Author Archives: stuartbramhall

Unknown's avatar

About stuartbramhall

Retired child and adolescent psychiatrist and American expatriate in New Zealand. In 2002, I made the difficult decision to close my 25-year Seattle practice after 15 years of covert FBI harassment. I describe the unrelenting phone harassment, illegal break-ins and six attempts on my life in my 2010 book The Most Revolutionary Act: Memoir of an American Refugee.

The US/EU/NATO Regime Change Playbook for Burkina Faso and Captain Ibrahim Traoré

Posted on by
4
Traore

Ann Garrison, BAR Contributing Editor

The U.S. increases pressure on Burkina Faso through military propaganda, as Africans rise to protect the developing project.

On April 3, US Africa Command (AFRICOM) Commander Michael Langley testified to the Senate Armed Services Committee during an excruciating two hours obsessively devoted to the ill-fated project of preserving US hegemony. Langley’s testimony was all about stopping Russia and China’s advances on the continent. Some Senators expressed concern that Trump had dispensed with the soft power—their term—projected by USAID and worried that China is stepping in to fill the breach.

Alarm bells went off in Africa, the African diaspora, and peace and justice communities all over the world when he turned attention to Burkina Faso and its leader, Captain Ibrahim Traoré, accusing him of using the gold reserves he nationalized “to protect his junta.”

It would be challenging, of course, to come up with a more arrogant, illogical, and downright idiotic assertion.  The head of AFRICOM, a military command openly devoted to securing US interests, with a $2 billion dollar annual budget, accuses an African leader of devoting his own country’s resources to its security?

In a pathetic attempt to give this a bit of humanity or legitimacy, Langley complained that Traoré was using the country’s gold to finance his own security rather than for the benefit of his people, as though there were some universe in which this was a plausible US concern. In the same breath he described North Africa as “NATO’s southern flank.”

Since mid-April a slew of social media posts have reported that the Burkina Faso diaspora, particularly in France, have been protesting and demanding that Captain Traoré step down, accusing him of being a dictator, with some even calling for his arrest. None of these posts are conclusively evidenced, and their scale, sometimes described as “hundreds” or a “small group,” varies across reports. No major news outlets seem to have reported such protests, but real or not, they’re a classic element in the Western regime change playbook.

Human Rights Watch has been playing its usual role as well, reporting that Burkina Faso has cracked down on dissent and that some members of its civilian militia, Volunteers in Defense of the Homeland (VDH), have killed members of the Fulani ethnic minority. It seems likely that there is some incidence of VDH violence against the Fulani, but this is an internal problem for the Burkinabe people and their government, not cause for the “humanitarian intervention” that’s usually on the US/EU/NATO drawing board before these reports are published. Watch out for the emergence of the word “genocide.”

Volunteers in Defense of the Homeland are civilian self-defense militia organized to defend communities against the jihadist violence unleashed by the US/EU/NATO destruction of Libya. In response to Ibrahim Traoré’s mobilization call, the numbers of volunteers increased to 90,000, well beyond the goal of 50,000, according to ACLED .

These are Western playbook moves for overthrowing any government that actually tries to do something for its people in the Global South.

Traoré’s Crimes, in the Eyes of the West

What are Traoré’s crimes in the eyes of the West? As Langley alleged, he nationalized much of the country’s gold reserves. Imagine that. In November 2023, he approved the construction of Burkina Faso’s first refinery to process gold domestically, halting the export of unrefined gold to Europe and advancing the industrialization and skills development needed to create a prosperous domestic economy and lift the Burkinabe people out of the imperialist extractive economy trap.

He suspended export permits for small-scale private gold production to combat illicit trade, such as smuggling, and to regulate the artisanal gold sector.

He renegotiated mining contracts with foreign corporations, demanding greater percentages of ore extracted and favoring local participation, again developing skills needed for a complex, prosperous domestic economy.

He prioritized local processing in other sectors, such as agriculture and cotton. He established two tomato-processing plants and a second cotton processing plant, alongside the National Support Center for Artisanal Cotton Processing, to enhance local value addition and further reduce reliance on exporting raw materials.

In a broader push for economic autonomy, he invested in agriculture to achieve food self-sufficiency, providing farmers with modern machinery and improved seeds, leading to a 2024 harvest of nearly six million tons of cereal.

He expelled French military forces from Burkina Faso. In January 2023, he announced the termination of a 2018 defense agreement with France, giving French forces one month to leave. This followed public protests in Ouagadougou demanding their departure. They’d been stationed in the country for over a decade to combat jihadist insurgencies, which had only gotten worse. By February 2023, French forces had withdrawn , marking the end of their failed Operation Sabre.

He established military sovereignty and diversification of military partnerships, including partnerships with Russia.

Upon assuming the presidency, he announced that he would continue to live on his army captain’s salary.

He appealed to the Pan-Africanist ideals of Burkina’s revolutionary leader Thomas Sankara, who served as its president from 1983 to 1987 before being assassinated in a French-backed coup d’état. He erected a new statue of Sankara on the site where he was assassinated,

Africa, the African Diaspora, and Peace and Justice Communities Rise in Response to Langley’s Threat to Traoré

On April 22, Burkina Faso’s Security Minister Mahamadou Sana told press that security forces had foiled a “major plot” to assassinate Captain Ibrahim Traoré, with the army alleging the plotters were based in neighboring Ivory Coast. He said they had aimed to “sow total chaos and place the country under the supervision of an international organisation.” This is one of many coup plots reported since Traoré assumed the presidency, and heavy security has been instituted around him.

AFRICOM’s annual Operation Flintlock is underway now, until May 14. This year it’s based in Burkina Faso’s Ivory Coast, the alleged site of the foiled coup plot, whose president, Alassane Ouattara, could not be a more dedicated US/EU/NATO collaborator.

Commander Michael Langley arrived for its outset on April 24-25 .

When Commander Michael Langley identified Captain Traoré as an enemy of US interests to the Senate Armed Services Committee, alarm bells went off in Africa, the African diaspora, and peace and justice communities worldwide. There have since been cries that there must never be another Libya all over social media, including countless YouTube channels. A global rally in support of Captain Traoré and Burkina Faso was called for April 30, the date of this publication. News and video will no doubt be available across the Web.

[…]

Via https://www.blackagendareport.com/useunatos-regime-change-playbook-burkina-faso-and-captain-ibrahim-traore

The Anglo-Nazi Global Empire That Almost Was

Posted on by
1

1938 Munich

Kit Klarenberg

As VE Day approaches, Western officials, pundits and journalists are widely seeking to exploit the 80th anniversary of Nazism’s defeat for political purposes. European leaders have threatened state attendees of Russia’s grand May 9th victory parade with adverse consequences. Meanwhile, countless sources draw historical comparisons between appeasement of Nazi Germany throughout the 1930s, and the Trump administration’s ongoing efforts to strike a deal with Moscow to end the Ukraine proxy conflict.

