Americans can thank Bill Gates and his foundation for school lessons that teach that there is “white supremacy” in mathematics lessons across the country, that those create “systemic barriers to equity for black, Latinx and multilingual students,” and that the solution is, in fact, “antiracist math education.”
And for that, teachers must examine “the ways in which they perpetuate white supremacy culture in their own classrooms.”
A report from the Washington Examiner notes the lessons come from a plan called “A Pathway to Equitable Math Instruction,” which is promoted online.
“The Pathway offers guidance and resources for educators to use now as they plan their curriculum, while also offering opportunities for ongoing self-reflection as they seek to develop an anti-racist math practice. The toolkit ‘strides’ serve as multiple on-ramps for educators as they navigate the individual and collective journey from equity to anti-racism,” the programming intended for children explains.
And the Examiners notes that the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation “is the only donor listed on a website for a group dedicated to eliminating racism from the nation’s math curriculum, which would be accomplished, in part, by eliminating the need for students to show their work after solving a math problem.”
Condemned in the lessons are the “focus” that insists students get the “right” answer and requiring students to “show their work.”
“White supremacy culture infiltrates math classrooms in everyday teacher actions,” the lessons charge. “Coupled with the beliefs that underlie these actions, they perpetuate educational harm on black, Latinx, and multilingual students, denying them full access to the world of mathematics.”
The lessons inform faculty, “Antiracist math educators deconstruct the ways they have been taught math to learn and teach math differently.”
Subtopics include “ethnomathematics,” “thoughtful scaffolding” and having students “reclaim their mathematical ancestry.”
Also important, it explains, is using math as “resistance,” and that includes teaching “students of color” to “disrupt the disproportionate push-out of people of color” in math and STEM fields.
Authored by Katie Spence via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours),
It’s been a little over a week since “Climate: The Movie,” a documentary produced by Thomas Nelson and directed by Martin Durkin, was released on Vimeo, YouTube, Rumble, and other platforms. And already, it’s garnered millions of views and thousands of reviews.
“Watch this documentary to understand the lies, the pseudoscience, but also the self-interest of government-funded parasites pushing climate alarmism,” Maxime Bernier, the founder and leader of the People’s Party of Canada, posted on X, formerly known as Twitter, about the film that details how “an eccentric environmental scare grew into a powerful global industry.”
“The final nail in the coffin for the ‘human-induced climate change’ scam. An absolute MUST-WATCH!” Wide Awake Media posted on X while linking to the movie, which features an elite list of scientists, including Nobel Laureate John Clauser, Richard Lindzen, emeritus professor of meteorology at MIT, and Steven Koonin, a theoretical physicist and professor at NYU’s Tandon School of Engineering.
Young demonstrators hold placards as they attend a climate change protest opposite the Houses of Parliament in central London on Feb. 15, 2019. (Ben Stansall/AFP via Getty Images)
Still, not all the responses have been positive.
“I’m a Dutch science journalist, and I watched [Climate: The Movie],” Maarten Keulemans posted on X. “It’s full of crap.” Some reviewers went so far as to call for censorship.
“I’m thinking we can get 10,000 people to report ‘Climate: The Movie’ on YouTube as having harmful and misleading content,” Eliot Jacobson, a retired mathematics and computer science professor, posted on X on March 23.
Following Mr. Jacobson’s call, Vimeo removed the video from its platform on March 24, citing a “violation of Vimeo’s Terms of Service and/or Guidelines.”
“The [V]imeo link to ‘Climate the Movie’ I shared two days ago has been censored!” Nir Shaviv, a physics professor at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem who appeared in the film, posted on X. “Fully removed beyond the mere shadow blocking [YouTube] has.”
Neither Mr. Durkin nor Mr. Nelson were surprised.
“There’s something bigger going on behind the climate thing, beyond the narrow arguments about whether it’s true that [carbon dioxide] causes all this stuff—which, of course, it doesn’t,” Mr. Durkin told The Epoch Times. “There’s almost a blanket ban on skepticism on mainstream television.
