now there is no reasonable doubt that the vast majority of Black voters just “ take a licking and keep on ticking ” for the Democratic National Committee and its billionaires ’ preferences of candidates and their policies that have @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of the poor , and especially of the Black poor .
Quite obviously , now , slick-talking Uncle-Tom Blacks such as Obama ( and their White picks such as Joe Biden and , before him , Hillary Clinton ) keep them down and the banksters up ; it ’ s not only Republican Party billionaires who are doing that to them ; Democratic Party billionaires also do .
Furthermore , this hugging , by Blacks , of Biden , who hugs Obama , certainly can not be explained by Bernie Sanders having had @ @ @ @ @ @ @ even worse than that of Joe Biden and of Donald Trump ; quite the opposite is the actual case .
The superiority of Sanders on specifically Black issues goes well beyond Sanders having always fought against banksters and Biden ’ s always having been one of Banksters ’ key men in Congress , and it goes beyond Biden ’ s having written the crime-laws to target the most the crimes that were done the most by young black males and that filled our prisons with them — while leaving banksters out of prison @ @ @ @ @ @ @ won wealth .
In 1963 , Sanders was arrested by Chicago police officers for his participation in a demonstration against the City ’ s pro-segregation policies .
What was Joe Biden doing , of a political nature , during that same period ?
Nothing* , though he was then a college student , just as Sanders then was .
Whereas Sanders was risking his personal welfare in order to help to end segregation , Biden was “ graduating with a class rank of 506 out of 688 .
[ 25 ] His classmates @ @ @ @ @ @ @ [ 21 ] and he played halfback with the Blue Hens freshman football team .
[ 20 ] In 1964 , while on spring break in the Bahamas , [ 26 ] he met and began dating Neilia Hunter , who was from an affluent background in Skaneateles , New York.
” Everything there reflects a social climber , which Biden has been throughout his adult life .
And he is profoundly corrupt .
Blacks overwhelmingly support a serial-lying anti-Black elitist white bigot , who knows how to charm them .
In short @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the vast majority of Black voters today being the curse upon progressivism in America as they are if their votes are what causes Biden to win the Party ’ s nomination — they would then be the people who will have blocked progressivism and continued the control over America by its aristocracy .
They will have blocked progressivism by simply not even caring about what it is , and what it means — which certainly is NOT racism .
That obtuseness coming from individuals who have suffered so much from racism , is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
It ’ s a scandal because of the immense historical impact that it is likely to have .
A choice between Trump versus Biden , as opposed to between Trump versus Sanders , is the choice between two candidates both of whom represent America ’ s billionaires and not the public , as compared to a choice between one candidate who represents the ( Republican Party ’ s ) billionaires versus one candidate who represents the public .
Black voters virtually eliminated the possibility of the public being represented on the Presidential @ @ @ @ @ @ @ campaign ’ s coming back from the dead seemed extremely unlikely before February 29th , the South Carolina primary .
In fact , on February 2nd , South Carolina ’ s Post and Courier bannered “ Sanders and Steyer closing gap on Biden as SC 2020 presidential primary nears ” and reported that , “ Biden , who once led by as much as 31 percentage points in South Carolina , holds a 5-point edge over Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders in the latest Post and Courier-Change Research poll released Sunday .
Biden sits @ @ @ @ @ @ @ percent.
“ On February 18th , NBC News bannered “ Sanders opens up double-digit national lead in primary race ” .
On February 19th , ABC News headlined “ Sanders and Bloomberg rise , Biden falls , with sharp shifts in views of electability : Sanders soars and Biden crashes.
” Their Gary Langer gave a detailed analysis of all the polls and the trends .
On February 20th , Chris Cilizza at CNN said “ Bernie Sanders in all likelihood is the nominee , unless it gets taken away from him at @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , who managed Barack Obama ’ s 2008 presidential campaign , Thursday morning on MSNBC .
Plouffe is exactly right .
Even Plouffe had not anticipated such extreme racism as Blacks displayed in their votes on February 29th .
If he didn ’ t , then one may reasonably presume that no one did .
* The Wikipedia article on Biden asserts that , “ During these years , he participated in an anti-segregation sit-in at a Wilmington theatre .
