Novel thinkers and those with original ideas, coupled with gifts of clairvoyance, are always initially challenged and ostracized by the masses, who are then used by corrupt political leadership to justify horrific actions of exclusion, persecution, and damnation of their enemies.
For more than 50 years, Lyndon LaRouche has been writing, lecturing, teaching, and warning Americans and the rest of the people of the world, about the exact same issues pertaining to economics, global governance, and the agenda of the Oligarch/ Plutocrat/ Deep State lunatic fringe who Donald Trump and the majority of America (and the world) are now fighting against.
To be sure, at the time Lyndon LaRouche was railing against these enemies of humanity in the 1970s and 80s, both before and during the Ronald Reagan administration, his enemies were so strong that they were able to character assassinate and marginalize him from political power, and they were also able to set him up for what he alleges was a false and contrived criminal case, sentencing this wise learned gentleman to prison for many years, where inside he was apparently attacked and attempts were made to murder him.
But Lyndon LaRouche, who is not only one of the world’s greatest thinkers/writers, is also one of its most resilient, and he survived this slow assassination plot hatched by his enemies, and is now living in Germany.
His enemies and betrayers were allegedly people like George H W Bush and the rest of the New World Order globalist/skull and bones secret societies, which were beholden to the City of London within the United Kingdom and its crown, rather than to the United States of America and its People.
To that end Lyndon LaRouche’s enemies have now been revealed, over the past few years especially, to be the enemies of the American People.
One recalls at a media press conference in the late 1990s, wherein James Woolsey, formerly head of the CIA, who is an open and avowed NWO globalist, openly castigated, humiliated, and verbally assaulted a member of the press corp asking a question that was both intelligent and insightful, as soon as Woolsey learned that this media representative was from the Executive Intelligence Review (“EIR”), funded, led and spearheaded by Lyndon LaRouche. James Woolsey has now been banished from the halls of power by the Donald Trump administration and the rest of America, for his political background/motivations have been revealed to the American public and the rest of the world, as have the rest of the rabid Neo-Cons, Neo-Liberals, and other Trotsky-ite communists and Stasi-like proponents of a technocratic global New World Order where the masses are considered cattle, and their ruling Oligarchs/Plutocrats are designed to be their sheep-herders.
Oscar Wilde wrote that “You can always judge a man by the quality of his enemies” – well if that is the case then Lyndon LaLarouche may be the second coming of Christ.
Lyndon LaRouche has stated that the people who wanted him dead and gone were entities such as the Queen of the United Kingdom, the Council on Foreign Relations, the Justice Department, and the Mossad.
He further fingered the CIA and British intelligence, as well as Communists, extreme/militant Zionists, Narcotics Gangsters, the Rockefellers, powerful bankers, globalists, Henry Kissinger, Averell Harriman, international socialists and Nazis, and International Terrorists.
Whatever Lyndon LaRouche’s history and evolution throughout his life, much of which has been controversial and difficult to understand, one must admit that this list of enemies is truly impressive, and have now been established to be enemies of the American people and the rest of the world.
The problem is that 40-50 years ago, no one knew who these people were, or why they were motivated against him, as they had a complete and total stranglehold on the media and the power structure within the USA and the world, and so truly no one in the American masses knew about it.