“It’s a kind of Marxism, I suppose. There’s an entire class of people who have an interest in high levels of taxation and high levels of regulation, in what might broadly be termed the ‘publicly funded establishment’ and the ‘education establishment.’”
Mr. Nelson concurred. “There’s a big difference between the climate realists and the other side,” he told The Epoch Times. “[Climate alarmists] are constantly reporting us and tattle-telling on people that don’t agree with them.
“I never see [climate realists] saying, ‘let’s report people from the other side, and let’s take down their videos, let’s censor them.’ All the censorship is coming from one side, and all the free speech and ‘let’s debate’ is coming from our side. We want to talk about it because we’re confident with our evidence.”
Censorship Unchecked
Immediately after Vimeo removed Mr. Durkin’s film, he reached out to the platform, “You know, I’m a reasonably well-known, veteran filmmaker, award-winning,” he said. “And I told them [via an electronic form], ‘Look, all the archive and music is cleared. We see absolutely no reason whatsoever why this was suspended. We’ve got a lot of good scientists in it.”
Mr. Nelson posted to X, “Hey @Vimeo: Specifically what is your justification for censoring ‘Climate: The Movie’?” “A lot of people said they couldn’t believe it was being censored,” Mr. Nelson said. “But I never got an official response from anybody.”
Mr. Durkin didn’t get a response, either. “About 12 hours after I reached out, it went back up again. But we don’t know why. I presume that some ‘greens’ complained about it and that they automatically took it down. Fair dues to Vimeo that they put it back up, though, that was good.”
Climate the Movie: The Cold Truth. (Courtesy of Tom Nelson)
Vimeo wasn’t the only platform to take action against “Climate: The Movie.” On March 22, Food Lies, which has 44,000 subscribers, reported that when they first shared the movie on their channel, YouTube “immediately” removed it, and Food Lies had to seek special permission to repost.
When the report was granted, YouTube added the following contextual warming, “Climate change refers to long-term shifts in temperatures and weather patterns. Human activities have been the main driver of climate change, primarily due to the burning of fossil fuels like coal, oil, and gas,” and included a link to the United Nations’ “What is Climate Change?” website. Further, Mr. Nelson said he believes Google is censoring the movie’s website. “We may have been shadow-banned, but we can’t prove it either way,” he said. “I don’t think Google wants to direct people to our site.”
However, Mr. Nelson and Mr. Durkin agree that the purchase of Twitter by Elon Musk in 2022 changed the social media censorship game.
“I love the fact that X is open right now, and we’re able to talk freely on X,” Mr. Nelson said. “Because just two years ago, if this had come out when we were all suppressed, it would have made a big difference.”
(Left) SpaceX, Twitter, and Tesla CEO Elon Musk is seen during his visit at an event in Paris, on June 16, 2023. (Right) The new Twitter logo rebranded as X, pictured on a screen in Paris on July 24, 2023. (Alain Jocard/AFP via Getty Images)
“[Social media] is not so much a problem,” Mr. Durkin said. “Social media is leaky enough now that it gets out there.
“The bigger point is that I pitched this idea to the BBC and Channel Four about a year before I [was on Tom Nelson’s podcast]. Why, I have no idea. I knew they’d say no, but I think I wanted to satisfy myself. And, of course, they did say no.”
Mr. Durkin said that even if a station wanted to air a story expressing skepticism about the “climate crisis,” broadcast regulators in Canada, and the UK can destroy that station.
“In effect, they’re saying, ‘If you put out skeptical views, you’ll be sanctioned.’ And that can go as far as to have your broadcasting license revoked,” Mr. Durkin said. “So, you know, this is full-scale state censorship on mainstream media, and [the general public isn’t] making a fuss. We’re just sort of accepting that this is the case.”