[ 21 ] ” but if one clicks onto the footnote there , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ reader becomes trapped in a circular dead end , which is what one might reasonably expect to happen if Biden ’ s team had inserted this otherwise-incongruous assertion in order to counter the clear and published proof that Sanders was an anti-segregation activist while he was at college .
The asserted ‘ source ’ for that ‘ anti-segregation sit-in ’ is the annual reference-series , Current Biography , which obtains its information mainly from the ‘ biographied ’ persons themselves , no documentation required , and is therefore a self-promotion vehicle instead of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of anything , at all .
Whatever is written there is basically an edited version of what the individual had written about himself in a questionnaire .
And Biden has been exposed as having perpetrated numerous lies about his past ; so , this would not be at all unlike him to do .
Other than that one incongruous assertion in the Wikipedia article , nothing indicates that , back in the 1960s , Biden was anything other than an ambitious slickster , even then when he was in college , motivated solely @ @ @ @ @ @ @ except his friends and mega-donors .
In fact , that same Wikipedia article also notes : “ Biden was one of the Senate ’ s leading opponents of desegregation busing .
In his Senate campaign , Biden expressed support for the 1971 Swann decision of the Supreme Court , which supported busing programs to integrate school districts to remedy de jure segregation , but opposed it to remedy de facto segregation , as in Delaware.
” Biden supported segregation , so long as it happened ‘ naturally ’ ( such as it did @ @ @ @ @ @ @ an explicit law being passed .
This was the same viewpoint that the megabanks put forth to ‘ justify ’ red-lining : whatever is ‘ natural ’ is good .
Progressivism is not ‘ natural ’ .
Of course , the mega-banks loved him , and he loved them back .
Yet he calls himself “ progressive.
” Corrupt politicians think that the strong and the smart have a right to exploit the weak and the stupid , but the big problem is that whenever this happens , the public — including many @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the exploiters , but less psychopathic — suffer ; not only the weak and stupid that they are currently exploiting do .
Investigative historian Eric Zuesse is the author , most recently , of They ’ re Not Even Close : The Democratic vs. Republican Economic Records , 1910-2010 , and of CHRIST ’ S VENTRILOQUISTS : The Event that Created Christianity .

The statements, views and opinions expressed in this column are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of this site. This site does not give financial, investment or medical advice.
https://www.c-span.org/video/?c4843582/user-clip-joe-biden-introduces-blackface-singer
Eric Zuesse
Without the support of Blacks in the recent Democratic Party primaries, Joe Biden would still be the political failure in U.S. Presidential campaigning that he had always been. As the Republican political pro, Pat Buchanan, wrote of Biden on March 5th, “Before last Saturday, he had not won a single primary in three presidential campaigns.” That “last Saturday” referred to the South Carolina primary. Biden’s first-ever win of a Presidential primary turned Biden’s dead-in-the-water 2020 Presidential campaign into an almost-certain win of the Democratic Party’s Presidential nomination. The vast majority of the votes for Biden in the South Carolina primary came from that state’s black Democrats, who are the majority of that state’s registered Democrats. (Sanders’s win of that state’s white Democrats was by a smaller margin.) The Democratic National Committee and its 700+ superdelegates and its members of Congress (representing the Party’s billionaires, who finance their careers) had been waiting for this moment before they would become more public about their backing of Biden to be their nominee; and so the official endorsements started suddenly then to pour forth, as if Biden already were the Party’s nominee. Consequently, going into the March 3rd Super Tuesday primaries in 14 states, the opinion polls, which had, until then, shown Sanders as being likely to win almost all of the states, turned suddenly to show Biden as being likely to win almost all of them — which then did happen.
By as late as February 9th, which was the time by which it became clear that Bernie Sanders had won the most votes in the February 3rd Iowa caucuses, the national polls of Democratic Party voters had shown Joe Biden strongly as #1, with Bernie Sanders a distant #2 nationwide; but, then, promptly after February 9th, the polls showed a huge lead for Sanders as the new #1, and Biden as being around 8% below him and the new #2; but, then, Biden won the South Carolina primary on February 29th, in a landslide and now he is projected by fivethirtyeight dot com as being 88% likely to win the nomination on the first ballot at the Convention, and as being around 10% likely to get the win of the nomination on a second ballot, and Sanders as having the remaining 2% as being his likelihood to become the Democratic Party’s nominee.