As The Atlantic put it in March, “Trump Is Offering Putin Another Munich” – a reference to the September 1938 Munich Agreement, under which Western powers, led by Britain, granted a vast portion of Czechoslovakia to Nazi Germany. Mainstream narratives of appeasement state that this represented the policy’s apotheosis – its final act, which it was believed would permanently sate Adolf Hitler’s expansionist ambitions, but actually made World War II inevitable.

Neville Chamberlain’s triumphant return from Munich

Appeasement is universally accepted today in the West as a well-intentioned but ultimately catastrophically failed and misguided attempt to avoid another global conflict with Germany, for peace’s sake. According to this reading, European governments made certain concessions to Hitler, while turning a blind eye to egregious breaches of the post-World War I Versailles Treaty, such as the Luftwaffe’s creation in February 1935, and Nazi Germany’s military occupation of the Rhineland in May the next year.

In reality though, from Britain’s perspective, the Munich Agreement was intended to be just the start of a wider process that would culminate in “world political partnership” between London and Berlin. Two months prior, the Federation of British Industries (FBI), known today as the Confederation of British Industry, made contact with its Nazi counterpart, Reichsgruppe Industrie (RI). The pair eagerly agreed their respective governments should enter into formal negotiations on Anglo-German economic integration.

Representatives of these organisations met face-to-face in London on November 9th that year. The summit went swimmingly, and a formal conference in Düsseldorf was scheduled for next March. Coincidentally, later that evening in Berlin, Kristallnacht erupted, with Nazi paramilitaries burning and destroying synagogues and Jewish businesses across Germany. The most infamous pogrom in history was no deterrent to continued discussions and meetings between FBI and RI representatives. A month later, they inked a formal agreement on the creation of an international Anglo-Nazi coal cartel.

British officials fully endorsed this burgeoning relationship, believing it would provide a crucial foundation for future alliance with Nazi Germany in other fields. Moreover, it was hoped Berlin’s industrial and technological prowess would reinvigorate Britain’s economy at home and throughout the Empire, which was ever-increasingly lagging behind the ascendant US. In February 1939, representatives of British government and industry made a pilgrimage to Berlin to feast with high-ranking Nazi officials, in advance of the next month’s joint conference.

As FBI representatives prepared to depart for Düsseldorf in March, British cabinet chief Walter Runciman – a fervent advocate of appeasement, and chief architect of Czechoslovakia’s carve up – informed them, “gentlemen, the peace of Europe is in your hands.” In a sick twist, they arrived on March 14th, while Czechoslovakian president Emil Hácha was in Berlin meeting with Hitler. Offered the choice of freely allowing Nazi troops entry into his country, or the Luftwaffe reducing Prague to rubble before all-out invasion, he suffered a heart attack.

After revival, Hácha chose the former option. The Düsseldorf conference commenced the next morning, as Nazi tanks stormed unhindered into rump Czechoslovakia. Against this monstrous backdrop, a 12-point declaration was ironed out by the FBI and RI. It envisaged “a world economic partnership between the business communities” of Berlin and London. That August, FBI representatives secretly met with Herman Göring to anoint the agreement. In the meantime, the British government had via back channels made a formal offer of wide-ranging “cooperation” with Nazi Germany.

‘Political Partnership’

In April 1938, journeyman diplomat Herbert von Dirksen was appointed Nazi Germany’s ambassador to London. A committed National Socialist and rabid antisemite, he also harboured a particularly visceral loathing of Poles, believing them to be subhuman, eagerly supporting Poland’s total erasure. Despite this, due to his English language fluency and aristocratic manners, he charmed British officials and citizens alike, and was widely perceived locally as Nazi Germany’s respectable face.


Herbert von Dirksen

Even more vitally though, Dirksen – in common with many powerful elements of the British establishment – was convinced that not only could war be avoided, but London and Berlin would instead forge a global economic, military, and political alliance. His 18 months in Britain before the outbreak of World War II were spent working tirelessly to achieve these goals, by establishing and maintaining communication lines between officials and decisionmakers in the two countries, while attempting to broker deals.

Dirksen published an official memoir in 1950, detailing his lengthy diplomatic career. However, far more revealing insights into the period immediately preceding World War II, and behind-the-scenes efforts to achieve enduring detente between Britain and Nazi Germany, are contained in the virtually unknown Dirksen Papers, a two-volume record released by the Soviet Union’s Foreign Languages Publishing House without his consent. They contain private communications sent to and from Dirksen, diary entries, and memos he wrote for himself, never intended for public consumption.

Documents And Materials Relating To The Eve Of The Second World War Ii
21.6MB ∙ PDF file

Download

The contents were sourced from a vast trove of documents found by the Red Army after it seized Gröditzberg, a castle owned by Dirksen where he spent most of World War II. Mainstream historians have markedly made no use of the Dirksen Papers. Whether this is due to their bombshell disclosures posing a variety of dire threats to established Western narratives of World War II, and revealing much the British government wishes to remain forever secret, is a matter of speculation.

Immediately after World War II began, Dirksen “keenly” felt an “obligation” to author a detailed post-mortem on the failure of Britain’s peace overtures to Nazi Germany, and his own. He was particularly compelled to write it as “all important documents” in Berlin’s London embassy had been burned following Britain’s formal declaration of war on September 3rd 1939. Reflecting on his experiences, Dirksen spoke of “the tragic and paramount thing about the rise of the new Anglo-German war”

“Germany demanded an equal place with Britain as a world power…Britain was in principle prepared to concede. But, whereas Germany demanded immediate, complete and unequivocal satisfaction of her demands, Britain – although she was ready to renounce her Eastern commitments, and…allow Germany a predominant position in East and Southeast Europe, and to discuss genuine world political partnership with Germany – wanted this to be done only by way of negotiation and a gradual revision of British policy.”

‘German Reply’

From London’s perspective, Dirksen lamented, this radical change in the global order “could be effected in a period of months, but not of days or weeks.” Another stumbling block was the British and French making a “guarantee” to defend Poland in the event she was attacked by Nazi Germany, in March 1939. This bellicose stance – along with belligerent speeches from Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain – was at total odds with simultaneous conciliatory approaches such as Düsseldorf, and the private stances and utterances of British officials to their Nazi counterparts.

In any event, it appears London instantly regretted its pledge to defend Poland. Dirksen records in his post-mortem how subsequently, senior British officials told him they sought “an Anglo-German entente” that would “render Britain’s guarantee policy nugatory” and “enable Britain to extricate her from her predicament in regard to Poland,” so Warsaw would “be left to face Germany alone”.