Some of the issues and political agendas of Lyndon LaRouche that he has supported and espoused over the last 40-50 years resulted in his powerful enemies removing him from political power, forcing him away from his American podium, exiling him from the United States of America, and confining him to a prison for a dubious crime like Jean Valjean in Les Misérables:
(1) he is against rabid environmental protectionism, and instead opts for bolstering and growing the American and world economies through manufacturing, industry and great jobs;
(2) he has called out our corrupt political leadership who often engage in behavior/actions against the interests of the American people (and the world) because he has uncovered their allegiance to the City of London in the United Kingdom and British Crown, rather than the interests of the American people;
(3) he is a supporter of the international balance of power approach, against stupid foreign wars of intervention, as he discovered long ago that this was only in the interest of the international Oligarch/Plutocrat elite, while undermining and disenfranchising the American people (and the rest of the world);
(4) he is a supporter of better relations with all nations and countries of the world, trading honestly with all, entangling alliances with none, as was typified and instructed by Thomas Jefferson;
(5) he is a supporter of the BRICS banking paradigm, which seeks to challenge the bankster hegemony being foisted and perpetrated against the third and second world and its people, while simultaneously devaluing American currency and oppressing the citizens of the USA;
(6) he is 100% in favor of bringing high paying quality jobs in manufacturing, industry, and other hard employment with higher salaries and better longevity and working conditions back to the United States, after the awful carnage that was inflicted on the American people by the pro-NAFTA corporate/government fascist crowd, which sent tens of millions of American jobs and its corporations overseas (President Donald Trump has made this a cornerstone of his entire Presidential Administration, if not all of the above issues as well);
(7) he is for abolishing (or at least auditing) the Federal Reserve, which he views as the ultimate harbinger and source of evil, for which countless intellectual luminaries of the modern age have profoundly supported and espoused, but Lyndon LaRouche was talking about this 50 years ago;
(8) he is against wholesale and systematic corruption within all 3 branches of the US government, having traced its economic and financial fount to the City of London and its UK proponents;
(9) he is against a biased and corrupted media, speaking out against its rapid consolidation so that it could better brainwash and mind-control the American people and the rest of the world into accepting the long-term enslavement visions of the global Oligarchs and Plutocratic feudal masters who lurk in the shadows;
(10) He is completely against the doctrines of Neo-Conservatism in our foreign policy, against useless stupid foreign wars, and routinely calls out people like US State Department Chief Victoria Nuland for destroying and sabotaging other sovereign foreign nations in their bloodlust and thirst for global hegemony at the expense of the world’s people, and only beneficial to its Oligarch masters;
(11) A return to the Bretton Woods system, including a gold-based national and world monetary system, fixed exchange rates, and ending the IMF;
(12) Replacement of the central bank system, including the U.S. Federal Reserve System, with a national bank;
(13) A war on drug trafficking and prosecution of banks involved in money laundering;
(14) Building of nuclear power plants;
(15) Opposition to excessive environmentalism, deregulation, outcome-based education, and abortion;
(16) Immediate reinstatement of the Glass-Steagall Act which separated private mom and pop checking/savings accounts from the risky “casino-like” investment habits/tactics of the major banks, the repeal of which in 1998 by then President Bill Clinton under pressure from Goldman Sachs/Treasury Secretaries/Economic Advisors Robert Rubin, Larry Summers, Gene Sperling and others within the Central Banker cabal led directly to the financial cataclysm of 2008 wherein the American People were forced to bail out these reckless banks with their taxpayer dollars;
These are only a few of Lyndon LaRouche’s original and greatest original contributions to humanity for the past 50 years.
In December 1980, LaRouche and his followers started what came to be known as the “October Surprise” allegation, namely that in October 1980 Ronald Reagan’s campaign staff conspired with the Iranian government during the Iran hostage crisis to delay the release of 52 American hostages held in Iran, with the aim of helping Reagan win the 1980 presidential election against Jimmy Carter. The Iranians had agreed to this, according to the theory, in exchange for future weapons sales from the Reagan administration. The first publication of the story was in LaRouche’s Executive Intelligence Review on December 2, 1980, followed by his New Solidarity on September 2, 1983, alleging that Henry Kissinger, one of LaRouche’s regular targets, had met Iran’s Ayatollah Beheshti in Paris, according to Iranian sources in Paris. The theory was later echoed by former Iranian President Abulhassan Banisadr and former Naval intelligence officer and National Security Council member Gary Sick. This of course all led to the famous “Iran Contra Affair,” which resulted in several prosecutions and congressional inquiry into the “hidden hands” of backroom black market clandestine operations at the expense of the American people.
In 2002 LaRouche’s Executive Intelligence Review argued that the September 11, 2001, attacks had been an “inside job” and “attempted coup d’etat,” and that Iran was the first country to question it. The article received wide coverage in Iran, and was cited by senior Iranian government officials, including Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani and Hassan Rowhani. Mahmoud Alinejad writes that, in a subsequent telephone interview with the Voice of the Islamic Republic of Iran, LaRouche said the attacks had been organized by rogue elements inside the U.S., aiming to use the incident to promote a war against Islam, and that Israel was a dictatorial regime prepared to commit Nazi-style crimes against the Palestinians.
There are countless thousands of anecdotes and pieces of essential and important trivia regarding this great man’s life, and it would be impossible to list them all here.
According to George Johnson, LaRouche sees history as a battle between Platonists (eg Beethoven, Mozart, Shakespeare, Leonardo da Vinci, and Leibniz) who believe in absolute truth, and Aristotelians (eg Hobbes, Locke, Berkeley, and Hume) who rely on empirical data.