Whereas Biden won 60% of Blacks’ votes in the South Carolina primary, he won only 26% of Whites’ votes there. (Biden won 58% of the voters aged 65+; Sanders won 46% of the voters aged under 30. So: age was the second-most important factor.) Consequently, Biden’s South Carolina landslide was very much a victory by the state’s black Democrats and a loss by the state’s white Democrats. There was the exact opposite of a “rainbow coalition” in South Carolina. And that state’s Blacks handed the nomination to the candidate that the Democratic Party’s billionaires had preferred but didn’t think could beat Sanders and so they had initially favored first Buttigieg and then a few others; and, of course, the billionaires Steyer and Bloomberg later entered the field themselves, hoping to be the individual who could block Sanders. But South Carolina’s Blacks did the job that the Party’s billionaires (and even the Republican Party’s billionaires) could not do without them — virtually handed the nomination to what the billionaire-controlled press (likewise serving the billionaires and seeking to sink Sanders) calls a ‘moderate’ (which implies that any candidate who is a progressive — such as Sanders is — is an ‘extremist’).
A stunning analysis of the ‘racial’ composition of the polling-support that’s indicated nationwide in the Biden-versus-Sanders electoral contests up through March 6th, as shown by the excellent webpage at the Economist magazine regarding the U.S. Presidential primaries, presents the following percentages of support by Whites, Blacks, and Hispanics, throughout the country:
WHITE: Sanders 26%, Biden 17%.
BLACK: Biden 44%, Sanders 17%.
HISPANIC: Sanders 31%, Biden 23%.
That totaled to 84% for Biden, and 76% for Sanders, an 8% advantage overall for Biden, because of the overwhelming 44%/17%, or nearly threefold (2.59), ratio of Blacks preferring Biden to Sanders. The votes by America’s Blacks — and not merely the political preferences by the Democratic Party’s billionaires whom the Democratic National Committee (DNC) actually serve — are the two essential and indispensable reasons why the general-election choice for the American public on November 3rd will now almost certainly be Biden versus Trump (both of whom are acceptable to America’s billionaires), instead of Sanders versus Trump (only one of whom is acceptable to America’s billionaires).
Among the Democratic Party’s non-Black voters, there was 57% support for Sanders, versus only 48% support for Biden. Whereas Biden was by far the choice of black Democrats, Sanders was strongly the choice both of white Democrats and of Hispanic Democrats.
That brings us to the question of why black voters are so strong and so loyal for Joe Biden:
The commonest hypothesis explaining Blacks’ overwhelming support for Biden is that Biden was Obama’s VP, and as Gallup reported in 2014, Blacks’ “Job Approval” of Obama was 84% while Obama’s “Job Approval” by “All Americans” [including Blacks] was exactly half of that, 42%; so, amongst non-Black Americans, it had to have been far below 42% non-Black support. If Obama’s actual job-performance had been far better for Blacks than for non-Blacks, then this overwhelming job-performance support of Obama from Blacks would be understandable without relying upon a hypothesis that Blacks are clearly racist in their political perceptions — in such a case, they just would have been experiencing more improvement than non-Blacks did — but this clearly wasn’t the case. And in that fact there exists a non-discussed scandal, indicating deep-seated racism amongst most Blacks, a racism that has enabled America’s billionaires to choose both Parties’ nominees, and not merely the Republican Party’s nominee (Trump). Here is that scandal:
Blacks experienced less improvement under Obama than non-Blacks did. The best single article documenting this difference was in the December 2017 Jacobin magazine, and headlined “How Obama Destroyed Black Wealth”. With a performance-record like that, non-racist Blacks would simply despise Obama, as having been an “Uncle Tom.” The high approval-ratings for Obama among Blacks show that Blacks overwhelmingly support him — and that they vote for Biden over Sanders — because the vast majority of Blacks are almost blinded by skin-color (and ignore actual job-performance) in their political perceptions and judgments (such as of Obama, and of Biden who clings to Obama’s ‘legacy’).
But it’s not only that single magazine-article in Jacobin which was onto this high degree of racism amongst America’s Blacks. Even as early as 6 September 2012, Politico had headlined “Gripes aside, blacks still back Obama” and noted the disparity which seemed to be evident, even that early, between Blacks’ perceptions versus the realities — and reported Blacks’ rationalizations for their exceptionally high Presidential performance-ratings of Obama.
