All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the Translate Website button below the author’s name (desktop version)

To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.

Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

***

 

On Christmas night 1951 in Mims, Florida, sticks of planted dynamite exploded underneath the home of veteran organizers for the NAACP and the Progressive Voters League (PVL) resulting in the deaths of Harry T. Moore that same evening enroute to the hospital and his wife of 25 years, Harriet V.S. Moore, on January 3, 1952.

The Moore family were representative of the persistent struggle of African Americans in the South extending from the 1930s to the early 1950s.

Although declassified FBI documents revealed decades later that the federal government and local authorities knew that the Ku Klux Klan had carried out the assassinations of these two leaders, yet nothing was done to bring the perpetrators to justice. This same pattern of official complicity in the terror inflicted against African Americans would continue throughout this important decade of the 1950s. (See this)

Just three-and-one-half years later in the state of Mississippi, a series of murders would prove pivotal in the eruption of the mass Civil Rights Movement beginning in 1955. Two African American leaders in Mississippi, Rev. George Lee of Humphreys County and Lamar Smith of Brookhaven, were assassinated on May 7 and August 13 respectively.

Lee was a leader of the NAACP in his area while Smith was affiliated with the Regional Council of Negro Leadership (RCNL) formed in 1952. Both Lee and Smith were organizing Black people to vote in the Jim Crow era Mississippi where the White Citizens Council and the Ku Klux Klan were committed to suppressing the democratic rights of African Americans. (See this)

During late August 1955, in Money, Mississippi, 14-year-old Emmett Till of Chicago was kidnapped and brutally lynched after being falsely accused of making inappropriate comments to the wife of a white landowner and merchant. Till’s murder gained international attention after his mother demanded the arrest and prosecution of her son’s killers. After a show trial, both killers were exonerated by an all-white jury.

These acts of racial terror enhanced the already burgeoning militancy among the African American people in the post-World War II period. Later in December, the Montgomery Bus Boycott began which lasted for one year leading to a landmark Supreme Court decision striking down the segregation laws governing municipal transportation in Alabama. The Montgomery Bus Boycott would catapult Ms. Rosa L. Parks and Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. into world renown pioneers in the popular movement for Civil Rights in the United States.

Struggles for Civil Rights and Black Suffrage in Southwest Tennessee (1957-1969)

During the mid-1930s, John D. Rust and his brother Mack D. Rust, two white agricultural workers, inventors and engineers, produced a blueprint for the first practical cotton harvesting machine. The Rust brothers were influenced by socialist ideas and viewed the cotton picking machine as a means to liberating southern farm labor. They would establish a company in Memphis to produce and market their machines. Nonetheless, it would take another three decades for this technology to make significant inroads in the production of cotton. (See this)

The machine would transform the cultivation of cotton throughout the South eliminating the demand for African American farm labor. These changes in the character of production came at a time when African Americans were demanding their civil and human rights. Consequently, in response to the developing struggle for full equality and self-determination, the implementation of the new technology facilitated the undermining of Black labor and the further migration to the urban areas of the South, North and Western regions of the U.S.

Fayette and Haywood County, Tennessee, which bordered the Mississippi Delta, in the 1950s were areas where due to the legacy of African enslavement and Jim Crow, remained populated by a Black majority. Fayette, along with neighboring Haywood and Tipton counties, were major producers and marketers of cotton.

Image: Fayette County Burton Dodson on trial for killing white man 18 years before 1958 (Source: Abayomi Azikiwe)

After the passage of the 1957 Civil Rights Act, which purportedly empowered the U.S. Justice Department to enforce non-discrimination in access to the franchise, people began to organize in Haywood and later Fayette counties. The organizing efforts gained impetus when a former resident of Fayette County, Rev. Burton Dodson (then 78), was extradited from St. Louis, Missouri to Somerville, Tennessee in 1958 to stand trial for second degree murder of a white man participating in a racist mob attempting to lynch him in 1940.

In a timeline published by the University of Memphis it notes that:

“Prominent African American attorney James F. Estes represented Dodson. He was convicted of second-degree murder in April of 1959. Much of the Black community asserted that it was forensically impossible for Dodson to have committed the murder. The trial sparked interest with the Black citizens to register to vote and serve on juries. Attorney James F. Estes, with ties to the Memphis NAACP, spurred action for civil rights in both Haywood and Fayette Counties by assisting and/or recruiting local leaders to organize and register Blacks to vote. Estes works with Haywood County civil rights activist Currie Boyd to establish a ‘Civic League’ in Haywood. When McFerren (Viola and Charles) and Jameson (Harpson and Minnie) attended the trial of Burton Dodson, Estes seized the opportunity to encourage them to organize Blacks to register to vote in Fayette County. Understanding both the political and legal process as well as the power of the media, Estes, in December 1959, obtains affidavits from Blacks in Fayette and Haywood Counties where they make sworn statements that they have been denied their constitutional right to vote by local whites. In February, the Civil Rights Commission investigated Fayette Voter registration books. Later, in June and July of 1959, Black citizens lined up in Fayette County to register to vote. This is the beginning of a registration drive that will turn the county upside down. Black voters were blocked from voting in the Fayette County Democratic Primary. White party officials claim that primary elections are not covered under the Civil Rights Act of 1957 and that the party has the right to deny any citizen the ability to vote in the party’s primary.”

However, by 1960, through the legal actions of local activists, the Justice Department and the Federal Courts backed the claims made by African Americans that they did have the right to vote in these counties. Over the course of several months, African Americans began to register to vote in Fayette County. In retaliation, white landowners and businesspeople initiated an economic boycott against African Americans who registered. Whole families were evicted from the land they had farmed for generations. The white ruling interests refused to sell food, household supplies, gasoline, medical services, pharmaceuticals and other essentials to African Americans.

The mass evictions in 1960-61 created a Tent City in Fayette and Haywood counties where over one thousand families lived until 1962. The economic boycott of African American sharecroppers, tenant farmers and independent small landowners gained national attention prompting material assistance from northern-based labor unions and social justice organizations to the Tent cities, later called “Freedom Villages”, which sustained the people until the crisis was mitigated.

By the spring 1964, dozens of student volunteers travelled to Fayette County to assist in a mass voter registration drive and the organization of an election campaign which challenged the legacy of segregation in Southwest Tennessee. The bulk of the youth volunteers were from Cornell University in Ithaca, New York. These students lived with African American families involved in the Civil Rights Movement and were subjected to arbitrary arrests and racist violence alongside the local people residing in the rural and small-town areas of Fayette County. Their efforts were carried out under the West Tennessee Voters Project (WTVP) which established an office in Somerville while working alongside the Fayette County Civil and Welfare League founded in 1959 by John McFerren and Viola McFerren, Harpson and Minnie Jameson, among others.

Two candidates, one African American named Rev. J.W. Dowdy and a liberal white farmer, L.T. Redfearn sought to be elected to the offices of Sheriff and Tax Assessor. Even though they did not prevail due to the illegal voter suppression and irregularities, it provided the political strength for the community to take further actions.

The following year in 1965, the mass struggle for Civil Rights expanded into neighboring Tipton and Haywood counties. To break the remaining vestiges of segregation still in practice despite the passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, sit-ins and boycotts were carried out by the African American youth and their adult counterparts. (See this)

A series of actions labelled “Freedom Week” witnessed sit-ins and mass arrests in Covington in Tipton County beginning on July 19. A mass demonstration demanding a unitary non-segregated public school system occurred on July 24, 1965 in Covington, marching from the town square to the headquarters of the Tipton County School Board. The march mobilized 1,500-2,000 people from Tipton, Haywood and Fayette counties. During the following week, African American youth under the leadership of the Tipton and Fayette County Student Unions organized a strike against the segregated schools which was successful for several weeks until economic pressure forced many families off their tenant farms and out of their places of employment controlled by whites.

Federal lawsuits against the county school boards led to a four-year legal battle which resulted in the imposition of federal consent decrees mandating the integration of the public schools and the elimination of split sessions for African Americans, where their time in the classrooms was centered around the planting and harvesting of cotton. (See this)

Implications of the Defeat of Legalized Segregation in Rural and Urban Areas

During the spring and summer of 1965, efforts aimed at forming Freedom Labor Unions took place in the Mississippi Delta and in Southwest Tennessee. In several Mississippi counties, African American agricultural workers refused to go to the fields to harvest cotton demanding pay increases and improved conditions of employment.

In August 1965, the founding meeting of the Tennessee Freedom Labor Union (TFLU) was held in Fayette County. The organization, which was heavily influenced by the WTVP, brought together farmers and agricultural workers from Fayette, Haywood, Tipton and Hardeman Counties. (See this)

However, the rapid mechanization of cotton production coinciding with the repressive apparatus of the local landowners and capitalists, curtailed the potential for organizing tenant farmers, sharecroppers and agricultural laborers. The rapid population influx into the urban areas and the institutional racism and economic exploitation African Americans were subjected to sparked urban rebellions throughout the U.S. in more than 200 municipalities from 1963-1970.

By 1966, the Southern Christian Leadership Conference (SCLC), headed by Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. and the Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee (SNCC), then chaired by Stokely Carmichael (later known as Kwame Ture), were compelled to focus their organizing efforts in southern and northern urban centers. However, the struggle within rural counties such as Fayette and Haywood would continue utilizing the right to vote and the expanded educational opportunities won through the mass campaigns for Civil Rights.

*

Note to readers: Please click the share buttons above or below. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

Abayomi Azikiwe is the editor of the Pan-African News Wire. He is a regular contributor to Global Research.

Featured image: African Americans line up to register to vote in Fayette County Tennessee (Source: Abayomi Azikiwe)

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Civil Rights and the Transformation from Tenant to Mechanized Agriculture
  • Tags:

mRNA Circulates at Least 28 Days After Injection

February 23rd, 2023 by Dr. Peter McCullough

All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the Translate Website button below the author’s name (desktop version)

To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.

Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

***

Because Operation Warp Speed rushed new mRNA technology forward in two month clinical trials without informative preclinical testing, we are now learning about what was injected into billions of human beings during the mass, indiscriminate COVID-19 vaccine program. A report from Castruita et al, using a cohort of recovered hepatitis C patients with blood samples available, found mRNA from Pfizer and Moderna circulating in blood for 30 days which is as long as they had after injection. This is bad news from a vaccine safety perspective.

Castruita JAS, Schneider UV, Mollerup S, Leineweber TD, Weis N, Bukh J, Pedersen MS, Westh H. SARS-CoV-2 spike mRNA vaccine sequences circulate in blood up to 28 days after COVID-19 vaccination. APMIS. 2023 Mar;131(3):128-132. doi: 10.1111/apm.13294. Epub 2023 Jan 29. PMID: 36647776.

Vaccines which are usually live attenuated or killed virus, or a harmless protein, should be in the body only a few days as immunity is being generated. After that, the vaccine material is cleared by the reticuloendothelial system. Having foreign genetic code in the form of synthetic RNA loaded on lipid nanoparticles with PEG in the blood stream for a month is an eerie reality with the following implications:

1) all serious health events occurring within 30 days of the shot should be considered related to the vaccine unless proven otherwise,

2) the mRNA has a prolonged opportunity to circulate to vital organs including the heart, brain, bone marrow, adrenals, and reproductive organs where it can cause more damage,

3) the human body must not have robust mechanisms to clear Pfizer or Moderna, so by the time the second shot is given, some still have the first shot in their system explaining greater toxicity on the second shot,

4) theoretical concerns over shedding should be extended far beyond 30 days (I currently recommend no kissing, sexual, or close contact for vaccinated persons for at least 90 days),

5) development on new mRNA vaccines (influenza, respiratory syncytial virus, zika, etc.) should be halted immediately given this discovery.

I wonder if the mRNA vaccine developers are aware of the findings by Castruita or if they even care? Toxicity profiles of drug products is clearly related to their pharmacodynamics and pharmacokinetics. This fundamental component of drug development is now completely ignored as drug safety is no longer a concern of the biopharmaceutical complex.

*

Note to readers: Please click the share buttons above. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

Sources

Castruita JAS, Schneider UV, Mollerup S, Leineweber TD, Weis N, Bukh J, Pedersen MS, Westh H. SARS-CoV-2 spike mRNA vaccine sequences circulate in blood up to 28 days after COVID-19 vaccination. APMIS. 2023 Mar;131(3):128-132. doi: 10.1111/apm.13294. Epub 2023 Jan 29. PMID: 36647776.

Leake J, McCullough PA. Courage to Face COVID-19: Preventing Hospitalization and Deaths while Battling the Biopharmaceutical Complex

Featured image: mRNA vaccines cause myocarditis by leading your own immune cells to attack your heart, which can lead to sudden death by ventricular tachycardia or fibrillation. (Kateryna Kon/Shutterstock)


The Worldwide Corona Crisis, Global Coup d’Etat Against Humanity

by Michel Chossudovsky

Michel Chossudovsky reviews in detail how this insidious project “destroys people’s lives”. He provides a comprehensive analysis of everything you need to know about the “pandemic” — from the medical dimensions to the economic and social repercussions, political underpinnings, and mental and psychological impacts.

“My objective as an author is to inform people worldwide and refute the official narrative which has been used as a justification to destabilize the economic and social fabric of entire countries, followed by the imposition of the “deadly” COVID-19 “vaccine”. This crisis affects humanity in its entirety: almost 8 billion people. We stand in solidarity with our fellow human beings and our children worldwide. Truth is a powerful instrument.”

ISBN: 978-0-9879389-3-0,  Year: 2022,  PDF Ebook,  Pages: 164, 15 Chapters

Price: $11.50 Get yours for FREE! Click here to download.

We encourage you to support the eBook project by making a donation through Global Research’s DonorBox “Worldwide Corona Crisis” Campaign Page

All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the Translate Website button below the author’s name (desktop version)

To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.

Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

***

It was 23 February 2022. By then, the Ukrainian elite knew that Russia’s military attack was imminent. Wealthy tycoons and politicians, including Secretary of National Security Council Oleksiy Danilov, already made accommodations to make sure their military-age sons would be out of the country. The only thing left was to prepare government agencies for war. There “was a huge meeting of Ukrainian tycoons with President Zelensky” and his cabinet on February 23, commented Taras Berezovets, a Ukrainian analyst and television host. “They all declared their readiness to” stand with the regime and therefore mobilize the rest of the population to fight for their cause. The Ukrainian elite was prepared to defend its interests at any cost, as did its allies from NATO and opponents in Moscow.

A year has passed since irreversible decisions were made. Hundreds of thousands of homes are destroyed, and tens of thousands of people lost their lives, but the warring parties are further than ever from ending this senseless hell. “Toward beautiful future, I am starting my way,” goes a popular Soviet song, making a painful reminder to the listener of the contrast between past expectations and present reality in the post-Soviet space. Once bonded together under the roof of the Soviet Union, representing the scientific and manufacturing core of the world’s second industrial power, with aspirations to overtake the capitalist West economically and in the space race, the people of Ukraine and Russia are now fighting each other in the most destructive conflict to hit Europe since the Second World War.

Every catastrophe has material preconditions, and the war in Ukraine is no exception. What motivates the Ukrainian elite to fight is something Russia had to learn the hard way, as its regime-change operation failed dramatically and metamorphosed into a full-scale war, with a front line over 1000 kilometers in length. While mobilizing the population and arming it with weapons and nationalistic opium, “Ukraine’s oligarchs have put aside both their differences with the government of Volodymyr Zelensky and any lingering pro-Russian sentiment to close ranks with the authorities in Kyiv,” reported Forbes on February 24.

Either turn against Russia and lean to the West for help or side with Russia and become a target of the West. This simple lesson the Ukrainian elite was taught in 2014 when the entourage of politicians and oligarchs behind President Victor Yanukovich, whose administration pushed for stronger ties with Russia than a pro-Western coalition that ousted him, was punished for taking the wrong side.  In the aftermath of protests on Maidan turning into a massacre and Yanukovich escaping to Russia, the Western countries fired artillery rounds of sanctions and asset freezes against his top cabinet members and wealthy backers, including such prominent representatives of the elite as the Klyuyev brothers and a billionaire Serhiy Kurchenkoranked the seventh richest person in Ukraine.

The bourgeoisie and politicians that came under sanctions lost their influence in Ukraine and either fled the country or, as the case was with Yanukovich’s political stronghold of Donbas, took a slice of the country with them, transforming widespread popular dissatisfaction with the politics of Kiev into an armed movement for secession from Ukraine. The oligarchs that remained and aligned themselves with the pro-Western regime endorsed the sanctions and happily filled the place of the ousted elite. One of them, the billionaire magnate Petro Poroshenko, not only sided with the new regime but became the President to lead it.

That most oligarchs either accepted or supported the anti-Yanukovich protests on Maidan and a political coup against his regime should come as no surprise. Ever since the collapse of the Soviet Union, the economic linkage between Ukraine and Russia was waning by the year. Most of its exports went to the West, and the economic bailouts also came from the West. Transforming since 1991 from one of Europe’s most industrialized countries into one of the poorest, Ukraine was becoming ever more dependent on the West and ever more independent from Russia and other post-Soviet states. The proportion of its exports to Russia declined from 38.5 percent in 1996 to 23.8 percent in 2013 and reached as little as 5.1 percent in 2021. What changed since 2014 is that Ukraine not only accelerated the economic decoupling with Russia but bolstered the armed forces to defend the status quo.

If this economic decoupling with Russia was the precondition for the separatist eruption in Donbas, an eastern region most dependent on exports to that market, the latter was the necessary precondition for the militarization of Ukrainian society against Russia. Resorting to mobilization for war with the separatists, and receiving support in the form of budget stimulus, Humvees, counter-radar systems and other military gear from the West, Ukraine rapidly managed to establish the second-largest land army in Europe. The conflict in Donbas provided a perfect excuse to boost military expenditure, which rose from 1.6 percent of gross domestic product (GDP) in 2013 to 3.3 percent in 2015 and 3.2 percent in 2021.

After eight years of building the armed forces and enhancing military and economic ties with the West, the Ukrainian bourgeoisie had both the material interest in the status quo and the means to defend it at any cost. Hence, the unity displayed in the face of the Russian attack on February 24, the total collapse of Moscow’s plan to change the regime without doing much fighting. And being injected with thousands of military vehicles, over two million artillery shells and billions of dollars in financial assistance from NATO countries, the country’s elite was emboldened to reject negotiations in the hope of winning Russia on the battlefield.

“Now Ukraine’s economy is directly dependent on support from the West,” admitted Ukraine’s richest man, Rinat Akhmetov, whose business was already tied to Western markets before the war and whose assets in the West include France’s lavish Villa Les Cèdres, also known as the world’s most expensive house. This ‘patriotic’ oligarch is among those opposing peace talks in favor of victory on the battlefield, declaring that Ukraine “must first and foremost restore territorial sovereignty – return the territories seized by Putin’s regime.”

According to U.S. Secretary of State Antony Blinken, “If Russia stops fighting, the war ends. If Ukraine stops fighting, Ukraine ends.” If there is a grain of truth in this exposition, it is that Ukraine would not be the same for its richest man, who neither wishes to join Russian oligarchs sanctioned by the West nor lose the influence he accrued during the war. And accrued he did. The so-called de-oligarchization push since February 24 was nothing but an effort of the oligarchs most strongly aligned with Zelensky’s ruling party and the West to cleanse out the oligarchs that had ties to the opposition and Russia.

Image: Vadim Novinsky (Licensed under CC0)

Вадим Новинський на літургії митрополита Онуфрія (cropped).jpg

One of the targets of de-oligarchization campaign was Vadim Novinsky, a billionaire tycoon and member of parliament from the Opposition Bloc. Labeled as the “most pro-Russian of Ukraine’s oligarchs” by Forbes, “he behaved like a Ukrainian patriot” right before Russia’s attack, commented Berezovets. Good behavior saved Novinsky in the first months of the war, but his year ended with sanctions from Zelensky’s government. Coincidentally, the sanctioned oligarch holds a minority (23.76 percent) stake in the mining and steel company Metinvest, whose majority owner (71.24 percent) is no other than Rinat Akhmetov. And it is no other than Ukraine’s richest oligarch who praises the policy line of the state, claiming that the war and Western support provide an opportunity “to really get rid of the oligarchy. We won’t get another chance. It is our historical responsibility to do it now. I am confident that this is exactly what will happen.”

Oligarchs such as Akhmetov have a vested interest in the survival of the regime, and they will continue to bet in favor of war for as long as NATO countries provide sufficient financial assistance and weapons for Ukraine to fight. And it doesn’t matter how many more cities will be destroyed, how many more people will perish in a country whose population was already shrinking before the war.

At the same time, emboldened by that support from the West, the ruling elite moves further and further in making the survival of its status quo dependent upon the total defeat of Russia. From institutionalizing non-stop mobilization to win the war on the battlefield to hosting the League of Free Nations representing secessionist voices from ethnic minorities within Russia – Ukraine is doing everything to demonstrate that its strategic needs inevitably presuppose the weakening and possible disintegration of its neighbor.

This reality is recognized and unapologetically expressed in the government. In the words of Zelensky’s advisor Mikhail Podolyak,

“What should certainly happen is that the Russian Federation should cease to exist in its current political form….[I]t doesn’t matter whether it will have democratic elections, or whether Russia will disintegrate into ethnic states… This would not matter to us once we militarily prove their importance.” The Secretary of National Security and Defense Council Danilov, whom we mentioned earlier, went even further. He had this to say to the television audience on February 16.  “I can say with confidence that it was Ukrainians who broke up the Soviet Union…. The same will happen in Russia. The West needs to prepare for this. They think that Russia should remain within the same borders. This is a big mistake. We will certainly break it up…”

What Podolyak articulated represents the doomsday Russia’s ruling class is desperate to avert. The latter has a general sense of what’s at stake if the war is lost, as well as the motives behind the ruthless determination of the Ukrainian elite to win the war on the battlefield. Alluding to them, this is how President Putin described Ukraine’s “civilizational choice” of joining the Western bloc. “Pardon my language,” he responded at St. Petersburg economic forum on June 17, “but what kind of civilisational choice are they blabbering about? They stole money from the Ukrainian people, hid it in the [European] banks and just want to protect it. And the best way to protect it is to say that this is a civilisational choice. They began to pursue an anti-Russian policy in hopes that whatever they do, their money would be protected there.”

Putin talks this way only about Ukrainian oligarchs and would never use the same language toward the oligarchs at home, the arrogant and ruthless bourgeois exploiters of the Russian people who, for thirty years, did everything on their part to drive the country to “a dead end” and make the military clash a historical inevitability.

The economic decoupling between Ukraine and Russia was not a one-sided affair; it was something both countries pursued, either consciously or not. Being nothing but a mirror image of their Ukrainian counterparts, Russian capitalists benefited from the chaos and de-industrialization that followed the collapse of the Soviet Union, the evisceration of economic links that bonded the republics together and formed the material foundation for any peaceful reintegration project in the post-Soviet space.

Becoming prosperous from exports of raw materials and the flooding of the home market with finished imports, the mushrooming bourgeois elite was making Russia more and more dependent on trade with advanced countries in Western Europe and East Asia as opposed to neighbors within the post-Soviet space, which Russia nonetheless regarded as its natural sphere of influence and the only place in which, after losing the status of a great global power, it had any real potential to begin re-establishing it. Already in 1996, only about 20 percent of Russian exports went to republics of the former Soviet Union, and that declined to less than 15 percent in 2013. Despite this, Russia’s elite staunchly opposed the incorporation of post-Soviet states into the economic and military bloc of the West, the formal institutionalization of something that was already a material reality.

The West, in turn, was only happy to use its influence to exacerbate economic fragmentation within the former Soviet space, making the development of relations with countries such as Ukraine conditional on their refusal to participate in Russia’s reintegration endeavors. In just one example on Ukraine, a State Department cable from 10 October 2006 clearly stated that the country’s turn to join Russia-initiated “SES [Single Economic Space] customs union would complicate WTO accession and be inconsistent with aspirations for a free trade agreement with the EU.” Such was the precondition for expanding economic cooperation with the West for a country already dependent on raw material exports to Western markets. Ukraine’s oligarchs unsurprisingly made the civilizational choice they did.

Russia never accepted this civilizational choice, but the civilizational choice of its own elite to trade with the West and store the extracted capital from the labor power of the Russian people in foreign equity – this is what kept Moscow from applying the February 24 tactics on Ukraine for a long time, even during the crisis in 2014. Fear of Western sanctions and trade restrictions explains why Russia responded to the latter with shortsighted half-measures such as seizing Crimea and aiding Donbas separatists without formally recognizing their legitimacy, thereby giving up the rest of Ukraine to the West, providing the latter an excuse to build the second-largest land army in Europe and cementing the political dead end that could lead to nothing else but war.

The time for war came eight years later. And over these eight years, Russia worked on reducing its dependence on the West by nothing else than deepening trade and political ties to its main geopolitical rival, China.

This pivot to export more raw materials to China instead of the West proved successful. By 2021, China held a solid lead as Russia’s main trading partner, and the two countries were working on expanding their “partnership without borders.” In the months leading up to February 24, the economic shift of Russia toward China was cemented further. The New York Times made a good summary of it in an article on 26 February 2022: “Chinese purchases of oil from Russia in December surpassed its purchases from Saudi Arabia. Six days before the military campaign began, Russia announced a yearslong deal to sell 100 million tons of coal to China — a contract worth more than $20 billion. And hours before Russia began bombing Ukraine, China agreed to buy Russian wheat…” Thereby, Russia established enough room to maneuver that it felt emboldened to act.

And so, it worked. Declaring neutrality in the conflict, China significantly mollified the punitive restrictions that the West unleashed on Russia, from raising imports of Russian crude oil to providing Moscow with the components to manufacture weapons and missiles. But all the signals that China would take this position and undercut Western sanctions neither prevented them nor stopped their architects from blindly throwing one round of sanctions after another to only prove with each successive round their ineffectiveness.

Sanctions failed even though the U.S. and its allies began developing the mechanism to implement them months before Russia attacked Ukraine. As European Commission’s President Ursula von der Leyen revealed at the 2023 Munich Conference on February 18,

“My cabinet and the commission started to work with the White House and the Treasury already in December [2021] on potential sanctions in case Russia would invade Ukraine…. It was tedious work day and night, to align our very different trade systems to develop sanctions that are targeted at advanced technologies and goods that are irreplaceable for Russia.”

While sanctions did not bring the intended result, the West remains stubbornly fixated on maximizing its position of strength with weapons. In the words of NATO Secretary Jens Stoltenberg, the alliance will “stand with Ukraine for as long as it takes” to defeat Russia. Speaking on 17 February 2023, he affirmed that

“this war may end at the negotiating table. But we know that what happens around the negotiating table is totally dependent on the strength on the battlefield,” and this is all the Western alliance is concerned about. To put it differently, as Stoltenberg did on 30 December, while it “may sound like a paradox, but military support for Ukraine is the fastest way to peace.”

So far, nothing but old formulas and concepts floated in the vision of peace that Western powers aspire to accomplish. A “durable peace” for Europe, according to Secretary Blinken, is possible only if the allies “put Ukraine in the strongest possible position going forward,… so that we can prevent a repeat of this Russian aggression or… that Ukraine would be in a very strong position to deal with it.” Thus one scenario of peace is militarized Ukraine serving as a buffer state between Russia and Western Europe. In this, Blinken repeated the old formula which NATO powers advanced ever since the demise of the Soviet Union, and which brought it on the collision course with Russia. Ukraine had to choose between Russia and the West, which inevitably presupposed that it would regard the first as an enemy so that the second could be its friend.

An alternative scenario for peace, which is openly articulated by elites in Kiev, is the one in which Russia follows the fate of the Soviet Union. Then Russia would stop being a threat to Ukraine because it would no longer exist as a country. While no major power publicly indicated a preference for this outcome, there is no sign that the West would go far to prevent it from happening. Back in 1991, the U.S. and Western Europe already demonstrated that the structure of their world order cannot accommodate the post-Cold War system in which the Soviet Union stood a chance to survive in the form of a unified state, where it could remain an industrial superpower and not crumble into fifteen separate countries that export raw materials and wage wars against each other.

The fragmentation of Russia would create more states, more custom borders, national armies and contradictions for regional disputes and armed conflicts. No other than Henry Kissinger graphically described what such an outcome would mean. Writing on 19 December 2022, he warned that

“the dissolution of Russia or destroying its ability for strategic policy could turn its territory encompassing 11 time zones into a contested vacuum. Its competing societies might decide to settle their disputes by violence. Other countries might seek to expand their claims by force. All these dangers would be compounded by the presence of thousands of nuclear weapons…”

Whether Western powers aspire to keep Ukraine a buffer state against Russia or see the latter collapse, neither of these options would be acceptable to Moscow. As long as China provides an outlet for its exports and ways to evade import restrictions, Russia will have the means to continue resisting them on the battlefield. It will continue to stand its ground in a deadlock with the West, for which the latter has no response other than to commit more and more military and financial resources to Ukraine and bet its global reputation on the success of the client state. And so, the ruling classes of Ukraine, Russia and the West are at war, and each sees victory in the loss of the other.

Quietly watching this self-destructive contest from a distance is China, the only country with the economic and political capacity to do so. The willingness of the U.S. to commit so thoroughly to war with Russia provides a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity for the Chinese bourgeoisie to outplay and exhaust the main geopolitical rival. It is god’s gift to their quest for global hegemony. Speaking in the early days of the war, a former advisor to senior Chinese officials, Zheng Yongnian, proudly proclaimed, “China will have even greater ability and will to play a more important role in building a new international order.”

In preparation for the anniversary of February 24, China’s Foreign Minister Qin Gang pressed forward with that, announcing to the world that Beijing will “provide Chinese wisdom for the political settlement of the Ukraine crisis…” And the deeper belligerents dig themselves against one another, the more important a role that wisdom will play.

*

Note to readers: Please click the share buttons above. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

Maxim Nikolenko is an independent researcher. He can be contacted at [email protected].

All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the Translate Website button below the author’s name (desktop version)

To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.

Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

***

The COVID messaging came in early, hot — and most of all — in stereo:

“This virus is deadly. Masks, social distancing, and quarantining are critical to stemming the spread. Herd immunity will be our salvation. The only way to achieve that is to lock everyone in their homes and wait for safe-and-effective vaccines to save us. Fortunately, pharma is on it!”

Three long years later, it turns out that masks not only don’t work but can make us sickerSocial distancing was a myth, pretty much pulled out of thin air. Quarantining was an unmitigated social, psychological, and economic disaster. And despite sweeping admissions from both government officials and the manufacturers themselves that the vaccines don’t stop infection or transmission (i.e., they are not effective) and skyrocketing spikes in adverse reaction reports (i.e., they are not safe), the relentless messaging hasn’t changed. Would you like a free apple fritter with your safe-and-effective vaccine?

Some of us — you might know us as anti-vaxxers, conspiracy theorists, science deniers, or granny killers — found the whole setup sketchy from the get-go. But as injuries and unanswered questions mount, our ranks are growing by the day, thanks in part to folks like surf legend Kelly Slater and Congresswoman Nancy Mace speaking out about their personal experiences with vaccine injuries and loss.