In mid-July 1939, Horace Wilson – an extremely powerful civil servant and Chamberlain’s right hand man – approached Göring’s chief aide Helmuth Wohlthat during a visit to London. Wilson “outlined a program for a comprehensive adjustment of Anglo-German relations” to him, which amounted to a radical overhaul of the two countries’ “political, military and economic arrangements.” This included “a non-aggression pact”, explicitly concerned with shredding Britain’s “guarantee” to Warsaw. Dirksen noted:

“The underlying purpose of this treaty was to make it possible for the British gradually to disembarrass themselves of their commitments toward Poland, on the ground that they had…secured Germany’s renunciation of methods of aggression.”

Elsewhere, “comprehensive” proposals for economic cooperation were outlined, with the promise of “negotiations…to be undertaken on colonial questions, supplies of raw material for Germany, delimitation of industrial markets, international debt problems, and the application of the most favoured nation clause.” In addition, a realignment of “the spheres of interest of the Great Powers” would be up for discussion, opening the door for further Nazi territorial expansion. Dirksen makes clear these grand plans were fully endorsed at the British government’s highest levels:

“The importance of Wilson’s proposals was demonstrated by the fact that Wilson invited Wohlthat to have them confirmed by Chamberlain personally.”

During his stay in London, Wohlthat also had extensive discussions with Overseas Trade Secretary Robert Hudson, who told him “three big regions offered the two nations an immense field for economic activity.” This included the existing British Empire, China and Russia. “Here agreement was possible; as also in other regions,” including the Balkans, where “England had no economic ambitions.” In other words, resource-rich Yugoslavia would be Nazi Germany’s for the taking, under the terms of “world political partnership” with Britain.

Dirksen outlined the contents of Wohlthat’s talks with Hudson and Wilson in a “strictly secret” internal memo, excitedly noting “England alone could not adequately take care of her vast Empire, and it would be quite possible for Germany to be given a rather comprehensive share.” A telegram dispatched to Dirksen from the German Foreign Office on July 31st 1939 recorded Wohlthat had informed Göring of Britain’s secret proposals, who in turn notified Nazi Foreign Minister Joachim von Ribbentrop.

Dirksen noted elsewhere Wohlthat specifically asked the British how such negotiations “might be put on a tangible footing.” Wilson informed him “the decisive thing” was for Hitler to “[make] his willingness known” by officially authorising a senior Nazi official to discuss the “program”. Wilson “furthermore strongly stressed the great value the British government laid upon a German reply” to these offers, and how London “considered that slipping into war was the only alternative.”

‘Authoritarian Regimes’

No “reply” apparently ever came. On September 1st 1939, Nazi Germany invaded Poland, Britain declared war on Germany two days later, and the rest is history – albeit history that is subject to determined obfuscation, constant rewriting, and deliberate distortion. Polls of European citizens conducted in the immediate aftermath of World War II showed there was little public doubt that the Red Army was primarily responsible for Nazi Germany’s destruction, while Britain and the US were perceived as playing mere walk-on roles.

[…]

Via https://substack.com/home/post/p-162556684

Donald Trump fired national security adviser Mike Waltz for ‘plotting with Israel’s leader to bomb Iran’

Posted on by
3

Trump national security adviser Mike Waltz is out in first major ...

By Caroline Graham

President Donald Trump sacked his national security adviser Mike Waltz because he was plotting with Israel‘s leader to attack Iran, it was claimed last night.

Waltz, 51, was thought to have been fired because he accidentally added a journalist to a Signal chat about plans to attack Yemen’s Houthi terrorist group, causing global embarrassment for the Trump administration.

But last night the Washington Post reported the real reason for Trump’s ire was that Waltz huddled with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu during the latter’s White House visit in February and ‘appeared to share the Israeli leader’s conviction that the time was ripe to strike Iran,’ according to a source.

Trump was angered that Waltz ‘engaged in intense coordination with Netanyahu about military options against Iran ahead of an Oval Office meeting between the Israeli leader and Trump.’

The source said: ‘Waltz wanted to take US policy in a direction Trump wasn’t comfortable with because the US hadn’t attempted a diplomatic solution.

It got back to Trump and the president wasn’t happy with it. You can’t do that. You work for the president of your country, not the president of another country.’

Waltz, a former Green Beret, was sacked from his position as head of the National Security Council (NSC) on Friday and will now become ambassador to the United Nations, a ‘massive downgrade move to save face’, according to one Trump insider.

[…]

Via https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-14676145/Donald-Trump-fired-national-security-adviser-Mike-Waltz-plotting-bomb-Iran.html

FDA Failed to Warn Parents About 70,000 Side Effects of Puberty-Blocking Drugs

Posted on by
3
fda logo and bottles of estrogen adn testosterone

by Dr. Joseph Mercola

Side effects from puberty blockers range from headaches to serious conditions like brain swelling and vision loss. The safety of puberty blockers and other gender-affirming care has not been established, and parents should research risks before making decisions.

Story at a glance:

  • The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) failed to prioritize over 70,000 adverse event reports related to puberty-blocking drugs, raising concerns about regulatory oversight of these medications.
  • Side effects from puberty blockers range from headaches to serious conditions like brain swelling and vision loss.
  • Puberty blockers disrupt normal development, causing long-term harm to physical development and psychological health in children.
  • The FDA’s handling of puberty blockers demonstrates inconsistent regulatory standards and inadequate public warnings about significant risks.
  • The safety of puberty blockers and other gender-affirming care has not been established, and parents should research risks before making decisions.

Imagine you’re handed a medicine for your child that promises to pause puberty, but no one’s fully checked if it’s safe. Puberty blockers are drugs that delay puberty, often used for children questioning their gender.

But recent reports show over 70,000 side effects — from headaches to brain swelling — haven’t gotten the attention they deserve from the people in charge.

Whether you’re a parent, a teen or just curious, this matters to you. Your health — or your loved one’s — could hinge on understanding the risks and who’s looking out for you.

Pausing puberty — A quick guide to these powerful drugs

Puberty-blocking drugs are given to children who have not yet entered puberty. These drugs delay the onset of sex characteristics associated with the gender you were at birth.

Often, the adults steering children toward gender reassignment don’t make it a point to thoroughly inform them about the difficulties they might face. Puberty-blocking drugs are strong, but they’re not magic, and that’s why you need to know more.

  • How do puberty blockers work? Puberty blockers hit pause on your body’s changes. They stop it from releasing hormones like estrogen and testosterone, which kickstart things like growing taller or getting a deeper voice.
  • Who uses them? You might think puberty blockers are just for children who hit puberty too early, but today, they’re often used by teens exploring their gender identity.
  • What’s the catch? Here’s the thing: pausing puberty isn’t as simple as pausing a video game. Your body’s a complex machine, and stopping hormones causes trouble. Think of it like pausing your phone’s updates — eventually, glitches stack up. There are risks, both physical and psychological, and not everyone’s shouting about them. You deserve to know what could go wrong before jumping in, so let’s dig into that next.

