home | rich profile | rich freebies | rich tools | rich data | online shop | my account | register |
  rich wrap-ups | **richLIVE** | richPodcasts | richRadio | richTV  | richInterviews  | richCNBC  | 
Satchu's Rich Wrap-Up
Friday 18th of June 2021

Register and its all Free.

read more

"Have you ever climbed a mountain in full armour? That's what we did, him going first the whole way up a tiny path into the clouds, with drops sheer on both sides into nothing" - Peter Shaffer, The Royal Hunt of the Sun

“Have you ever climbed a mountain in full armour? That's what we did, him going first the whole way up a tiny path into the clouds, with drops sheer on both sides into nothing. 

For hours we crept forward like blind men, the sweat freezing on our faces, lugging skittery leaking horses, and pricked all the time for the ambush that would tip us into death. 

Each turn of the path it grew colder. The friendly trees of the forest dropped away, and there were only pines. Then they went too, and there just scrubby little bushes standing up in ice. 

All round us the rocks began to whine the cold. And always above us, or below us, those filthy condor birds, hanging on the air with great tasselled wings....

Four days like that; groaning, not speaking; the breath a blade in our lungs. Four days, slowly, like flies on a wall; limping flies, dying flies, up an endless wall of rock. A tiny army lost in the creases of the moon.”

read more

On the Gringo Trail...Popocatépetl "Smoking Mountain"; 5426m) from neighbouring Ixtaccíhuatl. The twin volcanoes overlook Mexico City. it is the mountain of Malcolm Lowry's "Under the Volcano." @NicholasCoghlan

On the Gringo Trail...Popocatépetl "Smoking Mountain"; 5426m) from neighbouring Ixtaccíhuatl.  The twin volcanoes overlook Mexico City. Popo was first climbed by the conquistador Diego de Ordaz in 1519; it is the mountain of Malcolm Lowry's "Under the Volcano." .

read more

Under the Volcano by Malcolm Lowry (1947)

Malcolm Lowry’s masterpiece about the last hours of an alcoholic ex-diplomat in Mexico is set to the drumbeat of coming conflict

It is November 1939, the Day of the Dead in Quauhnahuac, Mexico. Two men in white flannels, one a film-maker, are looking back to last year’s fiesta. 

It was then, we discover, that Geoffrey Firmin – the former British consul, ex-husband of Yvonne, a rampant alcoholic and also a ruined man – embarked on his via crucis, an agonised passage through a fateful day, that would end in Firmin’s killing.

In 12 chapters corresponding to the 12 hours of the consul’s last day on earth, Lowry takes Firmin on a colossal bender, fuelled by beer, wine, tequila and mescal (“strychnine” to our protagonist). 

He is drinking himself to death, like Lowry himself, though Under the Volcano is about much more than alcoholism. 

Halfway through, the consul decides that “It was already the longest day in his entire experience, a lifetime”.

Lowry himself, a refugee from the Fitzrovia of his contemporary George Orwell and the young Dylan Thomas, described Under the Volcano as “a prophecy, a political warning, a cryptogram, a preposterous movie, and a writing on the wall”

read more

The book takes its name from the two volcanoes that overshadow Quauhnahuac and the characters, Popocatepetl and Iztaccihuatl.

“I have no house only a shadow. But whenever you are in need of a shadow, my shadow is yours.”  ― Malcolm Lowry, Under the Volcano

“Only against death does man cry out in vain.” ― Malcolm Lowry

“Good God, if our civilization were to sober up for a couple of days, it'd die of remorse on the third—”  ― Malcolm Lowry, Under the Volcano

read more

Ecclesiastes 1:2-11 2 11 There is no remembrance of former things,[c] nor will there be any remembrance of later things[d] yet to be among those who come after.

Vanity[a] of vanities, says the Preacher,

vanity of vanities! All is vanity.

What does man gain by all the toil

at which he toils under the sun?

A generation goes, and a generation comes,

but the earth remains forever.

The sun rises, and the sun goes down,

and hastens[b] to the place where it rises.

The wind blows to the south

and goes around to the north;

around and around goes the wind,

and on its circuits the wind returns.

All streams run to the sea,

but the sea is not full;

to the place where the streams flow,

there they flow again.

All things are full of weariness;

a man cannot utter it;

the eye is not satisfied with seeing,

nor the ear filled with hearing.

What has been is what will be,

and what has been done is what will be done,

and there is nothing new under the sun.