Since COVID won’t be our last pandemic (Bill Gates said so!), here are a few questions we all might want to ponder before the next wave hits:

  1. How can one deem anything “safe and effective” without long-term data? Every year, the FDA decides that around 4,500 drugs and devices they previously declared to be safe are in fact potentially hazardous and pulls them from the market. Maybe it’s time to demand actual, long-term testing.
  2. What’s an acceptable death toll from any medication? Prior vaccine programs have been scrapped after just a handful of casualties; in the notoriously underreported VAERS system, the body count of the COVID so-called vaccines is currently north of 34,000. Yes, thousand. When would be a reasonable time to pump the brakes? We should have a number in mind. (Mine is 1.)
  3. Shouldn’t there be some health guidance if the government’s genuine concern is our collective well-being? Obesity can complicate a host of medical conditions. So can low levels of Vitamin D. Maybe let’s listen to the sort of health experts who advise getting a smidgen of sunshine, forsaking a few processed foods, or taking a brisk stroll the next time our immune systems are under attack?
  4. Does the guidance being issued make sense? During peak COVID hysteria, bars were deadly, but restaurants were harmless. Six feet apart was nonnegotiable, unless you were on a plane, or (seated) in one of the aforementioned restaurants, or separated from your cashier by a flimsy sheet of plexiglass. Viral particles proliferated in mom-and-pop shops but dropped dead in the doorways of Walmart and Costco. Church services, concerts, and other mass gatherings were perilous, but violent protests got the green light. If the messaging makes no sense, can we all agree it’s okay to question it?
  5. Can we bring back natural immunity? In a 2004 interview, Fauci declared that “the best vaccination is to get infected yourself.” Recent studies show prior COVID infection is six times more protective than vaccination. If the goal is truly herd immunity to protect grandma — and not in fact compliance, control, and an unprecedented fortune for a lucky few — shouldn’t the clearly superior protection earn you a get-out-of-jab-free pass?
  6. Is it logical or ethical for the federal government to want to wait 75 years to release safety data? Shouldn’t we all have access to this vital information? (The War Room/Daily Clout Pfizer Documents Analysis has a painstaking breakdown of what Pfizer and the FDA knew about COVID vaccines and wanted to bury, in case you’re curious.)
  7. Are our officials encouraging scientific debate and the pooling of the highest and best data? Because “this is our story and anyone who disagrees with it will be silenced, smeared, and de-platformed” doesn’t exactly instill trust.
  8. Are individual circumstances and risk factors being considered? Should pregnant women, the immune-compromised, the chemically sensitive, and the previously vaccine-injured be poked with impunity? Is it logical to give the same dose to a 400-pound linebacker and a wee ballerina, or the same dose to a six-month-old preemie and a strapping kindergartener? If you’re not at risk of the disease but the cure could harm you, shouldn’t you be able to refuse it? Maybe it’s time to bring back, “ask your doctor if [this medication or treatment] is right for you.”
  9. Are there possible side effects? If people were suffering strokes, going blind, losing limbs, and dropping dead after being poked with a certain therapeutic, wouldn’t that be good information to have? It’s called informed consent, and the absence of it is a criminal offense. Just saying.
  10. Are people being threatened, coerced, or bribed with everything from pizza to pot (You missed the Joints for Jabs campaign?) to sign up for a supposedly safe, life-saving treatment? As the kids say, seems a little ‘sus.’ Might be a good time to sit this round out.

There’s a saying: Trip me once, shame on you; trip me twice, shame on me. Here’s hoping we’re all a bit wiser before Pandemic 2.0 rolls around.

*

Note to readers: Please click the share buttons above. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

Jenna McCarthy is a speaker and the author of a few dozen books for adults and children. Her writing will appear here monthly, in a new column called “Here’s a thought…” Subscribe now to get the series in your inbox, along with the rest of FLCCC’s news and updates.


The Worldwide Corona Crisis, Global Coup d’Etat Against Humanity

by Michel Chossudovsky

Michel Chossudovsky reviews in detail how this insidious project “destroys people’s lives”. He provides a comprehensive analysis of everything you need to know about the “pandemic” — from the medical dimensions to the economic and social repercussions, political underpinnings, and mental and psychological impacts.

“My objective as an author is to inform people worldwide and refute the official narrative which has been used as a justification to destabilize the economic and social fabric of entire countries, followed by the imposition of the “deadly” COVID-19 “vaccine”. This crisis affects humanity in its entirety: almost 8 billion people. We stand in solidarity with our fellow human beings and our children worldwide. Truth is a powerful instrument.”

ISBN: 978-0-9879389-3-0,  Year: 2022,  PDF Ebook,  Pages: 164, 15 Chapters

Price: $11.50 Get yours for FREE! Click here to download.

We encourage you to support the eBook project by making a donation through Global Research’s DonorBox “Worldwide Corona Crisis” Campaign Page

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Let’s Not Get Fooled Again. Since COVID Won’t be Our Last Pandemic, Here Are a Few Questions to Ponder Before the Next Wave Hits.
  • Tags: ,

The Invisible Victims of the War in Ukraine

February 23rd, 2023 by Dr. Leon Tressell

All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the Translate Website button below the author’s name (desktop version)

To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.

Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

***

“It is the writer’s duty to tell the terrible truth, and it is a reader’s civic duty to learn this truth. To turn away, to close one’s eyes and walk past is to insult the memory of those who have perished.” ― Vasily Grossman, The Road: Stories, Journalism, and Essays

On 20 February Didier Reynders, the European Commissioner for Justice, announced that a new international centre will be set up in July of this year to investigate war crimes committed by Russian forces in Ukraine over the course of the last year. Yet when Ukrainians are tortured by their own government the EU does not give a damn.

MEPs Clare Daly and Mick Wallace raised concerns on my behalf with the EU Commission regarding the situation of young communists Mikhail Kononovych and Aleksander Kononovych, who have been tortured by the SBU. Josep Borrell, Vice President of the European Commission arrogantly replied to them saying, “Ukraine has demonstrated the resilience of its institutions guaranteeing democracy, the rule of law and human rights’’ and ignored the plight of these young communists.

Amidst the fanfare in the Western media regarding this issue there is a stony silence when it comes to investigating the war crimes committed against the Russian speaking population of the Donetsk and Lugansk regions now known as the Donetsk People’s Republic and Lugansk People’s Republics DPR/LPR.

Since the spring of 2014 civilian settlements in the DPR/LPR have been subjected to incessant attacks by the heavy weaponry of the Ukrainian armed forces. The most widely used weaponry has been the heavy artillery systems which have been the biggest killer of civilians over the last 9 years.

The Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) has estimated that between April 2014 to 31 December 2021 that between 14,200-14,400 people have died in the civil war in eastern Ukraine. Of these at least 3,400 were civilians and the rest were combatants from both sides.

It should be emphasised that the exact number of casualties is still undetermined due to the large number of missing people, the fact that many civilians under artillery fire buried their relatives in makeshift graves and the fact that many of the militia men from the DPR/LPR did not have uniforms and so many will have been classified as civilians deaths.

The Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the LPR, Anna Sororka, at a recent press conference “Scorched memory of Donbass: war crimes of the Ukrainian army and new data on the massacres of the civilian population’’ gave casualty figures which contrast sharply with those of the UN. Soroka stated that more than 2,000 civilians in the LPR were killed between April 2014 and February 2022 and that 3,365 were injured of whom 88 were children.

Meanwhile, the Commissioner for Human Rights in the DPR, Daria Morozova, stated at the same press conference that more than 5,000 people, including 91 children, were killed during this period. Besides this, over 8,000 civilians were wounded between April 2014-February 2022.

It should be further noted that DPR authorities note that large numbers of civilians were killed/injured by Western supplied armaments. Dimitry Kalshnikov, head of the forensic examination bureau of the DPR, has stated that:

“For the last five years, we have been finding special bullets used by NATO. We have never had such cartridges. As experts, such cartridges simply surprise us: at the entrance there is an awl, and at the exit it tears the tissue at all, we have never seen anything like this. This is assistance to Ukraine from international organizations.’’

During the last year of war the OHCHR has estimated that over 7.1 thousand civilians have been killed and a further 11.756 were reported injured. It does note that the real figures are probably much higher.

The DPR mission to the Joint Control and Coordination Center (JSCC) has estimated that Ukrainian troops have fired 15,000 times at civilian areas of the republic. On it Telegram channel on Monday 20 February it wrote that 108,866 munitions of various calibres have been fired by Ukrainian troops over the last year. These include 39 Toch-U rockets, 231 HIMARS rockets, as well as 22,366 shells of NATO calibre 150mm. According to the JSCC there have been 92 incidents in which civilians have been hit by anti personnel mines.

In its press release the DPR mission to the Joint Control and Coordination Centre estimated that over the course of the last year of fighting 4,440 residents died including 132 children.

Its estimate of the damage caused by Ukrainian shelling to be as follows: 9,889 residential houses and 2,441 civilian infrastructure facilities, including 138 medical and 488 educational institutions, 965 social security facilities, 70 critical infrastructure facilities, 780 electricity, water, heat and gas supply facilities.

Thankfully, a few brave independent journalists, who are dismissed as Kremlin apologists in the West, have reported on this issue throughout the last 8 years. Eva K Bartlett, Christelle Neant and Graham Philips have doggedly recorded the Kiev government’s war on the civilians of the Donbass. The stand out for me is US navy veteran Patrick Lancaster who has issued daily video reports on Youtube showing in graphic, heart breaking detail the impact of Ukrainian shelling on the civilians of the two republics.

Sadly, the Western media and political elites have completely ignored the daily war crimes being committed by Ukrainian forces against the civilians of the DPR and LPR. When you hear the next hysterical story in the Western media about alleged Russian war crimes then you should ask yourself the question: why are they not reporting the daily intensive shelling of civilians in Donetsk?

The grieving families of the invisible victims of the Ukraine war deserve our sympathy and support.

*

Note to readers: Please click the share buttons above or below. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

Dr. Leon Tressell is a regular contributor to Global Research.

Featured image is from Internationalist 360

All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the Translate Website button below the author’s name (desktop version)

To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.

Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

***

 

 

Read Part I:

Canada’s Role in the War in Syria

By Steven Sahiounie, February 21, 2023


This is part two of a two-part study on the Canadian role in the US-NATO attack on Syria for regime change. Canada has blood on its hands.  The Canadian government had understood from US intelligence that the Obama plan to destroy Syria was based on using the Muslim Brotherhood, and the political ideology known as Radical Islam, as the foot soldiers inside Syria. The Canadian government understood that the Muslim Brotherhood had infiltrated Canadian society and was involved with the Canadian government at the highest levels. The threat to Canada was known, but the decision was made to blindly follow Washington’s dirty war in Syria.

US President Obama is the main villain in this story, but Canada was capable of standing firm against plans to use Radical Islamic terrorists to change governments abroad.

Canada has supported humanitarian aid to Idlib, but not the rest of the country.  Idlib is the last remaining terrorist-controlled province in Syria. It is an olive-growing region with no industry or resources outside of the production of olives.  It was chosen as the headquarters of the Al Qaeda branch in Syria (Hayat Tahrir al-Sham) because it sits on the Turkish border.  Turkey, following the US directives, supplied the terrorists with all resources needed including tanks and anti-tank missiles which have even been used to bring down a plane.

Canada does not supply any aid to Syria other than Idlib, which represents 2% of the total area of the country.  Aleppo, Damascus, Latakia, Hama, Homs, and all other areas in Syria have never received even a loaf of bread from either the US or Canada. However, the UN does supply some food to certain areas outside of Idlib.  Funds for the UN World Food Program are in part from US and Canadian donations. Even now, since the 7.8 magnitude quake occurred on February 6, Canada continues to only recognize the 3 million persons in the so-called “The Islamic Republic of Idlib” as Syria.  The other 20 million in Syria get nothing, even though Latakia alone has 820 dead, 142,000 homeless due to the quake, and 102 collapsed buildings.

From the US-Canada foreign policy on Syria point of view: Idlib must be maintained as a separate viable ‘state’, free of Damascus.  The US-Canada policy is to ignore the government in Damascus and pretend that Idlib is Syria. The Al Qaeda terrorists are thus rewarded by the west for their participation in regime change, which was the Obama policy that Canada signed up to.

Last month, David Pugliese of the Ottawa Citizen published an article detailing the Canadian special forces’ participation in a controversial 20-member US military team dubbed Talon Anvil in 2015, which has been accused of killing scores of innocent people in Iraq and Syria.

“In December 2021 the New York Times revealed that Talon Anvil was responsible for launching tens of thousands of bombs and missiles against the Islamic State in Syria and Iraq but in the process had killed hundreds of civilians. The reckless actions of the Talon Anvil team, which operated from 2014 to 2019, alarmed members in the US military and even the CIA, the newspaper reported.”

“Independent investigators and human rights groups have estimated that at least 7,000 civilians were killed by coalition airstrikes in Iraq and Syria.”

Last month, Canada announced it would take back 23 of its citizens who have been held in Islamic State camps in northeast Syria, under the control of the Kurds who are partners of the US military there. The group includes six women, 13 infants, and four men.

This would be the largest repatriation for Canada after the Islamic State caliphate was destroyed in 2019.

More than 42,400 foreign citizens, most of them children, have been held in life-threatening conditions in IS prison camps across Syria, Human Rights Watch says.

Canadian intelligence was well aware of who in Canada was following Radical Islam, and who had left to fight in Syria before the founding of ISIS.  They were also following events on the ground in Syria while Canadians and other foreigners were fighting the Syrian government, and who among them had made the transition to joining ISIS once the US-sponsored FSA had disbanded.

In 1998, Richard N. Haass wrote “Sanctions: too much of a bad thing.”  In his expert analysis, it was proven that US sanctions do not work in big projects, such as regime change in Syria. He further proved that innocent people suffer under sanctions, and they were immoral and unethical. The sanctions against Syria must be lifted and allow citizens to rebuild their lives and allow foreign governments to donate and invest in the rebuilding of the country.

Aid should be allowed to enter Syria in all locations, from Idlib to Deraa, and all in between. All Syrian citizens should have the right to receive help. Planes with aid should be allowed to land in Damascus, Aleppo, and Latakia and shipping containers should arrive in the port of Latakia.

The international community should be putting pressure on the terrorists in Idlib to lay down their arms or arrange to leave the country. They are holding 3 million civilians as human shields. The freedom of those civilians should be a priority to western nations such as Canada.

The President of Turkey, Tayyip Recip Erdogan, has already voiced his wish to repair his relationship with Damascus. Canada and other peace-loving western nations should be supporting his negotiations with Damascus. Washington has told Erdogan not to talk with President Assad, but Canada could show some backbone and defy Washington by showing support for Erdogan’s peace initiative.

Canada should re-open their Embassy in Damascus. With diplomates and humanitarian experts available on the ground, this would be a positive and constructive action that would truly show the Syrian people that Canada cares.

Finally, Canada should identify the Muslim Brotherhood as a terrorist organization. Care should be taken by all future Canadian governments to study plans in Washington that assume Canadian support.  The Canadian government, supported by its intelligence agency, is capable of determining whether the US foreign policy and never-ending wars abroad are in the best interest of Canada. Taking the high road is sometimes a lonely road, but lives and nations might be saved.

*

Note to readers: Please click the share buttons above. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

This article was originally published on Mideast Discourse. All copyrights are for journalist Steven Sahiounie and Mideast Discourse.

Steven Sahiounie is a two-time award-winning journalist. He is a regular contributor to Global Research.

Featured image is from MD

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Canada’s Role in the US-NATO Attack on Syria for Regime Change
  • Tags: , ,

All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the Translate Website button below the author’s name (desktop version)

To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.

Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

***

The BBC and the mainstream media regularly frighten everyone with the latest climate disaster news with pictures of floods, fires and hurricanes, always followed by scary predictions that things will only get worse unless mankind mends its irresponsible ways.

My alma mater Reuters, the global news agency, used to be above all this hysteria and would relentlessly apply its traditional standards of fairness and balance, but even this mainstream outfit seems to have sold out to the hysterics and axe grinders.

The trouble is, many if not all of these disaster stories, far from being another step in a worsening scenario, are often nothing of the kind. In a recent book Unsettled. What Climate Science Tells Us, What It Doesn’t, And Why It Matters, Steven Koonin uses the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change data to show that if reporters took the trouble to do a minimum amount of checking, most of these incidents would appear to be natural disasters, yes, but not part of some ever worsening syndrome.

Economist Bjorn Lomborg has been pointing out for years that humans are having an impact on the climate, but technology will be a match for any problems. Current Government plans to combat climate change will squander massive amounts of taxpayers’ money and achieve very little in terms of stopping rising global temperature, Lomborg says.

Warmist politicians and lobby groups regularly trash the work of a significant group of climate experts, insulting them with unfounded accusations that they can’t be taken seriously because they have barely perceptible links with ‘Big Oil’ and are ‘climate change deniers’. Criticisms are mainly personal and not aimed at their work. Koonin and Lomborg also suffer the unethical ‘denier’ slur, so let’s destroy that canard first.

Every scientist knows the world’s climate has been gradually and occasionally irregularly warming since the last Ice Age over about 10,000 years. Nobody denies the climate is changing. The ‘denier’ charge is nonsensical. But it performs the useful function of making clear the user knows nothing about climate science. The argument is about the ‘why’ not the ‘if’. Warmists say all the warming is because of man’s activity. The rest say some, a little or none.

Education is another area where balance has been replaced by hysteria-inducing propaganda. Children shown demonstrating on the news are often borderline hysterical. No doubt their teachers didn’t bother to tell them that man-made global warming is a theory not a proven fact, and that it’s okay to talk about different opinions.

If you wonder why much of the mainstream media seem united in accepting that the world will soon die unless humans don hair shirts, freeze in winter and walk instead of driving, you need to know about websites like Covering Climate Now (CCN).

Reuters and some of the biggest names in the news like Bloomberg, Agence France Presse, CBS News, and ABC News have signed up to support CCN, which brags that it is an unbiased seeker after the truth. But this claim won’t last long if you peer behind the façade. CCN may claim to be fair and balanced, but it not only won’t tolerate criticism, it brandishes the unethical ‘denier’ weapon with its nasty holocaust denier echoes. This seeks to demonise those who disagree with it by savaging personalities and denying a hearing, rather than using debate to establish its case.

CCN advises journalists to routinely add to stories about bad weather and flooding to suggest climate change is making these events more intense. This is not an established fact, as a simple routine check would show.

I asked CCN about the nature of its dealings with Reuters and the likes of Bloomberg. Was it to thrash out a general approach to climate change reporting or to be more partisan?

CCN hasn’t replied.

I have a particular interest in Reuters’ attitude because I spent 32 years there as a reporter and editor. The global news agency’s traditional insistence on high standards in reporting makes this liaison with CCN seem questionable.

When Reuters announced its tie-up with CCN in 2019 it said this, among other things.

The (CCN) coalition, which includes more than 350 organisations [there are many more now] has no agenda beyond embracing science and fair coverage and publishing more climate change content.

That is clearly not true. It has a partisan agenda and encourages reporters to dismiss those with contrary opinions as ‘deniers’.

The statement went on to quote Reuters Editor-in-Chief Stephen J. Adler:

Reuters is committed to providing the most accurate and insightful coverage of the climate crisis, as it threatens the health, safety and economic well-being of people world-wide. Our hope is that our careful, factual reporting will help nations, businesses and individuals respond to the challenge rapidly and intelligently.

The idea of a ‘climate crisis’ is not widely accepted, but partisans shout about it. It is a very vague claim and hard to define or prove. By Reuters standards shouldn’t this include a balancing view? Certainly, many people believe that there is such a crisis, but lots of people don’t. The idea climate change threatens the health, safety and economic well-being of people worldwide is an assertion, not a fact.

The involvement of Reuters in CCN seems to me to be in direct contradiction to three of its 10 Hallmarks of Reuters Journalism – Hold Accuracy Sacrosanct, Seek Fair Comment, Strive For Balance and Freedom From Bias.

I asked Reuters for its reaction to criticism of its CCN involvement in a new book Not Zero by Ross Clark, published by Forum, and it said this in a statement.

Reuters is deeply committed to covering climate change and its impact on our planet with accuracy, independence and integrity, in keeping with the Thomson Reuters Trust Principles.

When I became Reuters global Science and Technology Correspondent in the mid-1990s, the global warming story was top of my agenda. Already by then the BBC was scaring us saying we would all die unless humankind mended its selfish ways. Carbon dioxide (CO2) was the culprit and had to be tamed, then eliminated. I had no reason to think this wasn’t true. I was wrong.

My Reuters credentials meant that I had easy access to the world’s finest climate scientists. To my amazement, none of these would say categorically that the link between CO2 and global warming, now known as climate change, was a proven scientific fact. Some said human production of CO2 was a probable cause, others that it might make some contribution; some said CO2 had no role at all. Everybody agreed that the climate had warmed over the last 10,000 years as the ice age retreated, but most weren’t really sure why. The sun’s radiation, which changes over time, was a favoured culprit.

My reporting reflected the wide range of views, with Reuters typical “on the one hand this, on the other, that” style. But even then, the mainstream media seem to have run out of the energy required, and often lazily went along with the BBC’s faulty, opinionated thesis. It was too much trouble to make the point that the BBC’s conclusion was challenged by many impressive scientists.

Fast forward 20 years and firm proof CO2 was warming the climate still hasn’t been established, but politics has taken over. Sure, there are plenty of computer models with their hidden assumptions ‘proving’ man is guilty as charged, and the assumption that we had the power and knowledge to change the climate became embedded.

The Left had lost all of the economic arguments by the 1990s, and its activists eagerly grabbed the chance to say free markets and small government couldn’t save us from climate change; only government intervention could do that. Letting capitalism run free was a certain way to ensure the end of the planet; smart Lefties should take charge and save us from ourselves.

The debate about climate change is far from over. I’m not a scientist so I don’t know enough to say it’s all man-made or not. But politicians and lobbyists have decided that we are all guilty. They are in the process of dismantling our way of life, ordering us to comply because it’s all for the future and our children. If we are going to give up our civilization, at the very least we ought to have an open debate. Journalists need to stand up and be counted. The trouble is that requires bravery and energy, and an urge to question conventional wisdom.

Reuters should be leading this movement. All it has to do is stand by its 10 Hallmarks. And maybe tell CCN thanks but no thanks; it needs to apply Reuters principles to its climate reporting.

*

Note to readers: Please click the share buttons above. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

Neil Winton worked as a journalist at Reuters for 32 years, including as global Science and Technology Correspondent. He writes at Winton’s World.

Featured image is from Billy Wilson; Edited: LW / TO

All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the Translate Website button below the author’s name (desktop version)

To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.

Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

***

The title of this U.N. Release: “Avoid Speculation about the Responsibility…” is “irresponsible”, in contradiction with the fundamental mandate of the UN.

The UN Security Council MUST ADDRESS the Nord Stream Pipeline Sabotage.

The evidence is there. It is amply documented. 

President Biden in consultation with Germany’s Chancellor took the decision to blow up the pipeline. This is confirmed in a public statement on February 7, 2022

 

 

Nonsensical statements by the U.N. Under Secretary General. Read the testimonies of  Jeffrey Sachs and Ray McGovern.

 

See the following articles published by Global Research

 

How America Took Out the Nord Stream Pipeline

By Seymour M. Hersh, February 12, 2023

The US Destroyed the Nord Stream Pipeline. Interview with Seymour Hersh

By Seymour M. Hersh and Fabian Scheidler, February 16, 2023

Video: America is at War with Europe

By Prof Michel Chossudovsky, February 16, 2023

Video: Has Germany Become a Colony of the United States?

By Prof Michel Chossudovsky, February 22, 2023

Blow-up of Nord Stream I and II: Did the German Chancellor and the President of the European Commission Betray the People of Germany and Europe?

By Peter Koenig, February 23, 2023

 

***

 

With the one-year anniversary of the war in Ukraine just days away, the senior United Nations political affairs official told the Security Council today that the Organization is not in a position to verify or confirm any recent claims regarding alleged acts of sabotage against the two Nord Stream undersea gas pipelines in the Baltic Sea, in September 2022.

Rosemary A. DiCarlo, Under-Secretary-General for Political and Peacebuilding Affairs in the Department of Political and Peacebuilding Affairs, urged the 15-member Council to show restraint and avoid speculation. 

“We should avoid any unfounded accusations that could further escalate the already heightened tensions in the region and potentially inhibit the search for the truth,” she stressed, adding that what happened beneath the waters of the Baltic Sea remains unclear.    (emphasis by Global Research)

Describing the incident’s fallout as one of many risks the invasion of Ukraine has unleashed on the planet, she declared:  

“One year since the start of the war, we must redouble our efforts to end it, in line with international law and the [United Nations] Charter.”

Jeffrey D. Sachs, a professor at Columbia University, also briefed delegates, noting that the destruction of the Nord Stream pipelines required a very high degree of planning, expertise and technological capacity.  Only a handful of State-level actors have both the technical capacity and the access to the Baltic Sea needed to have carried out such an attack.  Describing himself as a specialist in the global economy and emphasizing that he represents no Government or organization in his testimony, he said a recent article in the Washington bnew outlet revealed that the intelligence agencies of North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) countries have privately concluded that there is no evidence that the Russian Federation carried out the attack.

He said a detailed account of the Nord Stream destruction by investigative journalist Seymour Hersh attributes the pipeline destruction to a decision ordered by United States President Joe Biden and carried out by United States agents in a covert operation.  President Biden’s Administration has responded by characterizing Hersh’s account as “completely and utterly false”, he added.  Against that complex backdrop, he urged the Council to require Denmark, Germany and Sweden to submit to it the results of their ongoing investigations of the Nord Stream incidents.

Also briefing today was Ray McGovern, a political activist, who said his remarks are in his personal capacity and reflect his 27-year-long career as an information analyst in the United States intelligence community.  Referring to the article published by Seymour Hersh — who often attracts whistle-blowers because of his perfect record of protecting their identities and accurately publishing what they reveal — he said those attempting to smear Mr. Hersh themselves lack a strong record of credibility.  He also shared his views on the broader geopolitical landscape, referencing events from past decades and threats facing the planet today.

As Council members took the floor, the representative of the Russian Federation said his delegation convened today’s meeting because Seymour Hersh’s investigation, released on 8 February, showed that the United States executed the Nord Stream sabotage with the help of a NATO ally — a use of force not in line with the aims of the United Nations.  His delegation has proposed a draft resolution asking the Secretary-General to set up an independent, international investigation to verify the facts put forward by Mr. Hersh and other journalists.  Detailing his doubts about the impartiality of the investigations now being carried out, he said the Russian Federation’s appeals to be involved in those probes have been hypocritically ignored.

The representative of the United States said today’s meeting is a blatant attempt by the Russian Federation to distract from the impact of its illegal and full-scale invasion of Ukraine, which will be deliberated on by the General Assembly later this week.  This is not the first time that Moscow has used its seat on the Council to amplify conspiracy theories from the Internet, he pointed out, stressing that accusations that the United States was involved in the act of sabotage on the Nord Stream pipelines are completely false.

Many delegates condemned the September 2022 sabotage of the Nord Stream pipelines, which are critical civilian infrastructure, and voiced their concerns about the environmental fallout of the resulting gas leaks.  Mozambique’s representative, for one, said it is imperative that a thorough investigation is conducted to determine the real cause of the Nord Stream pipeline incident.  Together with the potential security implications, those events could also represent an ecological danger, he warned, noting that the release of harmful substances into the environment can have long-lasting consequences for both ecosystems and the health of local communities.

The representative of China said it is increasingly clear that the damage to the Nord Stream pipelines was a deliberate human act.  Voicing support for an expedited investigation, he said the United Nations can play an active role by ensuring the security of transboundary infrastructure, among other things.  He welcomed the draft resolution tabled by the Russian Federation and underscored the importance of authorizing an impartial investigation into the sabotage of the Nord Stream pipelines.

However, other delegates emphasized that there is no need for an additional investigation into the incident, citing probes already under way under the auspices of Denmark, Germany and Sweden.  In that vein, the representative of Albania described the September 2022 attacks as unacceptable and said he looked forward to the conclusion of the investigation now under way.  A parallel investigation is not necessary, as no new facts have been presented, he said, agreeing with several other speakers that today’s meeting only aims to divert attention from upcoming events scheduled to mark the first anniversary of the Russian Federation’s invasion of Ukraine.

Echoing that view, the United Kingdom’s representative said it was unclear why, after five months, the Russian Federation is suddenly pursuing the issue with such urgency.  He welcomed the joint letter from Denmark, Sweden and Germany informing United Nations Member States that investigations are ongoing and voiced his delegation’s full support.  He agreed that the likely real reason for the Russian Federation’s urgency today is a desperate desire to shift attention away from the massive casualties suffered recently by its military and from the devastation it has wrought on the people of Ukraine.

Also speaking today were delegates from Ecuador, Gabon, United Arab Emirates, Ghana, Switzerland, Japan, Brazil, France and Malta.

The meeting began at 3:03 p.m. and ended at 4:27 p.m.

Briefings

ROSEMARY A. DICARLO, Under-Secretary-General for Political and Peacebuilding Affairs in the Department of Political and Peacebuilding Affairs, recalled that on 30 September 2022, Navid Hanif, Assistant Secretary-General for Economic Development at the Department of Economic and Social Affairs, briefed the Council on the reported leaks in the Nord Stream gas pipelines.  His briefing was based on information and data from publicly available sources.  Today’s briefing is based on publicly available information available to date.  As Assistant Secretary-General Hanif reported, between 26 and 29 September 2022 four leaks were detected in the Nord Stream undersea pipelines in the Baltic Sea, near the island of Bornholm.  The first leak was reported on the Nord Stream 2 pipeline on the morning of 26 September, when seismologists detected a spike in activity.  The second and third leaks were reported in the evening of 26 September on the Nord Stream 1 pipeline.  A fourth leak was reported in the morning of 29 September on the Nord Stream 2 pipeline.  Gas supplies flowing from Nord Stream 1 were halted in September, while Nord Stream 2 never entered service.

Nevertheless, she said, the pipelines reportedly held several hundred million cubic meters of natural gas at the time of the incidents.  Danish, German and Swedish officials announced they would launch separate investigations into the leaks.  The Russian Federation also expressed interest in joining the investigations, while voicing concern that a deliberate act of sabotage and terrorism might be to blame for the explosions that caused the leaks.  In October, Danish Police reported that a preliminary investigation found that “powerful explosions” caused the damage.  A month later, the Swedish Security Service and Prosecution Authority reported that, according to their preliminary findings, the pipelines had been subject to “gross sabotage”.  Swedish officials stated that, in the investigations carried out on site in the Baltic Sea, extensive damage to the gas pipelines resulting from detonations was found.  Swedish authorities also seized “foreign items” and found explosive residue on a number of them.  Presently, German and Danish investigations are also ongoing.  