Why you should be concerned about puberty-blocking drugs

In the last 20 years, over 70,000 reports of trouble have been tied to puberty blockers. That’s huge — like filling a football stadium with people who’ve had issues with these drugs.

The safety of puberty-blocking drugs and other forms of “gender-affirming care” has not been established. If you’re considering this for your child, this should make you sit up and pay attention.

  • How serious are these side effects? Some side effects are serious enough to change your life. Children have reported brain swelling, which brings brutal headaches or trouble thinking. Others have lost vision out of nowhere or developed “tumor-like masses” in the brain. These are big red flags you shouldn’t ignore.
  • Why is safety being questioned? Some experts say stopping hormones throws your body off balance, like hitting the brakes and gas on your car at the same time. Your brain and bones need those hormones to grow right, and pausing them harms long-term development.
  • Why aren’t the warnings louder? The FDA, the group that’s supposed to keep you safe, knew about these risks but didn’t make a fuss. With other drugs, they’d sound the alarm, but here? It’s been more like a whisper instead of a siren. You’d expect them to shout if 70,000 adverse event reports came up, but they didn’t. That lack of action is why you need to ask questions and dig deeper yourself.

Why safety slipped through the cracks

The FDA is supposed to spot trouble with medicines and keep you safe. Think of them as lifeguards at the pool, watching for danger so you don’t drown. When a drug is risky, they should blow the whistle and let you know loud and clear. That’s their job, and you count on them to do it right.

  • How did they miss this? With puberty blockers, the FDA dropped the ball. They didn’t focus on those 70,000 reports, even though they vilified other drugs like hydroxychloroquine. It’s like fixing a leaky faucet while your basement floods. You’d think that many side effects would light up their radar, but they stayed quiet. That’s a problem when you’re trusting them to protect you.
  • Why should you care? If the FDA isn’t warning the public about risks, you’re left in the dark. It’s like buying a car with no crash test rating — would you drive it? You need clear info to decide what’s safe for your family, but right now, it’s murky. That’s why you’ve got to take charge and not just hope someone else is watching out for you.

How to stay safe and informed

If puberty blockers come up, don’t be shy — speak to your children about the health risks. By using puberty-blocking drugs or taking hormones to feminize or masculinize the body, you’re wreaking total havoc on your entire system. The only predictable outcome is health problems.

  • Affirm children’s biology from the start — It’s important for parents to affirm the biology of their children from the start. By teaching them the value and permanence of their biological sex, you effectively “inoculate” them against ideas being brought in later.
  • Become educated on transgender ideology — “Lost in Trans Nation,” written by Dr. Miriam Grossman, a child and adolescent psychiatrist and board-certified medical doctor, provides parents with the required knowledge and tools to protect their children from the transgender ideology contagion. While I believe the transgender movement poses a severe threat to mental, emotional and physical health, it can be counteracted by level-headed discourse and the sharing of truthful information.
  • Understand the transhumanist agenda connection — Many believe the trans movement and gender-affirming medical care for youth is a stepping stone in the transhumanist agenda. Ultimately, the goal is to get rid of flesh and blood bodies altogether and have our existence either within a synthetic body or as disembodied avatars in cyberspace, or both. Turning humanity into misgendered people incapable of natural reproduction is a first step in that direction.
  • Demand the truth — You deserve straight answers about safety, not vague promises. If something feels off, speak up. Your voice matters, and it could help make sure the truth comes out about puberty-blocking drugs.

FAQs about puberty-blocking drugs

Q: What are puberty blockers?

A: Puberty blockers are drugs that stop your body from making hormones like estrogen and testosterone. These hormones stop puberty — think of growth spurts or voice changes. They’re often used for children questioning their gender or hitting puberty too soon. These medications are powerful and their effects are not always reversible.

Q: Are puberty blockers safe?

A: They carry significant risks. There are over 70,000 reports of side effects like headaches, mood swings and brain swelling. Many worry about long-term damage to their bones and brain. The long-term effects on fertility and overall health are still largely unknown, adding to the concern. This lack of transparency undermines public trust and highlights the need for independent research and scrutiny.

Q: Why didn’t the FDA warn us?

A: The FDA knew about the risks but didn’t make them a priority. They focused elsewhere, even with 70,000 reports of harm piling up. Leadership changes didn’t help either. That’s why you’ve got to dig for the truth yourself.

Q: How can parents affirm their child’s biological sex and protect them from harmful ideologies?

A: Parents can affirm their child’s biological sex by consistently reinforcing the value and permanence of their birth sex from an early age. This includes open and honest conversations about biological realities and healthy development.

To protect them from harmful ideologies, parents should educate themselves on these ideologies, foster thinking skills in their children and provide access to diverse perspectives. Resources like Dr. Miriam Grossman’s “Lost in Trans Nation” offer valuable insights.

Q: What is the connection between gender-affirming care and the transhumanist agenda?

A: Some individuals believe that gender-affirming care, particularly medical interventions for youth, is a step toward a transhumanist agenda. This perspective suggests that the ultimate goal is to transcend biological limitations and eliminate the need for traditional human bodies.

[…]

Via https://childrenshealthdefense.org/defender/fda-failed-warn-parents-70000-side-effects-puberty-blocking-drugs-cola/

Houthi missile hits Ben Gurion Airport after interception fails; 6 injured, none seriously

Posted on by
2

Screen grab from CCTV footage shows impact of ballistic missile near Ben Gurion Airport on May 4, 2025 (Screen grab from social media used in accordance with Clause 27a of the Copyright Law)

By Emanuel Fabian, Nurit Yohanan, Sam Sokol, Sharon Wrobel and Lazar Berman

First time Houthi fire has impacted at airport; IDF says it failed to intercept ballistic missile after several attempts; airport reopens after an hour, but most foreign airlines suspend flights

A ballistic missile fired by the Iran-backed Houthis in Yemen impacted on the grounds of Ben Gurion Airport on Sunday morning, injuring six people, none of them seriously. The blast occurred in a grove of trees alongside an access road close to the airport’s main Terminal 3, several hundred yards from the airport control tower.

The military said it made several attempts to intercept the missile but failed to shoot down the projectile. “An impact was identified in the area of Ben Gurion Airport,” it said.

The attack marked the first time a Houthi missile had impacted within the grounds of the airport. A Hezbollah missile hit a parking area on the airport’s perimeter in November.

Both the Israeli Air Force’s long-range Arrow air defense system and the US’s THAAD system failed to intercept the Houthi missile, defense sources said. The Israeli Air Force’s aerial defense array was investigating the failure.