Is there a thing of which it is said,

“See, this is new”?

It has been already

in the ages before us.

There is no remembrance of former things,[c]

nor will there be any remembrance

of later things[d] yet to be

among those who come after.

read more

The Last Supper (Italian: Il Cenacolo or L'Ultima Cena is a late 15th-century mural painting by Leonardo da Vinci
Law & Politics

The painting represents the scene of The Last Supper of Jesus with his apostles, as it is told in the Gospel of John, 13:21. Leonardo has depicted the consternation that occurred among the Twelve Disciples when Jesus announced that one of them would betray him.

read more

This political cartoon about the G7 meeting has been widely shared in the sinosphere. @hsu_steve
Law & Politics

Some of the esoteric meaning may be lost on a US audience, but see here for an explanation. 

Note the device on the table which turns toilet paper into US dollars. 

The Japanese dog is serving radioactive water to the co-conspirators. Italy, the BRI participant, refuses the drink. 

France and Germany seem to be thinking about it carefully. Who is the little frog? (Hint: NTD)

read more

Nations w/ record new #COVID19 daily cases past week @mlukens

Colombia: 31,656

Bolivia: 7,072

Mongolia: 4,781

UAE: 4,471

Oman: 4,415

Zambia: 2,690

Afghanistan: 1,842

Cuba: 1,537

Namibia: 1,432

Haiti: 482

Fiji: 116

Mauritius: 107

Liberia: 102

Saint Kitts and Nevis: 72

read more

The Routes Of Viral Traffic @NoemaMag Andrew Lakoff

At the heart of the current debate over the origins of the COVID-19 pandemic is the question of how to manage the risk of future infectious disease outbreaks. 

For over three decades, experts in emerging viruses have argued that zoonotic spillover is an ongoing and inevitable process, and that human incursions into the natural environment have made the world increasingly susceptible to catastrophic pandemics. 

From this perspective, ever since the appearance and spread of HIV/AIDS, “the next pandemic” has been right around the corner. 

However, the recent rise of an alternative theory of the pandemic’s origins poses a disturbing question: Is COVID-19 the realization of these experts’ prophecy? Or did the prophecy in fact bring the pandemic into being?

We Are Not Prepared

With a return to normalcy in sight (at least in some parts of the world), we are entering what might be called the “post-hoc assessment” phase of the pandemic. 

This phase typically involves a process of collective diagnosis, in which official commissions draw lessons from the event that point to the need to anticipate similar future crises. 

Thus, a World Health Organization review of the response to the 2009 H1N1 pandemic concluded that “the world is ill-prepared for a severe pandemic or for any similarly global, sustained and threatening public health emergency.” 

Five years later, after the catastrophic Ebola epidemic in West Africa, another W.H.O. review committee warned that “the world cannot afford another period of inaction until the next health crisis.” 

Such assessments, in turn, seek to galvanize resources and structure organizational reform in order to ward off future catastrophes. 

Initial post-hoc assessments of the world’s response to SARS-CoV-2 share this basic structure. The pandemic was a “preventable disaster,” an independent panel of experts established by the W.H.O. recently reported, pointing to “weak links at every point in the chain of preparedness and response.” 

Having slept through prior warnings, the panel argued, the “world needs to wake up” in order to adequately “prepare for the future.” 

It recommended a number of reform measures, including an improved system of global disease surveillance and a platform for the rapid and equitable production of medical countermeasures.  

But just as this process of post-hoc assessment was getting underway, an unsettling counter-diagnosis gained sudden and unexpected currency: 

the long-marginalized hypothesis that the pandemic originated not with a spillover event in the wild, but rather through the accidental release of an experimental virus. 

If validated, this counter-diagnosis would not only attribute blame very differently — it would also fundamentally transform how we evaluate future disease threats. 

It would point not to the familiar assessment that “we were not prepared,” but rather to the conclusion that — at least in one critical way — we were too much in thrall to calls for preparedness. 

Indeed, it would suggest that the very demand for preparedness may have sparked the catastrophe. 

This interruption of the post-hoc assessment process is the result of a series of recent events: 

In mid-May, a number of highly regarded scientists published a letter in Science calling for further investigation of COVID-19’s origins; at around the same time, respected science journalists began to suggest that the “lab leak” theory should be revisited; 

and then the Wall Street Journal reported on U.S. intelligence findings that several scientists at the Wuhan Institute of Virology, where research on bat coronaviruses was taking place, were hospitalized with COVID-like symptoms in November 2019, before the first officially reported cases of the disease. 