Citing new reports alleging acts of sabotage involving the two pipelines, she reiterated that the United Nations is not in a position to verify or confirm any of the claims relating to those incidents and is awaiting the findings of ongoing national investigations. “Given the sensitivity and speculation regarding this issue, we urge all concerned to show restraint and avoid any speculation,” she said, adding:  “We should avoid any unfounded accusations that could further escalate the already heightened tensions in the region and potentially inhibit the search for the truth.”  While exactly what happened beneath the waters of the Baltic Sea in September 2022 remains unclear, she emphasized that one thing is certain — whatever caused the incident, its fallout is one of many risks the invasion of Ukraine has unleashed.

JEFFREY D. SACHS, Professor at Columbia University in the United States, said he is a specialist in the global economy and represents no Government or organization in his testimony.  As the destruction of the Nord Stream pipelines on 26 September 2022 constitutes an act of international terrorism and represents a threat to peace, it is the Council’s responsibility to take up the question of who might have carried out the act, help bring the perpetrator to justice, pursue compensation for the damaged parties and prevent such actions from recurring in the future.  Noting the vast economic losses related to the pipeline itself and the heightened threat to transboundary infrastructure, he pointed out that the global transformation to green energy will require considerable infrastructure of that sort.  Countries need full confidence that their infrastructure will not be destroyed by third parties.

The destruction of the Nord Stream pipelines required a very high degree of planning, expertise and technological capacity, he continued, adding that only a handful of State-level actors have both the technical capacity and access to the Baltic Sea to have carried out this action.  These include the Russian Federation, the United States, the United Kingdom, Poland, Norway, Germany, Denmark and Sweden, either individually or in some combination.  Ukraine lacks the necessary technologies, as well as access to the Baltic Sea, he added.  

He went on to note that a recent report by the Washington Post news outlet revealed that the intelligence agencies of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) countries have privately concluded that there is no evidence that the Russian Federation carried out the act.  Denmark, Germany and Sweden have reportedly carried out investigations of the Nord Stream terrorism incident, and while Sweden has perhaps the most to tell the world about the crime scene, that country has kept the results of its investigation secret from the rest of the world.  It has refused to share its findings with the Russian Federation and turned down a joint investigation with Denmark and Germany.  The Council must require those countries to immediately turn over the results of their investigations, he emphasized.

Pointing to investigative journalist Seymour Hersh’s detailed account of the Nord Stream destruction, he said his work attributes the Nord Stream destruction to a decision ordered by United States President Joseph R. Biden and carried out by United States agents in a covert operation.  The Biden Administration has described Hersh’s account as “completely and utterly false” but did not offer any information contradicting Hersh’s account and/or any alternative explanation.  He voiced his hope that the United States, together with all other Council members, will condemn that heinous act of international terrorism and join in an urgent Council-led investigation.  The world will be safe only when the Council’s permanent members work together diplomatically to resolve global crises, including the war in Ukraine and the rising tensions in East Asia, he added.

RAY MCGOVERN, political activist, also briefed the Council, stating that his remarks are in his personal capacity and reflect his 27-year-long career as an information analyst in the United States intelligence community.  Outlining the many weapons treaties on which he worked over the years — including those between the United States and what is now the Russian Federation — he said that, more recently, various United States Presidents have pulled out of important bilateral agreements.  He also recalled the history of false information provided to the Security Council by those in the United States who believed that Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction, which it did not.

Referring to an article published recently by investigative journalist Seymour Hersh — who attributes the Nord Stream pipeline destruction to a decision ordered by United States President Joseph R. Biden and carried out by United States agents — he stressed that Mr. Hersh attracts whistle-blowers because of his perfect record of protecting their identities and accurately publishing what they reveal, despite Government attacks.  While some are now smearing Mr. Hersh, such critics do not themselves have a good record of credibility.  Commenting on the idea that the Russian Federation’s invasion of Ukraine was unprovoked, he pointed out that the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) more than doubled in size, despite its promises not to.  When Crimea was annexed by the Russian Federation, President Vladimir Putin noted that the country had to annex Crimea due to a February 2014 coup, and due to the prospect that medium-range ballistic missiles will be placed in already operational systems in Romania and Poland.  Despite being disguised as anti-ballistic missile systems, they can easily accommodate hypersonic missiles, he stressed.

Emphasizing that all those matters have a human dimension despite their highly technical nature, he recalled that the United States suffered an extremely bleak period over the many years that suppressed its African-descended citizens.  “We have to keep on moving forward, never turning back,” he said, reciting the lyrics of an old Civil Rights era song from the United States.  It is up to the Council to keep moving forward and to reject efforts return global relations to an even darker moment, he concluded.

Statements

VASSILY A. NEBENZIA (Russian Federation) said this significant meeting is coming together with a very different tone than the 30 September 2022 meeting on the same subject, namely the sabotage committed against the Nord Stream gas pipelines.  It was clear at that time, in principle, who could be behind that act of international terrorism.  The Russian Federation initiated criminal proceedings under its criminal code.  Meanwhile, the United States leadership made several statements, which boiled down to the following:  If the Russian Federation continues to act in a way that is not pleasing to the United States, the Nord Stream pipeline would be destroyed.  The United States totally denied its participation in the sabotage, and still does.

His delegation convened the meeting because on 8 February, journalist Seymour Hersh released information showing that the United States executed the sabotage and did so with the help of a North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) ally.  He proved that American divers in summer 2022 planted explosives under the Nord Stream, which were activated three months later by the Norwegians.  What happened represents the use of force with means that are not in line with aims of the United Nations, he said, describing the depth of information as astonishing and collected by a journalist with a flawless reputation.  Along with its allies, the United States supports a rules-based order where the rules are dictated by themselves, and now they have blown up a foreign pipeline that is the property of a party with whom they are not at war.

Warning that such actions may be a precursor to other operations meant to weaken different States, he said the chances are high this could happen again, especially if the perpetrators of the Nord Stream pipeline explosion are not brought to justice and compensation is not received by the victims.  The Russian Federation is not here to set up a trial in the Council, but rather has proposed a draft resolution asking the Secretary-General to set up an independent, international investigation to verify the facts put forward by Mr. Hersh and others.  His delegation doubts the impartiality of the investigations now being carried out, which are not transparent, and Moscow’s requests to be involved in the investigations have been hypocritically ignored.  Against that backdrop, he hoped the Council would take the steps necessary.

DOMINGOS ESTÊVÃO FERNANDES (Mozambique) said it is imperative that a thorough investigation is conducted to determine the real cause of the 2022 Nord Stream pipeline incident.  He called on all involved Governments to act in good faith and in an expeditious and thorough manner, while taking into account the seriousness of allegations of sabotage.  Together with the potential security implications, the Nord Stream incident could also represent an ecological danger, he said, noting that the release of harmful substances into the environment can have long-lasting consequences for both ecosystems and the health of local communities.  Noting that the European Space Agency estimated that the emissions leaked from the Nord Stream pipelines are roughly equivalent to one and a half days of global methane emissions, he said it is the Council’s responsibility to take all necessary measures to minimize such harm and ensure that such incidents are prevented in the future.

MONICA SOLEDAD SANCHEZ IZQUIERDO (Ecuador) said nothing justifies attacks against essential civilian infrastructure, including energy infrastructure.  She also highlighted the serious environmental consequences of attacks on energy pipelines, condemning the attacks that struck Nord Stream in September 2022 and urging all United Nations Member States to exercise the greatest caution and maximum restraint.  She welcomed the joint letter sent to inform the Council about the ongoing investigations under way, which are being undertaken in line with the fundamental principle of the rule of law.  Against that backdrop, the global community and the Council in particular must support the investigations and avoid any actions that might limit them or disrupt them. 

EDWIGE KOUMBY MISSAMBO (Gabon) said today’s meeting is being held to again consider the strong suspicion of sabotage that accompanied the leak of gas from the Nord Stream undersea pipelines in the Baltic Sea.  Pointing out that leaks of gas are more warming to the environment than carbon dioxide, she described the incident in September 2022 as a genuine environmental disaster.  The Council’s 30 September meeting showed that the possibility of an accident was excluded and an investigation was needed.  Joining other speakers in condemning the unjustifiable attacks on civilian infrastructure — which damaged the environment and created economic shocks — she called on all parties to demonstrate responsibility and ensure those responsible for the attacks are held accountable.

THOMAS PATRICK PHIPPS (United Kingdom) condemned the acts of sabotage targeting the Nord Stream pipeline.  However, it is not clear to his delegation why, after five months, the Russian Federation is suddenly pursuing the issue with such urgency.  He welcomed the joint letter from Denmark, Sweden and Germany informing United Nations Member States that investigations are ongoing and voiced full support for those technical investigations lead by competent national authorities.  The only recent development regarding Nord Stream of which his delegation is aware is a new round of lurid accusations by the Russian Federation-controlled media.  The basis for those accusations is an article by an American journalist, which cites only a single secret source, and which has been comprehensively debunked by others online, he added.  The likely real reason for the Russian Federation’s urgency today is a desperate desire to shift attention away from the massive casualties suffered by the Russian Federation’s military and from the devastation it has wrought on the people of Ukraine, he said.

MOHAMED ISSA ABUSHAHAB (United Arab Emirates) said acts of sabotage against energy infrastructure, such as the explosions that damaged the Nord Stream 1 and 2 gas pipelines in the Baltic Sea last September, are unacceptable.  They pose a significant threat to international security, stability and prosperity, he said, adding that the 2022 explosions had devastating consequences for the planet, leading to the worst methane gas leak ever recorded.  “As we work together to prevent and address climate change, such events only make our collective efforts more difficult,” he stressed, expressing support for a serious investigation into the September 2022 events alongside efforts to reduce tensions.  “It is important that investigations are grounded in science and facts, not politics and posturing,” he added, noting that the gravity of the situation demands a serious and sober approach and requires holding those responsible accountable.  All concerned parties should refrain from resorting to unilateral measures or escalatory actions, he added, emphasizing that the world can ill afford such steps against the backdrop of its present regional and international uncertainty.

HAROLD ADLAI AGYEMAN (Ghana) welcomed the recent joint update by Denmark, Germany and Sweden, noting that the ongoing investigative processes should also endeavour to keep the Russian Federation authorities and operators informed and their cooperation sought as necessary.  Critical infrastructure especially of a transnational kind should be protected and kept safe from harm, he underscored, voicing concern about greenhouse gas emissions – which have non-localized consequences.  He urged cooperation among all relevant actors to establish the facts and appropriate remedial action, including ensuring accountability.  While investigations are ongoing, all parties concerned must exercise restraint, he said, cautioning against unilateral actions that could be detrimental to peace.

ANDREA BARBARA BAUMANN-BRESOLIN (Switzerland), recalling the September 2022 Council meeting on the present topic as well as the letter sent to the Council by Sweden and Denmark on 29 September, said all available information indicates that the damages to the Nord Stream 1 and 2 gas pipelines, which resulted in worrying gas leaks, were acts of sabotage.  She condemned any attack on critical infrastructure, such as energy infrastructure, and its consequences for people, the economy and the environment.  It is important to stick to the facts and to support any credible effort to shed light on the September incident, she said, spotlighting the joint letter submitted today by Germany, Denmark and Sweden regarding the ongoing investigations.

TAMAURA SHU (Japan) expressed deep concern about the September 2022 Nord Stream pipelines incidents, as well as their potential long-term damage and risk to the marine environment and climate.  Noting that Japan is closely monitoring the progress of the investigation, he said the incident “reminds us once again” of the importance of ensuring the safety of energy infrastructure.  Any targeting of such infrastructure and facilities must be avoided, he said, strongly condemning any such violence.  Urging all those involved to exercise restraint and refrain from engaging in any activity that could disrupt peace and stability, he expressed his hope that the results of the ongoing efforts of investigation by Sweden and Denmark will clarify the cause, and that the Council will be able to discuss the issue on the ground based on the results of the investigation.

JOHN KELLEY (United States) said today’s meeting is a blatant attempt by the Russian Federation to distract from the impact of its illegal and full-scale invasion of Ukraine, which will be deliberated on by the General Assembly later this week.  This is not the first time that Moscow has used its seat on the Council to amplify conspiracy theories from the Internet, he pointed out, stressing that accusations that the United States was involved in the act of sabotage on the Nord Stream pipelines are false. Competent authorities in Denmark, Germany and Sweden are investigating those incidents in a comprehensive, transparent and impartial manner, he added, pointing out that resources for United Nations investigations should be reserved for cases when States are unwilling or unable to investigate genuinely.  The Russian Federation’s proposed draft resolution clearly implicates the United States and mischaracterizes statements by United States officials, he said, noting that it does not seek an impartial investigation but seeks to prejudice ongoing ones toward a predetermined conclusion of its choosing.

ARIAN SPASSE (Albania) said the September attacks on the Nord Stream pipeline were unacceptable and welcomed the prompt response and investigations that were initiated to determine the perpetrators.  That investigation is under way and his delegation looks forward to its conclusion.  Against that backdrop, there is no need for a parallel investigation to overlap with the current one.  No new facts were presented at today’s meeting, just assumptions.  Stressing that the Council is not a depository for conspiracy theories, he said the timing of the request for today’s meeting is no coincidence.  It aims to divert the attention from the events scheduled to mark the first anniversary of the Russian Federation’s invasion of Ukraine.  Emphasizing that the Russian Federation is trying to misuse the Council, he said there is no need for any resolution on this issue.

RONALDO COSTA FILHO (Brazil) pointed to a press article that reported serious allegations about September’s incidents regarding the Nord Stream 1 and Nord Stream 2 pipelines, which motivated today’s meeting.  It is widely known that there are claims that these incidents were acts of sabotage, he said, noting that any response should be based on the results of impartial investigations.  The seriousness of the allegations and the accusation of involvement of State actors must be given due consideration by the Council, he said, calling for greater transparency in the dissemination of established facts and restraint in the propagation of unproven interpretations.  He further emphasized that harmful consequences of the damage to the Nord Stream pipelines for the environment need to be assessed by proper international bodies.

ISIS MARIE DORIANE JARAUD-DARNAULT (France) said the explosions targeting the Nord Stream pipeline were the result of a deliberate act.  Investigations have been carried out and there is no reason to doubt them, she stressed, calling instead for them to be brought to a conclusion.  However, there is every reason to doubt the intervention of the Russian Federation at this point, five months after the leaks.  Moscow is doing all it can do to divert the international community’s attention, as 24 February marks the one-year anniversary of its invasion of Ukraine.

ZHANG JUN (China) said it is increasingly clear that the damage to the Nord Stream pipelines was a deliberate human act.  Voicing support for expediting the investigation, he said the United Nations can play an active role by ensuring the security of transboundary infrastructure, among other things.  He welcomed the draft resolution tabled by the Russian Federation and underscored the importance of authorizing an investigation into the sabotage of the Nord Stream pipelines.  Voicing concern about recent details related to the incident, he said a simple statement of utterly false and complete fiction is not enough to answer the many concerns raised around the world.  He expressed his delegation’s expectation that convincing explanations will be presented by relevant parties, while also drawing attention to a global security initiative concept paper released today by China.  

DARREN CAMILLERI (Malta), Council President for February, speaking in his national capacity, said all available information indicates that the leaks caused by the damage to the Nord Stream 1 and 2 pipelines were the result of a deliberate act.  Any deliberate disruption of energy infrastructure is dangerous and irresponsible, particularly in the midst of a global energy crisis, he emphasized, calling the weaponization of energy and infrastructure “unacceptable”.  The damage increased strain on global energy markets, impacting not only the countries which received energy through the Nord Stream pipeline, but also developing countries.  Against that backdrop, he underlined his country’s solidarity with Denmark, Sweden and Germany and voiced its strong support for the ongoing investigations aimed at establishing the full truth behind the leaks.

*

Note to readers: Please click the share buttons above. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

Featured image is from InfoBrics

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on UN Report: ‘Avoid Speculation’ About Responsibility for 2022 Nord Stream Pipeline Incident, Official Urges Security Council, Stressing United Nations Cannot Verify Claims
  • Tags: ,

All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the Translate Website button below the author’s name (desktop version)

To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.

Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

***

Russia has repeated a call on Sweden to share its findings from an investigation into the blasts that put the Nord Stream 1 pipeline out of commission and damaged the brand-new Nord Stream 2.

The UN Security Council is set to meet on Tuesday and could potentially vote on a Russian draft resolution to investigate the explosions.

Sweden and Denmark conducted a joint investigation of the blasts and concluded they were intentional but stopped short of naming the perpetrator. Then, earlier this month, veteran investigative journalist Seymour Hersh published a report that said the United States had carried out the attacks.

The report prompted an immediate denial from Washington and a double-down from Russia on its insistence to gain access to the conclusions of Sweden’s and Denmark’s investigation into the blasts. Moscow also called for a special session of the UN Security Council this week to discuss the sabotage.

“Almost five months have passed since the sabotage of the Nord Stream 1 and Nord Stream 2 gas pipelines. All this time, however, the Swedish authorities, as if on cue, remain silent,” the Russian embassy in Sweden said on Telegram as quoted by Reuters. “What is the leadership of Sweden so afraid of?”

Earlier this month Russia urged an international investigation into the blasts, following the publication of Seymour Hirsch’s investigation.

“The published facts should become the basis for an international investigation, bringing Biden and his accomplices to justice, as well as paying compensation to countries affected by the terrorist attack,” the speaker of the Russian parliament, the Duma, Vyacheslav Volodin, said on Telegram, calling U.S. President Joe Biden “a terrorist who ordered the destruction of energy infrastructure of his partners—Germany, France, and the Netherlands.”

Sweden’s refusal to share information about the sabotage of Nord Stream is “puzzling,” and withholding the results of the investigation means that “Swedish authorities are hiding something,” Russia’s Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Maria Zakharova said last month.

*

Note to readers: Please click the share buttons above. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

Charles is a writer for Oilprice.com.

Featured image is from OilPrice.com

War and the Constitution

February 23rd, 2023 by Judge Andrew P. Napolitano

All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the Translate Website button below the author’s name (desktop version)

To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.

Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

***

Can the president fight any war he wishes? Can Congress fund any war it chooses? Are there constitutional and legal requirements that must first be met before war is waged? Can the United States legally attack an ally?

These questions should be front and center in a debate over the U.S. involvement in Ukraine. Sadly, there has been no great debate. The media are mouthing what the CIA is telling them, and only a few websites and podcasts — my own, “Judging Freedom” on You Tube, among them — are challenging the government’s reckless, immoral, illegal and unconstitutional war.

All power in the federal government comes from the Constitution and from no other source. Congress, however, has managed to extend its reach beyond the confines of the Constitution domestically by spending money in areas that it cannot regulate and purchasing compliance from the states by bribery.

Examples of this are the numerical minimum blood alcohol content to trigger DWI arrests, and maximum speed limits. In both instances, Congress offered money to the states to pave highways provided they lower both numbers, and the cash-strapped states accepted the money along with congressional strings. These are bribes from the criminal consequences of which Congress has exempted itself.

The same takes place in foreign policy. Congress cannot legally declare war on Russia, since there is no militarily-grounded reason for doing so. Russia poses no threat to American national security or American persons or property. Moreover, the U.S. has no treaty with Ukraine that triggers an American military defense. But Congress spends money on war nevertheless.

Under the Constitution, only Congress can declare war on a nation or group. The last time it did so was to initiate American involvement in World War II. But Congress has given away limited authority to presidents and permitted them to fight undeclared wars. Examples of this are President George W. Bush’s disastrous and criminal invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq, and the War Powers Resolution of 1973.

Congress has not only not declared war on Russia; it has not authorized the use of American military forces against it. Yet, it has given President Joe Biden a blank check for $100 billion and authorized him to spend it on military equipment for Ukraine however he sees fit.

He has promised to continue giving Ukraine whatever it needs for “as long as it takes.” As long as it takes to do what? He cannot answer that because he has no clear military objective. Eliminating Russian troops from Ukraine and Crimea or Russian President Vladimir Putin from office are not realistically attainable military goals.

Congress has only authorized weapons and cash to be sent to Ukraine, but Biden has sent troops as well. The U.S. involvement in Vietnam began the same way: no declaration of war, no authorization for the use of military force, yet a gradual buildup of American troops as advisers and instructors, and then a congressionally supported war that saw half a million American troops deployed, 10% of whom came home in body bags.

We don’t know how many American troops are in Ukraine, as they are out of uniform and their whereabouts a secret. We do know that they are involved in hostilities, since much of the hardware that Biden has sent requires American know-how to operate and maintain. And some of the weaponry has American troops actually targeting Russian forces and pulling the triggers.

Are American soldiers killing Russian soldiers? Yes. None of it has been authorized by Congress, but Congress has paid for it in borrowed dollars.

Now back to the Constitution. The War Powers Resolution, which requires presidential notification to Congress of the use of American military force, is unconstitutional because it consists of Congress giving away one of its core functions — declaring war. The Supreme Court has characterized delegating away core functions as violative of the separation of powers.

Nevertheless, Biden has not informed Congress of his intentions to use American troops violently. Yet, he has used the Navy and the CIA to attack Germany — a war crime and a violation of the NATO treaty — and he has soldiers out of uniform in Ukraine, so as to perpetuate the deception that boots are not on the ground.

Don’t be surprised if Biden gives War Powers Act notice secretly to the Gang of Eight. What’s that? The Gang of Eight is the Congress within the Congress. It consists of the chairs and ranking members of the House and Senate Intelligence Committees and the Republican and Democratic leaders of the House and Senate with which the president legally shares secrets.

Just as Congress cannot delegate away its war-making powers to the president, it cannot delegate them away to the Gang of Eight. The concept of the Gang of Eight is antithetical to democratic values. Informing them of whatever violence the president is up to is done under an oath of secrecy. What kind of democracy operates and kills in secret?

The various treaties to which the U.S. is a party limit its war-making to that which is defensive, proportional and reasonable. So, if a foreign power is about to strike — like on 9/11, while the government slept — the president can strike first in order to protect the U.S. Beyond an imminent attack, the basis for war must be real, the adversary’s anti-U.S. military behavior must be grave, the objective of war must be clear and attainable, and the means must be proportionate to the threat.

Has Russia threatened the U.S.? No. What grave acts has the Russian military committed against the U.S.? None. What is Biden’s objective? He won’t say.

Does the Congress uphold the Constitution? Does the president? The answers are obvious. We have reposed the Constitution for safekeeping into the hands of those who ignore it. The consequences are death, debt and the loss of personal liberty.

*

Note to readers: Please click the share buttons above. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

Featured image is from Judge Napolitano

All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the Translate Website button below the author’s name (desktop version)

To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.

Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

***

The foreign ministers of the United States, Germany, and Ukraine have told the world “you can’t be neutral” in NATO’s proxy war with Russia, recalling President George W. Bush’s infamous declaration, “You are either with us, or against us”.

In doing so, these Western officials are implicitly criticizing the vast majority of the countries on Earth, which are in the Global South, and which have maintained strict neutrality over the war.

In a joint event at the Munich Security Conference on February 18, Germany’s Foreign Minister Annalena Baerbock declared,

“Neutrality is not an option, because then you are standing on the side of the aggressor”.

Baerbock emphasized that

“this is a plea we are also giving next week to the world again: Please take a side, a side for peace, a side for Ukraine, a side for the humanitarian international law, and these times this means also delivering ammunition so Ukraine can defend itself”.

The German foreign minister’s comments were echoed by US Secretary of State Antony Blinken.

“As Annalena [Baerbock] said, there is no neutral position… There is no balance”, Blinken said, stressing, “You really can’t be neutral”.

Ukrainian Foreign Minister Dmytro Kuleba praised the West for “stand[ing] for principles and rules”, while implying that the Global South is barbaric and lawless.

“We see an unprecedented unity of one part of the world that stands for principles and rules this world is based on, but we also see other parts of the world, some are neutral, which means effectively the support of Russia”, Kuleba said with disgust.

Baerbock had previously made it clear that the West is waging war on Russia, declaring at the Council of Europe in January, “We are fighting a war against Russia”.

The tone and context of the comments made by top Western officials at the Munich Security Conference on February 18 made it clear that they are angry with the Global South for refusing to join their proxy war.

Vast majority of world population, located in Global South, is neutral in Ukraine proxy war

A day before this discussion at the Munich Security Conference, French state media outlet France 24 published an article complaining that, “Over the past year, most Global South countries adopted a position of studied neutrality on the war in Ukraine”.

In a deeply arrogant voice, the French state media outlet wrote dismissively that “what binds this diverse group [in the Global South] together is the quest for a ‘multipolar’ world order stacked against the ‘unipolar hegemony’ of the West”. It added smugly that this “also happens to be Russia’s favourite talking point”.

This condescending talking point has been a consistent refrain coming from Western governments and media outlets, criticizing the Global South for not taking NATO’s side.

The global population is roughly 8 billion people, and more than 6 billion live in countries that have been neutral in the Ukraine proxy war.

These include the world’s most populous countries, such as:

  • China (1.41 billion people)
  • India (1.38 billion people)
  • Indonesia (276 million people)
  • Pakistan (236 million people)
  • Nigeria (219 million people)
  • Brazil (216 million people)
  • Bangladesh (170 million people)
  • Mexico (129 million people)
  • Ethiopia (105 million people)
  • Egypt (104 million people)
  • Vietnam (99 million people)
  • Türkiye (85 million people)
  • Thailand (67 million people)
  • Tanzania (62 million people)
  • South Africa (61 million people)
  • Kenya (48 million people)
  • Argentina (46 million people)
  • Algeria (45 million people)
  • Sudan (45 million people)
  • Uganda (43 million people)
  • Iraq (42 million people)
  • Morocco (37 million people)
  • Uzbekistan (36 million people)
  • Saudi Arabia (34 million people)

As Geopolitical Economy previously reported, two former US diplomats published an article in Newsweek in September admitting, “Nearly 90 Percent of the World Isn’t Following Us on Ukraine”. They wrote:

While the United States and its closest allies in Europe and Asia have imposed tough economic sanctions on Moscow, 87 percent of the world’s population has declined to follow us. Economic sanctions have united our adversaries in shared resistance.

Less predictably, the outbreak of Cold War II has also led countries that were once partners or non-aligned to become increasingly multi-aligned.

This global divergence is especially clear when one looks at a map of which countries have imposed sanctions on Russia.

These nations only represent a bit over 1 billion people: the United States, Canada, Britain, European Union, Australia, South Korea, and Japan (the last two of which have been militarily occupied by the US for decades).

Russia commonly refers to this bloc as the “collective West”, and their comparatively wealth population as the “golden billion” that has benefited from the economic exploitation inherent in the imperialist world-system.

Geopolitical Economy previously cited an article published in March 2022 by British newspaper The Guardian, titled “Cold war echoes as African leaders resist criticising Putin’s war”, which lamented that “Many remember Moscow’s support for liberation from colonial rule, and a strong anti-imperialist feeling remains”.

The publication noted with anger that most African nations were “calling for peace but blaming Nato’s eastward expansion for the war, complaining of western ‘double standards’ and resisting all calls to criticise Russia”.

Today, almost all African countries are members of the Non-Aligned Movement, and are decidedly neutral.

Western attacks on the Non-Aligned Movement

This Western narrative that Global South countries are not actually neutral goes back to the First Cold War.

In 1961, leftist leaders of India, Ghana, Egypt, Indonesia, and Yugoslavia formed the Non-Aligned Movement. This bloc represented the majority of the world population and consisted of countries, largely in the Global South, that opposed colonialism and imperialism and did not want to participate in the cold war. They sought to build a truly multipolar world, not a bipolar one.

Because the Non-Aligned Movement was led by socialists (India’s Jawaharlal Nehru, Ghana’s Kwame Nkrumah, Egypt’s Gamal Abdel Nasser, Indonesia’s Sukarno, and Yugoslavia’s Josip Broz Tito), the United States and its cold war allies attacked the movement and claimed that being non-aligned really meant being a secret supporter of the Soviet-led communist bloc.

The CIA backed a coup against Nkrumah in Ghana in 1966. The year before, the CIA sponsored a coup against Sukarno in Indonesia (and subsequently supported the genocide carried out by US-backed right-wing dictator Suharto, who killed between 1 and 3 million leftists). The United States also repeatedly tried to overthrow Nasser, but failed.

Western imperialist powers have long adopted this George W. Bush-esque position, that any country that did not actively support them was against them.

Ukraine itself had been an observer state in the Non-Aligned Movement. In 2010, the government of democratically elected President Viktor Yanukovych voted to officially declare Ukraine non-aligned.

But in February 2014, the United States sponsored a coup d’etat in Ukraine, which overthrew Yanukovych and installed a pro-Western regime. Soon after the violent putsch, Kiev officially dropped its non-aligned status and declared its intention to join the US-led NATO military alliance.

Non Aligned Movement member states map

A map of Non-Aligned Movement members (dark blue) and observer states (light blue)

Global South countries condemn Russian invasion, but blame Western aggression and maintain neutrality

The misleading comments by Blinken, Baerbock, and Kuleba claiming the Global South is not actually neutral about Ukraine are objectively false. But this doesn’t mean that all of these Global South countries support Russia’s war.

Many countries in the Global South have condemned the Russian invasion.

On March 2, 2022, a week after Russia sent its troops into Ukraine, the majority of member states of the United Nations did vote to condemn the invasion, including many countries in the Global South.

However, Eritrea, the DPRK, Syria, and Belarus voted against the resolution, and 35 member states abstained, including massive countries like China and India (which together have nearly 3 billion people), as well as Pakistan, South Africa, Iran, Iraq, Sudan, Zimbabwe, Vietnam, Algeria, Cuba, Nicaragua, Bolivia, Mozambique, and Lao.

Then in April, the General Assembly held another vote, this time to expel Russia from the UN Human Rights Council.

There was less support for this resolution, with 93 votes in favor.

58 countries abstained, such as India, Pakistan, Indonesia, Brazil, Mexico, South Africa, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, and Sudan.

24 countries voted against the measure, including China, Iran, Algeria, Bolivia, Nicaragua, Cuba, Ethiopia, Mali, Laos, Vietnam, and Zimbabwe.

The Western bloc wants the world to believe there are only two options: aligning with it, or opposing it.

But most countries on Earth, representing the vast majority of the world’s population, in the Global South, truly are neutral.

NATO is simply frustrated that 87% of the planet won’t join its war efforts.

*

Note to readers: Please click the share buttons above. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

Featured image: US Secretary of State Antony Blinken, German Foreign Minister Annalena Baerbock, and Ukrainian Foreign Minister Dmytro Kuleba condemn neutrality at the Munich Security Conference on February 18, 2023 (Source: BR24 via GER)

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on West Tells Global South ‘You Can’t be Neutral’ in Ukraine War: You Are Either with Us, or Against Us
  • Tags: ,

How the Ukraine War Helped the Arms Trade Go Boom

February 23rd, 2023 by Connor Echols

All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the Translate Website button below the author’s name (desktop version)

To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.

Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

***

This is part of our weeklong series marking the one-year anniversary of the Russian invasion of Ukraine, February 24, 2022. See all of the stories here.

Earlier this month, arms maker General Atomics made Ukraine a tempting offer. For the low price of $0.50 a pop, the defense contractor would send Kyiv two of its top-of-the-line MQ-9 Reaper drones, which are usually valued at about $30 million per plane. (Budget-conscious readers should keep in mind that shipping and handling — worth nearly $20 million — were not included.)