Then, on 12 December 2014, Pew Research bannered “Wealth inequality has widened along racial, ethnic lines since end of Great Recession” and noted that, “The wealth of white households was 13 times the median wealth of black households in 2013, compared with eight times the wealth in 2010, according to a new Pew Research Center analysis of data from the Federal Reserve’s Survey of Consumer Finances. Likewise, the wealth of white households is now more than 10 times the wealth of Hispanic households, compared with nine times the wealth in 2010.” Pew tried to make their presentation of Obama’s pro-White anti-Black performance convoluted enough for it to slip by its readers little noticed, but it was there in the data, quite clearly, for anyone who cared about the matter. Obama was a President for rich Whites, and least of all for Blacks. It’s shown right there (but even more so in this more-comprehensive study).
Then, on 1 November 2016, Turkey’s equivalent to America’s AP, the Anadolu Agency, headlined “Blacks still hoping for change after 2 Obama terms”, and their Washington correspondent opened: “Barack Obama won the White House on a promise of hope and change and with the overwhelming support of black voters. But as he prepares to leave the Oval Office, many of those in his base are still hoping for change. Obama won the 2008 elections by receiving 97 percent of the black votes. His favorability rating among blacks is still above 80 percent.”
Even the high-income-liberal oriented The Atlantic magazine (hardly hostile toward America’s Democratic Party, but more like a mouthpiece for its billionaires) headlined on 22 December 2016, “How Barack Obama Failed Black Americans: The country’s first black president never pursued policies bold enough to close the racial wealth gap.” While that obtusely written article failed to provide any clarity on the nature or extent of Obama’s failure of Blacks’ hopes (such as the Jacobin’s article did provide), it expressed the opinion that Obama wasn’t as good for Blacks as he was for Whites. Such an an Establishmentarian publication, as that, saying this, was, relatively speaking, rather bold.
The way that the ‘progressive’ The Nation magazine ‘explains’ Blacks’ voting so heavily for Biden is by putting forth the racism-accepting deception, that “Black Voters Didn’t Vote for Biden in South Carolina Because They ‘Lack Information’: Black voters opted for Biden because they have no faith that white voters will do the right thing and vote for a true progressive.” Black voters had actually “opted for Biden” because Biden hugged his former boss who was Black — and because symbolism dominated their perceptions; reality did not, at all. Even America’s ‘progressive’ press serves America’s billionaires — the Democratic Party ones.
In order to understand what type of President Barack Obama actually was, one must recognize that he was the best liar in American politics in recent times if not in all of American history. Therefore, making the distinction between mere symbolism (his words) versus reality (his actual policies — what he pushed for behind the scenes, and what he declined to push for even though verbally he spouted it) is essential in order to understand Obama’s Presidency. I have, on many occasions (such as those here just linked-to) reported that Barack Obama lied intensely and pursued policies that benefited banksters at the expense of the poor, but by now there is no reasonable doubt that the vast majority of Black voters just “take a licking and keep on ticking” for the Democratic National Committee and its billionaires’ preferences of candidates and their policies that have led the Democratic Party’s betrayal of the poor, and especially of the Black poor. Quite obviously, now, slick-talking Uncle-Tom Blacks such as Obama (and their White picks such as Joe Biden and, before him, Hillary Clinton) keep them down and the banksters up; it’s not only Republican Party billionaires who are doing that to them; Democratic Party billionaires also do.
Furthermore, this hugging, by Blacks, of Biden, who hugs Obama, certainly cannot be explained by Bernie Sanders having had a record on Black issues that is even worse than that of Joe Biden and of Donald Trump; quite the opposite is the actual case. The superiority of Sanders on specifically Black issues goes well beyond Sanders having always fought against banksters and Biden’s always having been one of Banksters’ key men in Congress, and it goes beyond Biden’s having written the crime-laws to target the most the crimes that were done the most by young black males and that filled our prisons with them — while leaving banksters out of prison and not even dispossessed of their illegally won wealth. In 1963, Sanders was arrested by Chicago police officers for his participation in a demonstration against the City’s pro-segregation policies. What was Joe Biden doing, of a political nature, during that same period? Nothing*, though he was then a college student, just as Sanders then was. Whereas Sanders was risking his personal welfare in order to help to end segregation, Biden was “graduating with a class rank of 506 out of 688.[25] His classmates were impressed by his cramming abilities,[21] and he played halfback with the Blue Hens freshman football team.[20] In 1964, while on spring break in the Bahamas,[26] he met and began dating Neilia Hunter, who was from an affluent background in Skaneateles, New York.” Everything there reflects a social climber, which Biden has been throughout his adult life. And he is profoundly corrupt. Blacks overwhelmingly support a serial-lying anti-Black elitist white bigot, who knows how to charm them.