“If validated, this counter-diagnosis would fundamentally transform how we evaluate future disease threats.”

Meanwhile, scientists have been unable to identify an intermediary host animal that could confirm the spillover hypothesis, adding to the plausibility of an accidental laboratory release as the initial source of the outbreak. 

Thus, we find ourselves in a situation of diagnostic uncertainty, both about how to attribute blame and about the horizon of future reform. 

Much of the public commentary on this newly credible origin story has emphasized what it would imply for culpability — whether of the Chinese government, experimental virologists or an overly credulous media. 

But beyond the search for a proximate culprit, the resurgence of the lab leak hypothesis points to a larger series of questions about the conditions of possibility for such an event. 

It leads us to ask about the surprising confluence of actors at the heart of the story of a possible laboratory accident: 

An environmental NGO based in New York devoted to collecting samples of viruses from wild animals around the world; a virology laboratory in Wuhan doing experimental research on bat coronaviruses; and the U.S. National Institutes of Health, which supported a collaboration between those two entities as part of a larger portfolio of funding for basic research in the virology of emerging diseases. 

We must try to understand: What principle of intelligibility guided researchers to take blood, saliva and fecal samples from bats living in obscure caves in southern China, bring these samples to a laboratory in a faraway city, analyze viral fragments found in the samples and experiment on them to explore their transmissibility among humans? 

How, in other words, did disease ecology meet experimental virology under the auspices of government research to improve public health? 

A good place to begin the story is in the late 1980s, at the height of the HIV/AIDS crisis and toward the end of the Cold War, as a group of life scientists began to consider the future of infectious disease. 

It is here that we can find an initial articulation of the idea that monitoring animal viruses in the present might curtail future epidemics in humans. 

Viral Traffic

In May 1989, an interdisciplinary conference on the topic of “emerging viruses” was held in Washington, D.C. 

The premise of the conference was that public health must take into account the centrality of human action in driving the emergence and spread of novel infectious diseases. 

Participants pointed to examples such as the evolution of new strains of influenza as a result of farming practices in Asia that intermingled ducks and pigs, the spread of dengue across oceans via water lingering in used tires and the role of new techniques of maize production in extending the range of Argentine hemorrhagic fever. 

One of the conference organizers, the virologist Stephen Morse, introduced the concept of “viral traffic” to describe the movement of novel or already-existing viruses to new species or new populations. 

As Morse described it, the emergence of new infectious diseases was a scientific story, but also a moral one — about the unintended consequences of modernization and the ecological degradation that accompanied it. 

Thus, for example, large dam projects in the developing world had led to the expansion of mosquito-borne diseases such as Rift Valley fever. Industrialized meat production in the U.K. had fostered the emergence of mad cow disease. 

Large-scale rural-to-urban migration often introduced remote pathogens to larger populations, as in the case of the virus causing Lassa fever. 

Meanwhile, the advent of international air travel meant that an obscure disease could rapidly spread around the world. 

The story of emerging diseases also pointed to the need for new forms of public health intervention. 

If we are to manage the threat posed by novel pathogens, Morse argued, we must become better viral “traffic engineers.” 

An initial step would be to establish a global disease surveillance mechanism: A network of monitoring stations located in tropical areas and staffed by trained field epidemiologists could alert international health authorities of the emergence of a novel and deadly virus. 

This surveillance network should be attentive to “viral traffic signals,” such as deforestation, dam construction, disruptive changes in agricultural practice or major population migrations. 

“If we are to manage the threat posed by novel pathogens, Morse argued, we must become better viral ‘traffic engineers.'”

Such anticipatory knowledge might curtail the onset of future pandemics: “Most viruses that today are worldwide were once localized,” Morse observed. 

AIDS, for instance, had begun as an emerging viral disease. If the right tools of detection and containment had been in place, it “could have been stopped at the pre-crisis stage.” 

But the goal of pandemic prevention was not yet technically feasible — it would require the development of a “methodology for assessing the likelihood that a given animal virus will emerge as a human pathogen.” 

In the meantime, according to Morse, the ongoing emergence and spread of novel pathogens into human populations were inevitable. 

Recent epidemics “should force the realization that new viruses will always be imminent,” and that “tragedies like the AIDS epidemic will be repeated.” 

As industrial modernization caused further ecological degradation, “episodes of disease emergence are likely to become more frequent,” he predicted. 