While the PR stunt has yet to pay off, it serves as a reminder that, for arms makers, high-profile conflicts are a remarkable marketing opportunity. In just a few months, HIMARS and Javelin missiles went from obscure pieces of military equipment to widely recognized symbols of the brave Ukrainian resistance against Russian aggression.

This more subtle ad campaign has already started to pay dividends. Two weeks ago, the State Department approved a potential $10 billion deal with Poland for a new fleet of HIMARS and related equipment. Warsaw also put in a nearly $4 billion order for American Abrams tanks last year after sending Kyiv more than 200 of its Soviet-era T-72s. And other countries in eastern Europe — including Estonia, Finland, and Lithuania — have given Ukraine many of their Soviet-era arms and sought to replace them with cutting-edge Western weapons.

These sales are just one aspect of a broader boom in the global arms trade. While other factors — like increased U.S.-China tensions — have contributed to this trend, Russia’s invasion of Ukraine has played a key role in driving international demand for weapons to new highs.

At this stage, it’s hard to predict who will benefit the most from this boom. So far, Western weapons makers have experienced the largest boost, but the long-term impact may be the creation of a “multipolar” arms trade, according to Eric Woods of the James Martin Center for Nonproliferation Studies.

“The trend is towards diversification away from one or two big suppliers like it was during the Cold War,” Woods told RS. “It’s more multipolar, much like the rest of the international system.”

One key reason for this shift is the relative stagnation of the Russian defense industry. While definitive arms sale numbers are nearly impossible to find, well-respected sources like the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI) have noted a fairly dramatic decline in Moscow’s weapons sales in recent years, allowing the United States to open up a dominant lead as the world’s leading exporter.

As Richard Connolly of the Royal United Services Institute (RUSI) points out, this apparent drop may be due to the fact that Russia has become more secretive about its arms sales in order to avoid triggering Western sanctions. But, Connolly notes, even official Russian numbers on weapons exports have stagnated at around $15 billion annually in recent years, while other countries have seen spikes.

Contrary to many predictions, Russia has so far managed to keep up with major contracts that it agreed to before the war. Connolly attributes this resilience to the fact that Russia’s defense industry makes different products for its domestic and foreign markets. And weapons factories throughout the country have dramatically expanded their operations since the invasion, with some production lines now “operating around the clock” in order to meet demand.

Despite Moscow’s best efforts, however, countries have started to become more wary of its reliability as an exporter and more attuned to the potential costs of working with the Kremlin. India — the world’s leading importer of Russian weapons — is particularly concerned about these downsides, according to Akriti Kalyankar of the Stimson Center.

“The war has really brought home to New Delhi that Russia is actually in decline and that India’s dependence on Russia is something that it needs to change,” Kalyankar said at a recent panel discussion. France, which SIPRI ranked as the second leading weapons exporter in 2021, has tried to capitalize on these concerns in order to supplant Russia as India’s leading arms supplier. U.S. officials have also suggested that they are targeting the lucrative Indian import market.

Notably, both India and China have embarked on missions to expand their domestic weapons production. If successful, these initiatives would allow them to reduce their reliance on Moscow and perhaps even compete for defense contracts in the increasingly multipolar industry.

As Russia fights to hold its dwindling share of the market, U.S. companies have struggled to keep up with the massive spike in demand for weapons. This has helped to open up space for the growing number of mid-sized producers like Turkey, whose inexpensive Bayraktar drones have been in high demand after Ukraine deftly employed them to beat back Russia’s initial invasion.

But perhaps the biggest success story is South Korea. Seoul’s rapidly growing defense industry has strong support from President Yoon Suk Yeol, who declared last year that his aim is to become the world’s fourth largest weapons exporter by 2027. (South Korea was the eighth leading exporter in 2021, according to SIPRI data.)

“​​The Ukraine war has given them a great chance to sell arms to major NATO countries,” said Hoshik Nam, a PhD candidate in political science at the University of Iowa. After Russia’s invasion, South Korea reached a nearly $6 billion deal with Poland for tanks, howitzers, and ammunition, some of which have already been delivered. Norway and Estonia have also expressed interest in importing Korean weapons.

Seoul has some unique advantages as a weapons maker, according to Nam. Given that the country is still technically at war with North Korea, its defense industry is able to rapidly scale up to meet demand at times of crisis at a “relatively cheap price,” and its weapons are largely compatible with NATO systems because of its long-standing defense relationship with the United States. And unlike their American peers, Korean contractors are more willing to transfer technologies for use by other countries.

There is, however, one big exception to Seoul’s selling spree. According to Nam, it is “highly unlikely” that South Korea will budge in its pledge to not sell arms directly to Ukraine because of the country’s sensitive relationships with Russia and North Korea, as well as its general policy against sending weapons into active war zones.

But this hasn’t stopped Seoul from finding some creative solutions. Reports surfaced in November of last year that South Korea had agreed to sell 100,000 rounds of artillery ammunition to the United States, which it insisted would be the “end user” of the weapons. But American officials told the AP that the rounds would actually be headed to Ukraine after passing through the U.S.

As the war drags on, demand for weapons will likely continue to rise in Europe as Ukraine’s supporters rebuild their stockpiles and modernize their militaries. But, as Jeff Abramson of the Arms Control Association argues, the weapons build-up will not end alongside the conflict. Instead, arms sales will likely continue to rise as weapons makers compete for clients in regions far removed from eastern Europe.

“Once you revitalize and grow that industry, you will see increased flows of weapons outside of the conflict in Ukraine,” Abramson told RS. “That is the history of a burgeoning arms market — it doesn’t stop [with] Ukraine.”

*

Note to readers: Please click the share buttons above. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

Featured image: Hyundai Rotem shows off its K2 main battle tank in a 2022 expo in Seoul. (Shutterstock/ Flying Camera)

All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the Translate Website button below the author’s name (desktop version)

To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.

Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

***

Ukraine’s military intelligence agency has shared photos of a Black Hawk helicopter. The American-made aircraft was painted with a Ukrainian flag, and the intel org suggested it was used in military operations. 

Two photos showing a Black Hawk were posted on the Twitter account and website of Ukraine’s Main Directorate of Intelligence on Tuesday. A press release accompanying the images said the agency had recently completed military missions.

“Military intelligence aviation of Ukraine continues its work on the front line of the defense of our country. Reconnaissance pilots have just returned from another combat mission,” it said, adding that “Combat helicopters significantly increase the capabilities of the special units of the Main Directorate of Intelligence and the effectiveness of special operations.”

Another aircraft seen in the photos was identified by the Drive as a Ukrainian Mi-24 Hind.

It is unclear how Kiev obtained the American helicopter or whether it has been used in combat operations. Officially, the White House has approved sending Soviet-era Mi-17 Helicopters – aircraft formerly owned by the Afghan government prior to its collapse in 2021 – though it has made no mention of Black Hawks to date.

In June, the assault and reconnaissance wing of the Intelligence Directorate, known as the ‘Shaman battalion,’ claimed to have carried out operations inside Russian territory, according to the Times of London. The outlet said the commandos were flown into the country via helicopter, but did not specify what type.

Despite repeated demands from Kiev, President Joe Biden has resisted sending long-range weapons over concerns they could be used for attacks on Russian soil. However, the White House has nonetheless authorized increasingly heavy arms shipments, including the ground-launched small-diameter bomb (GLSDB), which can strike targets more than 90 miles away, as well as dozens of advanced HIMARS multi-launch rocket platforms, a Patriot missile battery and a number of other systems.

*

Note to readers: Please click the share buttons above. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

Kyle Anzalone is the opinion editor of Antiwar.com and news editor of the Libertarian Institute.

Will Porter is the assistant news editor of the Libertarian Institute and a staff writer and editor at RT.

Kyle Anzalone and Will Porter host Conflicts of Interest along with Connor Freeman.

Featured image: Ukrainian military intelligence operatives are seen with a US-made Black Hawk military helicopter following a combat operation, in an undisclosed location in Ukraine, February 21, 2023. (Credit: Main Directorate of Intelligence of Ukraine)

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Ukrainian Military Appears to be Using US-Made Black Hawk Helicopter

All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the Translate Website button below the author’s name (desktop version)

To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.

Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

***

A plane crashed outside of Bill and Hillary Clinton National Airport in Little Rock, Arkansas today.

All five people killed worked for the environmental consulting firm CTEH. This is the same firm doing toxicology testing in East Palestine.

They were headed to northeast Ohio to assist in the area of the metals plant that exploded on Monday.

ThreeSevens

*

There were no survivors after a plane carrying five people coming to Ohio to assist with a metals plant explosion crashed on its way to Columbus, authorities say.

The Federal Aviation Administration said a twin-engine Beech BE20 crashed after departing Bill and Hillary Clinton National Airport in Little Rock, Arkansas, around noon.

The plane, with five people aboard, was heading to John Glenn International in Columbus, Ohio.

The Pulaski County Sheriff’s Office told reporters at a news conference that there were no survivors.

CTEH, a science-based consulting firm, owns the plane and said all on board were employees.

The company said they were heading to Oakwood Village in Ohio to assist with the aftermath of a deadly fire at the I. Schumann & Co. copper alloy company.

An explosion at the metals plant on Monday killed a maintenance worker and injured more than a dozen people. Fire officials said the explosion likely happened in the building’s foundry, where molten metals are held in kettles.

First responders battle a blaze at a plant in the Cleveland suburb of Oakwood Village. Feb. 20, 2023. (Courtesy: WEWS)

“We are incredibly saddened to report the loss of our Little Rock colleagues,” said Dr. Paul Nony, senior vice president of CTEH. “We ask everyone to keep the families of those lost and the entire CTEH team in their thoughts and prayers.”

According to the Little Rock Fire Department, the plane crashed near the backside of the 3M Plant on Walters Road, just south of Interstate 440.

The FAA and the National Transportation Safety Board are investigating.

WSYX

*

Note to readers: Please click the share buttons above. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

Featured image: Authorities in central Arkansas are responding to the area surrounding the Bill and Hillary Clinton National Airport after a plane crashed Wednesday, Feb. 22. (Photo KATV)

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Plane Crash: Five Toxicology Specialists Aboard Plane Heading to East Palestine, Ohio. No Survivors

Canada Must Condemn Israeli Massacre in Nablus

February 23rd, 2023 by Canadians for Justice and Peace in the Middle East

All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the Translate Website button below the author’s name (desktop version)

To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.

Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

***

Canadians for Justice and Peace in the Middle East (CJPME) demands that the Canadian government condemn Israel’s deadly military invasion of Nablus today in the occupied West Bank, which reportedly killed at least 10 Palestinians and injured more than 100. Today’s attack comes less than one month after a similar attack in Jenin which killed 10 Palestinians, including at least three civilians. CJPME argues that international condemnation and sanctions are necessary to hold Israeli officials accountable for these actions, which may amount to war crimes, and to prevent Israel from committing further aggressive acts.

“For the second time within a month, Israeli forces have carried out a massacre in a Palestinian city in broad daylight,” said Michael Bueckert, Vice President of CJPME. “Canada must denounce Israel’s actions in the strongest terms, and impose consequences to stop this bloodshed,” added Bueckert. For months, CJPME and other human rights groups have warned that Israel’s government would be prone to this type of indiscriminate and extrajudicial violence directed against large numbers of Palestinian civilians. Past Canadian statements with lukewarm and nonspecific calls for an end to violence have failed to hold the Israeli government to account for its repressive and provocative actions.

As of the latest reporting, today’s military invasion killed at least 10 Palestinians, including two elderly people and a child, and injured at least 100 people with live ammunition and tear gas. Palestinian eyewitnesses have reported that Israeli forces entered a crowded market in the city centre of Nablus and fired indiscriminately, with most injuries to the chest and head. The Red Crescent reported that Israeli forces prevented medical teams from reaching the injured, and at least two journalists were injured by live ammunition. Videos circulating online show Israeli snipers shooting at pedestrians and an Israeli military vehicle driving directly into a crowd of bystanders.

On January 26, Israeli occupation forces killed 10 Palestinians during a military raid in the Jenin refugee camp which was condemned by UN rights experts as a possible war crime. Among those killed were 61-year old Majida Obaid and 2 children, Wasim Amjad Aref Abu Jaes (age 16) and Abdullah Marwan Juma’a Mousa (age 17). A statement by Canadian foreign affairs minister Mélanie Joly the following day included a general condemnation of violence against Palestinian civilians, and specifically a reference to “recent events in Jenin,” but did not directly address Israeli actions.

*

Note to readers: Please click the share buttons above. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

Featured image is from Democracy Now!

Lula – One of the Most Audacious Traitors in Brazil’s Recent History?

By Peter Koenig, February 22, 2023

Lula has now been in office less than 2 months and has already opened his cards for everyone to see: totally submissive to and controlled by the World Economic Forum (WEF), by Washington, by the WHO and by Bill Gates, one of the key funders of WHO and creator of GAVI.

Court Documents Show GlaxoSmithKline Knew — for 40 Years — Zantac Could Cause Cancer

By Michael Nevradakis, February 22, 2023

Amid tens of thousands of lawsuits that are pending in state courts all across the U.S., a new report based on evidence discovered in these court cases reveals Big Pharma giant GlaxoSmithKline (GSK) had, for decades, concealed evidence showing that Zantac could cause cancer.

History: Kurt Waldheim, From the Nazi Student Federation to UN Secretary General and President of Austria

By William Walter Kay, February 22, 2023

In 1987 the US Justice Department declared Kurt Waldheim a dangerous agent; forever forbidding his re-entry onto US soil. The aristocratic poseur, Waldheim, was the grandson of a Czech blacksmith surnamed Vaclavik. Kurt’s father, Walter, migrated to Austria where Christian-Social Party (CSP) activism landed him the plum-gig of school inspector.

COVID Jab Gets Permanent Liability Protection as Predicted

By Dr. Joseph Mercola, February 22, 2023

October 20, 2022, the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) unanimously (15-0) voted to add unlicensed COVID-19 shots to the U.S. childhood, adolescent and adult vaccine schedules.

How Vinyl Chloride, the Chemical in the Ohio Train Derailment and Used to Make PVC Plastics, Can Damage Your Liver

By Prof. Juliane I. Beier, February 22, 2023

Vinyl chloride – the chemical in several of the train cars that derailed and burned in East Palestine, Ohio, in February 2023 – can wreak havoc on the human liver.

Idaho Lawmakers Seek to Criminalize Injecting of mRNA COVID-19 Vaccines

By Naveen Athrappully, February 22, 2023

Republican lawmakers from Idaho have introduced a bill that will make it a crime to administer mRNA vaccines in the state, citing safety concerns, which would apply to COVID-19 vaccines manufactured by companies like Pfizer and Moderna.

De-Dollarization in Africa: South Sudan to Drop US Dollar for Local Currency

By Timothy Alexander Guzman, February 22, 2023

Back in 2010, the South Sudanese Government was warned by students who majored in economics that using the US dollar for local transactions would pose an economic risk to the country, and they were right.

Russia Summoned US Ambassador Due to Growing Military Involvement of U.S. in Ukrainian Conflict

By South Front, February 22, 2023

The Russian Foreign Ministry summoned US Ambassador to Russia Lynne Tracy to make a demarche due to the growing involvement of the United States in the fighting on the side of the Kiev regime.

A Nano-Second to Midnight

By Dr. Paul Craig Roberts, February 22, 2023

The main focus of the incompetent Biden Regime is on demonizing white Americans who are not “Woke Democrats” and on raising tensions with Russia which are already more dangerous than during the Cuban missile crisis.  

Syria Just Suffered a Devastating Earthquake but Israeli Bombing Does Not Stop

By Peoples Dispatch, February 22, 2023

Thousands of Syrians took to the streets on Monday, February 20, to protest against repeated Israeli aggression directed at the country. Protesters also chanted slogans against the unilateral coercive measures (sanctions) imposed against Syria by the US and its allies, the Syrian Arab News Agency (SANA) reported.

  • Posted in NO READ MORE LINK
  • Comments Off on Selected Articles: Lula – One of the Most Audacious Traitors in Brazil’s Recent History?

All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the Translate Website button below the author’s name (desktop version)

To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.

Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

***

Amid tens of thousands of lawsuits that are pending in state courts all across the U.S., a new report based on evidence discovered in these court cases reveals Big Pharma giant GlaxoSmithKline (GSK) had, for decades, concealed evidence showing that Zantac could cause cancer.

According to Bloomberg Businessweek, GSK — then known as Glaxo — had been aware of cancer-causing risks with ranitidine, the drug which was marketed as Zantac, even before it was approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in 1983. These warnings came from independent researchers but also from Glaxo scientists.

Within five years, Zantac, used to treat or relieve heartburn, acid indigestion and gastric ulcers, became the world’s best-selling medicine and was one of the first to surpass $1 billion in annual sales, according to Reuters. GSK later sold the drug to Pfizer — and Zantac was then sold to Boehringer Ingelheim and finally Sanofi.

In 2019, an online pharmacy detected high levels of a potent carcinogen, NDMA, in Sanofi and its generic equivalents. This led to recalls, followed by a formal FDA withdrawal of the drug in 2020.

This decision was made based on “research showing the amount of NDMA in the products increases the longer the drug is stored and could potentially become unsafe,” Reuters reported, with Fierce Pharma adding that this problem was identified “even under normal storage conditions.”

According to the Bloomberg Businessweek report, the storage issues came in addition to the known risk that “under certain conditions in the stomach, ranitidine could form a potentially dangerous compound” that could cause cancer.

All four aforementioned pharmaceutical companies are now facing tens of thousands of lawsuits in state courts throughout the U.S. “Plaintiffs said the companies knew, or should have known, that ranitidine posed a cancer risk and that they failed to warn consumers,” reports Reuters.

According to Reuters, “While NDMA is found in low levels in food and water, it is known to cause cancer in larger amounts.” Zantac, accordingly, has been linked “to at least 10 types of cancer” in lawsuits that have been filed, including bladder, esophageal, liver, pancreatic and stomach cancers.

GSK continues to claim that there is “no consistent or reliable evidence” that Zantac caused cancer.

What is NDMA?

According to Bloomberg Businessweek, “NDMA, which is short for N-Nitrosodimethylamine, is a yellow liquid that dissolves in water. It doesn’t have an odor or much of a taste.” It is most toxic to the liver, and “was first linked to cancer in 1956.”

It adds that “The carcinogen, called NDMA, was once added to rocket fuel and is now used only to induce cancer in lab rats.”

The same report notes that NDMA is “one of a group of chemicals called nitrosamines, which by the 1970s were considered the most potent carcinogens yet discovered. They caused cancer in every species of animal tested. A single dose of less than a milligram of NDMA can mutate mice cells and stimulate tumors, and 2 grams can kill a person in days.”

According to USA Today, drawing on FDA data, “Nitrosamines are found in water, cured and grilled meats, dairy products and vegetables” and studies have found that they lead to “increased cancer risk if people are exposed to large amounts over long periods of time.”

Stephen Hecht, Ph.D., a professor of cancer prevention at the University of Minnesota, told USA Today that food safety experts have made efforts to reduce nitrosamine levels in foods such as cured meats to far below the levels of the 1970s and 1980s.

Bloomberg Businessweek states that “Every public-health agency, from the Environmental Protection Agency to the FDA to the World Health Organization, says NDMA likely causes cancer in humans.”

The FDA has placed limits on six types of nitrosamines, reports USA Today, equaling “up to one case of cancer per 100,000 people exposed to the contaminant.”

However, the drugs that were recalled and ultimately pulled from the market far exceeded these limits, with estimates of a risk of one cancer case for every 3,000 to 8,000 patients, according to USA Today.

The withdrawal of Zantac and its generic versions resulted in tens of thousands of lawsuits that are still pending — and a process of discovery that has unearthed significant evidence revealing that Glaxo and regulatory bodies were long aware of the presence of NDMA in these medications.

Discovery reveals that Glaxo, regulators continuously ignored NDMA cancer risk

Bloomberg Businessweek reviewed “thousands of pages” of documents, including those arising from the discovery process in the ongoing lawsuits against GSK and other drugmakers, as well as scientific studies, to develop its story, discovering that GSK supported “flawed research” that skewed the narrative away from Zantac’s risks.

As stated in the Bloomberg Businessweek report: “Proving that a particular person’s cancerous cells were mutated by a company’s drug is complicated. Glaxo’s decisions suggest it never wanted to consider that possibility. The clues were there. The documents show that Glaxo preferred not to find them.”

The report continued:

“From ranitidine’s beginning to its end, Glaxo had been warned by its own scientists and independent researchers about the potential danger. An account of those four decades emerges in hundreds of documents, thousands of pages, many of which have never been made public.

“Bloomberg Businessweek reviewed court filings, many still under seal, as well as studies, FDA transcripts and new drug applications obtained via Freedom of Information Act requests. They show that the FDA considered the cancer risks when approving ranitidine. But Glaxo didn’t share a critical study.

“Over the years, the company also backed flawed research designed to minimize concerns and chose not to routinely transport and store the medication in ways that could have eased the problem. Glaxo sold a drug that might harm people, tried to discount evidence of that and never gave anyone the slightest warning.”

The report presents evidence indicating that Glaxo — and later GSK — were aware that NDMA could be present in Zantac, both as a result of how it was metabolized in the human stomach and also by naturally occurring even under ordinary storage conditions.

According to the report, ranitidine was first developed by Glaxo scientists in the 1970s, and a U.S. patent for it was granted in 1978. As stated by the report, the process of developing ranitidine and getting it approved was swift.

“They developed ranitidine quickly, and the US Food and Drug Administration reviewed it quickly. Glaxo gave it the brand name Zantac,” said Bloomberg Businessweek. It was soon marketed as being “better and safer” than the leading heartburn drug at the time, Tagamet.

However, the warning signs were already there. According to Bloomberg Businessweek, a U.S. government cancer researcher and biochemist, William Lijinsky, had found in 1969 that nitrosamines could form in the stomach, exacerbated by the presence of nitrites, “a common chemical found in cured and grilled meat and in beer and coffee and vegetables” found to be “common causes of heartburn and acid reflux.”

Lijinsky’s solution to this, presented in published studies and in Congressional testimony in the 1970s, was to limit sodium nitrite levels in food. Already, by the late 1970s, Lijinsky identified roadblocks that were not allowing his warnings to be fully heeded.

“It seems to me that the regulatory agencies have been less than eager to act in the matter of nitrites and nitrosamines,” he testified before Congress in 1977. “There has been ample information available, if they had sought it. There is, of course, immense opposition by the manufacturing companies to any change.”

According to Lijinsky’s wife, Rosalie Lijinsky, herself a genetic toxicologist who recently retired from the FDA, William lost federal funding for his research due to pressure from both the food and pharmaceutical industries.

Nevertheless, the warning signs continued to build up. A 1980 report titled “Glaxo, Ranitidine—Cause for Concern,” found that ranitidine could potentially form a potentially dangerous, and cancerous, compound in the stomach.

Glaxo, which was seeking FDA approval for Zantac, prepared for “defensive action” to protect itself from the report’s findings. The Bloomberg Businessweek story noted that Glaxo’s board never tested ranitidine to see if it might form a nitrosamine compound.

In a 1981 trial in Britain, 11 healthy men who were administered a daily two-dose regimen of ranitidine for four weeks developed more nitrite in their digestive system — meaning that conditions were favorable for the formation of nitrosamines.

These results were deemed inconclusive by Glaxo scientists, who said that “Ranitidine is recommended only for short-term use” — even though most Zantac users took the drug “for months, sometimes years, even decades,” according to Bloomberg Businessweek.

Another 1981 study, published in The Lancet by Italian scientist Silvio De Flora, Ph.D., found that when ranitidine was mixed with nitrite, it led to “toxic and mutagenic effects.” De Flora later suggested that the consumption of Zantac occur long before or after a meal. However, says Bloomberg Businessweek, “instructions for taking Zantac to prevent heartburn would recommend using it close to mealtime.”

De Flora, who told Bloomberg Businessweek that “Pharmaceutical companies do not like this kind of study,” said he was quickly approached by Glaxo executives, who then published a follow-up letter in The Lancet attempting to downplay De Flora’s findings.

A 1982 study, which infamously became known as the “Tanner study,” also found danger. Specifically, this study, conducted by scientist Richard Tanner of rival drugmaker Smith, Kline & French, found that ranitidine when combined with different concentrations of nitrite, formed a cancerous poison that was soon named NDMA.

According to Bloomberg Businessweek, “back in 1982, court documents show, Glaxo kept the study secret. The associate director of clinical research in the U.S. was never told about the Tanner report. The senior medical adviser for gastrointestinal research was unaware of it. So was the FDA.”

At the same time, reports Bloomberg Businessweek, “Glaxo also knew of another potentially serious problem with ranitidine. It wasn’t always stable. The drug was sensitive to heat and humidity, and when exposed to too much of either could degrade … That creates conditions for NDMA to form in the drug itself.”

However, later in 1982, Glaxo officials did not reveal this knowledge to a panel of FDA officials and independent researchers. “The Glaxo scientists disputed the idea that ranitidine could form a nitrosamine under any normal human conditions,” according to Bloomberg Businessweek.

By May 1983, the FDA had approved Zantac in a rapid process — and by 1989, it “was worth $2 billion. It accounted for half of Glaxo’s sales and 53% of the market for prescription ulcer remedies.”

However, problems persisted. In the early 1990s, it was found that the pills were not stable and were changing color while in storage. According to Bloomberg Businessweek, “Discoloration is often a sign that tablets are degrading. In some cases, degradation can cause dangerous impurities to form.”

However, Glaxo’s solution was to change the color of the pills. At this time, the company was seeking FDA approval for a less potent over-the-counter version of Zantac. This approval came in the spring of 1996.

Nevertheless, issues with discoloration persisted into the last decade. In 2010, Zantac was “tested for impurities that were known to cause … yellow discoloration.” Although, according to Bloomberg Businessweek, “NDMA used in labs is yellow,” no tests were conducted for this particular substance.

Similarly, when a manufacturing site in China identified problems with “discolored and degraded Zantac tablets” in 2015, GSK sought to downplay the issue, while no testing for NDMA was conducted. Instead, “inappropriate storage” was blamed.

During this period, GSK was fined by regulators in the U.S. and China, but not over Zantac specifically. In 2012, GSK pled guilty and was fined $3 billion “for marketing drugs for inappropriate uses, disregarding safety data and cheating Medicaid,” according to the Bloomberg Businessweek report.

And in 2014, “China fined GSK $500 million and deported a top executive for bribing doctors to prescribe its drugs.”

Issues with Zantac did not come to a head until September 2019, when the FDA received a document from Valisure, an independent laboratory, which, according to Bloomberg Businessweek, “had found extremely high levels of NDMA in Zantac and several generic versions of ranitidine.”

Valisure conducted these tests after NDMA had been found in batches of the blood pressure medication valsartan the previous year. Bloomberg Businessweek reports that Valisure “found NDMA in every version of ranitidine it tested and concluded the problem was inherent to the molecule itself.”

Although the FDA issued an alert, it also questioned Valisure’s testing methods and conducted its own tests. “Within a month,” says Bloomberg Businessweek, “at least two dozen countries pulled ranitidine from stores or halted its distribution.” GSK stopped distributing the drug, as did Sanofi.

Ultimately, in April 2020, ranitidine was banned by the FDA. The agency found that “NDMA levels increase in ranitidine even under normal storage conditions … And NDMA has been found to increase significantly in samples stored at higher temperatures, including temperatures the product may be exposed to during distribution and handling by consumers.”

However, says Bloomberg Businessweek, the FDA has not shared specifics in any published paper about what its tests detected. Instead, these findings were revealed “during a monthly lecture series called FDA Grand Rounds,” in October 2021: one tablet of ranitidine contained “almost four times the FDA’s limit in any drug” when initially tested.

Nevertheless, in June 2021, the FDA said there were “no consistent signals” that Zantac increases cancer risk and that such links that were found in outside research papers were not conclusive. Bloomberg Businessweek says this “is now a regular part of Glaxo’s public-relations and, presumably, legal defense.”

A statement provided by GSK to Fierce Pharma in response to the Bloomberg Businessweek article says it “presents an incomplete and biased presentation of the facts surrounding the Zantac (ranitidine) litigation.”

“Patient safety is the highest priority for GSK, and the company categorically refutes any allegation of having covered up data regarding the safety of ranitidine,” the statement adds. “The safety of ranitidine has been thoroughly evaluated over the past 40 years.”

Thousands of Zantac-related lawsuits pending despite setbacks

The Bloomberg Businessweek report states that “More than 70,000 people who took Zantac or generic versions of it are suing the company in U.S. state courts for selling a potentially contaminated and dangerous drug,” with the first of these trials set to begin later this month in the Superior Court of California, County of Alameda.

Other companies that sold Zantac, including Pfizer, Sanofi and generic manufacturers, are also facing lawsuits.

There have been some setbacks for plaintiffs, however. According to the Bloomberg Businessweek report, a December 2022 ruling, by the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida, “dismissed thousands of federal lawsuits that had been consolidated in her courtroom for pretrial proceedings.”

U.S. District Judge Robin Rosenberg found there is “no widespread acceptance in the scientific community of an observable, statistically significant association between ranitidine and cancer.” Lawyers for the plaintiffs plan to appeal.

GSK is hanging its hat on this ruling, according to Bloomberg Businessweek. In a statement, Kathleen Quinn, a spokesperson for the company, said, “The court’s view is consistent with the position that GSK and other co-defendants have taken throughout this litigation.”

And in a statement following the Florida federal court ruling, GSK said it was glad that “unreliable and litigation-driven science did not enter the federal courtroom.”

Fierce Pharma reports that following this ruling, not just GSK but “Pfizer, GSK, Sanofi and Boehringer Ingelheim are now able to wash their hands of thousands of Zantac-related lawsuits,” as about 50,000 claims were taken “off the drugmakers’ plates.”

And according to Law360, on Feb. 7, the same Florida judge issued a new ruling which will not allow tens of thousands of Zantac lawsuits to be combined.

This ruling was made on the basis that the lawsuits in question had signed up for “court-created registry of claims in the multidistrict legislation” that was “abandoned” following the December 2022 decision.

In this new ruling, Judge Rosenberg also provided some insights into the appeals that were filed against the December 2022 decision, stating that “claimants in the registry are still now required to file their cases individually in federal court in order for their claims to be considered timely,” according to Law360.

However, as reported by Bloomberg Businessweek, “GSK does still have to fight the tens of thousands of cases waiting in state courts, where judges aren’t bound by the federal court’s ruling,” adding that “GSK could face years of lawsuits in California, Delaware and other states, with the possibility of billions in damages.”

Law360 reported Jan. 26 that despite the December 2022 Florida ruling, “New York’s Litigation Coordinating Panel on Thursday consolidated more than 40” Zantac lawsuits. Attorneys from Napoli Shkolnik PLLC, one of the firms representing plaintiffs in the lawsuits, described this as “a welcome alternative” to the Florida multidistrict litigation.