In short: there’s no excuse for the vast majority of Black voters today being the curse upon progressivism in America as they are if their votes are what causes Biden to win the Party’s nomination — they would then be the people who will have blocked progressivism and continued the control over America by its aristocracy. They will have blocked progressivism by simply not even caring about what it is, and what it means — which certainly is NOT racism. That obtuseness coming from individuals who have suffered so much from racism, is the scandal that no one talks about.
It’s a scandal because of the immense historical impact that it is likely to have. A choice between Trump versus Biden, as opposed to between Trump versus Sanders, is the choice between two candidates both of whom represent America’s billionaires and not the public, as compared to a choice between one candidate who represents the (Republican Party’s) billionaires versus one candidate who represents the public.
Black voters virtually eliminated the possibility of the public being represented on the Presidential line on November 3rd. The Biden campaign’s coming back from the dead seemed extremely unlikely before February 29th, the South Carolina primary.
In fact, on February 2nd, South Carolina’s Post and Courier bannered “Sanders and Steyer closing gap on Biden as SC 2020 presidential primary nears” and reported that, “Biden, who once led by as much as 31 percentage points in South Carolina, holds a 5-point edge over Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders in the latest Post and Courier-Change Research poll released Sunday. Biden sits at 25 percent to Sanders’ 20 percent.“
On February 18th, NBC News bannered “Sanders opens up double-digit national lead in primary race”.
On February 19th, ABC News headlined “Sanders and Bloomberg rise, Biden falls, with sharp shifts in views of electability: Sanders soars and Biden crashes.” Their Gary Langer gave a detailed analysis of all the polls and the trends.
On February 20th, Chris Cilizza at CNN said
“Bernie Sanders in all likelihood is the nominee, unless it gets taken away from him at the convention,” predicted David Plouffe, who managed Barack Obama’s 2008 presidential campaign, Thursday morning on MSNBC. Plouffe is exactly right.
Even Plouffe had not anticipated such extreme racism as Blacks displayed in their votes on February 29th. If he didn’t, then one may reasonably presume that no one did.
* The Wikipedia article on Biden asserts that, “During these years, he participated in an anti-segregation sit-in at a Wilmington theatre.[21]” but if one clicks onto the footnote there, no evidence comes up, and the reader becomes trapped in a circular dead end, which is what one might reasonably expect to happen if Biden’s team had inserted this otherwise-incongruous assertion in order to counter the clear and published proof that Sanders was an anti-segregation activist while he was at college. The asserted ‘source’ for that ‘anti-segregation sit-in’ is the annual reference-series, Current Biography, which obtains its information mainly from the ‘biographied’ persons themselves, no documentation required, and is therefore a self-promotion vehicle instead of any journalistic enterprise or “proof” of anything, at all. Whatever is written there is basically an edited version of what the individual had written about himself in a questionnaire. And Biden has been exposed as having perpetrated numerous lies about his past; so, this would not be at all unlike him to do. Other than that one incongruous assertion in the Wikipedia article, nothing indicates that, back in the 1960s, Biden was anything other than an ambitious slickster, even then when he was in college, motivated solely by status-seeking, not by serving anyone except his friends and mega-donors. In fact, that same Wikipedia article also notes: “Biden was one of the Senate’s leading opponents of desegregation busing. In his Senate campaign, Biden expressed support for the 1971 Swann decision of the Supreme Court, which supported busing programs to integrate school districts to remedy de jure segregation, but opposed it to remedy de facto segregation, as in Delaware.” Biden supported segregation, so long as it happened ‘naturally’ (such as it did in Delaware), instead of by an explicit law being passed. This was the same viewpoint that the megabanks put forth to ‘justify’ red-lining: whatever is ‘natural’ is good. Progressivism is not ‘natural’. Of course, the mega-banks loved him, and he loved them back. Yet he calls himself “progressive.” Corrupt politicians think that the strong and the smart have a right to exploit the weak and the stupid, but the big problem is that whenever this happens, the public — including many who are even stronger and brighter than the exploiters, but less psychopathic — suffer; not only the weak and stupid that they are currently exploiting do.