To address this intensifying threat, support for research into the process of disease emergence was needed. 

With a better scientific understanding of viral evolution, according to Morse, “we should be in a position to circumvent emerging diseases at fairly early stages.” 

Over the next two decades, a research program at the intersection of disease ecology and experimental virology coalesced around this goal. 

read more

The Routes Of Viral Traffic @NoemaMag Andrew Lakoff [continued]

Epidemic Intelligence 

Drawing on the assumptions of the “viral traffic” framework, international health authorities sought to implement a global surveillance system that could detect and rapidly contain novel pathogens. 

Epidemiologist Donald Henderson, who had led the W.H.O. smallpox eradication campaign in the 1970s, provided an initial vision of a global infrastructure for detecting the onset of emerging diseases. 

Henderson’s vision built on the field of “epidemic intelligence,” developed at the Center for Disease Control during the Cold War, which involved training field epidemiologists to track reports of outbreaks and quickly respond to contain them. 

The goal was to extend the tools of epidemic intelligence — which were designed to detect outbreaks of existing diseases — to anticipate the emergence of novel ones. 

Such a system, Henderson and others argued, would be of use not only for monitoring emerging diseases, but also for the early detection of a bioterrorist attack. 

In the aftermath of the 2001 anthrax letters, this “dual use” approach to biological threats attracted increasing support from the national security establishment. 

There were political as well as technical challenges to building a global system to monitor the emergence of infectious diseases. 

National governments were often hesitant to report outbreaks to international authorities. 

At the outset of the 2003 SARS epidemic, the Chinese government refused to allow outside experts to investigate, underlining the need for a system that would enable rapid response to the appearance of a novel and deadly infectious disease. 

Soon after, the specter of an avian influenza pandemic accelerated efforts to construct such a system, including the adoption of revised International Health Regulations that enabled the W.H.O. to declare a “public health emergency of international concern” based on the appearance of an as-yet-unknown pathogen. 

The goal was to push W.H.O. member states to rapidly report any such outbreaks and to allow international health authorities to investigate them. 

“Experimental virologists argued that it would be possible to simulate the natural process of viral evolution in the laboratory.”

A number of entrepreneurial scientists claimed to have developed tools that would enable the early detection of future viral disease outbreaks, making it possible to “stop the next pandemic before it starts.” 

Epidemiologist Larry Brilliant pitched a digital surveillance system that would crawl the internet and global news to detect signs of developing health threats. 

Primatologist Nathan Wolfe promoted a system of “viral forecasting” that involved collecting samples of bushmeat from local markets across sub-Saharan Africa. 

Zoologist Peter Daszak at EcoHealth Alliance conducted genetic analyses of samples taken from wildlife around the world with the aim of predicting the onset of emerging diseases. 

The concern among health authorities that avian influenza would mutate to become more easily transmissible among humans drove an intensification of research on viral emergence. 

Disease ecologists thought that a pandemic strain would likely emerge at the duck-pig interface in East Asia and then be carried around the world by migratory waterfowl. 

To track potentially dangerous mutations of the virus, they regularly conducted genetic analyses of samples taken from migratory birds. 

But such molecular surveillance efforts posed a familiar question: How could scientists know which viral strains to look for? What were the signs that a virus was becoming more easily transmissible among humans? 

Here a new set of scientific actors entered the picture: experimental virologists, who argued that it would be possible to simulate the natural process of viral evolution in the laboratory. 

The premise was that pushing H5N1 in the direction of human transmissibility would help molecular surveillance efforts by making it possible to identify genetic sequences linked to the ability to infect humans. 

This goal was taken up as part of the U.S. government’s 2005 national pandemic preparedness plan. In an appendix to the plan, the National Institutes of Health pledged support for basic research in influenza virology, including projects to understand the “genetic changes that permit an influenza virus to suddenly acquire the ability to transmit between species.”

 This clause referred to a subfield of virology that would become known as “gain of function research,” in which researchers experimentally manipulated viruses in order to study characteristics such as virulence and transmissibility. 

Between 2001 and 2007, annual federal funding for basic research on influenza, managed by the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Disease (NIAID), jumped from $15 million to $212 million. 

Gain Of Function

When the H1N1 (swine flu) pandemic began in the spring of 2009, it seemed at first to be “the next pandemic” that health authorities had been anticipating. 