Paying the Social Cost
When asked why “Climate: The Movie” has received such pushback, Mr. Durkin said it boils down to what he terms the “New Class.”
“Many of these characters have built their careers on the climate scam,” he said. “I mean, their reputations, their livelihoods, everything depends on it, and so they feel enormously threatened.
“But beyond that, there’s this kind of political-ideological movement; it’s not just about the weather. And the people who promote it—most of science is publicly funded, and lots of scientists are involved directly with publicly funded institutes—are part of that publicly funded establishment, so they have that worldview. “You know, if you look at the political analysis of people in universities, they are 99 percent Democrats, or left-wing even.
“And it’s now de rigueur in those circles to hate Trump, to believe that more regulation is a civilized thing, to think that public backing for the arts, is a good thing, and so on and so forth. And when you come out and say that you don’t think the climate thing is true, you’re not just making a narrow point about the medieval warm period, or the geological record, on temperature, you’re saying something much bigger, ideologically.
Republican presidential candidate and former President Donald J. Trump dances after speaking at a rally in Manchester, N.H., on Jan. 20, 2024. (Madalina Vasiliu/The Epoch Times)
“You’re saying that maybe Trump’s not so bad. And the Second Amendment is a good idea. And you’re suddenly lumping yourself in with the deplorables and people in pickup trucks. And if you’re in Britain with Brexiteers. You’re putting yourself in a whole other social caste, as it were.”
Mr. Durkin said that before the release of the film “The Great Global Warming Swindle,” in 2007, which the head of science at Channel Four asked him to make, he was considered to be one of the “hottest science documentary producers around,” and was regularly tasked by Channel Four to produce films. But after that film’s release, it took three years before Channel Four asked him back. He said the regular invites to dinner parties and social gatherings in London“media and academic types” dried up.
“My wife was extremely cross. There was a huge backlash, and she has really bad memories of the immediate aftermath of putting ‘Swindle’ out, and that’s why she was very, very reluctant to have me make another film,” Mr. Durkin said.
“So that part of the film, where we talked about the social cost of coming out against climate in terms of ostracism from a particular social class, the New Class, that was personal.”
The New Class
Mr. Durkin, who is publishing a book that takes a deep dive into the “New Class,” said one of the characteristics of that group is they consider themselves to be part of the intelligentsia. By that, he means those who have a university degree that has “very little application in the real world.”
“They hate capitalism because capitalism hates them, and the market hates them,” he said. “If you do a degree in sociology, what use are you to man or beast? If I’m running a lawnmower company, I do not need anyone with a degree in sociology.
“So, they resent that they’re not well received in the marketplace. And historically, they’ve embraced the state because it provides them with an income and a gratifying grand title if they’re working for some big government agency or forum: for the U.N., or an NGO, or for NOAA, or whatever.”
A general view shows a screen of votes during a United Nations General Assembly meeting to vote on a non-binding resolution demanding “an immediate humanitarian ceasefire” in Gaza at UN headquarters in New York on Dec. 12, 2023. (Angela Weiss/ AFP via Getty Images)
Mr. Durkin said the class is at odds with the working class and is “enormously powerful” because it’s part of the publicly funded establishment.
“Until we understand that they are a particular group, they have a particular set of interests, and those interests involve taking away our money and taking away our freedom, then we’re in trouble,” he said.
“I keep telling people, incredibly, in the US and the UK, more than twice as many people work in government as work in manufacturing.
“If you told some American in the early part of the 19th century that that could ever happen, they would have thought you were absolutely nuts.”
Moscow’s defiance of Western elements, particularly the economic sanctions and the military aid to Ukraine, has not only set an example for other nations to follow but also eroded the legitimacy of the West’s ideological supremacy.
On March 18, Vladimir Putin emerged as the winner of Russia’s presidential elections, marking his fifth term as President of Russia. This occurred despite complications. While it is common for Russia to be the target of cyber-attacks, this year has witnessed record levels of such breaches on the country’s electronic voting platform, with most attacks stemming from the US.