According to Lyndon LaRouche, industry, technology, and classical music should be used to enlighten the world, whereas psychotherapy, drugs, rock music, jazz, environmentalism, and quantum theory simply bring about a new dark age in which the world will be ruled by the oligarchs.
LaRouche and his ideas have been called anti-semitic since at least the mid-1970s by dozens of individuals and organizations in countries across Europe and North America. LaRouche and his followers have responded to these allegations by claiming that LaRouche has countless Jewish supporters in his inner circle, and has vociferously denied these allegations.
In 1977 LaRouche married his current wife, Helga Zepp-LaRouche, who is German and 27 years younger than him. Her 1984 book, “The Hitler Book” argues that “We need a movement that can finally free Germany from the control of the Versailles and Yalta treaties, thanks to which we have staggered from one catastrophe to another for an entire century.” Helga founded the Schiller Institute, which has been accused of antisemitism by the Berliner Zeitung and Political Research Associates, a non-profit research group that studies right wing, white supremacist, and militia groups.
LaRouche maintains that he is anti-Zionist, not anti-semitic. When the Anti-Defamation League accused LaRouche of anti-semitism in 1979, he filed a $26-million libel suit.
Lyndon LaRouche said in 2006 wrote that “religious and racial hatred, such as antisemitism, or hatred against Islam, or, hatred of Christians, is, on record of known history, the most evil expression of criminality to be seen on the planet today.”
Now that Donald Trump is President of the United States, perhaps Lyndon LaRouche will be allowed to emerge from forced exile, as his enemies have now been outed and routed, and he should take his rightful place amongst one of America’s greatest heroes, thinkers, philosophers, writers, lovers of humanity and the United States of America.
Why are some Muslims, from India to the U.S Voting against their Natural Allies
Recent national elections in the U.S. and regional elections in India have presented an interesting conundrum. The numbers show that some Muslims, are voting in a counter-intuitive fashion. Given the rise of Islamophobia and right-wing religious nationalism, both in the U.S. and in India, one would surmise that Muslims would vote overwhelmingly to the left of center. But both, in India and in the U.S., many Muslims have however chosen to send a message to the center-left – your sympathetic rhetoric and your verbal condemnations of Islamophobia is not enough, we want to see concrete policies that improve our political and economic conditions. Neither the promises of Joe Biden, nor the fear of Hindu-nationalism is influencing their vote. These Muslims are, for sure, in a minority albeit a growing one. Politicians on the center-left may ignore them at their own peril.
In the U.S.
In the U.S., President-Elect Joe Biden’s campaign outreach to Muslims went far beyond that of any presidential candidate in the past. Biden’s campaign had a manifesto for American Muslims and a designated outreach person. Biden spoke at Muslim conventions and even quoted from Islamic scripture. He dropped an “inshallah” in the debates. Biden promised to end the so called ‘Muslim-Ban’ on day one and has repeatedly condemned Islamophobia. Biden spoke up for Uyghur Muslims in China and Kashmiris in India and has opposed the annexation of West Bank. He has promised to resume relations with the Palestinians and restore aid to them. Even Imran Khan, the PM of Pakistan, a self-proclaimed champion of Muslims, does not have such an impressive pro-Muslim curriculum vitae, he has repeatedly refused to speak up for the Uyghurs.
While a majority of American Muslims campaigned very aggressively for the Biden-Harris ticket and raised millions of dollars for the Democrats, the exit polls indicate that only 69% of American Muslims voted for them. On the face value that is a huge win, but if you look at in comparison to the past it is troubling. Despite the fact that Biden went far beyond any other candidate in his outreach to Muslims, and the Islamophobia of President Trump is well documented, Biden has garnered the least percentage of votes by a Democratic presidential candidate in the last four elections according to exit polls conducted by the Council on American Islamic Relations.
A possible explanation for this relatively weak performance is that, for some Muslims his “iron-clad” support for Israel and his willingness to work with pro-Hindutva operatives in the U.S., make his opposition to Islamophobia sound less credible. Words are not enough. If his electoral promises do not actually translate into actual policies, one can expect further decline in Muslim support for Democrats. American Muslims are a rapidly growing and politically engaged community that is over represented in swing states.
A closer reading of the exit polls suggest that things are worse than they seem. The exit polls show that while 17% American Muslims voted for Trump (up from 13% in 2016), 11% declined to reveal who they voted for. It is possible that they lean heavily towards Trump, hence the secrecy. That would mean that in spite of all his Islamophobic rhetoric, Trump may have doubled his support among American Muslims. One Trump supporter told me he voted for Trump because Trump did not invade a single Muslim country in four years unlike Biden who supported the invasion of Iraq.