In the forthcoming Alameda County court case, GSK “is expected to urge” the court “to limit what expert testimony jurors can hear,” reports Reuters.

The plaintiff in that case, James Goetz, says he developed bladder cancer from taking Zantac over a period of many years. According to Bloomberg Businessweek:

“Goetz was 60 in 2017 when he was diagnosed with bladder cancer. That in and of itself wasn’t too unusual; 60 is about the age this particular cancer is often diagnosed in men. Smokers get bladder cancer, but Goetz hadn’t smoked since he was 22. His job hadn’t exposed him to any potentially harmful chemicals. It was perplexing, but he had no reason to think his getting cancer was anything other than random.

“When Zantac was recalled, he kept four bottles he’d already purchased. They’re in the freezer in the office of one of his attorneys, Brent Wisner, as are leftover pills from Russell. Tests showed that one of Goetz’s pills is contaminated with 3,000ng of NDMA, Wisner says; one of Russell’s has more than twice as much. Wisner says he’s invited GSK to test the tablets, but the company hasn’t done so.”

Goetz’s cancer has returned in aggressive form, necessitating surgery and dialysis. His bladder and prostate were removed, along with 20 feet of his intestines. He later suffered sepsis, kidney stones and kidney failure. His lawsuits against Boehringer Ingelheim, Pfizer and Sanofi were settled in December 2022, but his GSK case continues.

Depositions taken during the discovery process, brought to the public eye by Bloomberg Businessweek, have been revealing. A former senior medical adviser to Glaxo, when asked during a June 2021 deposition whether Glaxo had ever tested for the presence of NDMA in Zantac, answered, “Not to my knowledge.”

In a May 2022 deposition, Andrew Whitehead, who had been director of second-generation research and development for the company, testified that “it would have been known in the ‘80s as part of the development” of Zantac that ranitidine would degrade in high temperature conditions.

And a May 2021 deposition, Fred Eshelman, formerly Glaxo’s associate director of clinical research when Zantac was developed, agreed with a lawyer for the plaintiffs that “it is completely unheard of in the industry to go that fast” — referring to the clinical development of ranitidine.

More drugs under scrutiny for potential presence of nitrosamines

As the lawsuits against the former manufacturers of Zantac continue, increased scrutiny of medications for the potential presence of nitrosamines has followed.

USA Today reports that the FDA “has asked drugmakers to evaluate all products for any risk they might contain nitrosamines,” adding that “Companies that identify any such risk must conduct follow-up testing, report changes and take action” by Oct. 1.

“We continue to closely evaluate this type of impurity and will continue to investigate and monitor the marketplace and manufacturing efforts to help ensure the availability of safe, quality products for U.S. consumers,” stated FDA spokesman Jeremy Kahn.

According to USA Today, in recent years, several drugs have been recalled due to the presence of nitrosamines, including diabetes medication metformin, anti-smoking medication Chantix, and blood pressure, heart and kidney medications losartan, quinapril (sold as Accupril) and valsartan.

*

Note to readers: Please click the share buttons above. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

Michael Nevradakis, Ph.D., based in Athens, Greece, is a senior reporter for The Defender and part of the rotation of hosts for CHD.TV’s “Good Morning CHD.”

Featured image is from CHD

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Court Documents Show GlaxoSmithKline Knew — for 40 Years — Zantac Could Cause Cancer
  • Tags: , ,

All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the Translate Website button below the author’s name (desktop version)

To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.

Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

***

 

 

 

 

In 1987 the US Justice Department declared Kurt Waldheim a dangerous agent; forever forbidding his re-entry onto US soil.

The aristocratic poseur, Waldheim, was the grandson of a Czech blacksmith surnamed Vaclavik. Kurt’s father, Walter, migrated to Austria where Christian-Social Party (CSP) activism landed him the plum-gig of school inspector. CSP-founder and Vienna Mayor, Karl Lueger, pioneered electoral anti-Semitism; blaming “Jewish financiers” for every problem.

Hitler “learned anti-Semitism from Lueger.” (1) After Walter’s CSP superior explained the limitations of “Vaclavik,” Walter choose the uber-German: Waldheim (“woods-home”). (2) When Kurt turned 18, Walter planted him in the 1st Dragoons of Stockerau – a regiment stocked with scions of ancient noble houses. (3)

In 1933 Chancellor Dollfuss transformed CSP into the Fatherland Front. Militias swarmed Austria. In 1934 a Corporate State, blessed by Archbishop Innitzer, suspended parliament and banned opposition parties. Among the banned were pan-German Austro-Nazis who retained support, especially on campuses where they distributed German-printed magazines. Austrian clerico-fascists opposed pan-Germanism out of hostility toward Protestantism. Nazis assassinated Dollfuss, July 1934.

In 1938 Hitler demanded Austria lift employment bans on Nazis. Fatherland Front responded with a huge rally. Nazis counter-demoed and held larger rallies days later celebrating the release of imprisoned compatriots.

Meanwhile, Waldheim attended Boltzmangasse Consular Academy and University of Vienna’s Law College. He met his bride on campus. Like her father, she forsook Catholicism in obedience to Hitler. (4)

In March 1938 Hitler annexed Austria. 250,000 packed Heldenplatz to hear him. 500,000 lined Ringstrasse to catch a glimpse. Innitzer promised support. By mid-July, 30,000 Austrians were political prisoners.

Walter was detained for CSP activities, then forced to retire. Gestapo visited Waldheim’s home; as did Storm Troopers (SA) who painted “priest-lover” on its walls. Kurt joined the Nazi Student Federation, and the Vienna SA with whom he trashed 43 of Vienna’s 44 synagogues on Kristallnacht. (5)

In 1938 the Army drafted Waldheim straight into commando training before dispatching him to Sudetenland. In November he returned to Vienna; resuming SA activism. In 1939 he joined the 45th Infantry with whom he occupied France.

In late-1941 the 45th aided an assault on Moscow. Waldheim witnessed civilian clearances. Bravery at Brest-Litovsk yielded promotions, three medals (including an Iron Cross), and praise from (later-hanged) General von Pannwitz. (6) A thigh-wound returned Waldheim to Austria in December. (7)

In March 1942 Waldheim signed-up with the 12th Army in Yugoslavia. (8) On March 19, the 12th decreed:

“The most minor case of rebellion, resistance or concealment of arms must be treated immediately by the strongest deterrent methods… It is better to liquidate 50 suspects than have one soldier killed.” (9)

During one operation, wherein Staff Officer Waldheim won citations, ratios were:

“100 Serbs to be executed for every German killed, 50 Serbs for every German wounded.” (10)

In May, Waldheim entered Kozara – a contested railway and mining area – with Battle Group West. By September, amidst rape and robbery, 4,735 suspected insurgents had been executed and 70,000 civilians shipped to camps. (11) Waldheim managed casualty stats and detainee transport. His name appears on a “list of honour” parchment commemorating distinguished service in Kozara. (12)

In November 1942 Waldheim received leave to complete his doctorate. (13) His thesis, The Concept of Reich according to Konstantin Frantz, re-purposes Catholicism’s purple prose about “the body of Christ” by replacing that phrase with “the Third Reich.” (14)

Returning to Yugoslavia, March 1943, Waldheim served as Senior Staff Officer for General Loehr’s village-erasing Operation Schwarz, which killed 16,000 in May, mostly in blind reprisals. (15)

The Army then made Waldheim liaison to General Vecchiarelli, head of Italy’s army in Greece; entrusting Waldheim with all intel on Greek operations. (16) German Generals wanted all men in turbulent eastern Greece detained. Vecchiarelli wouldn’t sign-off. On August 7, Waldheim recommended deporting male civilians to slave-camps. On August 20, he received orders approving his recommendation and expeditiously forwarded them. (17)

After Italy’s September 1943 surrender Waldheim proposed enslaving Vecchiarelli’s 158,000 troops; specifying the number of trains needed. He claimed Italians aided the resistance – based on personal “interrogations.”

Operation Case Axis conned Vecchiarelli into handing over his heavy weapons on the promise his troops could keep their rifles and go home. Germans surreptitiously snatched rifles as they herded Italians onto trains. When trains left stations, Italians were fully disarmed. After one rebellion 4,000 Italians were machine-gunned. (18)

In December 1943 Waldheim became Oberleutnant-3 (O3) for the 300,000-troop Army Group E. The Wehrmacht’s best-informed men, O3s were in charge of office staff, maps and files. O3s updated higher and adjacent formations through daily reports and special briefings. O3s initialed each report. A December 19, 1943 report bearing Waldheim’s “W” recounts:

  • burning a monastery, shooting 13 monks;
  • leveling a village, shooting 82 inhabitants (half under the age of 15);
  • placing 128 people from Sparta, including all school-teachers, before a firing squad. (19)

In August 11, 1944, Waldheim reported on an area of Crete where 2 days later 2 villages were razed and 20 suspects shot. On August 15 he reported “mopping-up” nearby areas where no resistance had been met. Twelve officers were convicted of war crimes related to these operations. (20)

With Germans withdrawing from Yugoslavia, October 1944, Waldheim feared partisans along the escape route. On October 13, he conducted aerial surveillance over 3 villages. On October 14, German soldiers torched these villages; executing 114 inhabitants. The later-hanged Captain in charge testified that he was following orders recommended and elaborated by Oberleutnant-3 Waldheim. The overall operation resulted in 739 suspects shot, 13 rifles recovered. (21)

Waldheim watched General Loehr surrender to Yugoslav partisans in May 1945. Loehr broke his word; bolting to the British to re-surrender. They returned him, to be executed. Waldheim surfaced in an American P.O.W. camp where:

“…the deal was struck which allowed the young Oberleutnant to begin a new life. In exchange for information (and he had plenty to offer!), he was authorized to return to Vienna and act as though nothing had happened since 1942.” (22)

In 1947 Yugoslavia presented Waldheim’s file to a London-based, British-chaired UN War Crimes Commission which typically rejected 75% of Yugoslav requests. Commissioners quickly approved prosecuting Waldheim for “putting hostages to death and murder.” They heard from 10 British and US veterans who witnessed Waldheim in P.O.W. camps. One remembered the “swine Waldheim” overseeing the tossing of British soldiers’ corpses from the back of a truck like “sacks of manure.” US officials presented 19 “interrogation” reports signed by Waldheim. (23)

Yugoslavia presented 244 Wehrmacht documents connecting Waldheim to crimes, plus testimony from 3 German officers confirming Waldheim’s job was: “to offer suggestions for reprisals, the fate of prisoners of war and imprisoned civilians.” Accusations centered on the razing of 13 villages, and massacres in several more, for which: “orders were planned in detail with the cooperation of the (intelligence) unit at the army corps headquarters, and in particular with the collaboration of Lieutenant Waldheim.” (24)

Dissolving the War Crimes Commission in 1948 suspended 36,000 prosecutions.

Austrian de-Nazification confronted 500,000 Austro-Nazis. Early de-Nazification involved dismissals, internments even death sentences. By mid-1946 committees generally white-washed suspects. Parties authorized to award de-Nazification certificates, bartered. Waldheim secured certificates from the Socialist and People’s parties. Inquiries into Kurt’s past ceased November 1945 when Foreign Affairs hired him. His War Crimes’ file read “whereabouts unknown.” His work address was public record. (25) Amnesty took effect, 1948.

Waldheim led Austria’s inaugural UN delegation in 1955. He also served as Ambassador to Czechoslovakia and Foreign Minister before unsuccessfully running for President. In 1971, Waldheim became the first person to campaign for the UN Secretary-Generalship. Soviets and Americans vetoed each other’s candidates. Britain abstained. Waldheim’s dark-horse victory had Le Monde wondering whether:

“…Waldheim might have been involved in the enigmatic Nazi International which at the fall of the Third Reich, had ordered its members to infiltrate the machinery of the state and occupy important positions while awaiting better days.” (26)

*

Secretary-General Waldheim stamped his tenure with an “insistence on unconditional loyalty to a personality whose requirements were equated with those of the UN.” (27) As UN’s Head of Protocol Waldheim’s daughter populated the Secretariat with a camarilla “whose oracular pronouncements connoted absolute knowledge.” (28)

Waldheim “loved the red carpet, the salvos salutes.” He loved flying his favourite toilet paper round the world by diplomatic pouch. A labor lawyer, hired by UN staff, likened Waldheim’s Secretariat to “the court of King Henry VIII.” (29)

Previous S-Gs lived humbly on their own dime. Waldheim crashed into No. 3 Sutton Place; cluttering it with Louis XV sofas, Saxe porcelain and English lace. A philanthropist covered the rent. The UN bought furnishings. Museums donated paintings. Waldheim shipped an antique clock gifted by Mexico to his Austrian address – at UN expense. He shipped gems from the Shah into his pocket. (30)

Waldheim initiated:

  • a spike in UN executive salaries;
  • ex gratia payments, amounting on occasion to several hundred thousand dollars;and,
  • “the corrupt sale of certain profitable posts.” (31)

Charter be-damned, Waldheim let nations top-up “their” UN officials’ salaries. By 1981 scores of UN officials earned more than the US President. Unsurprisingly, despite the: “operational and administrative chaos into which the organization would sink under Waldheim…(in) higher levels of the UN Secretariat he had more defenders that critics.” (32)

Some found Waldheim “a scheming, ambitious, duplicitous egomaniac ready to do anything for advantage or public acclaim.” Others found him: “dull”, “conceited” and “unimaginative.” Astute observers saw:

  • “an unexceptional but well-trained valet”
  • “an obsequious vacuous neuter”
  • “a creepy maitre’d.” (33)

Waldheim couldn’t stand the sight of a short German:

“Even when he was Austrian Minister of Foreign Affairs, he wanted at all costs to restrict entry into the diplomatic corps to very tall people.” (34)

If Waldheim learned an employee had tickets to an evening event; that employee worked late. As well,

“There’s not a waiter in a New York cafe who ever saw him leave a penny as a tip.” (35)

***

One scholar believes:

“Waldheim was a US intelligence asset who expected to be – and always was – protected by his friends in the American intelligence community.” (36)

Others thought he was KGB, considering:

  • As Foreign Minister he slammed the door on Czechs fleeing the 1968 invasion. (37)
  • As S-G he wouldn’t appeal to North Vietnam on behalf of refugees; the International Herald Tribune reporting:

“Waldheim said he had no intention of resigning because of criticism directed against him. ‘The criticism comes from the West exclusively’ he said ‘From no other part of the world. On the contrary, the rest of the world seems satisfied.” (38)

  • He condemned Israel’s 1976 Entebbe rescue op as “a serious violation of the national sovereignty of a United Nations member state.” (39)
  • He did nothing for Alicja Wesolowska and 20 other imprisoned UN workers. Poland sentenced Wesolowska to 7-years for work she did on UN assignment. Waldheim wouldn’t impose “Western standards” onto Poland. (40)
  • He banned Gulag Archipelago from bookstores on UN premises. (41)

Moreover, Waldheim marginalized Anglos within the UN.

In the sixties, the UN General Assembly (UNGA) debated micro-state membership. The USA thought it impractical and undemocratic to give tiny islands equal status with qualitatively larger countries. They unsuccessfully proposed admitting micro-states as “associate members.”

In the seventies, Waldheim welcomed: Vanuatu, Cape Verde, Comoros, Djibouti, Dominica, Fiji, Grenada, Guinea-Bissau, Saint Lucia, Samoa, Sao Tome-Principe, Seychelles, Bahamas, Suriname, Saint Vincent, Antigua, Belize and a dozen more. He cast aside merit-based hiring in favour of geographical considerations; and based the number of senior positions given to a country on the support that country gave him. One Western Ambassador described life under Waldheim as:

“You try to get as many posts as possible for your own nationals. This is wrong, but everyone does it.” (42)

After the Human Rights Commission quit New York for Geneva, campaigns against Israel, Rhodesia and South Africa conjured an anti-Anglosphere, European-led, micro-state cargo-cult within the UN.

The UN’s emergence as a global ecofascist command centre overlaps Waldheim’s tenure (1972-81); albeit imperfectly. Change became him.

The 1965 World Population Conference explicitly connected overpopulation to foreign aid whilst prepping the 1967 launch of the crypto-eugenicist, UN Trust Fund for Population Activities.

In 1968:

  • UN’s Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC) urged action to stop the: “accelerating impairment of the quality of the human environment caused by such factors as air and water pollution, erosion, and other forms of soil deterioration, secondary effects of biocides, waste and noise.” (43)
  • UNESCO held a conference titled: Scientific Basis for the Rational Use and Conservation of the Resources of the Biosphere.
  • UNGA declared: “the relationship between man and his environment was undergoing profound changes” (44) and endorsed the global environmentalist mega-conference – Stockholm, 1972.

Waldheim chaired said Stockholm Conference. The 900-word Stockholm Declaration repeats “environment” 24 times on top of references to “biosphere,” “Earth,” “planet” and “surroundings.” It calls for a global program of enviro-education and enviro-activism. Within months United Nations Environment Programme appeared. (Waldheim wanted UNEP’s HQ in Geneva and was miffed by the choice of Nairobi.)

Also, under Waldheim’s watch:

  • UNESCO initiated “Man and the Environment” and “Man and the Biosphere” programs.
  • ECOSOC held the first official UN population conference. Thoroughly conflating overpopulation with environmental destruction, participants concocted a rebranded UN Population Fund leading a recharged fertility-suppression drive.
  • UNESCO-UNEP’s Tbilisi Declaration pronounced a “environmental education” crusade.

Waldheim’s Secretariat was “dense with irreproachable statements on global peril.” (45) His Under-Secretary quipped: “the worst way to make an argument is by reason and good information. You must appeal to emotions and to their fears of being made to appear ridiculous.” (46)

Waldheim helped initiate the “ozone-hole” campaign.

  • 1976: UNEP focusses on the ozone layer.
  • 1977: a newly-minted, UN-led, Coordinating Committee on the Ozone Layer prompts World Meteorological Organization (WMO) into monitoring ozone.
  • 1981: UNEP announces plans for a global convention on ozone-hole prevention.

Waldheim played a crucial role in launching “climate change.”

  • 1978: Waldheim opens the UNGA with:

“Nations will have to change from a pattern of energy consumption dominated by oil to a more energy saving pattern of growth, relying on more diversified sources of energy… considerable efforts will be needed to harmonize the interests of producers, processors, users, poorer consumers and environmentalists… we must find ways to ensure sustainable supplies of energy… We need to deal vigorously with the area of energy, which is a major challenge, and to launch a coordinated and imaginative effort by the world community in this field. I stand ready to lend all necessary assistance.” (47)

  • 1979: UNEP, WMO and the (UN-integrated) International Council of Scientific Unions, hold a World Climate Conference.
  • 1980: a follow-up conference, focussing on CO2, calls for a UN climate agency.

*

Image: Waldheim (2nd from left), SS General Artur Phleps (with briefcase), and others at Podgorica airfield in Montenegro during Case Black, 22 May 1943. This photograph caused much controversy when it was published while Waldheim was running in the 1986 Austrian presidential election. (Licensed under Fair Use)

an Italian officer and three German officers in uniform standing beneath the wing of an aircraft on a grassed airfield

In 1986, Waldheim ran for the Austrian presidency. Nominally independent, support came from the CSP-sequel, and “environmentally sensitive,” People’s Party. Ads depicted Waldheim and wife in heritage costume amidst Alpine idyll. Waldheim self-described as a persecuted anti-Nazi drafted in 1938, wounded in 1941; who studied for the duration of WWII. So reads his autobiography and numerous interviews. As late as February 1986 he denied being in Nazi groups or serving in Yugoslavia. (48)

On March 4, 1986, the New York Times exposed Waldheim. Asked why such allegations appeared across the world press, Waldheim replied: “the international press is dominated by the World Jewish Congress. It’s well known.” (49) Austrian media endorsed this theory, while a top daily editorialized:

“…former National Socialists…consider themselves to have been sufficiently punished and no longer see any reason why they should cover themselves in sackcloth and ashes.” (50)

On the stump Waldheim bellowed, to hysterical applause, that New Yorkers with names like “Steinberg and Rosenbaum” will never “tell the Austrian people how to vote.” (51) Kurt took 54% of the vote.

*

Note to readers: Please click the share buttons above. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

William Walter Kay is a regular contributor to Global Research.

Notes

  1. Cohen, Bernhard; Rosenzweig Luc; Waldheim; Adama Books, New York, 1987, page 31.
  2. Ibid, 23.
  3. Herzstein, Robert; Waldheim, The Missing Years; Arbor House/William Morrow; New York; 1988 page 57; see also Cohen 55.
  4. Cohen 47-8
  5. Herzstein 52-7; see also Cohen 33-47
  6. Ibid 62-5
  7. Ibid 65
  8. Ibid 66
  9. Cohen 60
  10. Ibid 60-1
  11. Ibid 60-1
  12. Herzstein 75; see also Cohen 60-2
  13. Cohen 62
  14. Ibid 49-51
  15. Herzstein 92 see also Cohen 66
  16. Cohen 66 see also Herzstein 92
  17. Herzstein 95-7 see also Cohen 66
  18. Herzstein 100-1
  19. Cohen 70-5
  20. Ibid 82-4
  21. Ibid 83-8
  22. Ibid 90
  23. Ibid 79-80 and 95
  24. Ibid 85-90
  25. Ibid 90-7
  26. Ibid 115
  27. Hazzard, Shirley; Countenance of Truth: The United Nations and the Waldheim Case; Viking Penguin; New York; 1990, page 46.
  28. Ibid 65 and 123
  29. Ibid 109
  30. Cohen 135-7
  31. Hazzard 51
  32. Ibid 65 and 123
  33. Ibid 127
  34. Cohen 130-1
  35. Ibid 131
  36. Herzstein 257
  37. Hazard 91 see also Cohen 119
  38. Ibid 34 and 91
  39. Ibid 91 see also Cohen 126
  40. Ibid 111
  41. Ibid 90
  42. Ibid 27-8 and 130
  43. Osmancyzk, Edmund; Encyclopedia of the United Nations and International Agreements; Routledge, New York, 2003, page 637.
  44. Yearbook of the United Nations; fiftieth anniversary edition; Martinus Nijhoff Publishers; The Hague; 1995, page 256.
  45. Hazzard 78
  46. Ibid 97
  47. Waldheim, Kurt; The Challenge of Peace; Rawson, Wade Publishers, Inc. New York, 1980, pages 138-9.
  48. Cohen 55-6
  49. Ibid 32
  50. Ibid 105
  51. Ibid 148

Featured image is licensed under the Public Domain

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on History: Kurt Waldheim, From the Nazi Student Federation to UN Secretary General and President of Austria

All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the Translate Website button below the author’s name (desktop version)

To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.

Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

***

The lightning visit of US President Joe Biden to Ukraine and the new military aid offered to the country aims to reverse the advances made by Russia in recent months. It also demonstrates that the US is desperately trying to prolong the conflict for as long as possible. However, to serve as a warning that the Kremlin is prepared to take every measure to ensure Russia’s security, Russian President Vladimir Putin suspended his country’s participation from START III (Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty).

US President Joe Biden made a surprise visit to Kiev on February 20, a gesture of political, emotional and obviously military support for Ukraine. In meeting with his Ukrainian counterpart Volodymyr Zelensky, the US president announced a new military aid package that will include $500 million worth of artillery ammunition, anti-tank systems and aerial surveillance radars.

More importantly though, Biden made the personal visit to Zelensky to ensure that he remains steadfast to the war effort and not capitulate. For Biden, Ukraine is nothing more than a state to be used and abused in the hope of weakening Russia.

It is for this reason that he said in Warsaw on February 21 that “Ukraine will never be a victory for Russia,” a disingenuous claim since Ukraine continues to lose territory and be demilitarized. Biden also accused his Russian counterpart of having a “craven lust for land and power [which] will fail.”

In fact, Biden’s speech in Poland was so venomous that he mentioned the Russian president by name 10 times, a significant figure considering that Putin, for his part, did not name his American counterpart once during his own lengthy address from Moscow on February 21.

In the same speech, Putin announced Moscow’s suspension from participating in START III, the only remaining major nuclear arms control treaty between Russia and the US. This suspension should be considered a first warning to the West for its provocative policies.

“I am forced to announce today that Russia suspends its participation in the Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty. I repeat, it does not withdraw from the treaty, no, it suspends its participation,” Putin said in front of the Russian Federal Assembly.

On the same day, the Russian Foreign Ministry said that the decision to suspend Moscow’s participation in the treaty is “reversible,” adding that “Washington must show political will, make conscientious efforts for a general de-escalation and create conditions for the resumption of the full functioning of the Treaty and, accordingly, comprehensively ensuring its viability.”

The ministry urged “the American side to do just that. Until then, any of our steps towards Washington in the context of START are absolutely out of the question.”

It must be stressed that suspending the treaty is not withdrawing from it. Rather, it should be considered that Putin is warning the West that Moscow can escalate the conflict if provocations continue. However, Biden’s visit to Kiev and his speech in Warsaw demonstrates that Washington has no immediate intentions of de-escalating tensions with Moscow.

In his speech, Putin also reiterated that Russia was trying to avoid military conflict in Ukraine but that the West had been pushing one on purpose. It was obviously in Russia’s interest to avoid conflict, but Moscow was left with no choice but to conduct a special military operation because of Kiev’s unrelenting pursuit of NATO membership and persecution of minorities, including Russian-speakers. Given that the West continues to support Ukraine against Russia, there is a possibility that Putin will make the decision to withdraw from the treaty entirely.

None-the-less, Moscow’s announcement that it suspended its participation in START III received surprising expressions of hope from Washington and London that it will return to it swiftly. This demonstrates just how much importance the West places in the agreement, especially since Moscow has 5,977 nuclear warheads as of 2022, the largest stockpile of nuclear warheads in the world. Russia’s stockpile is in fact larger than the American stockpile, which is the second largest with 5,428 warheads.

At the same time, CNN reported that US officials were wary to announce that this would handicap Moscow’s ability to build its nuclear program.

“I wouldn’t want to offer an assessment as whether that has overstretched them to the point that they would be precluded in some way from taking steps to develop their nuclear arsenal but … they’ve got a lot of problems on their hands,” a US official told CNN.

None-the-less, what Biden’s visit to Kiev and Putin’s suspension from START III demonstrates is that the war in Ukraine is unlikely to end in the short term and will probably wage on for most of the year. It appears that the US remains committed to supporting Ukraine, especially as Zelensky continues to enthusiastically receive instructions, even now directly from the US president himself.

*

Note to readers: Please click the share buttons above. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

Ahmed Adel is a Cairo-based geopolitics and political economy researcher.

Featured image is from InfoBrics

COVID Jab Gets Permanent Liability Protection as Predicted

February 22nd, 2023 by Dr. Joseph Mercola

All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the Translate Website button below the author’s name (desktop version)

To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.

Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

***

October 20, 2022, the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) unanimously (15-0) voted to add unlicensed COVID-19 shots to the U.S. childhood, adolescent and adult vaccine schedules

February 9, 2023, the CDC accepted the panel’s recommendation and officially added a primary series of mRNA COVID “vaccine” to its routine immunization schedules for children and adults, plus a bivalent booster

While the addition of the COVID shots to the recommended vaccination schedule does not make the jabs mandatory for school attendance, their inclusion allows states and local jurisdictions to make them so

Vaccines on the childhood vaccination schedule are typically covered under the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program (NVICP), but the COVID shot isn’t. Instead, the jab will remain covered by the Countermeasures Injury Compensation Program (CICP), which is even more restrictive and limited in terms of compensation than the NVICP

According to CDC director Dr. Rochelle Walensky, the COVID jab was added to the childhood vaccination schedule because it was “the only way” to ensure under-insured children would have access to it. The real reason, however, is because it’s the only way for drug makers to be indemnified against financial liability for injuries and deaths

*

Well, as predicted, the COVID shots have now received a permanent liability shield against injury and death.

October 20, 2022, the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) unanimously (15-0) voted to add unlicensed COVID-19 shots to the U.S. childhood, adolescent and adult vaccine schedules.1,2 At the time, the panel justified its decision by saying that “it makes sense” to add the shots since COVID-19 has become endemic and is not going away.

February 9, 2023, the CDC accepted the panel’s recommendation and officially added a primary series of mRNA COVID “vaccine” to its routine immunization schedules for children and adults, plus a bivalent booster.3,4 As reported by The Defender:5

“Although the CDC does not have the authority to set requirements itself, the agency’s immunization schedule provides formal guidance for state and local public health officials who set the rules for which vaccines are required to attend school. The schedule also is the basis for vaccine recommendations made by most physicians.

‘Given all that we have learned about the dangers and ineffectiveness of COVID-19 shots over the last two years, it is horrifying to see the CDC now recommend this as a routine shot to children,’ Mary Holland, Children’s Health Defense (CHD) president and general counsel told The Defender. ‘Although it is unsurprising given the agency capture, it is nonetheless tragic,’ she added.”

Summary of the CDC’s New COVID Jab Guidelines 

The following infographics illustrate the CDCs new guidelines:6,7,8

covid-19 vaccination schedule

covid-19 vaccination schedule immunocompromised

While the addition of the COVID shots to the recommended vaccination schedule does not make the jabs mandatory for school attendance, their inclusion allows states and local jurisdictions to make them so.

Can FDA Legally Add EUA Jab to Vaccine Schedule?

Importantly, any and all COVID shots administered in the U.S. are Emergency Use Authorized only, which appears to be in breach of the law. While the U.S. Food and Drug Administration granted full approval to Pfizer’s Comirnaty for people 12 years old and over, Comirnaty is still not available in the U.S.

As noted by The Defender, this means “all children who get the Pfizer vaccine are getting an EUA product,”9 and by law, all EUA products are considered “experimental.”10 At the end of August 2021, the Children’s Health Defense sued11,12 the FDA for violation of federal law by simultaneously licensing Comirnaty and extending EUA for the Pfizer-BioNTech jab.

The CHD argues the licensure of Comirnaty was a “classic bait and switch,” as people were told to get the now “fully licensed” jab, when in fact the shots they received were not licensed at all, but still the experimental and unlicensed EUA product.

According to the law, EUA can only be given when there’s no approved alternative, so once Comirnaty was approved, the FDA lost its legal ability to preserve ANY of the EUAs. Were the law followed, Comirnaty would be the one and only COVID jab available in the U.S., but as you know, that’s not the case.

COVID Shot Is Not Covered by Vaccine Injury Program

What’s worse, vaccines on the childhood vaccination schedule are typically covered under the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program (NVICP), but the COVID shot isn’t.

At the same time that ACIP voted to add the COVID shot to the childhood vaccination schedule, they also decided to exclude the COVID shots from the NVICP. Instead, the jab remains covered by the Countermeasures Injury Compensation Program (CICP), which is even more difficult to navigate and far more limited in terms of compensation than the NVICP.

So, in other words, not only are children receiving unlicensed experimental mRNA gene transfer injections referred to as “vaccines,” which they aren’t, but injured children have virtually no possibility of receiving any kind of compensation.

The NVICP is notoriously bad when it comes to payouts for injuries, but the CICP is far worse. As noted by The Defender,13 “Since it was established in 2010, the CICP only compensated 30 of the nearly 12,000 claims filed.”