Putin’s landslide victory solicited positive reactions from many across the Global South. Leaders from multiple countries, including Iran, China, South Africa, Belarus, the DPRK, members of the Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS), and several Latin American nations have welcomed his reelection.
The Collective West, on its part, has been eerily silent about the win. A few exceptions surfaced on the X platform, with, for instance, President of the European Council Charles Michel reiterating the standard accusation that Russian elections are undemocratic. “No opposition. No freedom. No choice,” the tweet read. So much for being disgruntled. Nevertheless, the bloc has obvious reasons for displaying such dismay.
Ukraine war
Two years into the war in Ukraine, discussions on a potential peace deal involving the withdrawal of Russian troops in exchange for retaining territory have begun to pick up speed. The costs of this war were paramount for both the West and Russia, but particularly for the EU. The de-industrialization accompanying sanctions on Russia has resulted in disastrous outcomes for the Euro economy, pushing millions into financial insecurity, while the bloc grapples with efforts to restore economic growth.
More concerning is a decline in US support which has placed the EU in an awkward position. Although the White House recently unveiled a stopgap aid plan for Ukraine valued at $300 million, prior delays in aid delivery, fueled by congressional disputes over the border crisis, have left NATO allies questioning the US’s commitment to the conflict.
During a recent address before Western leaders at a Ukraine-focused event, French President Emmanuel Macron echoed these concerns by questioning the wisdom of entrusting Europe’s future to the American electorate. “Should we entrust our future to the American electorate? My answer is no. Let’s not wait for the outcome,” he said.
When Macron mentioned the possibility of deploying NATO forces in Ukraine, some perceived his statement as controversial or bold, only for reports to later emerge and reveal that NATO forces are already in Ukraine. But given the fact that the Ukraine war is not considered a de facto war from the Russian perspective, one can only speculate about the potential scale of a full-fledged conflict with the NATO alliance.
Western Hegemony
From a Global South perspective, the true achievement lies in Putin’s defiance of NATO. It lies in challenging the forces that for years have kept the masses in a state of social, ideological, and historical paralysis. Where the West sees aggression and destabilization, the South sees retribution. The fact is that Russia was deceived by the West over the Minsk agreement.
If one finds it peculiar that the Ukraine war garners very little to no support in the South, the case is far from mere coincidence. The extensive legacy of the West spanning hundreds of years serves as a testament to the destructive nature of its foreign policy. In the Global South, where the collective memory of millions who perished under the weight of imperialism and military aggression remains vivid and lucid, the realities at play are crystal clear.
The Ukraine war is not merely a war for the preservation of Russia’s national security but also a war for the thousands of mothers who gave birth to malformed babies due to contamination from NATO’s use of depleted uranium ammunition in Iraq, Libya, Afghanistan and Serbia, a type of shell which has been shown to increase cancer rates and other forms of disease in targeted countries. It is a war for those thousands of people who succumbed to their illnesses as a result of sanctions that prevented the entry of crucial medical aid. It is also a war for the comrades in Iran, Indonesia, and several countries across Latin America and Africa who died resisting injustice and oppression at the hands of imperialist stooges.
Ukraine’s humiliation and Gaza’s shame accelerating estrangement of West and the rest at a crucial turning point in global power relations
With the United States entangled in conflicts in Ukraine and Gaza and the threat of a war with China looming large, Professor Michael Brenner’s insights and views on the state of the US-led liberal order are arguably as timely and important as ever.
Brenner, a respected luminary on transatlantic relations and international security, is Professor Emeritus of International Affairs at the University of Pittsburgh and a Senior Fellow at the Center for Transatlantic Relations at the Johns Hopkins School of Advanced International Studies (SAIS).