The recent elections in Bihar has an interesting story to tell. The state is clearly polarizing as most gains have been made by parties on the extremities. Prime minister Modi’s right-wing Bhartiya Janata Party (BJP) went from winning 53 wins in the 2015 elections to winning 74 of the 243 seats in 2020. A significant swing in favor of Hindutva ideology. The Communist Party (CPI-ML) gained 9 seats, it had 3 seats in 2015 to 12 seats in 2020. The communist parties combined had a 400% increase, they went from 4 to 16 seats. The parties in decline are the so-called secular centrist parties. The Rastriya Janata Dal (RJD) which is the biggest single party in the state lost five seats (80-75) and the Indian National Congress (INC), the grand old party of India, also lost ground (27-19).
Clearly the secular center is shrinking. The biggest surprise of the elections was the performance of Asaduddin Owaisi’s All Indian MajlisIttehadul Muslimeen (AIMIM), a Muslim party, which in the past five years has gone from 0-5 seats. The Majlis won in predominantly Muslim area of Seemanchal and is being accused by commentators of stealing the secular vote away from secular parties. Some are describing Majlis as BJP’s B-Team.
It is interesting that now in Indian politics, the code for Muslim vote is ‘the secular vote’. Indian Muslims are now the last line of defense for the rather rapidly shriveling secular space. The criticism of Owaisi and the Majlis for denting the prospects of secular parties in Bihar is both misplaced and inaccurate. The question that is important is not why Owaisi’s Majlis, a party historically based in Hyderabad (South India) is contesting elections so far in the North of India. The key question is why are Muslims in Bihar voting for Majlis? A party that has no record of governance in their region.
In a speech months before the elections, Owaisi predicted a tectonic shift in Seemanchal’s politics and he said that it was coming because of the profound injustices and inequities that plague Muslims of that region. If secular parties that have governed the state for decades had delivered good governance to Muslims, Owaisi would have stayed at home.
Muslims are increasingly disillusioned by secular and left politicians. Islamophobia was on the rise even before Trump became President and 37% of American Muslims, pre-covid pandemic, were found hovering near the poverty line. There is much discontent. I think just as 17-25% American Muslims voted for Trump rejecting the centrist politics of Democrats – many Muslims in Bihar too are frustrated by the failure of secular parties to improve their material condition. The region of Bihar where Owaisi’s party won five seats is the poorest and infrastructurally the least developed area of the state. Voting for secular parties for decades did not help them much. They have been voting without hope. They too are tired of the lip service.
Muslims of Bihar are fortunate that they have an alternative in Majlis and they are able to reject both Indian secularists and Hindu nationalists unlike some American Muslims who feel that they are stuck between Republicans who are Islamophobic and Democrats who promise much but deliver little. The minority of Muslims who appear to be voting counter intuitively, seemingly against their own interests, either for Donald Trump in the U.S. or the Majlis in Bihar, are clearly sending a signal to secular politicians – do not take our vote for granted, you need to earn our vote.
The center-left may be a natural ally of Muslims, but if it does not deliver for Muslims, they may lose their vote in ever increasing numbers.
Which Coronavirus Policies Succeed, And Which Fail: N.Y. Times Analysis Confirms Mine
According to an analysis by and in the New York Times on November 18th, which is headlined “States That Imposed Few Restrictions Now Have the Worst Outbreaks”, “Coronavirus cases are rising in almost every U.S. state. But the surge is worst now in places where leaders neglected to keep up forceful virus containment efforts or failed to implement basic measures like mask mandates in the first place, according to a New York Times analysis of data from the University of Oxford.”
At Strategic Culture, on May 21, I had published my own analysis, which was based upon tracking the data globally and within countries, and within the various states of the United States, which analysis concluded that countries (and states) which apply the least-stringent regulations in order to keep as low as possible the spread of the virus are failing the most to contain or limit that spread. I labelled those the “libertarian” countries, and I noted that what I called the “socialist” countries — the nations which were the most strictly imposing scientifically confirmed regulations in order to keep those numbers down — were having the best success at limiting the spread of this virus. My study was global, and its headline was “Ideology and Coronavirus”. Unlike the Times article, I was forthright about the ideological implications of the coronavirus data — because those implications are vastly important. (The handling of this pandemic is providing reams of data that test the effectiveness of the various locales’ predominant ideology at dealing with a global life-or-death years-long public-health emergency in regions throughout the world. This is like a global laboratory experiment testing the two opposite ideologies: libertarianism, which is against government regulation, versus socialism, which applies government regulation. No government is purely one or the other, but those are the two poles.)