—————
Investigative historian Eric Zuesse is the author, most recently, of They’re Not Even Close: The Democratic vs. Republican Economic Records, 1910-2010, and of CHRIST’S VENTRILOQUISTS: The Event that Created Christianity.
Read Later Add to Favourites Add to Collection Report


theduran--2020-03-07--MEDIA BREAKTHROUGH: Tucker Carlson & Roger Waters discuss Julian Assange (Video)

The statements , views and opinions expressed in this column are solely those of the author and do not necessarily @ @ @ @ @ .

Switch to the dark mode that's kinder on your eyes at night time.
Switch to the light mode that's kinder on your eyes at day time.


theduran--2020-03-07--Russia halts OPEC oil production cut amidst Coronavirus panic (Video)

The Duran ’ s Alex Christoforou and Editor-in-Chief Alexander Mercouris discuss meetings held in Vienna for the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries ( OPEC ) cartel and OPEC+ , which resulted in an impasse for negotiating production cuts amidst the coronavirus outbreak .
Crude prices hit 2017 lows .
OPEC+ leader , Russia , does not want to cut oil production and instead is calling for a “ stimulus ” .
Saudi Arabia , the United Arab Emirates and other OPEC countries are desperate for further cuts , as demand for their own oil is declining .
Subscribe to The @ @ @ @ @ @ @ BitChute .
The Duran Audio Podcast : Follow on Soundcloud – Subscribe on iTunes .
OPEC and non-OPEC allies failed on Friday to agree on how much oil production to cut amid the coronavirus outbreak , with Russia reportedly refusing to give the green light to the deepest supply cuts since the global financial crisis .
Oil prices initially slipped Friday afternoon on reports that Moscow said it wasn ’ t prepared to approve a further reduction in production .
Later , Reuters also reported that OPEC and its allies had even failed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , further weighing on crude prices .
Then a statement by the oil group said it would continue discussions and made no mention of any cuts .
Russian Energy Minister Alexander Novak told reporters leaving the meetings in Vienna on Friday that it meant that members could now pump what they liked starting April 1 .
“ We have made this decision because no consensus has been found of how all the 24 countries should simultaneously react to the current situation .
So as from April 1 , we are starting to work @ @ @ @ @ @ @ were in place earlier but this does not mean that each country would not monitor and analyse market developments , ” he said .
International benchmark Brent crude skidded to $ 45.46 Friday afternoon , down over 8 % , while U.S. West Texas Intermediate sank to $ 41.93 , also around 8 % lower .
Both benchmarks were trading at lows not seen since 2017 .
Brent futures have fallen more than 30 % since climbing to an early January peak , with WTI down almost one-third over the period .
OPEC @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 1.5 million barrels per day from the beginning of next month until the end of the year .
The 14-member group had scheduled a meeting on June 9 to review the policy .
The proposal was conditional on support from non-OPEC producers , including Russia .
OPEC cautioned that the deal could only be applied on a pro-rata basis with core members set to cut 1 million bpd and non-OPEC partners expected to cut 500,000 bpd .
Analysts had viewed the meeting between OPEC members and non-OPEC producers , referred to as OPEC+ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ truly a go big or go home moment for this organization , ” Helima Croft , head of global commodities strategy at RBC , told CNBC ’ s Dan Murphy on Friday morning .
“ If Russia says no today , there are real questions about the viability of the OPEC+ arrangement.
” Once again , the disconnect between OPEC powerhouse Saudi Arabia and non-OPEC leader Russia is testing the strength of their three-year energy alliance .
Croft said she believes it is in both the economic and political interests of Moscow ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ but a lot is up in the air right now.
” “ We have no reason to doubt the continued commitment of the Russian Federation to this partnership , ” OPEC Secretary General Mohammed Barkindo told reporters Thursday evening .
“ We have repeatedly heard from the highest level of government in the Russian Federation of the commitment of the government to this partnership in the declaration of cooperation , ” he added .
Speaking to reporters shortly after OPEC recommended taking 1.5 million bpd off the market for the remainder of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Zanganeh conceded that the group had “ no plan B ” if Russia or any other non-OPEC members refused to accept the deal .