He has also served at the Foreign Service Institute, the US Department of Defense and Westinghouse. In a wide-ranging and no-holds-barred interview with Asia Times’ contributor Adriel Kasonta, Brenner lays out how the US and collective West lost their moral authority and way.
Adriel Kasonta: Despite what we hear from the Western political class and the compliant stenographers from the mainstream media, the world doesn’t seem to look as they want us to believe. The hard reality on the ground, known to anyone who lives anywhere but Europe or the US, is that the collective West is experiencing an accelerated decline in political and economic domains, with significant moral ramifications. Could you please tell our readers what is the root cause of this state of affairs and what is the rationale behind continuing this collective suicide?
Michael Brenner: I suggest that we formulate the issue by asking what is the causal direction between the moral decline and the collective West’s political and economic decline? On Ukraine, it has been a fundamental geostrategic error that has had negative moral consequences: the cynical sacrifice of half a million Ukrainians used as cannon fodder and physical destruction of the country, in the cause of weakening and marginalizing Russia.
The stunning feature of the Palestine affair is the readiness of immoral government elites – indeed the near entirety of the political class – to give their implicit blessing to the atrocities and war crimes Israel has committed over the past five months, which is having profound repercussions on the West’s standing and influence globally.
At one moment, they speak proudly about the superiority of Western values while condemning the practices of other countries; at another, they lean over backwards to justify far greater humanitarian abuses, to provide the perpetrator with the arms to destroy to kill and to maim innocent civilians, and in the case of the United States, to extend diplomatic cover in the United Nations Security Council.
In the process, they are dissipating their standing in the eyes of the world outside the West, representing two-thirds of humanity. The latter’s historical dealings with the countries of the West, including the relatively recent past, left a residue of skepticism about American-led claims to being the world’s ethical standard setters. That sentiment has given way to outright disgust in the face of this blatant display of hypocrisy. Moreover, it exposes the harsh truth that racist attitudes never had been fully extinguished – after a period of dormancy, its recrudescence is manifest.
As far as the United States is concerned, the reference points for this judgment are not the mythic image of “the city on the Hill”; the last, best hope of mankind; the indispensable nation for achieving global peace and stability: the Providential people born in a state of Original Virtue destined to lead the world down the path of Enlightenment. None of those idealistic standards. No, it has debased itself when measured against the prosaic standards of human decency, of responsible statecraft, of a decent respect for the opinions of humankind.
Moreover, the ensuing estrangement between the West and the rest is occurring at a turning point in international power relationships. It is a time when the tectonic plates of the political world are shifting, when the old constellations of power and of influence are being successfully challenged, when America has responded to feelings of self-doubt as the ordained global guide and overseer by compulsive, futile displays of muscle flexing.
Anxiety and self-doubt masked by false bravado is the hallmark sentiment among America’s political elites. That is a poor starting point for a re-engagement with reality. Americans are too attached to their exalted self-image, too narcissistic – collectively and individually, too lacking in self-awareness, too leaderless to make that wrenching adaptation. Those appraisals apply to Western Europe as to the United States. Leaving a diminished, aggrieved but unrepentant trans-Atlantic community.
AK: In your recent essay “The West’s Reckoning?”, you mentioned that the situation in Ukraine humiliates the West and the tragedy in Gaza shames it. Can you expand on this a bit more?
Photo: Courtesy of Michale Brenner
MB: Defeat in Ukraine entails much more than the military collapse of the Ukrainian forces that is in the cards. For the United States has led its allies into what amounts to a campaign to permanently diminish Russia, to neutralize it as a political or economic presence in Europe, to eliminate a major obstacle to consolidating American global hegemony.
The West has thrown everything they have into that campaign: their stock of modern weapons, a corps of advisers, tens of billions of dollars, a draconian set of economic sanctions designed to bring the Russian economy to its knees and a relentless project aimed at isolating Russia and undermining Putin’s position.
It has failed ignominiously on every count. Russia is considerably stronger on every dimension than it was before the war; its economy is more robust than any Western economy; it has proven to be militarily superior; and it has won the sympathies of nearly the entire world outside the collective West.