The analysis in the Times article shows a chart, and represents on it almost all of the states, as dots that indicate both the amount of regulation which has been applied, and the lowness of the infection-rate which has resulted; and, at the upper left corner on it, are the two Dakotas, as “Weak recent containment measures and many cases,” while at the bottom rightmost corner is Hawaii as “Strict measures and fewer cases.”
The Times chart is showing, only locally within the United States, during just the past few weeks, what my analyses had shown, regarding not only the international and longer-term data, but also within the United States itself and recently, not only longer-term and internationally. One of my articles, on November 1st and titled “The Highest Covid-Infection-Rate States”, showed the infection-rate for all 50 states, and noted that, “In 2016, the top 17 [the states with the highest rates of this infection in 2020] voted for Trump, and the bottom 5 voted for Clinton. All but 3 of the top 24 voted for Trump, but from numbers 25 to 45, there was a political mixture. The highest infection-rate state, North Dakota, has a Covid-19 infection-rate that is 14.6 times higher than the lowest Covid-19 infection-rate state, Vermont.” Of course, the Republican Party (Trump’s Party) is the more libertarian Party, and the Democratic Party (Clinton’s Party) is the more socialist (though actually just as totalitarian) of the two Parties. (Both Parties represent only their billionaires, who also own and control the media; and this is the way that America’s aristocracy controls the Government. For example, the very pro-Democratic-Party website PoliticalWire quoted from and linked to the NYT’s article, but always fails to include any of mine, because I am critical against both Parties. Truly independent news-media are almost non-existent in the United States.)
Whereas the Times’s chart of “Avg. new cases per 100,000” failed to include Vermont, Vermont is the state that has, for the longest time, been among the best three on not only cases per million but also deaths per million, from this virus, and substantially better even than Hawaii, and both states are among the two or three that in recent decades have been the strongest for Democratic candidates, and the weakest for Republican candidates. However, Vermont especially is politically independent, and, so, it has a Republican Governor, Phil Scott, whose record on containing this virus has been the best in the nation; and he was just re-elected in a landslide, 69% of the votes (largely because of this terrific record). Right now, however, the number of daily new cases has shot up suddenly about fivefold in just the past week; so, Phil Scott’s record is in jeopardy. If that surge quickly ends, then he could become the strongest Republican to run against Kamala Harris or Joe Biden in 2024. He would not only receive almost all Republican votes (since that’s his Party), but also at least a third of Democratic votes, and almost all independent votes. However, this doesn’t necessarily mean that he would be the likeliest to win the Republican nomination, because (just as is true about the Democratic Party) that Party’s billionaires will be making that choice. (It was blatantly true also with regard to Biden and Harris.) This epidemic will be a major political challenge both in 2022 and in 2024. Anyone who wants to see Governor Scott’s press conferences regarding this crisis, so as to know precisely what his coronavirus-policies have been, can see them here. His November 20th press conference is here. He and his governing team receive and answer there many intelligent questions, so that the policies which have led to the best results in America are amply explained there.
On November 16th in South Dakota (and then repeated nationally on National Public Radio on November 20th), reporter Seth Tupper headlined “Two States, Different Paths: Vermont Keeps Virus Low While Rivaling SD’s Economy” and provided a thorough report, including graphs of infection-rates over time, comparing two states, South Dakota, which has the nation’s second-highest infection-rate (after only North Dakota’s 9%) of 7.8%, versus Vermont, which has the nation’s lowest infection-rate, of only 0.5% — one-fifteenth as high. Tupper explained the different policies that the Governors of those two states had applied, and how those policies produced vastly different results for the infection-rates and the death-rates in their states’ populations, but only moderately higher increase in unemployment in Vermont than in South Dakota, which at the peak in April had reached 16% unemployment in Vermont, versus only 10% peak in South Dakota; and, by the time of August, both states had nearly identical low unemployment-rates. Whereas the death-rates from the disease soared around a thousand fold, between April and November, in South Dakota, the death-rate remained virtually flat, almost no increase, in Vermont, throughout that entire period. However, both states were now experiencing soaring infection-rates during the current, second, wave of the epidemic.