Those hurt in the attack included a man in his 50s in good-to-moderate condition with trauma to his limbs and two women, aged 54 and 38, in good condition who were hit by the shockwave, the Magen David Adom ambulance service said in a statement.

A man, 64, was lightly hurt after he was hit by an object that flew from the impact site, and two more women, aged 22 and 34, were lightly hurt while running for shelter, MDA said.

Another two people were treated for acute anxiety.

The wounded were taken to hospitals in central Israel.

Surveillance camera footage showed the moment the missile impacted in a grove adjacent to an access road, within the airport’s perimeter.

Sirens sounded across central Israel at 9:22 a.m. Preceding the sirens by some five minutes, an early warning was issued to residents, alerting civilians of the long-range missile attack via a push notification on their phones.

The new alert system, which was recently activated, has undergone teething pains of either not sending alerts or sending out warnings over a wider area than the sirens cover.

Initiating routine procedure, Ben Gurion Airport halted takeoffs and landings following the launch of the ballistic missile. It reopened its airspace about an hour after the missile hit.

Still, the German Lufthansa carrier group, which includes Lufthansa, SWISS, Austrian Airlines, and Brussels Airlines, canceled all flights Ben Gurion Airport scheduled for Sunday, according to its website.

Spanish airline Air Europa also said it was canceling flights between Tel Aviv and Madrid.

By late afternoon, most foreign airlines had suspended services.

Yemen’s Houthis claimed responsibility for the launch, the group’s military spokesperson Yahya Saree said in a televised statement.

Saree reiterated a warning to airlines that the Israeli airport was “no longer safe for air travel.”

Mohammed al-Bukhaiti, a senior Houthi official, told the Qatari Al-Araby TV channel that the rebel group had demonstrated its ability to strike sensitive targets in Israel on Sunday morning.

He added that the Iran-backed group has “no red lines” in its fight against Israel.

Emergency services at Ben Gurion Airport after a ballistic missile was fired at Israel from Yemen on May 4, 2025 (Magen David Adom)

After the attack, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu was set to hold a meeting by telephone with Defense Minister Israel Katz and other top defense officials at 3 p.m. to examine potential responses, including a direct Israeli strike on Houthi assets in Yemen.

At 7 p.m., Netanyahu will convene his security cabinet in person to discuss the expansion of the military campaign in Gaza, fighting in Syria, the Houthi attack, and more.

In a terse statement following the attack, Katz said, “Whoever harms us, we will strike them sevenfold.”

Israel has avoided striking in Yemen in response to recent Houthi attacks as the United States wages a major campaign against the Iran-backed group.

Security officials told the Kan public broadcaster that “after the hit at Ben Gurion Airport, from our perspective, there are no restrictions” for a response against the Houthis.The opposition National Unity party chairman Benny Gantz called on the government to hold Iran accountable for the attack.

“This is not Yemen, this is Iran. It is Iran that is firing ballistic missiles at the State of Israel, and it must bear responsibility,” wrote the former defense minister on X.

“The Israeli government must wake up,” he said, arguing that fire on Israel “must lead to a severe response against Tehran.”

Sunday’s attack came one day after the last launch, when a ballistic missile fired by the Houthis triggered sirens in Jerusalem and some parts of southern Israel. The IDF successfully intercepted the projectile.

Since March 18, when the IDF resumed its offensive against Hamas in the Gaza Strip, the Houthis in Yemen have launched some 27 ballistic missiles and several drones at Israel. Only around half of them triggered sirens in the country and were shot down, while the others fell short.

The sirens have sent hundreds of thousands of Israelis rushing to shelters at all hours of the night and day, causing a number of injuries in the scramble. The sirens are a precaution against falling debris from intercepts, which have occasionally caused injuries, death and damage.

[…]

Via https://www.timesofisrael.com/houthi-missile-hits-grounds-of-ben-gurion-airport-after-interception-fails-6-injured/

Ansar Allah triumphant: US facing Red Sea defeat again

Posted on by
2

 

By Kit Klarenberg

On April 28th, Western media outlets became abuzz with news that the USS Harry S. Truman – which is leading the Trump administration’s effort to dismantle Ansar Allah’s anti-genocide Red Sea blockade – lost an F/A-18E fighter jet and tow tractor, while executing a hard turn to evade fire from the Resistance group. While a US Navy press release on the incident made no reference to Ansar Allah’s assault, nameless American officials have briefed several mainstream journalists that the losses were Yemen’s doing.

Reporting on the disaster by dependably servile CIA and Pentagon propaganda megaphone CNN was extraordinarily candid. “US Navy loses $60 million jet at sea after it fell overboard from aircraft carrier”, its headline read. The outlet explicitly acknowledged this resulted from an Ansar Allah “drone and missile attack” on USS Harry S. Truman. CNN went on to note the aircraft carrier has “repeatedly been targeted in attacks” by Yemen, while suffering a series of shameful blunders since its deployment to the Red Sea in September 2024.

In December that year, a US fighter jet posted to USS Harry S. Truman was shot down while conducting a refueling mission over the Red Sea in a friendly fire incident. The USS Gettysburg, which was escorting the aircraft carrier, blasted the jet with a missile for reasons unclear. This gross misadventure remains subject to official investigation. Then, on February 12th this year, USS Harry S. Truman was extensively damaged after colliding with a commercial vessel near Egypt’s Port Said, at the Suez Canal’s northern end.

The aircraft carrier returned to service after a period spent in Greece’s Souda Bay for repairs. The US Navy refused to release details about the cost of these repairs, or the total damage USS Harry S. Truman sustained in the collision. Whether further repairs were required was also not clarified. However, the accident was apparently considered so catastrophic within the Pentagon that the carrier’s chief, Dave Snowden, was fired from his post on February 20th, “due to a loss of confidence in his ability to command”.

These humiliating developments were completely ignored by the media. Concurrently, however, mainstream outlets were engaged in a concerted effort to rehabilitate Operation Prosperity Guardian, the embarrassingly failed Biden administration attempt to smash Ansar Allah and end the Resistance group’s righteous Red Sea blockade. Launched with much hype following the Gaza genocide’s eruption, a vast US flotilla led by USS Eisenhower spent nine months getting battered by a relentless barrage of Ansar Allah drones and missiles to no avail, before scurrying back to the US.

‘Defensive Systems’

Throughout Operation Prosperity Guardian, current and former US military and intelligence officials expressed disquiet at the enormous “cost offset” involved in battling Ansar Allah. The US Navy squandered countless difficult-to-replace missiles costing hundreds of thousands of dollars – if not millions – daily to shoot down the Resistance group’s low-cost drones. As Mick Mulroy, a former DOD official and CIA officer, bitterly told Politico:

“[This] quickly becomes a problem because the most benefit, even if we do shoot down their incoming missiles and drones, is in [Yemen’s] favor…We, the US, need to start looking at systems that can defeat these that are more in line with the costs they are expending to attack us.”