The assumption that the West remains custodial of global affairs has proven a fantasy. Such comprehensive failure has meant a decline in the United States’ ability to shape world affairs on matters economic and security. The Sino-Russian partnership is now ensconced as a rival equal to the West in every respect.
That outcome derives from hubris, dogmatism and a flight from reality. Now, the West’s self-respect and image is being scarred by its role in the Palestine catastrophe. So, now it faces the double challenge of restoring its sense of prowess while at the same time regaining its moral bearings.
AK: Is it accurate to say that Ukraine and Gaza are connected in the sense that both indicate a failing liberal international order that is attempting to prevent itself from collapsing and causing turmoil as it descends into oblivion? If so, what are some potential outcomes for the future?
MB: Let’s bear in mind that the liberal international order serves Western interests above all. Its workings were biased in our favor. That’s one. The regularity and stability that it produced, for which the IMF, World Bank, etc were the institutional cynosure, ensured for decades that it would go unchallenged. That is two.
The rise of new power centers – China, above all, and the wider centripetal forces redistributing assets more generally – has left the United States and its European dependents with two choices. Accommodate themselves to this new situation by: a) hammering out terms of engagement that accorded a larger place for the newcomers; b) resetting the rules of the game so as to remove the current bias; c) adjusting the structure and procedures of international institutions in a manner reflecting the end of Western dominance; and d) rediscovering genuine diplomacy.
Nowhere in the West has that option been seriously considered. So, after a period of ambivalence and muddling, all signed onto an American project to prevent the emergence of challengers, to undermine them and to double down on assertive policies to yield nothing, to compromise nothing. We remain locked on that course despite serial failures, humiliations and the impetus given the BRICS project.
AK: According to some Western politicians and policymakers, other global powers are often treated as passive actors without agency or power to shape the world according to their national interests. This Manichean worldview is marked by a distinction between the “rules-based order” and international law or “democracy vs authoritarianism.” Is there an alternative to this thinking and what are the chances of change occurring before it’s too late?
MB: See above response. There are no signs that Western leaders are prepared intellectually, emotionally or politically to make the necessary adjustments. Necessity is not always the mother of invention. Instead, we see stubborn dogmatism, avoidance behavior and a deeper plunge into a world of fantasies.
The American reaction to manifestations of declining prowess is denial along with compulsion to reassure itself that it still has the “right stuff” through increasingly audacious acts. We are seeing where that has led in Ukraine. Far more dangerous is the reckless dispatch of troops to Taiwan.
As for Europe, it is evident that its political elites have been denatured by 75 years of near-total dependence on America. A complete absence of independent thinking and willpower is the outcome. In more concrete ways, Europe’s vassalage to the United States obliges it to follow Washington down whatever policy road the seigneur takes – however reckless, dangerous, unethical and counterproductive.
In predictable fashion, they have walked (or run) like lemmings over whatever cliff the United States chooses next under its own suicidal impulses. So it’s been in Iraq, in Syria, in Afghanistan, in regard to Iran, in Ukraine, on Taiwan and on all matters involving Israel. The string of painful failures and heavy costs produces no change in loyalty or mindset.
A printed photograph of a US Army soldier in a chair among the trailer trucks, and electronics which sold for the price of iron at a bazaar outside airfield in the Bagram district north of Kabul, Afghanistan, on May 19, 2021. Photo: Asia Times Files / AFP via Anadolu Agency / Haroon Sabawoon
It cannot – for the Europeans have absorbed totally the habit of deference, the Americans’ worldview, their skewed interpretation of outcomes and their shamefully fictitious narratives. The Europeans no more can throw this addiction than a life-long alcoholic can go cold turkey.