Author’s note: first posted at Strategic Culture
Trump’s Election Shenanigans Pale Before The Threats From Melting Polar Glaciers
Despite Joe Biden exceeding the magic number of 270 that guarantees a majority in the electoral college, President Donald Trump has not conceded. Does he have a plan to overturn the wishes of the electorate?
According to Trump he did not lose, he was cheated out of a legitimate win by voter fraud and ballot stuffing. Accordingly, he has filed lawsuits in those critical states with narrow margins of victory for Biden — so far without tangible success — to block certification of the vote and persuade Republican legislatures to overturn the state vote as fraudulent and award the electoral votes to him.
Trump’s window of action is narrowing. A major target state was Michigan with 20 electoral votes. However, Democratic Governor Gretchen Whitmer has now certified Biden’s victory meaning he should get its electoral votes.
While Trump’s shenanigans continue, the world faces a real danger of melting ice sheets and glaciers. A long term denier of global warming, Mr. Trump now accepts it but believes the earth will right itself without any effort by humans.
Scientists meanwhile are particularly concerned with the Florida-sized Thwaites glacier in the Antarctic. Its collapse they fear could destabilize surrounding glaciers eventually causing catastrophic global sea level rises measured not in inches but feet.
The glacier rises 60 to 75 feet above water across its 75 mile face. Remembering that 90 percent of it is under gives some notion of the quantity of ice. The Nathaniel B. Palmer research vessel is conducting a survey this winter for the first time as part of a five-year international research program to learn just how fast the glacier is melting and how much it might be adding to rising seas.
The problem is the shape of the glacier under the water and the warming waters eating away that core while the ice on top gets thicker and thicker as the glacier retreats inland. At some point the glacier is likely to collapse of its own weight into the ocean. Scientists who have modeled the scenario fear the process is unstoppable once it starts. Worse it puts much of the West Antarctic ice sheet at risk of following it into the sea. Any wonder then that Thwaites is also known as the Doomsday glacier.
At the other pole the Greenland ice sheet had a record-breaking 2019, shedding the most ice since 1948 — an estimated 532 billion tons. It of course increases coastal flooding along the eastern seaboard particularly the Carolinas and Florida. Fortunately for the residents, the 2020 melt from Greenland, while well above the 1981 to 2010 average, was lower than recent years particularly 2019.
Donald Trump does not believe he lost the election and he does not believe in global warming. Christmas is just around the corner and it’s reassuring to know he believes in Santa Claus . . . and the tooth fairy.
Iranian media and Nagorno-Karabakh Conflict
Freedom of the press and the Media are both considered the fundamental pillars of Democracy across the globe. However, some...
Kenya’s GDP Contracts Under Weight of COVID-19, Impacting Lives and Livelihoods
The latest World Bank economic analysis for Kenya projects the economy to contract by between 1.0 percent and 1.5 percent...
The future of work: promoting gender equality, diversity and inclusion
The United Nations Industrial Development Organization (UNIDO) and the Vienna Regional Office of the International Organization for Migration (IOM) have...
EU-Australia Leaders’ Virtual Meeting
The President of the European Council, Charles Michel, the President of the European Commission, Ursula von der Leyen, and the...
National Security of PakistanPost 9/11: A Critical Review
Pakistan’s troublesome decades preceding the millennium mark all boiled down to significant events of the morning of September 11, 2001,...
Crop Certification: Going green unlocks global markets for farmers
Over the last 30 years, more and more tea, coffee and cocoa farmers have embraced towards climate-smart and sustainable practices...
Cambodia’s Hun Sen, Asia’s longest-serving PM, continues to quell the Opposition
For the past 35 years, the former French colony of Cambodia is ruled by the 68-year-old Prime Minister Hun Sen,...
Americas3 days ago
Why are some Muslims, from India to the U.S Voting against their Natural Allies
Defense3 days ago
The imperative of a military QUAD
Defense2 days ago
Biden, Modi and the Malabar Exercise 2020
Environment3 days ago
ADB, Indorama Ventures Sign $100 Million Blue Loan to Boost Recycling
Russia3 days ago
Sirius Focuses on Talents and Success of Russian Youth
Middle East1 day ago
Netanyahu-Pompeo secret meeting with MBS: A clear message to Joe Biden and Iran
Health & Wellness3 days ago
‘Real hope’ surrounding COVID vaccines ‘cannot be overstated’: WHO
Reports2 days ago
Lithuania: COVID-19 crisis reinforces the need for reforms to drive growth and reduce inequality