CDC Director Provides Bogus Explanation

During a February 8, 2023, Congressional hearing on the Biden administration’s COVID-19 response, CDC director Dr. Rochelle Walensky was confronted about the agency’s decision to add an EUA “vaccine” to its childhood vaccination schedule, especially seeing how COVID-19 poses virtually no risk to children.14

According to CDC data, only 209 children between the ages of 6 months and 4 years have died from or with COVID,15 and the evidence suggests most children actually died “with” COVID and from other serious health conditions such as cancer.16,17

Another telling statistic is that the number of toddlers hospitalized with COVID between October 2020 and September 2021 was about half the total number of toddlers hospitalized with influenza the previous winter.18 That data, again, comes from the CDC, so clearly, they’re fully aware of how the COVID risk compares to other common infections.

According to Walensky, the reason the ACIP recommended the shot be added was because that’s the only way it can be covered under the CDC’s Vaccines for Children program. “It was the only way that our under-uninsured children would be able to have access to the vaccines … That was the reason to put it there,” she said.19

But something tells me there are several different ways to make sure under-insured children could have access to the shot without adding it to the childhood vaccination schedule.

It’s All About Indemnifying Big Pharma

No, the REAL reason the COVID jab was added to the childhood vaccination schedule is because that’s the only way to permanently indemnify Pfizer and Moderna from financial liability for injuries and deaths. (You can learn more about this indemnification process in “The Real Reason They Want to Give COVID Jabs to Kids,” which features my interview with Alix Mayer, board president of the Children’s Health Defense’s California chapter.)

And boy, do they need indemnification! Late in 2022, it was revealed the CDC has ignored hundreds of safety signals, including 96 safety signals in the 12- to 17-year-old age group and 66 in the 5- to 11-year-old group.

According to the standard operating procedures20,21 for the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS), which is run jointly by the CDC and the FDA, the CDC is required to perform Proportional Reporting Ratio (PRR) data mining analyses to identify potential safety problems. PRR22 measures how common an adverse event is for a specific drug compared to all the other drugs in the database.

In September 2022, The Epoch Times asked the CDC to release its PRR results, but they refused. The results were eventually obtained via a Freedom of Information Act request, and they revealed hundreds of side effects that met the criteria that should initiate investigation.23

One of the few side effects of the COVID jabs that the CDC has actually acknowledged is myocarditis (heart inflammation), and a related condition called pericarditis (inflammation of the heart sack). Alas, the PRR monitoring results reveal there are more than 500 other adverse events that have stronger warning signals than either of those conditions!

These shots are the most dangerous medical products the world has ever seen, so of course Pfizer and Moderna want to make sure they cannot be sued into oblivion.

Summary of Potential Safety Problems

Below is a summary of some of the key findings from the CDC’s PRR analysis.24,25,26

CDC Lied About Pfizer Study Results

The CDC has also lied about Pfizer’s trial results. As noted in an October 31, 2022, tweet from Rep. Thomas Massie:28

“Pfizer’s original vaccine trial, which contained 1,200 participants with evidence of prior infection, showed no benefit from their shots for those who had evidence of prior infection. CDC lied, said study showed it was 92% efficacious for those w/ evidence of prior infection.”

study C4591001 subgroup analyses

Massie — a Republican Congressman for Kentucky and an award-winning scientist — initially revealed the CDC’s error in January 2021, after having tried, in vain, to get the CDC to correct it. I detailed Massie’s efforts in “Why Do Public Health Agencies Reject Natural Immunity?” At the time, Massie said:29,30

“There is no efficacy demonstrated in the Pfizer trial among participants with evidence of previous SARS-CoV-2 infections and actually there’s no proof in the Moderna trial either … It [the CDC report] says the exact opposite of what the data says.”

CDC Has Automated Data Falsification

On top of all of that, there’s evidence suggesting the CDC has automated data falsification to hide adverse events. When sifting through data from the CDC’s Mortality and Morbidity Weekly Reports (MMWR), The Ethical Skeptic — a data analyst and fraud investigator — discovered that the CDC is systematically hiding and deleting excess jab-related deaths, particularly in categories like cancer, cardiac deaths and strokes.

In June 2022, the CDC temporarily paused its MMWR reporting to perform a “system upgrade.” That lasted two months. When it came back online, large numbers of deaths jab-related categories had been moved, either into the COVID death category or a “holding” category for undetermined deaths, thereby making it appear as though deaths from cancer, heart attacks and strokes are far lower than they are.

This gaming of the algorithm appears to have been automated as of that system update. According to The Ethical Skeptic:31

“Excess Cancer Mortality is being concealed through Cancer Multiple Cause of Death (hereinafter referred to as ‘MCoD’) categorical reassignment to COVID-19 Underlying Cause of Death …

Sudden Adult Deaths are being concealed by holding Pericarditis-Myocarditis-Conductive heart related deaths inside the R00-R99 temporary disposition bucket, far longer than per historical practice, thereby falsely depleting the associated ICD-10 mortality trend for these related deaths.

Finally, the CDC is using the exact opposite technique, exploiting Multiple Cause of Death attributions and adding in completely fictitious deaths as well, in order to make its mRNA vaccines appear to be performing better than they are.

The CDC is using Multiple Cause of Death categorical gaming, and is creating novel death counts, in order to counterfeit an appearance that the unvaccinated are dying at a rate 12 times that of the vaccinated.”

Potential Silver Lining

The stark truth we now face is that the CDC is no longer in the business of protecting public health. They are securing profits for the drug industry. If there’s a silver lining in all of this, it could be that the CDC’s decision to add an unlicensed experimental product to the childhood vaccination schedule might just be the thing that makes parents wake up to the bigger picture. As Holland told The Defender:32

“The childhood schedule is already unscientific and unjustifiable. Adding this shot may well be the straw that breaks the camel’s back. Parents are likely to resist, finally calling the entire childhood vaccine schedule into question. That day has been long in coming, but it is now here. I believe we are now watching the beginning of the end of Big Pharma’s reign over the nation’s children.”

*

Note to readers: Please click the share buttons above. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

Featured image is from Children’s Health Defense


The Worldwide Corona Crisis, Global Coup d’Etat Against Humanity

by Michel Chossudovsky

Michel Chossudovsky reviews in detail how this insidious project “destroys people’s lives”. He provides a comprehensive analysis of everything you need to know about the “pandemic” — from the medical dimensions to the economic and social repercussions, political underpinnings, and mental and psychological impacts.

“My objective as an author is to inform people worldwide and refute the official narrative which has been used as a justification to destabilize the economic and social fabric of entire countries, followed by the imposition of the “deadly” COVID-19 “vaccine”. This crisis affects humanity in its entirety: almost 8 billion people. We stand in solidarity with our fellow human beings and our children worldwide. Truth is a powerful instrument.”

ISBN: 978-0-9879389-3-0,  Year: 2022,  PDF Ebook,  Pages: 164, 15 Chapters

Price: $11.50 Get yours for FREE! Click here to download.

We encourage you to support the eBook project by making a donation through Global Research’s DonorBox “Worldwide Corona Crisis” Campaign Page

All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the Translate Website button below the author’s name (desktop version)

To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.

Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

***

Vinyl chloride – the chemical in several of the train cars that derailed and burned in East Palestine, Ohio, in February 2023 – can wreak havoc on the human liver.

It has been shown to cause liver cancer, as well as a nonmalignant liver disease known as TASH, or toxicant-associated steatohepatitis. With TASH, the livers of otherwise healthy people can develop the same fat accumulation, inflammation and scarring (fibrosis and cirrhosis) as people who have cirrhosis from alcohol or obesity.

That kind of damage typically requires relatively high levels of vinyl chloride exposure – the kind an industrial worker might experience on the job.

However, exposures to lower environmental concentrations are still a concern. That’s in part because little is known about the impact low-level exposure might have on liver health, especially for people with underlying liver disease and other risks.

As an assistant professor of medicine and environmental and occupational health, I study the impact of vinyl chloride exposure on the liver, particularly on how it may affect people with underlying liver disease. Recent findings have changed our understanding of the risk.

Lessons from ‘Rubbertown’

Vinyl chloride is used to produce PVC, a hard plastic used for pipes, as well as in some packaging, coatings and wires.

Its health risks were discovered in the 1970s at a B.F. Goodrich factory in the Rubbertown neighborhood of Louisville, Kentucky. Four workers involved in the polymerization process for producing polyvinyl chloride there each developed angiosarcoma of the liver, an extremely rare type of tumor.

Their cases became among the most important sentinel events in the history of occupational medicine and led to the worldwide recognition of vinyl chloride as a carcinogen.

The liver is the body’s filter for removing toxicants from the blood. Specialized cells known as hepatocytes help reduce the toxicity of drugs, alcohol, caffeine and environmental chemicals and then send away the waste to be excreted.

The hallmark of vinyl chloride exposure to the liver is a paradoxical combination of normal liver function tests and the presence of fat in the liver and the death of hepatic cells, which make up the bulk of the liver’s mass. However, the detailed mechanisms that lead to vinyl chloride-induced liver disease are still largely unknown.

Recent research has demonstrated that exposure to vinyl chloride, even at levels below the federal limits for safety, can enhance liver disease caused by a “Western diet” – one rich in fat and sugar. This previously unidentified interaction between vinyl chloride and underlying fatty liver diseases raises concerns that the risk from lower vinyl chloride exposures may be underestimated.

Outdoor exposure and the risk from wells

In outdoor air, vinyl chloride becomes diluted fairly quickly. Sunlight also breaks it down, typically in nine to 11 days. Therefore, outdoor air exposure is likely not a problem except with intense periods of exposure, such as immediately following a release of vinyl chloride. If there is a chemical smell, or you feel itchy or disorientated, leave the area and seek medical attention.

Vinyl chloride also disperses in water. The federal Clean Water Act requires monitoring and removing volatile organic compounds such as vinyl chloride from municipal water supplies, so those shouldn’t be a concern.

However, private wells could become contaminated if vinyl chloride enters the groundwater. Private wells are not regulated by the Clean Water Act and are not usually monitored.

 

*

Note to readers: Please click the share buttons above. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

Assistant Professor of Medicine and Environmental Health, Member of Pittburgh Liver Research Center, University of Pittsburgh

Featured image: An illustration of a human liver with cirrhosis. Kateryna Kon/Science Photo Library

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on How Vinyl Chloride, the Chemical in the Ohio Train Derailment and Used to Make PVC Plastics, Can Damage Your Liver
  • Tags:

Did Russia Suspend New START or Was It America?

February 22nd, 2023 by Drago Bosnic

All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the Translate Website button below the author’s name (desktop version)

To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.

Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

***

Russian President Vladimir Putin gave his much-anticipated address on February 21 and while most of the points he made were well-known and expected, one particular announcement sent shockwaves across the political West. Namely, Putin stated that Russia is suspending its participation in the New START nuclear arms control treaty with the United States. This was quite an unpleasant surprise for both Washington DC and Brussels, as they expected Moscow to stay compliant with a treaty they have so blatantly been violating for nearly a year now.

Due to Western sanctions against Russia, the New START (Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty) has been effectively put on hold last year, as Moscow had no way of confirming any of US claims about the state of America’s strategic arsenal. Russia’s requests to inspect US/NATO facilities (an integral part of the deal) were denied. The Eurasian giant had no choice but to simply suspend the treaty, as it became a mere formality. And given the series of recent admissions by various Western leaders that nearly all treaties with Russia were there to “just buy time”, Moscow has every reason to doubt every single word uttered by any US/EU/NATO official.

“Russia did its best to solve the problem in Ukraine peacefully, but the statements of Western leaders turned out to be fraudulent and untrue,” Putin (quite accurately) described the behavior of Western political elites during his speech.

New START was the last remaining nuclear arms control agreement between Russia and the United States. It was signed by then-presidents Dmitry Medvedev and Barack Obama in 2011, creating a legal framework for both superpowers to limit the deployment of nuclear-armed intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs), submarine-launched ballistic missiles (SLBMs) and strategic bombers/missile carriers. As previously mentioned, it also included regular mutual inspections, conducted routinely until Washington DC and its NATO vassals chose to unilaterally discontinue this legally binding practice.

The first START treaty was signed in 1991 between the Soviet Union and the United States. At the time, there were as many as 60,000 nuclear warheads worldwide. START I required both sides to have no more than 6,000 active warheads deployed on up to 1,600 missiles and strategic bombers/missile carriers. By 1994, the number of thermonuclear warheads went down by approximately a third. In 2010, Obama and Medvedev brokered the now-defunct New START, which further limited the number of deployed warheads and missiles to 1,550 and 700, respectively. Just days before it was set to expire on February 5, 2021, Russia and the US decided to extend it for another five years.

However, despite Russia’s best efforts to maintain the agreement, incessant US noncompliance with existing treaties and crawling aggression in Eastern Europe left Moscow with no other option. American attacks on Russian-built strategic energy infrastructure were also one of the reasons for Russia’s reaction, but perhaps the worst US violation were multiple strikes that targeted Russian strategic airbases back in December. And while the Kiev regime pulled the trigger, the recent admissions that Washington DC controls the Neo-Nazi junta’s targeting clearly implies that the US ordered the attacks. This was obviously the last straw for Moscow, since the strikes could have undermined Russia’s strategic security. All of the aforementioned factors inevitably led to the New START’s demise.

And yet, the new strategic situation certainly doesn’t put Russia at any sort of disadvantage. On the contrary, it is the US that stands to lose the most from this. Russia enjoys a comfortable strategic advantage over the belligerent thalassocracy, as its ICBMs (intercontinental ballistic missiles) are incomparably more modern, larger and longer-ranged. For instance, Moscow’s land-based missiles can carry up to seven times more MIRV (multiple independently targetable reentry vehicles) warheads than the hopelessly outdated US “Minuteman 3” ICBMs, which can carry no more than 3 warheads per missile. This has also made it possible for Russia to deploy fewer missiles than the US while having more warheads, as its ICBMs have a much larger payload capacity.

In addition, the percentage of new equipment in the Russian Strategic Missile Forces (RVSN) currently stands at a staggering 91%. For comparison, the aforementioned US “Minuteman 3” ICBMs were deployed more than half a century ago, while its most up-to-date missile, the “Trident 2” SLBM (submarine-launched ballistic missile) is more than 30 years old. And although still dangerous nonetheless, US strategic weapons are effectively reaching the end of their service life, while their respective replacements are nowhere near complete, let alone ready for deployment. Meanwhile, Russia has not only been able to maintain and deeply modernize its Soviet-era strategic forces, but it has now almost completely replaced older systems.

“No one should be under the illusion that global strategic parity can be violated,” Vladimir Putin stated during his Tuesday address.

This statement correctly describes the current state of the global strategic power balance. However, for the US to keep the said balance, it will need to invest hundreds of billions of dollars, while simultaneously competing with several global and regional powers with operational ICBMs and SLBMs, a strategic nightmare wise leadership would have certainly tried to avoid.

In addition, what President Putin described as “global strategic parity” could be better described as the prevention of the truly unprovoked and brutal US aggression against the world, as the only way to make America think twice before starting yet another war is the targeted country’s ability to destroy it in minutes. Unfortunately, the world simply has no other way of containing the war criminals in Washington DC.

Many American security experts and even government institutions came to the conclusion that keeping the New START treaty with Russia was in the best interest of the US. In 2020, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimated that America would need to invest $439 billion to modernize its strategic arsenal, as well as another $28 billion annually just to maintain it. This only refers to US weapons aimed at Russia. However, despite ludicrous American claims that China has more land-based ICBMs than the US, Beijing is in the process of expanding its strategic forces, primarily due to US aggression in East Asia. In addition, North Korea is also upgrading its strategic arsenal, which has now surpassed US ABM (anti-ballistic missile) capabilities.

Another major problem for the US is Russia’s greater uranium enrichment capacity, with various estimates putting it anywhere between 43% and 51% of the world’s total. This means that Moscow could greatly outproduce the US in terms of new nuclear warheads, while also putting additional pressure on its nuclear energy production, causing dramatic price spikes.

All things considered, Washington DC had a simple choice, but as per usual, it chose confrontation. Now, it will suffer the consequences of its belligerence toward Russia, China, North Korea and, in the long run, even Iran, which could also acquire thermonuclear weapons to offset the possibility of a US attack. On the other hand, the American people should ask their warmongering government why the vast majority of the world’s strategic arsenal is now aimed at them.

*

Note to readers: Please click the share buttons above. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

Drago Bosnic is an independent geopolitical and military analyst.

Featured image is from InfoBrics

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Did Russia Suspend New START or Was It America?
  • Tags:

All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the Translate Website button below the author’s name (desktop version)

To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.

Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

***

Republican lawmakers from Idaho have introduced a bill that will make it a crime to administer mRNA vaccines in the state, citing safety concerns, which would apply to COVID-19 vaccines manufactured by companies like Pfizer and Moderna.

“Notwithstanding any other provision of law, a person may not provide or administer a vaccine developed using messenger ribonucleic acid (mRNA) technology for use in an individual or any other mammal in this state. A person who violates this section is guilty of a misdemeanor,” according to House Bill 154 (pdf) presented to the state’s House Health and Welfare Committee on Feb. 15. The bill was introduced by state Sen. Tammy Nichols and Rep. Judy Boyle.

While promoting the bill before the committee, Nichols pointed out that there have been “more and more concerns rising” about the mRNA vaccines.

“We have issues that this was fast-tracked, there’s no liability, there’s no access to data, risk-benefit analysis has not been done, there’s no informed consent,” she said.

Nichols insisted that mRNA vaccines be treated in a “similar manner” to harmful drugs. She pointed out that there are “concerns of blood clots and heart issues” related to using COVID-19 mRNA vaccines which need to be addressed.

COVID-19 mRNA Approvals

At present, three types of COVID-19 vaccines exist—protein subunit, viral vector, and mRNA. Vaccines produced by Moderna and Pfizer, which have been widely distributed, come under mRNA categorization.

Around 400 million Pfizer COVID-19 vaccines and over 250 million Moderna vaccines have been administered in the United States.

According to the CDC, mRNA vaccines use mRNA developed in a laboratory to teach cells in a human body to produce a protein or part of a protein triggering an immune response. It is this immune response that then creates antibodies to fight the SARS-Cov-2 virus.

State Rep. Ilana Rubel, a Democrat, questioned Nichols about fast-track approvals granted to the COVID-19 mRNA vaccines by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA).

Rubel asked about the vaccines being initially approved under the “ordinary approval process” and subsequently passing the scrutiny of “normal tests.”

Nichols responded,

“I’m seeing conflicting reports in regard to that. So I’m actually having more information being sent to me to address that particular issue, because I’m finding that it may not have been done like we thought it should have been done or that it would have normally been done for an approval process, as an FDA-approved vaccine.”

Harms of mRNA COVID-19 Vaccines

According to data from the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) till November, 25 percent of individuals who were injected with mRNA COVID-19 vaccines were incapacitated the next day, with 8 percent ending up in hospitals or emergency rooms.

In an interview with EpochTV’s “American Thought Leaders,” Cardiologist Dr. Peter McCullough called it “the most toxic vaccine by the CDC data that we’ve ever seen in clinical medicine.”

Cardiologist Dr. Aseem Malhotra added,

“I think all cardiovascular conditions have got worse because of the vaccine, and anything and everything that can go wrong with the heart has gone wrong with the heart as a result of this mRNA vaccine.”

Both doctors dismissed the claim of there being a higher risk of myocarditis—an inflammation of the heart muscle myocardium—from COVID-19 infection rather than mRNA vaccines. McCullough pointed out that other vaccines like those for smallpox are also known to cause myocarditis.

In a Jan. 30 video statement on Twitter, Retsef Levi, a professor at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, presented his analysis of data from Israel which suggested that there was a 25 percent increase in the cause of “cardiac arrest diagnosis” among youths during the first half of 2021. During this time, the government launched a massive vaccine campaign in Israel.

Analysis of data from Australia, Scotland, and the UK, also “replicate the data from Israel,” the professor pointed out. “At this point in time, all COVID mRNA vaccination programs should stop immediately,” Levi said in the video.

“By now, I believe that the cumulative evidence is conclusive and confirms our concern that the mRNA vaccines indeed cause sudden cardiac arrest as a sequel of vaccine-induced myocarditis. And this is potentially only one mechanism by which they cause harm.”

*

Note to readers: Please click the share buttons above. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

Featured image:  A hand holding an mRNA vaccine vial. (Spencer Davis / Unsplash)


The Worldwide Corona Crisis, Global Coup d’Etat Against Humanity

by Michel Chossudovsky

Michel Chossudovsky reviews in detail how this insidious project “destroys people’s lives”. He provides a comprehensive analysis of everything you need to know about the “pandemic” — from the medical dimensions to the economic and social repercussions, political underpinnings, and mental and psychological impacts.

“My objective as an author is to inform people worldwide and refute the official narrative which has been used as a justification to destabilize the economic and social fabric of entire countries, followed by the imposition of the “deadly” COVID-19 “vaccine”. This crisis affects humanity in its entirety: almost 8 billion people. We stand in solidarity with our fellow human beings and our children worldwide. Truth is a powerful instrument.”

ISBN: 978-0-9879389-3-0,  Year: 2022,  PDF Ebook,  Pages: 164, 15 Chapters

Price: $11.50 Get yours for FREE! Click here to download.

We encourage you to support the eBook project by making a donation through Global Research’s DonorBox “Worldwide Corona Crisis” Campaign Page

All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the Translate Website button below the author’s name (desktop version)

To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.

Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

***

 

 

Back in 2010, the South Sudanese Government was warned by students who majored in economics that using the US dollar for local transactions would pose an economic risk to the country, and they were right.  The Sudan Tribune report described the students concerns about the government’s dollarization of South Sudan’s economy, “Southern Sudanese students studying economics at higher learning institutions in collaboration with local economists from semi-autonomous government of South Sudan (GoSS) have joined academics and finance scholars to warn against heavy reliance on US dollar in local transactions, saying the trend was exposing the region to great economic risks.”  Students from Juba University called on GoSS to intervene “before the situation got out of hand” Lual Deng Kuol, a student of economics and social studies continued “I don’t understand why the government is allowing dollarization of the economy” he said “noting that excessive use of the dollar was exerting unnecessary pressure on the local currency.” 

Kiir Wol Baak, who is a member of the region’s business community said that the government and its central bank failed to regulate the use of dollars.  It is true that when a country gives up its option to print its own money, the ability to influence the economy, administer a monetary policy or impose an exchange rate diminishes.  Kiir Wol Baak said that “The problem is that there is no control by the government and people will keep demanding dollars, unnecessarily, this is not good at all for our weak economy.” According to the Sudan Tribune’s own words in what will be the aftermath once the process of dollarization has succeeded:

Experts define dollarization as an extreme situation of an economic instability in which a foreign currency, often the US dollar replaces a country’s currency in performing basic functions of money. With each seller of a product or service demanding the dollar or the shilling at an exchange rate of one’s own choice, it translates into every deals and trading in money, which legally is the reserve of commercial banks and bureau of change.

Kiir cautioned that if this trend of everybody yearning for the dollar is left to prevail, it’s likely to end up with adverse consequences for the regional economy. He urged those “obsessed” with the dollar to strive for exports of goods and services

Fast forward to 2023, and the South Sudan government is now in a difficult situation economically because of their past decisions to dollarize the economy.  The East African recently published ‘South Sudan abandons US dollar for local currency’ says that “South Sudan’s government has suspended the use of the US dollar and instead directed all transactions be executed in the local currency, the South Sudanese pound (SSP), in a move feared to stifle economic activity in the war-ravaged economy.”  Due to hyperinflation, the weakness in the local currency, and a civil war that ended in 2020 has destabilized South Sudan’s economy.  The aftermath of the civil war which lasted for seven years killed over 380,000 people and over 1.5 million people have fled the war-torn country and collapsed South Sudan’s oil production capabilities at the same time has brought more hardship to the Sudanese people.  According to the East African, “the Bank of South Sudan has banned the use of the greenback and directed that all commercial contracts be signed in the local currency.”  The South Sudanese Information Minister, Michael Makuei Lueth told CGTN (China’s State run English-Language News agency) “That is a clear directive from the Central Bank that all the transactions in South Sudan must be done in our currency. So, all commercial contracts must be signed in our local currency.”

Sanctions on Zimbabwe’s Economy Led to De-Dollarization

South Sudan is following what other African Nations are doing, and that is rejecting the US dollar as an economic weapon which has failed the continent in many ways.  TFI Global published an article in 2022 titled ‘Zimbabwe fast-tracks de-dollarization of its mineral sector’ explained why the sudden move:

Zimbabwe gold coins: Zimbabwe has implemented rules which allow the government to collect mining royalties partly in the form of minerals. President Emmerson Mnangagwa stated that the state is going to begin collecting half of the royalties of gold, diamond, and platinum mining in minerals to develop Zimbabwe’s reserves. The rest of the royalty would be received in cash.  A government notice stated, “Royalties remitted to the Zimbabwe Revenue Authority in respect of gold and those minerals specified shall be paid on the basis of 50% in kind.”  The notice further added that the royalties’ cash component would constitute 40% Zimbabwean dollars and 10% foreign currency. So, you see what did Zimbabwe just do with the American Dollar? It simply rejected it!

In 2001, the US and its European lapdogs have sanctioned Zimbabwe for its land reform program to confiscate land from minority white farmers so that they can redistribute land to landless Zimbabweans.  If a government can seize land and give it to others is wrong on every level, but its an internal issue among the Zimbabweans.  The US and EU imposed sanctions has caused Zimbabwe to lose more than $100 billion in investments, grants, loans from the IMF and the World Bank, and the African Development Bank (An important note to consider: the IMF or World bank are not altruistic institutions).  The point is that Zimbabwe’s economy has been destroyed because of the sanctions.  TFI Global explains how sanctions have caused hardships on individuals and businesses:

Now, the US and Europe have imposed sanctions on Zimbabwe for decades, which have had drastic repercussions on the economy as they restricted its access to the international financial market.

For example, the owner of Imperial Refrigeration, a Zimbabwean company, needed to import equipment for which he had to pay in US dollars. However, an American law called Zimbabwe Democracy and Economic Recovery Act (ZIDERA), prohibits international lenders from working with Zimbabwe. So, the Zimbabwean businessman couldn’t import the desired equipment. This is how the US is killing the Zimbabwean economy day by day

Two wrongs surely don’t make it right.  Western sanctions on Zimbabwe had a devastating impact on the economy despite the government’s actions on land reform measures that were unfair to white farmers.  However, Western sanctions have devastated the economy for everyone, both black and white.

According to TFI Global, Zimbabwe’s economy has been in a difficult situation because of its dealings with Western nations, particularly the US, “Zimbabwe has realized that relying on the West will further complicate its economic problems, hence it is employing constructive ideas and taking decisions which will end the dominance of the US in its economy” and that “Zimbabwe has set an example for all African nations looking forward to ending the US dominance in their domestic affairs.”

South Sudan’s de-dollarization process is just the beginning.  African countries will follow what South Sudan, Zimbabwe and others have done, and that is de-dollarizing their respective economies.  Libya’s President, Muammar Gaddafi who was murdered by US-backed forces on October 20th, 2011, was the first African leader in modern times to propose a gold-backed African Dinar to bypass US dollars for all of Africa, and now others are following suit. In other words, the days of the US dollar’s ‘exorbitant privilege in Africa is coming to an end.

*

Note to readers: Please click the share buttons above or below. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

Timothy Alexander Guzman writes on his own blog site, Silent Crow News, where this article was originally published. He is a regular contributor to Global Research.

Featured image is from SCN

All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the Translate Website button below the author’s name (desktop version)

To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.

Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

***

The Russian Foreign Ministry summoned US Ambassador to Russia Lynne Tracy to make a demarche due to the growing involvement of the United States in the fighting on the side of the Kiev regime. The diplomatic measure was taken almost immediately after Russian President Vladimir Putin gave his annual address to the Russian Federal Assembly, claiming among other things that Russia suspended implementation of START (Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty).

The protest note transmitted to the Ambassador emphasizes that the pumping of the Armed Forces of Ukraine with weapons, as well as the target designation for striking Russian military and civilian infrastructure facilities clearly prove the inconsistency and falsity of the claims of the American side that the United States is not a party to the conflict. It is also indicated that the weapons supplied to Kiev, as well as the service personnel, including American citizens, confirm U.S military involvement, the Russian Foreign Ministry warned.

In this regard, the US Ambassador was informed about the “counterproductivity of the current aggressive course of the United States to deepen confrontation with Russia in all directions”. It was particularly noted that in order to de-escalate the situation, Washington should take steps involving the withdrawal of US-NATO military and military equipment from Ukraine, as well as the cessation of hostile anti-Russian activity.

The Russian side also stressed that the United States should provide explanations about the explosions on the Nord Stream–1 and Nord Stream–2 gas pipelines and not interfere with an objective investigation to identify the perpetrators.

In addition, a number of bilateral issues were discussed during the meeting. The Russian media supposed that the diplomats discussed the START issue.

Speaking to the Federal Assembly, Putin blamed the West and, in particular, the United States, for fomenting the conflict in Ukraine and for its victims. LINK

“The West uses Ukraine both as a battering-ram against Russia and as a testing ground,” the president said.

In his turn, on February 21, President of Ukraine Volodymyr Zelensky announced that Kiev was discussing the supply with the United States of long-range weapons and other weapons that had not previously been sent for the Armed Forces of Ukraine.

Russia has repeatedly called that the supply of long-range weapons to Ukraine was a “red line”. In his speech on February 21, Putin mentioned the issue, warning that “the supply of long-range weapons, the possibility of which was earlier also claimed by the United States and Great Britain, will lead to the fact that the security zone on the territory of the special operation will be pushed further and further.” Thus, military supplies and foreign military personnel involved in their maintenance are legitimate targets for Russian forces, including outside the Ukrainian territory.

*

Note to readers: Please click the share buttons above or below. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

Featured image is from South Front

5G in New York City

February 22nd, 2023 by Environmental Health Trust

All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the Translate Website button below the author’s name (desktop version)

To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.

Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

***

 

 

The new 5G poles are very large, tall and leading to many questions and fierce opposition by New York residents. See LinkNYC Link5G Design Proposal Slides. Verizon, AT&T, and T-Mobile are adding 5G technology in New York City with a combination of “macro” sites (wireless transmitters generally located on the rooftops) and “small cells ” which are typically located on street poles.

New York City Community Boards Are Passing Moratoriums

Community Boards across the city are having meetings to provide input. Community Board 8  which includes areas of Upper East side of Manhattan and Roosevelt Island passed a  5G moratorium several weeks ago and several other Boards have followed suit.

Where Can I find a Map of Proposed New York 5G LinkNYC Poles ? 

EHT’s Executive Director, Theodora Scarato has been sharing the latest science and policy with the New York City community. Wired Broadband.org  and New Yorkers 4 Wired Tech are NYC organizations working to raise awareness.