But H1N1 turned out to have relatively mild effects on human populations, and W.H.O. officials were accused of overreacting to the appearance of the new strain — of having pushed governments to invest huge sums in what turned out to be unnecessary mass vaccination campaigns. 

By this time, meanwhile, the dire threat of an avian influenza pandemic seemed to be waning. Perhaps H5N1 was unlikely, after all, to mutate to become easily transmissible among humans. 

However, experimental virologists continued to make the case for its viability as a pandemic threat. 

In late 2011, when Dutch virologist Ron Fouchier announced that his laboratory had created a strain of H5N1 that could be passed via aerosol transmission among ferrets, he explained the rationale for creating what he described as “one of the most dangerous viruses you can make.” 

While there were respected scientists who thought “that H5N1 could never become airborne between mammals,” he said, “I wasn’t convinced. To prove these guys wrong, we needed to make a virus that is transmissible.” 

Fouchier’s announcement sparked a public debate among life scientists and biosafety specialists over the risks and benefits of gain-of-function research on dangerous pathogens. 

According to advocates of the research, experimentally manipulating viruses to make them more virulent or transmissible would contribute to pandemic preparedness by enabling molecular surveillance efforts — such as sampling migratory birds for avian influenza — to recognize the emergence of dangerous pathogens in time to contain them

“In defining the mutations required for mammalian transmission,” as NIAID director Anthony Fauci and two co-authors wrote in a Washington Post op-ed, 

“public health officials are provided with genetic signatures that, like fingerprints, could help scientists more readily identify newly emergent, potentially harmful viruses, track their spread and detect threatening outbreaks.” 

“The key concern was that this type of research might spawn exactly what it was meant to prevent.”

Critics, meanwhile, charged that the rationale for such research was tenuous at best. 

First, they argued, it took for granted a vast technical capacity for the molecular surveillance of potential animal hosts that was completely unrealistic given limited resources. 

Second, it assumed that what was created in the laboratory through gain-of-function research would in fact mimic what was likely to emerge in “nature.” 

But there was no basis for such an assumption. As one scientist memorably put it, “Would nature have come up with the dachshund?”

Critics also argued that a significant recent record of laboratory accidents resulting in the release of dangerous viruses and a woefully insufficient regulatory apparatus militated against providing government support for gain-of-function research. 

The key concern was that this type of research might spawn exactly what it was meant to prevent. 

As a group of scientists concerned with biosafety wrote in 2014, the lab-based creation of pathogens with pandemic potential “entails a unique risk that a laboratory accident could spark a pandemic killing millions.” 

For these critics, the hypothetical benefit of assessing pandemic potential did not outweigh the catastrophic risk of unleashing an actual pandemic. 

Two catastrophic scenarios confronted one another with no means of technical resolution: a naturally emerging virus whose onset might be anticipated and even prevented through the results of viral transmission research, versus the accidental release of a pandemic virus as a result of this very research. 

In this uncertain terrain, government funding agencies struggled to find an agreed-upon method of risk assessment that could guide regulatory decisions. 

Meanwhile, despite an official moratorium on federal support for gain-of-function research from 2014 to 2017, such experimentation continued and extended to new areas. 

The Route To Wuhan

The two major strands of research on viral emergence — disease ecologists studying wildlife in the field and experimental virologists manipulating pathogens in the laboratory — converged in the investigation of bat coronaviruses found in caves in southern China. 

In June 2014, NIH funded a proposal for research on “understanding the risk of bat coronavirus emergence,” led by Peter Daszak of EcoHealth Alliance in collaboration with the Wuhan Institute of Virology. 

The proposed research would address questions on “the origin, diversity, capacity to cause illness and risk of spillover” of bat coronaviruses, and involved “conducting laboratory experiments to analyze and predict which newly discovered viruses pose the greatest threat to human health.” 

Such “emergence potential” — that is, the potential for “interspecies transmission” of novel coronaviruses — would be tested “using reverse genetics, pseudovirus and receptor binding assays, and virus infection experiments across a range of cell cultures from different species and humanized mice,” as the proposal put it

Thus, the project sought to address the question that Stephen Morse had posed three decades earlier: How to assess “the likelihood that a given animal virus will emerge as a pathogen”? 