The oil producers first committed to curtailing their collective production policy in 2016 in an effort to bolster prices , with the deal coming into force in January 2017 .
It was extended last December , and the alliance agreed to curb oil output by approximately 1.7 million barrels per day .
Saudi Arabia then opted to cut its own production voluntarily by an additional 400,000 bpd for three @ @ @ @ @ @ @ their commitments .

The statements, views and opinions expressed in this column are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of this site. This site does not give financial, investment or medical advice.
The Duran’s Alex Christoforou and Editor-in-Chief Alexander Mercouris discuss meetings held in Vienna for the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) cartel and OPEC+, which resulted in an impasse for negotiating production cuts amidst the coronavirus outbreak. Crude prices hit 2017 lows.
OPEC+ leader, Russia, does not want to cut oil production and instead is calling for a “stimulus”. Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates and other OPEC countries are desperate for further cuts, as demand for their own oil is declining.
Support Free Speech:
Subscribe to The Duran on YouTube – Find us on BitChute.
The Duran Audio Podcast:
Follow on Soundcloud – Subscribe on iTunes.
Via CNBC…
OPEC and non-OPEC allies failed on Friday to agree on how much oil production to cut amid the coronavirus outbreak, with Russia reportedly refusing to give the green light to the deepest supply cuts since the global financial crisis.
Oil prices initially slipped Friday afternoon on reports that Moscow said it wasn’t prepared to approve a further reduction in production. Later, Reuters also reported that OPEC and its allies had even failed to agree on rolling over existing cuts, further weighing on crude prices. Then a statement by the oil group said it would continue discussions and made no mention of any cuts.
Russian Energy Minister Alexander Novak told reporters leaving the meetings in Vienna on Friday that it meant that members could now pump what they liked starting April 1.
“We have made this decision because no consensus has been found of how all the 24 countries should simultaneously react to the current situation. So as from April 1, we are starting to work without minding the quotas or reductions which were in place earlier but this does not mean that each country would not monitor and analyse market developments,” he said.
International benchmark Brent crude skidded to $45.46 Friday afternoon, down over 8%, while U.S. West Texas Intermediate sank to $41.93, also around 8% lower. Both benchmarks were trading at lows not seen since 2017.
Brent futures have fallen more than 30% since climbing to an early January peak, with WTI down almost one-third over the period.
OPEC on Thursday recommended additional production cuts of 1.5 million barrels per day from the beginning of next month until the end of the year. The 14-member group had scheduled a meeting on June 9 to review the policy.
The proposal was conditional on support from non-OPEC producers, including Russia. OPEC cautioned that the deal could only be applied on a pro-rata basis with core members set to cut 1 million bpd and non-OPEC partners expected to cut 500,000 bpd.
Analysts had viewed the meeting between OPEC members and non-OPEC producers, referred to as OPEC+, as crucial.
“It is truly a go big or go home moment for this organization,” Helima Croft, head of global commodities strategy at RBC, told CNBC’s Dan Murphy on Friday morning. “If Russia says no today, there are real questions about the viability of the OPEC+ arrangement.”
‘No reason’ to doubt Russia’s commitment
Once again, the disconnect between OPEC powerhouse Saudi Arabia and non-OPEC leader Russia is testing the strength of their three-year energy alliance.
Croft said she believes it is in both the economic and political interests of Moscow’s to stay in the organization, “but a lot is up in the air right now.”
“We have no reason to doubt the continued commitment of the Russian Federation to this partnership,” OPEC Secretary General Mohammed Barkindo told reporters Thursday evening.
“We have repeatedly heard from the highest level of government in the Russian Federation of the commitment of the government to this partnership in the declaration of cooperation,” he added.
Speaking to reporters shortly after OPEC recommended taking 1.5 million bpd off the market for the remainder of the year, Iranian Oil Minister Bijan Zanganeh conceded that the group had “no plan B” if Russia or any other non-OPEC members refused to accept the deal.
The oil producers first committed to curtailing their collective production policy in 2016 in an effort to bolster prices, with the deal coming into force in January 2017.
It was extended last December, and the alliance agreed to curb oil output by approximately 1.7 million barrels per day. Saudi Arabia then opted to cut its own production voluntarily by an additional 400,000 bpd for three months, should fellow members stick to their commitments.
Read Later Add to Favourites Add to Collection Report