The European Parliament requested a research report  “Health Impact of 5G” released in July 2021 concluding that commonly used RFR frequencies (450 to 6000 MHz) are probably carcinogenic for humansand clearly affect male fertility with possible adverse effects on the development of embryos, fetuses and newborns.

A January 23, 2023 Letter from Congressman Nadler on 5G New York Cell Towers says the 5G towers “generated widespread concern throughout the community.”

New York Community Board Actions

Manhattan Community Board 8 (Upper East Side of Manhattan and Roosevelt Island) Transportation Committee passed a disapproval and Link5G moratorium.

Manhattan CB5 (Times Square) 

Manhattan CB9 West Harlem

  • 1/9/23 Health & Environment Committee passed disapproval and moratorium
  • 1/11/23 Executive Committee passed with health references removed.

1/16/23 Letter RE: Disapproval and moratorium of new Link5ZG Kiosks within MCB9

Brooklyn CB10 Bay Ridge/Fort Hamilton

  • 1/10/23 Communications & Public Relations Committee passed a motion to deny support for the towers without having more and better information about the health and safety effects.

CB10 Communications and Public Relations Committee 1/10/23

Queens CB2 (Jackson Heights, East Elmhurst and Northern Corona)

Manhattan CB2 (Greenwich Village, Little Italy, SoHo, NoHo, Hudson Square, Chinatown and the Gansevoort Market)

Queens CB1, Astoria, Long Island City 

Manhattan CB12, Washington Heights

Letters

Theodora  Scarato, executive director of Environmental Health Trust has presented information as well as several others to some of the Community Boards regarding the scientific research and the lack of up to date regulations for the radiation exposure. Letter EHT sent to the New York Office of Technology regarding RF compliance reports.

New York organizations to connect with that are working on raising awareness of the need for safer, faster technology, rather than excessive 5G poles. 

  • Wired Broadband.org : Odette J. Wilkens, President & General Counsel Wired Broadband, Inc. has been providing testimony on the need for wired broadband and safe technology solutions.
  • New Yorkers 4 Wired Tech: Grassroots advocates sounding the alarm on the harmful biological effects of pulsed-modulated microwave radiation from densified 4G/5G wireless infrastructure antennas.

The 5G Moratorium states:

The following resolution was then put forward by Community Board 8:

WHEREAS; New York City, through its Office of Technology and Innovation (OTI), has contracted with CityBridge to install and operate a citywide wireless communications network; and,

WHEREAS; CityBridge installed its LinkNYC network as the initial deployment of the citywide wireless communications network intended to replace outdated public pay phones; and

WHEREAS; LinkNYC provided free 4G wireless cellular connectivity using towers placed on sidewalks throughout NYC, many of which include electronic display screens; and

WHEREAS; Community Board 8 and constituents of its district have reported adverse impacts resulting from existing LinkNYC infrastructure, including visual impacts, inappropriate usage, impacts on sidewalk clearances, and rat infestation; and

WHEREAS; CityBridge is now in the process of upgrading its LinkNYC network to Link5G to accommodate technological upgrades that have recently become commonplace in cellular communications; and

WHEREAS; Link5G infrastructure is a 32’ tall tower that is installed on sidewalks in the public right-of-way; and

WHEREAS; Link5G towers in commercial districts include electronic screens similar to those found on LinkNYC kiosks that display advertising and public information; and

WHEREAS; the design of the Link5G towers has been approved by the Public Design Commission; and

WHEREAS; Link5G must adhere to siting requirements determined by NYC Department of City Planning, and must obtain Landmarks Preservation Commission approval if sited in historic districts; and

WHEREAS; CityBridge and OTI have proposed 18 sites across Community District 8;

WHEREAS; CityBridge and OTI have stated that the siting of proposed Link5G towers in Community District 8 are based on gaps in coverage and locations where excess demand for the network exists as determined by commercial cellular carriers; and

WHEREAS; 15 of the 18 sites proposed are in or near either the Upper East Side Historic District or the Carnegie Hill Historic District, where renowned architecture and iconic streetscapes would be interfered with if Link5G structures were installed; and

WHEREAS; locations proposed along Madison Avenue would be in conflict with strict guidelines for illuminated storefronts and signage, and would be in conflict with the Special Madison Avenue Preservation District’s design standards that specifically prohibit illuminated advertising; and

WHEREAS; residents of Community District 8 have strongly objected to the design and the visual impacts that Link5G towers would have on streetscapes, both with and without screens; and

WHEREAS; there are widespread concerns that 5G towers will be constructed at distances considered too close to adjacent buildings, as has already occurred in front of 520 East 90th Street, and

WHEREAS; 10’ of distance from a tower to a residence that is permitted is extremely insufficient and should be revisited as a policy; and

WHEREAS; there are no reported issues by residents of Community District 8 of cellular gaps and frequent dropped calls that would justify Link5G being installed in the proposed locations; and

WHEREAS; the proposed sites for Link5G don’t include any locations in areas known to be potential digital deserts within Community District 8; and

WHEREAS; OTI and CityBridge have not provided detailed plans regarding the full build-out of Link5G, both within Community District 8 and in areas north of 96th Street and in the outer Boroughs; and

WHEREAS; there is a desire for any telecommunications infrastructure to be buried underground both for reliability purposes and to minimize visual impacts; and

WHEREAS; there have been questions raised by some residents as to whether sufficient research has been performed to fully assuage concerns that the radiation emitted by 5G infrastructure won’t have any long-term impacts on public health or the environment, including young children, seniors, people with medical implant devices, pets, plants, and parks;

WHEREAS; the community-at-large has expressed their views that Link5G is unnecessary and unwanted in Community District 8 at present and until many of the issues identified have been resolved;

WHEREAS; New York City is in control of this process through its contract with the provider;

THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that Community Board 8 Manhattan disapproves the proposal as presented to install Link 5G towers in Community District 8; and

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that a moratorium be placed on construction and planning of Link5G poles and devices in Community District 8 Manhattan

Download the New York Board 8 moratorium here.

*

Note to readers: Please click the share buttons above. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

Featured image is from EHT

All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the Translate Website button below the author’s name (desktop version)

To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.

Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

***

The current inflation crisis is the direct result of intentional decisions made by central banking institutions, according to banking and development economist Richard Werner, Ph.D.

In 2020, the world’s central banks, including the U.S. Federal Reserve, acted in a “coordinated fashion” and enacted an “intentional policy” they knew would cause massive inflation 18 months down the road, Werner told political commentator Kim Iversen on a recent episode of “The Kim Iversen Show.”

The inflation that began in late 2021 — which we are still experiencing — had nothing to do with an energy crisis or wars, Werner said.

“Nobody can say this was a mistake. They [the central banks] on purpose created this inflation — that’s what my work shows and there’s no doubt about that,” Werner said.

Werner, a professor at De Montfort University in the U.K., created the Quantitative Easing (QE) model — also called the “Quantitative Theory of Credit” — which he says is “arguably the simplest empirically-grounded model that incorporates the key macroeconomic role of the banking sector.”

QE is a kind of monetary policy that involves a central bank purchasing securities from the open market to reduce interest rates and increase the money supply.

Iversen told Werner he is an interesting figure because QE recently showed up in the news for exacerbating the current financial situation.

“A lot of people would blame you, as the person who invented Quantitative Easing, for the crisis that we’re in,” Iversen said. “At the same time, a lot of those people that feel that way are also the very people who don’t trust this central digital currency [and] don’t trust the World Economic Forum — and you seem to be also in that group.”

“I think that blows a lot of people’s minds,” she said. “They don’t really know what to make of you and your policies. Are you the good guy, are you the bad guy?”

Werner said most central banks incorrectly applied his QE policy by following only part of his advice — and at the wrong time.

QE was designed for a time of deflation and a contracting money supply, Werner said, not for a time period when we already had an expanding money supply and expanding demand. “It was not designed for this situation,” he said.

Want freedom? Use cash, support local banks, prevent central bank digital currencies

Werner urged listeners to make sure the economy “stays decentralized” by using local banks — and setting up new local banks.

“Central planners don’t like that,” he said. “They want companies and banks to merge. That’s really part of a Sovietized system — too much central control — [and] we need to do the opposite,” he told Iversen.

Werner said using cash is a means of decentralization and freedom, whereas anything digital and central is going to be about control.

“To support cash is a key way to preserve our freedom,” he said.

According to Werner, we must prevent the introduction of central bank digital currencies (CBDCs) — government-backed digital currencies issued by a central bank — “because that is the epitome of a centralized, controlled, even totalitarian system because, of course, they’re going to be programmable and they will be programmed,” he told Iversen’s listeners.

“It’s just nothing like we’ve ever had in the past and any totalitarian dictatorship could only dream of such enormous control tools,” he added.

On Nov. 15, 2022, the Federal Reserve Bank of New York announced it was teaming up with global financial giants including Citigroup Inc., HSBC Holdings Plc., Mastercard Inc. and Wells Fargo & Co. to launch a 12-week digital dollar pilot program to assess how banks can process digital dollar tokens within the central bank system and to quantify their potential impact on speeding up payments, the New York Fed told Reuters.

The results of the pilot program — which uses simulated data in a test environment — have yet to be publicly released.

Watch here:

*

Note to readers: Please click the share buttons above. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

Suzanne Burdick, Ph.D., is a reporter and researcher for The Defender based in Fairfield, Iowa. She holds a Ph.D. in Communication Studies from the University of Texas at Austin (2021), and a master’s degree in communication and leadership from Gonzaga University (2015). Her scholarship has been published in Health Communication. She has taught at various academic institutions in the United States and is fluent in Spanish.

Featured image is from CHD

A Nano-Second to Midnight

February 22nd, 2023 by Dr. Paul Craig Roberts

All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the Translate Website button below the author’s name (desktop version)

To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.

Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

***

The main focus of the incompetent Biden Regime is on demonizing white Americans who are not “Woke Democrats” and on raising tensions with Russia which are already more dangerous than during the Cuban missile crisis.  The crazed  warmonger, Victoria Nuland, who Biden appointed and the Senate confirmed Undersecretary of State, announced that Washington considers Russian installations in Crimea “legitimate targets” and the US government supports Ukrainian attacks on Russian territory.

Yesterday Putin announced that Russia is suspending participation in the last remaining nuclear arms agreement (START) as Washington insists on Russia’s compliance in the absence of its own.

The US Ambassador in Moscow was summoned to account for Washington’s participation in the Ukrainian conflict with Russia.  The US Ambassador was told that the money, weapons, targeting information, support personnel all prove the falsity of Washington’s claim not to be a party to the conflict. The ambassador was told that the US is actively at war with Russia and actively engaged in hostile actions against Russia, and that this would have consequences.

Putin has put Russian nuclear missiles on Combat Alert status.

Ask yourself what kind of utterly stupid and irresponsible government in Washington would bring us to such a situation.  

Ask yourself what kind of imbeciles lead NATO countries who put their own countries’ survival at risk in order to please Washington.  

Ask yourself what kind of completely stupid leadership there is in Finland that can’t wait to jump into this dangerous situation by joining NATO.

And where is America’s idiot president while Russia puts nuclear missiles on Combat Alert?  Is he on the telephone with Putin calming down the dangerous situation?  No. The fool is in Ukraine and Poland pouring gasoline on the fire.

I have warned consistently that the West’s involvement in Ukraine is leading to nuclear war.  The low grade morons who comprise the “Russian expert community” have ignored me, as has the “official-narrative-only media.”  US policymakers are Russophobic people, such as Amb. Michael McFaul, who approach a dangerous situation emotionally and are incapable of reason or responsible behavior.

The Russians have seen all this.  They see that there is no intelligence anywhere in the Western leadership, just intent to break Russia.  Putin has been patient through all of this–too patient as I have argued–looking for a spark of intelligence in the West.  Finding none, he seems to be giving up hope.  If he gives up hope, war is on its way.

The uninvolved, unaware, uninformed American people have no idea of their present danger.  Their understanding is limited to their indoctrination: “Russia Bad, Ukraine Good.”

Here are some news reports:

*

Note to readers: Please click the share buttons above or below. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

Paul Craig Roberts is a renowned author and academic, chairman of The Institute for Political Economy. Dr. Roberts was previously associate editor and columnist for The Wall Street Journal. He was Assistant Secretary of the Treasury for Economic Policy during the Reagan Administration. He is a regular contributor to Global Research. 

Featured image is from The Unz Review


Towards a World War III Scenario: The Dangers of Nuclear War” 

by Michel Chossudovsky

Available to order from Global Research! 

ISBN Number: 978-0-9737147-5-3
Year: 2012
Pages: 102

PDF Edition:  $6.50 (sent directly to your email account!)

Michel Chossudovsky is Professor of Economics at the University of Ottawa and Director of the Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG), which hosts the critically acclaimed website www.globalresearch.ca . He is a contributor to the Encyclopedia Britannica. His writings have been translated into more than 20 languages.

Reviews

“This book is a ‘must’ resource – a richly documented and systematic diagnosis of the supremely pathological geo-strategic planning of US wars since ‘9-11’ against non-nuclear countries to seize their oil fields and resources under cover of ‘freedom and democracy’.”
John McMurtry, Professor of Philosophy, Guelph University

“In a world where engineered, pre-emptive, or more fashionably “humanitarian” wars of aggression have become the norm, this challenging book may be our final wake-up call.”
-Denis Halliday, Former Assistant Secretary General of the United Nations

Michel Chossudovsky exposes the insanity of our privatized war machine. Iran is being targeted with nuclear weapons as part of a war agenda built on distortions and lies for the purpose of private profit. The real aims are oil, financial hegemony and global control. The price could be nuclear holocaust. When weapons become the hottest export of the world’s only superpower, and diplomats work as salesmen for the defense industry, the whole world is recklessly endangered. If we must have a military, it belongs entirely in the public sector. No one should profit from mass death and destruction.
Ellen Brown, author of ‘Web of Debt’ and president of the Public Banking Institute  

All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the Translate Website button below the author’s name (desktop version)

To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.

Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

***

Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva, known simply as Lula, is Brazil’s 39th and current president. He represents the Workers Party. Lula held previously two presidential terms, from 2003 to 2010.

Lula has now been in office less than 2 months and has already opened his cards for everyone to see: totally submissive to and controlled by the World Economic Forum (WEF), by Washington, by the WHO and by Bill Gates, one of the key funders of WHO and creator of GAVI.

Just so you know – GAVI, also called the Vaccine Alliance, is the closest ally of WHO’s, a so-called public-private partnership registered in Geneva as a tax-free NGO with FULL diplomatic immunity. Yes, nobody could sue GAVI even for the most horrendous frauds and crimes they may commit, or may have already committed.

This is GAVI in corporate terms: Representatives of the International Federation of Pharmaceutical Manufacturers & Associations (IFPMA) have one seat on the Gavi Board. The IFPMA represents more than 55 members of national industry associations, including Johnson & Johnson, GlaxoSmithKline, Merck & Co., Novartis, Sanofi Pasteur, the vaccines division of Sanofi-Aventis and Pfizer. See this for more on GAVI.

Just a few of days ago Lula declared that for families to remain eligible for the famous Bolsa Family Program (BFP), a social program for the poorest of the poor families, they must vaccinate their children – and he referred specifically to the covid vaxx – otherwise they lose their benefits.

BFP transfers have health and education conditionalities. Beneficiaries with children under age 7 must ensure that the children receive the eleven vaccines included in the Brazilian immunization schedule. The covid “vaccine” is explicitly included in the mandatory children’s vaccination program. Lula stressed in particular Covid vaxxes as a necessity to remain in the BFP.

In other words, either you inject your children with this toxic, potentially deadly mRNA concoction, or you may starve to death.

Lula, as a member of the Workers Party, run for President under the socialist ticket and he “won” as socialist. Whether he really won is highly questionable. Lula had 50.8% of votes compared with 49.2% for the incumbent Bolsonaro.

Such a paper-thin margin would normally more than justify a recount. But the “system”, those who have the last say on Brazil’s new presidency, Washington, the WEF, WHO, Gates – and all those invisible financial mega-powers directing those executing institutions, those who have a vital interest in Brazil and her extensive resources, including the wealth of Brazil’s rain forest – would not allow a recount. Lula is their “boy”.

Bolsonaro was “warned” about launching a coup. Though, a former high-ranking military – he had the support of the army.

The BFP was initiated during Lula’s first presidency (2002-2006), by merging existing social programs into the Bolsa Family Program. Lula is credited with lifting some 20 million Brazilians out of poverty with this and other social reform initiatives. Already under the first BFP, compulsory schooling of children and vaccination were BFP-eligibility criteria. However, at that time there was no toxic and potentially fatal mRNA “covid vaxx” on the market.

During his 2019 – 2022 presidency, Jair Bolsonaro improved the BFP and transformed it to become the “Auxilio Brazil” – Brazil Assistance Program. The new Auxilio Brazil included a permanent upward adjustment of 20%, as compared to the amount paid by Bolsa Família. It also abolished the vaxx conditionality.

Auxilio Brazil” affected 56% of Brazil’s population (during the Covid Crisis) and became Latin America’s most effective poverty alleviation program, surpassing even the hitherto most lauded Mexican social benefits program, reaching some 25% of Mexican families.

With Lula’s arrival, his original Bolsa Family Program was back on the agenda. This time with even stronger conditionalities  dictated by WHO – and of course, the Gates Foundation — strongly supported by the WEF and the Biden Administration. In fact, Lula’s first trip abroad as “new” old president was to Washington DC, where he could be seen in a number of Biden-hugging photo-ops. That alone speaks volumes.

Lula’s stern position on children’s covid vaxxing may also have to do with the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) declaration of 9 February 2023, officially adding the COVID-19 vaccinations to its recommended child and adolescent immunization schedules.

It is alarming that children may now be subject to these “recommendations” which could easily turn into school mandates around the world (see Brazil), despite serious safety concerns including myocarditis, heart attacks, blood clots, seizures and even sudden death in children.

See this from Children’s Health Defense.

And the bulldozer keeps rolling, despite the fact of Pfizer’s and other pharma’s recognition that the experimental vaxx does not prevent the “covid disease”, nor stop it from spreading and that it might have serious side effects.

No question on who calls the shots in Brazil.

Just as a byline, this will, no doubt, also be the case for Brazil’s economy – Wall Street, World Bank and the IMF will be in the driver’s seat.

Already during Lula’s first two presidencies, Wall Street made the major decisions affecting Brazil’s economy, to the point where the IMF lauded Lula as a “good learner”, who might become an excellent example for the rest of Latin America.

Today the situation is much more serious as children’s lives are seriously at stake. This newly, I call him “pseudo-elected” president, may have just become one of the most flagrant traitors of Brazil’s population, particularly Brazil’s children – the future generations – and maybe way beyond the Brazilian borders.

*

Note to readers: Please click the share buttons above. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

Peter Koenig is a geopolitical analyst and a former Senior Economist at the World Bank and the World Health Organization (WHO), where he worked for over 30 years around the world. He lectures at universities in the US, Europe and South America. He writes regularly for online journals and is the author of Implosion – An Economic Thriller about War, Environmental Destruction and Corporate Greed; and  co-author of Cynthia McKinney’s book “When China Sneezes: From the Coronavirus Lockdown to the Global Politico-Economic Crisis” (Clarity Press – November 1, 2020).

Peter is a Research Associate of the Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG). He is also a non-resident Senior Fellow of the Chongyang Institute of Renmin University, Beijing.

Featured image is from Andrew Korybko

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Lula – One of the Most Audacious Traitors in Brazil’s Recent History?
  • Tags: ,

All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the Translate Website button below the author’s name (desktop version)

To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.

Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

***

Thousands of Syrians took to the streets on Monday, February 20, to protest against repeated Israeli aggression directed at the country. Protesters also chanted slogans against the unilateral coercive measures (sanctions) imposed against Syria by the US and its allies, the Syrian Arab News Agency (SANA) reported

At least five Syrians were killed and 15 wounded when missiles fired by Israeli warplanes landed inside the densely populated Kafr Sousa neighborhood in capital Damascus on Sunday, February 19. According to SANA, all but one of those killed were civilians. The Syrian military claimed that its air defense had intercepted some of the Israeli missiles.

The attack—carried out in the middle of the night—caused a number of residential buildings, including a 10-story structure, to collapse.

Syrian Foreign Minister Faisal Mekdad met foreign diplomats and ambassadors in Damascus and called the attacks “a crime against humanity,” especially at a time when the country was “racing against time to address the catastrophic consequences of the devastating earthquake.”

Nearly 47,000 people have been reported dead so far from the February 6 earthquake—41,000 in Turkey and more than 5,800 in Syria, with the latter struggling to keep up the pace of rescue operations due to war, sanctions, and a lack of adequate international support.

Mekdad called for global and “urgent condemnation of Israeli aggression to deter it from killing civilians and violating the sovereignty of states.”

He added that “the continuation of Israeli brutal attacks, and crimes against the Palestinian and Syrian people, constitutes an explicit threat to peace and security in the region and beyond.”

There has been no comment from Israel yet regarding the airstrike.

The attacks were condemned by Russia, Iran, Cuba, and several other countries.

*

Note to readers: Please click the share buttons above. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

Featured image is from SANA

All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the Translate Website button below the author’s name (desktop version)

To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.

Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

***

“Autocrats only understand one word: no, no, no. No you will not take my country, no you will not take my freedom, no you will not take my future… A dictator bent on rebuilding an empire will never be able to ease the people’s love of liberty. Brutality will never grind down the will of the free.”—President Biden

Oh, the hypocrisy.

To hear President Biden talk about the Russia’s aggression against Ukraine, you might imagine that Putin is the only dictator bent on expanding his military empire through the use of occupation, aggression and oppression.

Yet the United States is no better, having spent much of the past half-century policing the globe, occupying other countries, and waging endless wars.

What most Americans fail to recognize is that these ongoing wars have little to do with keeping the country safe and everything to do with propping up a military industrial complex that has its sights set on world domination.

War has become a huge money-making venture, and the U.S. government, with its vast military empire, is one of its best buyers and sellers.

America’s part in the showdown between Russia and the Ukraine has already cost taxpayers more than $112 billion and shows no signs of abating.

Clearly, it’s time for the U.S. government to stop policing the globe.

The U.S. military reportedly has more than 1.3 million men and women on active duty, with more than 200,000 of them stationed overseas in nearly every country in the world.

undefined

Landing zone at Al-Tanf, Syria (Licensed under the Public Domain)

American troops are stationed in Somalia, Iraq and Syria. In Germany, South Korea and Japan. In Saudi Arabia, Jordan and Oman. In Niger, Chad and Mali. In Turkey, the Philippines, and northern Australia.

Those numbers are likely significantly higher in keeping with the Pentagon’s policy of not fully disclosing where and how many troops are deployed for the sake of “operational security and denying the enemy any advantage.” As investigative journalist David Vine explains, “Although few Americans realize it, the United States likely has more bases in foreign lands than any other people, nation, or empire in history.”

Incredibly, America’s military forces aren’t being deployed abroad to protect our freedoms here at home. Rather, they’re being used to guard oil fields, build foreign infrastructure and protect the financial interests of the corporate elite. In fact, the United States military spends about $81 billion a year just to protect oil supplies around the world.

The reach of America’s military empire includes close to 800 bases in as many as 160 countries, operated at a cost of more than $156 billion annually. As Vine reports, “Even US military resorts and recreation areas in places like the Bavarian Alps and Seoul, South Korea, are bases of a kind. Worldwide, the military runs more than 170 golf courses.”

This is how a military empire occupies the globe.

After 20 years of propping up Afghanistan to the tune of trillions of dollars and thousands of lives lost, the U.S. military may have finally been forced out, but those troops represent just a fraction of our military presence worldwide.

In an ongoing effort to police the globe, American military servicepeople continue to be deployed to far-flung places in the Middle East and elsewhere.

This is how the military industrial complex, aided and abetted by the likes of Joe Biden, Donald Trump, Barack Obama, George W. Bush, Bill Clinton and others, continues to get rich at taxpayer expense.

Yet while the rationale may keep changing for why American military forces are policing the globe, these wars abroad aren’t making America—or the rest of the world—any safer, are certainly not making America great again, and are undeniably digging the U.S. deeper into debt.

War spending is bankrupting America.

Although the U.S. constitutes only 5% of the world’s population, America boasts almost 50% of the world’s total military expenditure, spending more on the military than the next 19 biggest spending nations combined.

In fact, the Pentagon spends more on war than all 50 states combined spend on health, education, welfare, and safety.

The American military-industrial complex has erected an empire unsurpassed in history in its breadth and scope, one dedicated to conducting perpetual warfare throughout the earth.

Since 2001, the U.S. government has spent more than $4.7 trillion waging its endless wars.

Having been co-opted by greedy defense contractors, corrupt politicians and incompetent government officials, America’s expanding military empire is bleeding the country dry at a rate of more than $32 million per hour.

In fact, the U.S. government has spent more money every five seconds in Iraq than the average American earns in a year.

Future wars and military exercises waged around the globe are expected to push the total bill upwards of $12 trillion by 2053.

Talk about fiscally irresponsible: the U.S. government is spending money it doesn’t have on a military empire it can’t afford.

Unfortunately, even if we were to put an end to all of the government’s military meddling and bring all of the troops home today, it would take decades to pay down the price of these wars and get the government’s creditors off our backs.

As investigative journalist Uri Friedman puts it, for more than 15 years now, the United States has been fighting terrorism with a credit card, “essentially bankrolling the wars with debt, in the form of purchases of U.S. Treasury bonds by U.S.-based entities like pension funds and state and local governments, and by countries like China and Japan.”

War is not cheap, but it becomes outrageously costly when you factor in government incompetence, fraud, and greedy contractors. Indeed, a leading accounting firm concluded that one of the Pentagon’s largest agencies “can’t account for hundreds of millions of dollars’ worth of spending.”

Unfortunately, the outlook isn’t much better for the spending that can be tracked.

A government audit found that defense contractor Boeing has been massively overcharging taxpayers for mundane parts, resulting in tens of millions of dollars in overspending. As the report noted, the American taxpayer paid:

$71 for a metal pin that should cost just 4 cents; $644.75 for a small gear smaller than a dime that sells for $12.51: more than a 5,100 percent increase in price. $1,678.61 for another tiny part, also smaller than a dime, that could have been bought within DoD for $7.71: a 21,000 percent increase. $71.01 for a straight, thin metal pin that DoD had on hand, unused by the tens of thousands, for 4 cents: an increase of over 177,000 percent.

That price gouging has become an accepted form of corruption within the American military empire is a sad statement on how little control “we the people” have over our runaway government.

Mind you, this isn’t just corrupt behavior. It’s deadly, downright immoral behavior.

Americans have thus far allowed themselves to be spoon-fed a steady diet of pro-war propaganda that keeps them content to wave flags with patriotic fervor and less inclined to look too closely at the mounting body counts, the ruined lives, the ravaged countries, the blowback arising from ill-advised targeted-drone killings and bombing campaigns in foreign lands, or the transformation of our own homeland into a warzone.

That needs to change.

The U.S. government is not making the world any safer. It’s making the world more dangerous. It is estimated that the U.S. military drops a bomb somewhere in the world every 12 minutes. Since 9/11, the United States government has directly contributed to the deaths of around 500,000 human beings. Every one of those deaths was paid for with taxpayer funds.

The U.S. government is not making America any safer. It’s exposing American citizens to alarming levels of blowback, a CIA term referring to the unintended consequences of the U.S. government’s international activities. Chalmers Johnson, a former CIA consultant, repeatedly warned that America’s use of its military to gain power over the global economy would result in devastating blowback.

The 9/11 attacks were blowback. The Boston Marathon Bombing was blowback. The attempted Times Square bomber was blowback. The Fort Hood shooter, a major in the U.S. Army, was blowback.

The U.S. military’s ongoing drone strikes will, I fear, spur yet more blowback against the American people.

The war hawks’ militarization of America—bringing home the spoils of war (the military tanks, grenade launchers, Kevlar helmets, assault rifles, gas masks, ammunition, battering rams, night vision binoculars, etc.) and handing them over to local police, thereby turning America into a battlefield—is also blowback.

James Madison was right: “No nation could preserve its freedom in the midst of continual warfare.” As Madison explained, “Of all the enemies to public liberty war is, perhaps, the most to be dreaded because it comprises and develops the germ of every other. War is the parent of armies; from these proceed debts and taxes… known instruments for bringing the many under the domination of the few.”

We are seeing this play out before our eyes.

The government is destabilizing the economy, destroying the national infrastructure through neglect and a lack of resources, and turning taxpayer dollars into blood money with its endless wars, drone strikes and mounting death tolls.

Clearly, our national priorities are in desperate need of an overhauling.

At the height of its power, even the mighty Roman Empire could not stare down a collapsing economy and a burgeoning military. Prolonged periods of war and false economic prosperity largely led to its demise. As historian Chalmers Johnson predicts:

The fate of previous democratic empires suggests that such a conflict is unsustainable and will be resolved in one of two ways. Rome attempted to keep its empire and lost its democracy. Britain chose to remain democratic and in the process let go its empire. Intentionally or not, the people of the United States already are well embarked upon the course of non-democratic empire.

This is the “unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex” that President Dwight Eisenhower warned us more than 50 years ago not to let endanger our liberties or democratic processes.

Eisenhower, who served as Supreme Commander of the Allied forces in Europe during World War II, was alarmed by the rise of the profit-driven war machine that emerged following the war—one that, in order to perpetuate itself, would have to keep waging war.

We failed to heed his warning.

As I make clear in my book Battlefield America: The War on the American People and in its fictional counterpart The Erik Blair Diaries, war is the enemy of freedom.

As long as America’s politicians continue to involve us in wars that bankrupt the nation, jeopardize our servicemen and women, increase the chances of terrorism and blowback domestically, and push the nation that much closer to eventual collapse, “we the people” will find ourselves in a perpetual state of tyranny.

*

Note to readers: Please click the share buttons above. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

This article was originally published on The Rutherford Institute.

Constitutional attorney and author John W. Whitehead is founder and president of The Rutherford Institute. His most recent books are the best-selling Battlefield America: The War on the American People, the award-winning A Government of Wolves: The Emerging American Police State, and a debut dystopian fiction novel, The Erik Blair Diaries. Whitehead can be contacted at [email protected].

Nisha Whitehead is the Executive Director of The Rutherford Institute. Information about The Rutherford Institute is available at www.rutherford.org.

They are regular contributors to Global Research.

Featured image is from InfoBrics

All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the Translate Website button below the author’s name (desktop version)

To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.

Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

***

Reports are circulating on Twitter with claims the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) changed its guidelines on vinyl chloride days before the toxic release of chemicals in East Palestine, Ohio. But the reality is that the CDC was not the only agency involved, and the timing of the changes is in question.

The Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), and CDC worked together in a coordinated effort to alter vinyl chloride’s toxicity guidelines shortly before and after the train derailment in Ohio that released 1.1 million pounds of toxic chemicals into the air, soil and water to make the chemical look less harmful.

In addition, just three months ago, East Palestine adopted a pilot program to respond to emergency events where digital IDs were given to residents to track long-term health problems like “difficulty breathing.”