There was no sign of this “cost offset” having been remediated by the time Operation Prosperity Guardian fizzled out in July 2024. Official US Navy figures on the “unprecedented” engagement suggest the USS Eisenhower-led carrier group fired a total of 155 standard missiles and 135 Tomahawk Land Attack Missiles, while accompanying fighter jets and helicopters “expended nearly 60 air-to-air missiles and released 420 air-to-surface weapons” – 770 munitions in total – over the nine-month-long conflict.

Independent analysis suggests these figures are likely to be even higher. Moreover, the US Navy did not provide a breakdown of the costs involved in Operation Prosperity Guardian. Even if one accepts the official figures, a single Tomahawk alone costs around $1.89 million, meaning firing 135 cost a staggering $255,150,000. There is also the enduring question of whether this astonishingly expensive arsenal failed to protect USS Eisenhower from direct Ansar Allah attack.

In February 2024, a cruise missile fired from Yemen penetrated so many layers of the aircraft carrier’s defences it was seconds from impact, forcing USS Eisenhower to employ the Phalanx Close-In Weapon System – its “last line of defense”. It marked the System’s first-ever recorded use in battle. Then in June that year, the USS Eisenhower inexplicably withdrew from its sphere of operations in the Red Sea at maximum speed, immediately after Ansar Allah announced it had successfully struck the carrier.

As Al Mayadeen recorded at the time, multiple Western news reports painted a dire picture of Operation Prosperity Guardian in its aftermath. Associated Press revealed that participating sailors and pilots had found the experience “traumatizing”, as they “weren’t used to being fired on.” Many had repeatedly come within seconds of being struck by “Houthi-launched missiles”, before they were destroyed “by their ship’s defensive systems.” The Pentagon was thus considering providing “counseling and treatment” to thousands of US Navy employees suffering from “post-traumatic stress”, and their families.

‘Supplemental Funds’

Fast forward to February 2025, and Business Insider published a curious article, claiming, based on documents exclusively obtained by the outlet, that in fact the US Navy had successfully “fended off” Ansar Allah’s Red Sea blitzkrieg throughout Operation Prosperity Guardian, “without firing a shot”. Instead, “undefined” and “unspecified” methods and weapons of a “non-kinetic” variety were “successfully” employed to protect “Navy and coalition warships and commercial vessels”. This was, of course,e at total odds with literally everything the mainstream media had hitherto reported on the debacle.

With hindsight though, the report’s propaganda utility was clear. It served to rehabilitate the US Navy’s performance in its war on Yemen at a time the Trump administration was preparing to kickstart hostilities against Ansar Allah again. So it was on March 15th, US airstrikes began raining down on Sanaa anew, while the USS Harry S. Truman-led carrier force thrust stridently into the Red Sea. US officials have talked a big game about the fresh assault continuing “indefinitely”, and Trump has bragged that Ansar Allah is “decimated”.

The April 28th loss of an F/A-18E fighter jet due to Yemeni attacks amply demonstrates such boasts to be entirely untrue. In the meantime, on April 4th, the New York Times reported Pentagon officials were “privately” briefing that Trump’s belligerence was failing to graze Ansar Allah, while costing in excess of $1 billion to date. This not only meant “supplemental funds” for the operation needed to be mustered from Congress, but doubts about continued ammunition availability gravely abounded:

“So many precision munitions are being used, especially advanced long-range ones, that some Pentagon contingency planners are growing concerned about overall Navy stocks and implications for any situation in which the United States would have to ward off an attempted invasion of Taiwan by China.”

The New York Times also noted the Trump administration had offered no explanation as to “why it thinks its campaign against [Ansar Allah] will succeed”. Almost a month later, clarity on this crucial point remains unforthcoming. We can perhaps surmise then that the flurry of mainstream interest over the USS Harry S. Truman’s recent troubles is indicative of a determination by the Pentagon to end Washington’s renewed malevolence against Yemen before Ansar Allah inflicts yet another historic defeat on the US Empire.

[…]

Via https://english.almayadeen.net/articles/opinion/ansar-allah-triumphant–us-facing-red-sea-defeat-again

China Has Quietly Won the Trade War—and Now Leads the World

Posted on by
6

Ricardo Martins PhD

 

“There are decades where nothing happens; and there are weeks where decades happen.”
—Vladimir Lenin

A Silent but Seismic Turning Point

In a silent but seismic shift, President Xi Jinping has ended five centuries of Western global dominance—not with bombs or blockades, but with strategic patience and unyielding confidence. Without firing a single shot, China has emerged not only as the victor of Trump’s chaotic trade war but also as the world’s new de facto leader.
Learning from China doesn’t mean becoming China

This transformation did not happen overnight, but the past few years have accelerated an inevitable rebalancing, especially after Trump’s first administration. The West, and particularly the United States, once sat atop a unipolar world order. Today, that dominance has not just eroded—it has been decisively challenged.

The Biden administration, like Trump’s before it, ultimately came to terms with a critical truth: global decoupling from China is economically untenable. The U.S. Treasury now openly acknowledges that tariffs are unsustainable, signaling what amounts to a strategic surrender in a trade war that began with bravado but ended in backpedaling.

The Cost of Financial Hubris

America’s attempt to sever its economic entanglement with China unraveled under the weight of its own financialization. Tariffs imposed during the Trump years wiped out trillions in global capital, not by transferring wealth to Beijing but by annihilating it. Markets froze, supply chains fractured, and America’s inflationary spiral deepened as Chinese imports became pricier and scarcer. Grocery chains and tech firms sounded the alarm: shelves were going empty, and production lines were halting. A $1 trillion trade dependency can’t simply be wished away.

China, by contrast, played the long game. It neither retaliated rashly nor blinked. It held five powerful economic levers in reserve: U.S. Treasury holdings, currency manipulation, control over rare earth elements, asymmetric trade dependencies, and vast cross-border investments. Each of these tools remains in Beijing’s back pocket—unleashed only when necessary. That quiet strength was Xi’s real strategy: win without war.

A Battle of Ego vs. Shred Future

In truth, this wasn’t merely a contest of policies—it was a duel between two men: Xi Jinping and Donald Trump. One ruled by consensus and long-term vision; the other by tweetstorms and impulsive tariffs. While Trump chased headlines and short-term victories, Xi pursued civilizational restoration. His goal was not just to withstand American pressure, but to lead a new era of global governance rooted in sovereignty, economic connectivity, and multipolar cooperation.