AK: There has been a lot of discussion about the negative impact of neoconservatism on US foreign policy and the world. In essence, neoconservatism seeks the role of the US to dominate not only the Western Hemisphere (as per the Monroe Doctrine) but the entire world, as per the Wolfowitz Doctrine.
Although some US think tanks are now advocating for an end to the “never-ending wars” in the Middle East and for Europe to continue the US-provoked proxy war with Russia, it seems that the neoconservative ideology has taken on a new guise of “progressivism” and “realism”, and now aims to focus solely on China, even to the point of replicating the Ukraine scenario in Taiwan. How accurate is this assessment?
MB: The entire foreign policy community in the United States now shares the basic tenets of neoconservatives. Actually, the scripture is Paul Wolfowitz’s notorious memorandum of March 1991 wherein he laid out a comprehensive, detailed strategy for systematizing American global dominance. Everything that Washington is doing, and thinking, now is derivative of that plan.
Its core principles: the United States should use all the means at its disposal to establish American global dominance; to that end, it must be ready to act preventively to stymie the emergence of any power that could challenge our hegemony; and to maintain full spectrum dominance in every region of the globe. Ideals and values are relegated to an auxiliary role as a veneer on the application of power and as a stick with which to beat others. Classic diplomacy is disparaged as inappropriate to this scheme of things.
For Biden himself, a confident, assertive, hard-edged approach to dealing with others derives naturally from belief in Americanism as a Unified Field Theory that explains, interprets and justifies whatever the US thinks and does. Were Biden reelected, this outlook will remain unchanged. And were he to be replaced by Kamala Harris mid-term, which is likely, inertia will keep everything on the fixed course.
AK: Do you think the United States is destined to remain a global empire, constantly in conflict with anyone it perceives as a potential threat to its world dominance? Or is it possible for the country to become a republic that collaborates constructively with other global players to achieve greater benefits for its citizens and the broader international community? As the saying goes, “Those who live by the sword, die by the sword,” right?
MB: I’m a pessimist. For there are no signs that either our rulers, elites or public are susceptible to coming to terms with the state of affairs depicted above. The open question is whether this pretense will simply persist as a gradual weakening of global influence and domestic well-being unfolds, or, rather, will end in disaster.
Europeans and allies elsewhere should not accept to be sideline observers nor, even worse, become co-inhabitants of this world of fantasy as they have in Ukraine, on Palestine and in demonizing China.
Michael Brenner is the author of numerous books and over 80 articles and published papers. His most recent works include “Democracy Promotion and Islam”; “Fear and Dread In The Middle East”; “Toward A More Independent Europe”; “Narcissistic Public Personalities & Our Times.”
His writings include books with Cambridge University Press (“Nuclear Power and Non Proliferation”), the Center For International Affairs at Harvard University (“The Politics of International Monetary Reform”), and the Brookings Institution (“Reconcilable Differences, US-French Relations In The New Era”). He is reachable at mbren@pitt.edu
The Crocus Mall attack, who did it? Was it the Ukrainian Zionists? Or maybe the British Zionists? How about the Israeli Zionists? Or better yet, was it the American Zionists, better known as the neocons? Maybe all of the above, what’s the difference?
The perpetrators were not religious fundamentalists, as recognized by Peskov, Patrushev, and others. They were indeed Muslims, but they were hired guns for money. No Allahu Akbar, no suicide attack, just a transactional deal. Paid killers.
I was about to say paid professional killers, but while they were killers, they were not professionals. “Professionals” would mean at the very least that they would have dispersed and disappeared in the general population afterward. Instead, they were driving at 137 Km an hour on 80 to 100 Km/h roads, straight into the police dragnet waiting for them at the Ukrainian border.
From the other end of the world, the US came forward to point to the usual bogus suspects. The only scapegoats the US has for all-weather bad events are the ubiquitous Arabs, Muslims, or a combination thereof.