Seven years later, in mid-2021, there were two ways to understand the retrospective significance of this research program — as either the prescient forecast or the dangerous progenitor of the COVID-19 pandemic

In this sense, we can understand our current situation of diagnostic uncertainty as a question of which route of viral traffic to follow: zoonotic spillover, as exemplified by the movement of SARS in the early 2000s from bats to civet cats to humans via the trade in wildlife; or a new potential route, from the bat caves of southern China to a virology laboratory in Wuhan, as part of a cosmopolitan project in the life sciences—initially proposed in 1989—to investigate the pandemic potential of emerging viruses. 

The stakes of this assessment are high, not only for determining the sites of failure that led to the present catastrophe, but also in targeting interventions designed to forestall “the next one.” 

read more

“No matter how the official narrative of this turns out," it seemed to Heidi

Thomas Pynchon in Bleeding Edge “No matter how the official narrative of this turns out," it seemed to Heidi, "these are the places we should be looking, not in newspapers or television but at the margins, graffiti, uncontrolled utterances, bad dreamers who sleep in public and scream in their sleep.”

read more

01-MAR-2020 :: The Origin of the #CoronaVirus #COVID19

What is clear is that the #COVID19 was bio-engineered The Science [and I am not a Scientist is irrefutable and in the public domain  for those with a modicum of intellectual interest. 

This information is being deliberately suppressed.

This took me to Thomas Pynchon

“If they can get you asking the wrong questions, they don't have to worry about answers.”

“There's always more to it. This is what history consists of. It is the sum total of the things they aren't telling us.”

 Now Why are we being led away from this irrefutable Truth

read more

13-JUL-2020 :: Year of the Virus

I am convinced that the only ‘’zoonotic’’ origin was one that was accelerated in the Laboratory.

There is also a non negligible possibility that #COVID19 was deliberately released – 

read more

"New #COVID19 cases continent-wide are up by nearly 30% in the past week and deaths are up by 15%. " - Dr @MoetiTshidi @WHOAFRO

"New #COVID19 cases continent-wide are up by nearly 30% in the past week and deaths are up by 15%. At the continental level, we are seeing a rise in cases similar to the first wave peak in July 2020 & about 50% of the second wave peak in January 2021." - 

read more

#Africa is in the midst of a full blown third wave. We’ve seen in India and elsewhere how quickly COVID-19 can rebound and overwhelm health systems." - Dr @MoetiTshidi @WHOAFRO

#Africa is in the midst of a full blown third wave. The sobering trajectory of surging #COVID19 cases should rouse everyone to urgent action. We’ve seen in India and elsewhere how quickly COVID-19 can rebound and overwhelm health systems." - Dr 
@MoetiTshidi @WHOAFRO

read more

Africa is currently reporting a million new infections about every 87 days @ReutersGraphics

Of every 100 infections last reported around the world, about 6 were reported from countries in Africa

read more

Ethiopia is preparing for national and regional parliamentary elections on Monday that Prime Minister Abiy Ahmed has said will be the country's first free and fair polls @Reuters

But voting has been delayed in 110 out of 547 constituencies because of violent conflicts and logistical problems and some opposition parties are boycotting the elections over what they describe as harassment of their members.
One candidate is contesting the election from jail.
Monday's elections will be the first test of voter support for Abiy's government. Abiy said on Twitter this week the polls would be "the nation's first attempt at free and fair elections."
Asheber Aboneh, a 32-year-old engineer from Oromiya, said he'd vote for Abiy anyway "because a known devil is better than the unknown angel."

read more

.@PMEthiopia has launched an unwinnable War on Tigray Province.

Ethiopia which was once the Poster child of the African Renaissance now has a Nobel Prize Winner whom I am reliably informed
PM Abiy His inner war cabinet includes Evangelicals who are counseling him he is "doing Christ's work"; that his faith is being "tested". @RAbdiAnalyst
@PMEthiopia has launched an unwinnable War on Tigray Province.

read more

La photo officielle du chef de la junte #AssmiGoïta se retrouve sur les murs de tous les bureaux de l'Etat! @AshleyLelaMAIGA

Quelle legitimité a t-il à porter tous ces attributs de chef d'Etat après avoir pris le pouvoir par les armes? #Mali

read more

Putschists are Warholian by nature. @hervegogo

[The official photo of the junta leader #AssmiGoïta can be found on the walls of all state offices! What legitimacy does he have in wearing all these attributes of head of state after having taken power by arms?#Mali] 

Putschists are Warholian by nature.

read more

by Aly Khan Satchu (www.rich.co.ke)
Login / Register

Forgot your password? Register Now
June 2021

In order to post a comment we require you to be logged in after registering with us and create an online profile.