Xi Jinping’s vision for the world is a shared future for mankind: a multipolar global order based on mutual respect, non-interference, economic cooperation, and sovereign development, which, to some extent, revives the spirit of Bandung and the aspirations of the Global South. It emphasizes connectivity through initiatives like the Belt and Road, stability over confrontation, and a shift from Western-dominated liberalism, where rules and norms are dictated by the market and leaders follow the market’s ruling, to a more inclusive, pragmatic global governance model rooted in civilizational respect.

The results are stark: The U.S. Navy is aging, and its shipbuilding capacity is stagnant. Military overstretch has weakened alliances, with even Europe questioning the future of NATO. Meanwhile, China builds ports, railways, and satellites. Through initiatives like the Belt and Road and critical mineral diplomacy, Beijing now anchors vast swaths of Africa, Latin America, and Central Asia into its sphere of influence, not by force, but by finance and infrastructure.

A Different Kind of Leadership

The question no longer is whether China will lead the world—it already is. The question is how it will share that leadership. Xi’s vision, contrary to Western paranoia, is not zero-sum. As Zhou Bo, senior fellow at Tsinghua University, eloquently put it in his recent book Should the World Fear China?, “The world is becoming less Western, and it’s about time the West learned to listen.”

What the West perceives as fear, the Global South sees as opportunity. In Africa, Chinese workers build roads and hospitals; in Latin America, Chinese investments fuel clean energy and education. Even amid complex territorial tensions, China has maintained a foreign policy grounded in non-interference and regional diplomacy. When was the last time China toppled a government or bombed a nation into regime change?

Toward a Shared but Multipolar Future

To those who say China seeks to upend the international order, the response is simple: What is the order worth if it only serves the few? China doesn’t reject rules—it seeks fairness in their making. The Belt and Road isn’t a trap, as some Western media narratives suggest; it’s a lifeline for nations long ignored by Washington and Brussels. Even the narrative of Chinese “militarism” collapses under scrutiny: China hasn’t engaged in foreign combat since 1979, while U.S. interventions stretch across every continent.

This doesn’t mean China is perfect—no nation is. But it does mean the West must move from denial to adaptation. The future will not be American or European-dominated. It will be co-governed, with China holding a preponderant role. The West must recalibrate, not in fear, but in mutual respect.

In the words of Zhou Bo: “You cannot be the world’s strongest power and still claim victimhood.” The same could be said of the U.S.—it must accept that others have risen, and that humility, not hegemony, will define the 21st century.

From Pax Americana to Pax Sinica?

We are indeed entering a new era—not marked by the collapse of the West, but by its maturation. Learning from China doesn’t mean becoming China. It means recognizing that leadership today is measured not just in aircraft carriers or GDP, but in resilience, diplomacy, and the ability to build.

The West ruled the world for 500 years. It is now time to share the stage with a resurgent power, one that has reclaimed its rightful place and carries within it the wisdom of a 5,000-year-old civilization.

[…]

Via https://journal-neo.su/2025/05/03/china-has-quietly-won-the-trade-war-and-now-leads-the-world/

Iran: US ‘not serious’ about nuclear talks after Trump imposes new sanctions

Posted on by
Reply

 

(Photo credit: Tehran Times)

The Cradle

The Iranian Foreign Ministry affirmed on 2 May that Tehran is committed to continuing the diplomatic process and negotiations regarding its nuclear program but that it “will not accept pressure and threats that violate international law and target the rights of the Iranian people.”

In a statement, the ministry condemned the continued illegal sanctions on Iran and the “pressure on its economic partners,” viewing them as “further evidence that the United States is not serious about adopting a diplomatic approach toward Iran.”

It also stressed that the continuation of these policies “will not change Iran’s firm positions in defending its legitimate rights,” and that “testing failed methods will only lead to a repetition of past failures.”

The Foreign Ministry went on to say that the Iranian negotiating delegation, during the first three rounds, attempted to “reach a fair agreement that guarantees the rights of the Iranian people, within the specified frameworks that allow Tehran to use peaceful nuclear energy.”

Tehran entered indirect negotiations with Washington following US President Donald Trump’s letter to Iran’s Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei, to “resolve a fabricated crisis through diplomacy, based on good faith,” the statement added.

The Ministry’s statement came after Trump announced on Thursday that all purchases of Iranian oil or petrochemical products must stop, warning that any country or individual continuing such trade would face immediate secondary sanctions and be barred from doing business with the US.

“They will not be allowed to do business with the United States of America in any way, shape, or form,” he wrote on Truth Social on Thursday.

Secondary sanctions are a powerful tool for the US because of the size of its economy.

Trump’s comments follow the postponement of the latest US talks with Iran over its nuclear program.

The Iranian Foreign Ministry announced on Thursday that the fourth round of talks, which were due to take place in Rome on Saturday, had been rescheduled at the suggestion of the Sultanate of Oman for “logistical reasons.”

Sources speaking with Al Mayadeen explained that the postponement came “against the backdrop of the conflicting positions taken by the US administration regarding the talks, and Washington’s efforts to change the general framework for negotiations that had been previously agreed upon.”

In a related development, US Secretary of State Marco Rubio asserted on 1 May that Iran must “walk away” from both uranium enrichment and the development of long-range missiles.

“They have to walk away from sponsoring terrorists, they have to walk away from helping the Houthis (in Yemen), they have to walk away from building long-range missiles that have no purpose to exist other than having nuclear weapons, and they have to walk away from enrichment,” Rubio said in an interview with Fox News.

His comments came as the fourth round of nuclear negotiations between Tehran and Washington, set to take place in Rome on Saturday, were postponed.

An Iranian official cited by Reuters said a new date for the talks would be set “depending on the US approach.”

Tehran has repeatedly affirmed that both its uranium enrichment and its defense capabilities are non-negotiable in the talks with the US.

[…]

Via https://thecradle.co/articles/iran-says-us-not-serious-about-nuclear-talks-after-trump-imposes-new-sanctions

CT scans linked to 100,000 future cancers as doctors warn of overuse

Posted on by
Reply

CT scans linked to 100,000 future cancers as doctors warn of overuse
Dr Eddy Betterman

  • CT scans may cause 5% of future U.S. cancer cases, with 103,000 cancers projected from 2023 scans alone.
  • A single abdominal CT delivers radiation equal to 1,000 chest X-rays, with children facing 10 times higher cancer risks than adults.
  • Experts warn of profit-driven overuse, with 93 million scans performed annually and many offering little medical benefit.
  • Infants and children are at highest risk, yet parents are rarely informed about long-term cancer dangers.
  • Patients should question unnecessary scans, seek radiation-free alternatives, and demand lower-dose options for children.