But who could have had the motive? Sure, the illegitimate Ukrainian government had a motive. Just 2 days before, their entire energy infrastructure was wiped out by the rain of Russian Kalibr missiles. For the first time, there was no more room to brag about how many Russian missiles they’ve downed. The evidence and the irreparable damage were immense. So, yes, they were motivated to show the Russians that they are not dead yet.
As for the Israelis, they were boxed in by a Russian government who at the very least supported and pleaded at the UN for an immediate ceasefire. The Russians were defiantly sending cargos of food aid to the Palestinians in Gaza, and they had a plan for a role for Hamas in Gaza, post-war, as well as working hard to unify all the Palestinian factions into a united front against the illegal Israeli occupation. Furthermore, they tacitly support the Iranians, who support the Houthis who declared an embargo on shipping vessels connected to Israel.
The British Jews have always been enthralled to strike at Russian interests (for over 200 years) and should there be a plot to do that, why would they miss a good thrill and not support it unconditionally? That’s their modus operandi in world affairs.
Now, the American neocons. They are on record, getting up to all kinds of tricks to shake Russia’s sovereignty and shatter its defenses. But not just defense, the neocons openly profess their manifest intent to break up the Russian state, to terminate Russia’s economic survival, Russia’s very existence.
It is easy to see that the rush to create an immediate counterattack against Russia in a massive terrorist act causing mass casualties while at the same time hiding behind full deniability only left more fingerprints, more holes in the narrative, which together with the capture of the perpetrators leaves very little doubt about the West’s duplicity and complicity.
We have two simultaneous wars going on: one is the actual hot war and the other is the blame war. Regardless of the true identities of the perpetrators, the perception of who can be blamed in the most useful way by each of parties is just as important. Just as the Anglozionists’ scapegoats are always the Arabs, so are the Ukrainians these days for Russia. Have you noticed that the people around Putin never call out Mossad or Israel or Netanyahu, never mention one unsavory act done by Israel? Never condemn Israel for killing Palestinians, never condemn Israel for the illegal occupation, never condemn any of the outrageous statements made by the members of Netanyahu’s cabinet, never condemn the mass bombings of Palestinian cities, never condemn the Gulag imposed by Israel on the native population of Palestine, etc., etc. Why is that?!
On the other hand, Moscow’s mere abstention from joining the anti Hamas chorus was reason enough for Amir Weitmann, of Israel’s ruling Likud Party, to promise revenge on Russia: “Russia is supporting Nazis who want to commit genocide against us. Russia will pay the price.”
That is a direct threat. And so is the threat made by the Israeli ambassador to the UN, Gilad Erdan, against Russia: “Russia is hosting those who are responsible for intentionally murdering babies, raping women, and burning families alive,” Erdan stated. He added that “this meeting in Moscow [with Hamas] is a result of something more dangerous. Russia is now deepening its ties with global forces of destabilization.”
“Both of our countries – Ukraine and Israel – are fighting a battle for our survival,” Erdan stated, underscoring that Jerusalem and Kyiv were standing strong together in solidarity while “the free world stands on the sidelines divided.” — “We, Israel and Ukraine, are the canaries in the coal mine. To the rest of the free world, I say: Wake up! Wake up!” Erdan stated.
And to make it even clearer, he highlighted “the similarities between Ukraine, which was attacked by Russia that invaded its territory and fires missiles at civilians, and Israel, which suffered a massacre and an invasion by Hamas that fires missiles at Israeli citizens.”
These statements in themselves position Israel as a declared enemy of Russia, and those words are only outmatched by President Biden’s calling President Putin a “thug” and a “butcher” to be dealt with. So who did it? They all did it as one.
Image: YouTube Screengrab / Getty
Photo: Courtesy of Michale Brenner
A printed photograph of a US Army soldier in a chair among the trailer trucks, and electronics which sold for the price of iron at a bazaar outside airfield in the Bagram district north of Kabul, Afghanistan, on May 19, 2021. Photo: Asia Times Files / AFP via Anadolu Agency / Haroon Sabawoon