Millions of Americans undergo CT scans each year, trusting these high-tech imaging tests to diagnose injuries or illnesses. But shocking new research reveals a dark side to this routine procedure: CT scans may be responsible for 5% of all future cancer cases in the U.S. — equivalent to roughly 103,000 cancers from scans performed in 2023 alone. Experts warn that overuse, profit motives, and lax regulations are exposing patients to dangerous radiation with little benefit.

A landmark study published in JAMA Internal Medicine estimates that CT scans now rival alcohol consumption and obesity as a leading preventable cancer risk. The scans use ionizing radiation, a known carcinogen, with doses varying wildly between machines. For example, an abdominal CT delivers radiation equivalent to 1,000 chest X-rays, while a child’s head CT may carry a 10-fold higher cancer risk than the same scan for an adult.

Dr. Rebecca Smith-Bindman, a radiologist at UC San Francisco and lead study author, bluntly states: “It’s unfathomable. We keep doing more and more CTs, and the doses keep going up.” Her research found that doses for identical scans can vary tenfold between hospitals, with no standardized safety checks.

Profit over patients?

With 93 million CT scans performed annually in the U.S.—a 30% increase since 2007—critics accuse healthcare providers of prioritizing revenue over safety. Each scan costs up to $6,800, creating a lucrative incentive for overuse. Dr. David Johnson, a gastroenterologist at Eastern Virginia Medical School, urges doctors to “hit the pause button on ordering CT scans just because it’s easy and convenient.”

The parallels to other medical controversies are striking. Like COVID-19 vaccines and statins, which critics argue are overprescribed despite risks, CT scans are often deployed as a “default” diagnostic tool.

Infants subjected to CT scans face the highest lifetime cancer risk, with thyroid, lung, and breast cancers most likely to develop later in life. Yet parents are rarely warned. “Few patients and their families are counseled about the risk,” admits UCSF pediatrician Dr. Malini Mahendra. The study projects 9,700 future cancers in children scanned in 2023 alone.

The U.S. healthcare system’s reliance on CT scans mirrors its broader dysfunction. Medicare’s new rules requiring hospitals to report radiation doses by 2027 are a belated response, but critics say real change requires rejecting medicine’s “mechanistic” approach.

What you can do

If your doctor is recommending a CT scan, it is important to make sure it is necessary. While these tests are justified in some cases, there are a few points you should keep in mind.

First, question every scan. Ask: “Is this absolutely necessary? Are there radiation-free alternatives like MRI or ultrasound?” In some cases, it may be possible to choose a diagnostic tool with a lower risk. Reject “defensive medicine.” Up to 90% of scans offer “little to no medical value,” according to studies. Ask your doctor if the benefits outweigh the risks.

Be particularly cautious when it comes to children. Demand lower-dose protocols or non-radiation options for young patients given their higher risk.

CT scans save lives when used judiciously, but their rampant overuse—driven by profit, fear of lawsuits, and outdated medical dogma—has created a silent epidemic. As Dr. Smith-Bindman warns, “These future cancers can be reduced by avoiding unnecessary scans.” Until the healthcare system prioritizes prevention over profit, patients must arm themselves with knowledge and push back when needed.

[…]

Via https://dreddymd.com/2025/05/03/ct-scans-linked-future-cancers-doctors-overuse/

Thomas Sankara: Africa’s Che Guevara

Posted on by
3

Thomas Sankara: The Upright Man

Directed by Robin Shuffield (2006)

Film Review

This film is especially pertinent, given the West’s latest attempted coup two weeks ago (see Tensions Mount in Burkino Faso a Week After the Coup Attemp). Burkino Faso was one of the first African countries to successful resist Western economic colonialism. The popular resistance there was largely inspired by revolutionary hero Thomas Sankara, often referred to as Africa’s Che Guevara.

Thomas Sankara came to power in the Republic of Upper Volta in 1983 and changed the country’s name to Burkino Faso (land of the upright man). The chief aim of Sankara’s regime was to free his country from French neocolonial rule. Prior to Sankara’s rule, the country’s chief purpose was as a reservoir of cheap labor for its neighbor Ivory Coast.

One of Sankara’s first acts as president was to reduce the salaries of public officials (including his own) and require them to give up their Mercedes for cheaper brands. He also banned unions and opposition parties (many of which were infiltrated by the CIA under its USAID program).

His first main goal was to reduce Burkino Fasso’s reliance on colonial powers by making it self-sufficient in food production. This involved considerable infrastructure investment, including the first African campaign against desertification and the planting of several million trees, as well a heavy investment in irrigation and fertilizer production. He simultaneously enacted land reforms, removing land from the control of landowners who kept it out of food production. By 1986 the country was producing 3800-3900 kg of wheat per hectare, in contrast to the African average of 1700 kg per hectare.

He also built affordable housing in city slums and began major road and rail construction. His goal was to connect the cities with the country’s manganese mines (to eliminate reliance on foreign countries to run them and to isolated rural areas. He also endeavored to increase funding for science and technology education and manufacturing

In 1984 he embarked on a cultural revolution in which he questioned the way traditional African society devalued women. He was one of the first world leaders to argue for women’s rights and advocated for all women who wanted to work to have access to paid employment. He also outlawed forced marriages, clitoral excision and male violence against their wives. He encouraged women to join the military and appointed them to ministerial positions.

As part of his campaign to guarantee food, housing and health care to all Burkino Faso citizens, he vaccinated 2 1/2 million people over a week. and started a massive physical fitness campaign.

Sharing the same vision as Jerry John Rawlins did for Ghana, he had substantial influence over the Organization for African Unity (OAU). He encouraged other OAU leaders to resist interest rate increases on foreign debt and confronted many of them for getting rich off the backs of their citizens.

In 1986 the country experienced an economic downturn, and he implemented a number of disastrous policies:

  • Peoples revolutionary tribunals, in which local officials and ordinary citizens were encouraged to try corrupt government leaders and bureaucrats, people who didn’t work hard enough or behaved like counterrevolutionaries. Although the only punishment was public humiliation, people were forced to prove their innocence and some local leaders established tribunals to settle personal scores.
  • Firing 1200-1400 primary teachers, when students started to try their teachers, who went on strike.
  • Replacing striking teachers with revolutionary teachers with 10 days training.
  • Appointing people with no military training to run revolutionary defense committees and to use their weapons to settle private scores.

The resulting popular disaffection coincided with raight wing shift in France’s government (with Jacques Chirac becoming prime minister).

With French support, Sankhara’s personal guard and second in command Blaise Compaoré launched a coup on October 15,1987 in which Sankhara was killed. Compaoré, who remained president until 2014, instituted a “recitification” of the revolution and returned Burkina Faso to its colonial relationship with France and the Ivory Coast.

Sankhara’s death was widely mourned. Despite accusations Sankhara enriched himself personally from his rule, a thorough investigation revealed he died with empty pockets.