Timeline: (1) HHS and the CDC, in coordination with the EPA, publish an update to the vinyl chloride toxicity profile in January 2023 for the first time in 17 years. (2) Digital IDs on Jan. 26 are rolled out to East Palestine and a nearby township. (3) Train derails on Feb. 3 in East Palestine, Ohio, and a million pounds of highly toxic and potentially lethal vinyl chloride are released into the environment. (4) CDC alters its webpage on or around Feb. 6, 2023, on vinyl chloride, omitting key sections on toxicity. This webpage had not been reviewed for nine years. (5) Health and environmental officials deem the area safe. (6) Lawsuits are filed.

HHS, in January 2023, published a 293-page document called “Toxicological Profile of Vinyl Chloride,” which was prepared in accordance with guidelines developed by the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR) and the EPA.

The original guidelines on vinyl chloride were published in the Federal Register in August 1989 and were (prior to Jan. 2023) most recently updated in 2006. So for 17 years, the toxicological profile of vinyl chloride had not been altered.

According to HHS, the ATSDR peer-reviewed toxicological profile of vinyl chloride “succinctly characterizes” its toxicologic and adverse health effects—and identifies available toxicological information, epidemiologic evaluations and the level of exposure that presents a significant risk to human health.

ATSDR toxicological guidelines are published by the CDC under the auspices of HHS and drafted in coordination with the EPA.

The CDC’s FAQ webpage for vinyl chloride was recently modified as well. An archived version captured three days after the East Palestine train derailment shows a longer, more detailed FAQ section on vinyl chloride that included a section on the dangers of the chemical in children, recommendations made by the federal government to protect human health and a lower level of lethal exposure.

A current version of the same webpage omits this information, expands the level of human exposure (meaning you can suddenly be exposed to more of a highly toxic substance before you experience detrimental effects and includes a laughable new section on how to protect yourself and your family from vinyl chloride.

Here is a screenshot of the Feb. 6, 2023, archived version of the CDC’s FAQ webpage on vinyl chloride captured three days after the East Palestine train derailment. Notice on the right-hand side of the page it includes the sections “How can vinyl chloride affect children?” and “Has the federal government made recommendations to protect human health?”

When you select “How can vinyl chloride affect children?” you get the following now-deleted information:

Here is the CDC’s current webpage at the same URL, showing the sections on the hazardous effects of vinyl chloride in children and federal government recommendations have been deleted:

Here’s the archived webpage version of the now-deleted section, “Has the federal government made recommendations to protect human health?” Note this section states that the “Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) has set a limit of 1 part vinyl chloride per 1 million parts of air (1 ppm) in the workplace.”

Here is the current version of the same webpage where the section is entirely removed. Inserted instead are the CDC’s ridiculous recommendations for protecting yourself from toxic vinyl chloride, namely, avoiding tobacco smoke.

At the bottom of the archived Feb. 6, 2023, CDC webpage, it says the agency last reviewed this page on August 28, 2014. This is classic CDC behavior. For nine years, nobody touched this page. As soon as people started pointing out how toxic vinyl chloride is, began reporting health effects and the real media picked it up, the CDC snuck in to review the page to remove incriminating information. Sound familiar?

According to the National Cancer Institute, vinyl chloride is a gas used to make polyvinyl chloride (PVC) hard plastic resin in plastic products and is associated with an increased risk of cancer. The gas is highly toxic and even lethal if inhaled.

According to HHS, vinyl chloride is a known human carcinogen. The EPA classifies vinyl chloride as a human carcinogen when inhaled, yet claimed the air in East Palestine was safe to breathe just days after the incident and water with visible chemical toxicity was safe.

As if this story didn’t have enough twists already, it was recently revealed that days before the incident, the Morning Journal reported the East Palestine Fire Department was “hosting a sign-up event” for a service called MyID targeting both East Palestine and a nearby township.

Robert Runnion, a councilman, said he hoped people in the community would take advantage of the new service.

“MyID is a program that helps first responders aid victims more effectively and efficiently,” Runnion said.

The MyID company claims to be a “comprehensive medical ID solution that provides an easy way to access, store and manage your health information” through bracelets, tags, stickers, and wallet cards with a QR code that can be scanned to access your online health information in a few seconds.

The MyID app displays your diagnosis, personal information, emergency contacts, allergies, medications and medical providers.

How ironic.

According to WKBN27 news, the MyID plan was months in the making. In October 2022, it ran an “advertorial” of the MyID rollout in East Palestine. Here is the introductory paragraph:

“East Palestine is known as ‘The Place to Be.’ It’s way ahead of the curve on a program to provide better treatment for anyone in the event of an emergency. We learned how it works and how it could help everyone in East Palestine.”

In a follow-up Jan. 26 article published by WKBN27, East Palestine fire chief Keith Drabick stated, “We’re not doing this to gain anybody’s information, to try and steal anybody’s information. We’re doing this to help the public in medical emergencies.”

Drabick continued, “Anybody that skeptical? Please come on down. Sit down, and talk to us. We’ll be happy to show you everything that goes on with it. We’ll be happy to show you how secure it is.”

Interesting how the fire department—which people typically have great trust in—was used to promote this invasive digital ID system.

Regardless of the timeline of events, the CDC’s manipulation of its webpage is highly suspicious. The agency either knew an event like this would happen or scrubbed its page after the fact to cover up a devastating environmental catastrophe and shield itself, HHS, the EPA and the train company from liability.

What is clear is that the CDC is again lying to the American people to downplay the harmful and potentially lethal effects of vinyl chloride. This sounds eerily familiar.

*

Note to readers: Please click the share buttons above. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

Featured image is from the author

Birth Rates Plunge in Heavily Vaccinated Countries

February 22nd, 2023 by Dr. Colleen Huber

All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the Translate Website button below the author’s name (desktop version)

To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.

Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

***

Vital Statistics – Hidden Data

Since the beginning of COVID, vital statistics as reported by governments around the world are hard to come by. Spotty availability hinders analysis and understanding.

For example, even today in the United States, Massachusetts and New York, Illinois and Washington are four of the states that, at this writing, have not updated births data since 2019 [1] and 2020. [2] [3] [4]

Nineteen European Countries

By August 2022, Raimond Hagemann, Ulf Lorré and Dr. Hans-Joachim Kremer had compiled data on birth rate changes in 19 European countries and produced an extremely important paper. [5]  In country after country, the inflection point of reduced births is consistently at the end of the year 2021.  This was nine months after the spring zeitgeist to take the COVID vaccines.  Germany, Austria, Switzerland, France, Belgium, Netherlands, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, Latvia, Lithuania, Sweden, Portugal, Spain, Czech Republic, Hungary, Poland, Romania and Slovenia, as well as Iceland, Northern Ireland, Montenegro, Serbia, all show this pattern.  Nine months after peak vaccine uptake, the births decline.

From Hagemann, et al. Danish data:

The corresponding graph for each of the 19 countries has a similar pattern: peak uptake of COVID vaccines in spring of 2021, followed by precipitous birthrate declines beginning nine months later.

All of the nineteen countries studied saw accelerating declines in births in 2022, beginning at nine months after peak COVID vaccine uptake.  Note the small p values in the following table, favoring temporal association of the two events. This in turn, supports the Bradford Hill temporality criterion regarding causation of infertility, rather than highly coincidental correlation between peak vaccination in spring of 2021 and sharply declining birth rates nine months later.

Sweden

Data analyst Gato Malo has noted, as have others, that too many countries are locking their vital statistics data away from public view, which pre-empts any valid analysis.  Occasional glimpses are available.

Looking at Sweden, he found that if he overlaid month-to-month change in births, he found that the strong dip in births beginning at November – December 2021 lines up very tightly with the percentage of people who were unvaccinated 9 months earlier. [6] This was consistent with the Hagemann, et al findings. And births in Sweden have not yet shown signs of recovery from this decline.

UK

At a similar time as in the above countries, we see births decline in the UK.  After December 2021, the number of women giving birth is no longer in the forty thousands, but now crosses down into the thirty thousands, and stays there. [7] See the column “Women giving birth.”

From Gov.UK:

Comparing year-over-year decline, we might write this mean decline from the first two quarters of 2021 to the first two quarters of 2022, where b is births, as (Σ b1, 2021…b6, 2021) – (Σ b1, 2022…b6, 2022) = 256,785 – 227,302 = 29,483.  This is a deficit of 4,913 births per month in the UK.  Similarly to Sweden, the inflection point of decline is at a 9-11 month point following the months of peak vaccine uptake in the UK. [8]

From Johns Hopkins University, Our World In Data, peak vaccine uptake in the UK was in the first quarter of 2021:

Switzerland

Switzerland saw its largest drop in birth rates in 150 years, more than in each of the two World Wars, the Great Depression and even the introduction of widely used oral contraceptives. [9]

Why Is This Happening?

Naomi Wolf explored menstrual irregularities reported following COVID vaccination, and even following contact with COVID-vaccinated people. As the first to discuss these problems publicly, and to gather data online from women who were experiencing these menstrual changes, she was criticized and censored on social media. Her Daily Clout organization led a team of over 3,000 researchers, including Pierre Kory MD, to dissect the documents released by Pfizer / FDA under court order regarding clinical outcomes of the 44,000-person clinical trial of the Pfizer COVID vaccines. The Daily Clout team summarized their findings in their book on Kindle: Pfizer Documents Analysis Reports. [10]

They report Pfizer’s findings of overwhelming injuries in their experimental group.  Of the 22,000 individuals who had received the Pfizer vaccine, “Pfizer could not determine the outcome in over 20,000 people reporting vaccine injuries.” [11]

The Daily Clout team explores in their book topics related to the COVID vaccines’ impacts on male and female fertility.  As their team traced the data reported by Pfizer, it was found that 270 of the pregnant women in the Pfizer trial reported a vaccine injury.  “ . . . but Pfizer only followed 32 of them and 28 of their babies died.  This is a shocking 87.5% fetal death rate.” [12]

Pfizer logged over 158,000 separate adverse events during that clinical trial, under 1290 different types of adverse events, an enormous compendium of human suffering, as partially imaged below from the first part of the letter A. [13]

From Pfizer Worldwide Safety:

Wolf’s team notes that “If Pfizer had a TV commercial for its COVID vaccine listing the 158,893 adverse events reported in the first 12 weeks, the announcer would be reading them for more than 80 consecutive hours.” [14]

Even this exhaustive list could not be complete, because Pfizer could not account for outcomes of 22% of participants.  Pfizer does list 11,361 of the patients as “not recovered” at the time of their report. [15] This is 51.6% of their experimental group “not recovered” from adverse events.

No liquid will ‘just stay in the shoulder / arm.’

We have known, and Pfizer has confessed to, the transmission of spike proteins from one person to another by skin contact and exhalation.  I cite and discuss that in the context of one adult to another in a community setting. [16]

Adverse effects on vaccinated breastfeeding mothers and their babies included a range of vomiting, fever, rash, partial paralysis, blue-green discolored breast milk and other side effects.

Not surprisingly, the injected vaccine liquid passes from mother to nursing infant as well, in accordance with long established physics principles of dispersal and diffusion of liquid introduced into a semi-solid (55-60% water) body, as well as centuries of basic, undisputed physiology and circulation of blood and lymph:  Liquids introduced into the body diffuse throughout the body, as always.  This has also been known of lipid nanoparticle (LNP) delivery of medication since its first development, that it, of course, enters the circulation. Those who alleged – and those who believed – that a liquid injection would “stay in the arm” had not even a junior high school student’s grasp of basic biology or physics.

But Pfizer knew.  It advised male participants in the trial to avoid sexual contact with women of childbearing age or to use condoms.

Here is an overview of the impact of lipid nanoparticle (LNP)-delivered substances to human male and female reproductive organs. [17]

from R Wang, B Song, et al. Potential adverse effects of nanoparticles

Male Infertility and the COVID Vaccines

mRNA vaccine ingredients are observed to disperse throughout the body, collecting in the testes, among other organs. [18] An adverse event of note in Pfizer’s list of 1290 such events post-vaccination is “anti-sperm antibodies.”

From Pfizer Worldwide Safety:

An Israeli study later confirmed damage to sperm, both in total numbers and motility, from the Pfizer vaccine. [19]

The word “temporarily” in the title is misleading, because the researchers assumed sperm would recover after their three-months study period, although they ended their observation at that time.  And they did not show any evidence that sperm did actually recover.  So their word “temporarily” is so far unverified.

Pfizer did not test for male reproductive toxicity, [20] nor for the adverse effects that may be transmitted by vaccinated mens’ semen on their children’s development.

One might think that male reproductive effects would have been tested for in Pfizer’s trial on rats.  However, only the female rats were vaccinated; the males ones were not. [21]  When Pfizer pronounced the male rats’ reproductive organs free of toxicity, they neglected to emphasize the earlier fine print:  male rats had not been vaccinated at all.

But Pfizer did instruct human male study participants to avoid intercourse or to use a condom.

Harm caused by lipid nanoparticles (LNPs) to male reproductive organs and ability had already been established years earlier.  As seen in this 2018 study, such organs were known to be vulnerable to toxic influences from LNPs. [22]  Besides lowered sperm counts and motility, researchers have found “folded amorphous spermatozoa, cells lacking or showing a small hook, and cells with undulating or elongated heads were the most frequent abnormalities found.” [23]

Moreover, toxic chemicals, such as phthalates and other endocrine disruptors, [24]were already abundant in the environment prior to the COVID vaccines.  These have likely contributed to declining sperm number and quality for a half-century, [25] in which sperm counts have been dropping by about 1% per year since 1972. [26]

However, the COVID vaccines are making spermatogenesis even more rare.  The problem is that most of the male reproductive cells, including spermatogonia and spermatozoa, express ACE-2, which is what spike proteins use for entry into human cells.  Just as happens in blood vessels throughout the body, the spike protein arrival at the ACE-2 receptors was found to damage not only sperm, but also the blood-testis barrier, and to contribute to orchitis.   At day 150, sperm concentration was 15.9% below baseline, below even the 75 to 120 day period, and had not begun to recover by the end of the study.[27]

Female Infertility and the COVID Vaccines

The World Health Organization (WHO) had long taken an interest in “anti-fertility vaccines” and “fertility regulating vaccines,” as they wrote in 1992. “Chorionic gonadotropin is the one antigen that fulfils criteria for an ideal contraceptive vaccine.” [Emphasis mine.] [28]

Fetal death was so rampant among COVID-vaccinated pregnant women observed by the CDC in the V-Safe Surveillance System [29] that I compared the miscarriage rate to the ‘morning-after pill’ in abortive effect of those pregnancies for which outcomes were reported. [30]  That is, between 80 to 90% abortive effect.  This is comparable to what the Naomi Wolf / Daily Clout team found, 87.5%, as referenced above. However, that V-Safe data had been released too early for accurate tally of all pregnancy outcomes, simply because it included women still in their first two trimesters.

This paper examines the cohort of pregnant women in the second half (second 20 weeks) of their pregnancies. [31]  However, it seems to be flawed by missing data. [32]

Miscarriages also show a dose-dependent response.  The Pfizer vaccine is a 30 mcg dose and the Moderna vaccine is a 100 mcg dose. At an October 2022 CDC expert committee meeting (ACIP), the following data were presented:

12,751 women took the Pfizer vaccine, and 8,365 women took the Moderna vaccine.  422 Pfizer-vaccinated women, that is 3% of the Pfizer total, miscarried (lost their pregnancy by 20 weeks gestation), and 395 of the Moderna-vaccinated women, that is 4.7% of the Moderna total, miscarried. [33]

CDC.  COVID-19 in pregnant people and infants ages 0-5 months.

So this means that 42% more of the Moderna group miscarried than the Pfizer group.  This large percentage difference in such large cohorts (in the thousands of participants) supports a dose-response relationship of the COVID mRNA vaccine with miscarriage, worsened with the more potent dosing. This dose-response is another of the Bradford Hill criteria to establish cause and effect.

The documents that Pfizer sought to have concealed for 75 years, but instead was forced to release by court order, reveal the 1290 types of adverse events, and the more than 158,000 total adverse events, noted above.

Also revealed in the same documents was that Pfizer excluded 21 groups of people from their trials, including “women who are pregnant or breastfeeding.”  [34]  Although pregnant women were excluded from these clinical trials, the American College of Obstetrics & Gynecology (ACOG) urged pregnant women to get vaccinated, even while acknowledging that “none of the COVID-19 vaccines approved under EUA have been tested in pregnant individuals.” [35]  The vaccines had been tested on 44 pregnant rats over 6 weeks, as required by protocols of Developmental and Reproductive Toxicity (DART) studies, but they had not been tested on pregnant women.  Ill effects were not reported from the rat study. [36]  However, nine of the ten study authors were employed by and held stock in Pfizer or BioNTech companies, as acknowledged in small print at the end of the article.  Therefore, a highly-conflicted study of only 44 rats, studied over six weeks, was the sole research basis for the obstetric profession to urge pregnant women to be vaccinated.

Pfizer’s reporting of women in the trials who became pregnant following vaccination found 413 pregnant women, of whom 270 cases were considered to be serious and 146 to be non-serious.  The serious cases included “spontaneous abortion (23), outcome pending (5) premature firth with neonatal death, spontaneous abortion with intrauterine death (2 each), spontaneous abortion with neonatal death, and normal outcome (1 each).  No outcome was provided for 238 pregnancies.” [37] A problem with the short 12 week trial is that nearly all of these new pregnancies were apparently in early gestation, first trimester, at trial end.

The Daily Clout research team determined after examining and comparing miscarriages following various vaccines over time, “If you are pregnant, you are more likely to lose your baby in a miscarriage if you receive a COVID-19 vaccine than if you receive measles, mumps, flu, tetanus, or any other vaccine.” [38] They found from the US government’s Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) that in VAERS’ 30-year history, through March 2022, a total of 4,693 had experienced miscarriage in all those years. 4,505 of those had received a single vaccine.  3,430 of those miscarriages were in women whose vaccinations included a COVID vaccine.  Sixteen of those 3,430 had also received another vaccine near that time.  So 3,430 – 16 = 3,414 miscarriages were after the COVID vaccine alone.  Compare this number with 4,505 for all single vaccines over the 30-year history of VAERS.  Therefore, 3,414 / 4,505 = 76% of all miscarriages ever reported to VAERS occurred after the COVID vaccines, during the short time that they have been in use, December 2020 through March 2022.

Since at least 2010, it has been known that nano-particles were hazardous to the ovaries and to fertility generally, and bioaccumulation has been known. [39] [40]

In the case of spike proteins, it comes as no surprise that the ACE-2 receptor is the port of entry for spike proteins to gain access to ovarian cells, both granulosa and cumulus cells. [41] These are the ovarian cells that support the development of oocytes.

Congenital malformations

The US Defense Medical Epidemiology Database System (DMED) [42] is the largest database of health statistics of the generally young, healthy and fit military population.  That is until military service members were forced to take the COVID vaccines or to be dishonorably discharged, with loss of benefits.  Few if any religious exemptions were permitted.

The DMED database reported, when comparing 2021 to 2020, a 419% increase in female infertility reports, a 320% increase in male infertility reports and an 87% increase in congenital malformations.  The report shows a mean baseline rate of 10,906 cases per year, 2016 to 2020.  Then part of 2021, not even the full year, showed 18,951 such cases. [43] This is a 74% increase over the 2016 to 2020 mean.

Prevention is massively easier than cure.  Avoiding toxins such as LNPs, especially those that generate spike protein, such as the mRNA vaccines, is a necessary first step.  Let’s hope that the coming years show the fertility crisis for both males and females to be reversible, as we learn how that may be accomplished.

*

Note to readers: Please click the share buttons above. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

Notes

[1] Annual Massachusetts Birth Reports. Screenshot taken Jan 27 2023.  Mass.gov. https://www.mass.gov/lists/annual-massachusetts-birth-reports

[2] New York State Dept of Health. Vital statistics of New York State.  Screenshot taken Jan 27 2023.  NY.gov. https://www.health.ny.gov/statistics/vital_statistics/vs_reports_tables_list.htm

[3] Birth Statistics. Screenshot taken Jan 27 2023.  Illinois.gov. https://dph.illinois.gov/data-statistics/vital-statistics/birth-statistics.html

[4] Washington State Dept of Health.  All births dashboard – ACH.  Screenshot taken Jan 27 2023.  WA.gov.  https://doh.wa.gov/data-statistical-reports/washington-tracking-network-wtn/birth-outcomes/ach-all-births-dashboard-0

[5]  R Hagemann, U Lorré, et al. [Decline in birth rates in Europe; in German]. Aug 25 2022. Aletheia Scimed. https://www.aletheia-scimed.ch/wp-content/uploads/2022/08/Geburtenrueckgang-Europe-DE_25082022_2.pdf

[6] El gato malo.  Swedish birthrate data: November update.  Jan 25 2023.  Substack. 

[7] UK Health Security Agency.  COVID-19 vaccine surveillance report. Week 5. Feb 2 2023.  P. 18. https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/1134076/vaccine-surveillance-report-week-5-2023.pdf

[8] Johns Hopkins University.  Our World in Data.  Daily number of people receiving a first COVID-19 vaccine, UK. https://ourworldindata.org/covid-vaccinations

[9] K Beck. Analysis of a possible connection between the COVID =19 vaccination and the fall in the birth rate in Switzerland in 2022.  Sep 22 2022.  Univ of Lucerne.  Quoted in R Chandler, Report 52: Nine months post-COVID mRNA “vaccine” rollout, substantial birth rate drops in 13 European countries, England/Wales, Australia and Taiwan.  Jan 16 2023.  Daily Clout. https://dailyclout.io/report-52-nine-months-post-covid-mrna-vaccine-rollout-substantial-birth-rate-drops/

[10] A. Kelly, War Room / Daily Clout.  Pfizer Documents Analysis Volunteers’ Reports eBook. https://www.amazon.com/DailyClout-Documents-Analysis-Volunteers-Reports-ebook/dp/B0BSK6LV5D/

[11] Ibid, p 10.

[12] Ibid, p 10.

[13] Pfizer Worldwide Safety.  5.3.6 Cumulative analysis of post-authorization adverse event reports of PF-07302048 (BNT162B2) received through 28 Feb 2021.  Appendix 1: List of adverse events of special interest.   Pp 30-38. https://phmpt.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/11/5.3.6-postmarketing-experience.pdf

[14] A. Kelly, War Room / Daily Clout p 14. https://www.amazon.com/DailyClout-Documents-Analysis-Volunteers-Reports-ebook/dp/B0BSK6LV5D/

[15] Pfizer Worldwide Safety, Table 1, p 7. https://phmpt.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/11/5.3.6-postmarketing-experience.pdf

[16] C Huber.  Secondary vaccine effects. Feb 9 2022.   The Defeat Of COVID Substack.

[17] R Wang, B Song, et al.  Potential adverse effects of nanoparticles on the reproductive system.  Dec 11 2018.  Int J Nanomedicine.  https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6294055/

[18] Acuitas Therapeutics, Inc.  A Tissue distribution study of a [3-H]-labelled lipid nanoparticle-mRNA formulation containing ALC-0315 and ALC-0159 following intramuscular administration in Wistar Han rats. Nov 9 2021. p. 24.  https://www.phmpt.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/03/125742_S1_M4_4223_185350.pdf

[19] I Gat, A Kedem, et al.  COVID-19 vaccination GNT162b2 temporarily impairs semen concentration and total motile count among semen donors.  Jun 17 2022. Andrology.  https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/andr.13209

[20] Gov.UK.  Summary of the public assessment report for COVID-19 vaccine Pfizer/BioNTech.  Jan 6 2023 update.  https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/regulatory-approval-of-pfizer-biontech-vaccine-for-covid-19/summary-public-assessment-report-for-pfizerbiontech-covid-19-vaccine

[21] Acuitas Therapeutics, Inc.  A Tissue distribution study of a [3-H]-labelled lipid nanoparticle-mRNA formulation containing ALC-0315 and ALC-0159 following intramuscular administration in Wistar Han rats. Nov 9 2021. p. 29.  https://www.phmpt.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/03/125742_S1_M4_4223_185350.pdf

[22] R Wang, B Song, et al.  Potential adverse effects of nanoparticles on the reproductive system.  Dec 11 2018.  Int J Nanomedicine.  https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6294055/

[23] Ibid. Wang.

[24] R Sumner, M Tomlinson, et al. Independent and combined effects of diethylhexyl phthalate and polychlorinated biphenyl 153 on sperm quality in the human and dog.  Mar 4 2019.  https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-019-39913-9

[25] E Carlsen, A Givercman, et al.  Evidence for decreasing quality of semen during past 50 years.  Sep 12 1992.  BMJ.  https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/1393072/

[26] H Levine, N Jorgensen, et al.  Temporal trends in sperm count: a systematic review and meta-regression analysis of samples collected globally in the 20th and 21stcenturies.  Nov 15 2022.  Oxford: Human Reproduction Update.  https://academic.oup.com/humupd/advance-article/doi/10.1093/humupd/dmac035/6824414?login=false

[27] I Gat, A Kedem, et al.  COVID-19 vaccination GNT162b2 temporarily impairs semen concentration and total motile count among semen donors.  Jun 17 2022. Andrology. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/andr.13209

[28] World Health Organization.  Fertility regulating vaccines.  Aug 17-18 1992.  Geneva.  https://drive.google.com/file/d/1FKMhagpd6bRZJ8la96bgH7UwQ8CmFNnI/view

[29] T Shimabukuro, S Kim, et al.  Preliminary findings of mRNA COVID-19 vaccines safety in pregnant persons.  Jun 17 2021.  NEJM.  https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa2104983

[30] C Huber.  COVID vaccines may rival or exceed ‘the morning-after pill’ in abortion efficacy.  Aug 2021.  The Defeat of COVID Substack. 

[31] L Zauche, B Wallace, et al.  Receipt of mRNA COVID-19 vaccine and risk of spontaneous abortion.  Se 8 2021.  NEJM.  https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8451181/

[32] Arkmedic.  The curious case of the miscalculated miscarriages. Sep 14 2021.  Substsack. 

[33] CDC.  COVID-19 in pregnant people and infants ages 0-5 months. Slide 32. https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/acip/meetings/downloads/slides-2022-10-19-20/02-03-04-COVID-Ellington-Kharbanda-Olson-Fleming-Dutra-508.pdf

[34] Pfizer Worldwide Safety.  Annotated book for study design. Exclusion number 2.h, 11. p 33.  https://phmpt.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/04/125742_S1_M5_5351_c4591001-fa-interim-sample-crf.pdf

[35] American College of Obstetrics and Gynecology.COVID-19 vaccination considerations for obstetric-gynecologic care.  Dec 2020. https://www.acog.org/cllnical/clinical-guidance/practice-advisory/articles/2020/12/covid-19-vaccinations-considerations-for-obstetric-gynecologic-care

[36] C Bowman, M Bouressam, et al.  Lack of effects on female fertility and prenatal and postnatal offspring development in rats with BNT162b2, a mRNA-based COVID-19 vaccine.  Aug 2021.  Reprod Toxicol. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34058573/

[37] Pfizer Worldwide Safety, Table 6, p 12. https://phmpt.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/11/5.3.6-postmarketing-experience.pdf

[38] A. Kelly, War Room / Daily Clout. https://www.amazon.com/DailyClout-Documents-Analysis-Volunteers-Reports-ebook/dp/B0BSK6LV5D/

[39] A Schadlich, S Hoffman, et al.  Accumulation of nanocarriers in the ovary: A neglected toxicity risk?  May 30 2012.  J Contr Release.  160 (1), PP 105-112.  https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0168365912000892?

[40] M Ajdary, F Keyhanfar, et al.  P{otential toxicity of nanoparticles on the reproductive system animal models: A review.  Nov 2021.  J Reprod Immun.  148. 103384. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0165037821001145

[41] F Luongo, F Dragoni, et al.  SARS-CoV-2 infection of human ovarian cells:  A potential negative impact on female fertility.  Apr 23 2022.  Cell.  https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9105548/pdf/cells-11-01431.pdf

[42] Health.mil.  Defense Medical Epidemiology Database (DMED).  https://health.mil/Military-Health-Topics/Health-Readiness/AFHSD/Data-Management-and-Technical-Support/Defense-Medical-Epidemiology-Database

[43] A. Kelly, War Room / Daily Clout p 91.. https://www.amazon.com/DailyClout-Documents-Analysis-Volunteers-Reports-ebook/dp/B0BSK6LV5D/

Featured image is from NaturalNews.com


The Worldwide Corona Crisis, Global Coup d’Etat Against Humanity

by Michel Chossudovsky

Michel Chossudovsky reviews in detail how this insidious project “destroys people’s lives”. He provides a comprehensive analysis of everything you need to know about the “pandemic” — from the medical dimensions to the economic and social repercussions, political underpinnings, and mental and psychological impacts.

“My objective as an author is to inform people worldwide and refute the official narrative which has been used as a justification to destabilize the economic and social fabric of entire countries, followed by the imposition of the “deadly” COVID-19 “vaccine”. This crisis affects humanity in its entirety: almost 8 billion people. We stand in solidarity with our fellow human beings and our children worldwide. Truth is a powerful instrument.”

ISBN: 978-0-9879389-3-0,  Year: 2022,  PDF Ebook,  Pages: 164, 15 Chapters

Price: $11.50 Get yours for FREE! Click here to download.

We encourage you to support the eBook project by making a donation through Global Research’s DonorBox “Worldwide Corona Crisis” Campaign Page

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Birth Rates Plunge in Heavily Vaccinated Countries

All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the Translate Website button below the author’s name (desktop version)

To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.

Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

***

An investigation published Monday revealed that just weeks before a Norfolk Southern-owned train overloaded with hazardous materials derailed and caused a toxic chemical fire in East Palestine, Ohio, the rail giant donated $10,000—the maximum amount allowed—to help fund the inauguration of the state’s Republican Gov. Mike DeWine.

According to WSYX, the Columbus-based news outlet that conducted the investigation,

“This contribution, which is part of $29,000 the Virginia-based corporation has contributed to DeWine’s political funds since he first ran for governor in 2018, is merely one piece of an extensive, ongoing effort to influence statewide officials and Ohio lawmakers.”

“In all, the railway company has contributed about $98,000 during the past six years to Ohio statewide and legislative candidates, according to data from the secretary of state,” WSYX reported. “Virtually all went to Republicans, although Norfolk Southern hedged its support for DeWine in 2018 with a $3,000 check to Democratic gubernatorial candidate Richard Cordray.”

In addition to shelling out loads of campaign cash, Norfolk Southern has also extensively lobbied DeWine, statewide officials, and Ohio lawmakers.

Quarterly reports disclosing the company’s lobbying activities show that DeWine and other statewide officials were targeted 39 times over the past six years, while Ohio lawmakers were targeted 167 times during the same time period.

“Most of the disclosed attempts to influence Ohio leaders came on generic rail or transportation issues,” WSYX reported. “Some efforts, however, were devoted to defeating legislation that would have established tougher safety standards for rail yards and train operations.”

River Valley Organizing, a local progressive group, declared on social media that “this is what we’re up against.”

Norfolk Southern’s successful bid to thwart at least one Ohio bill aimed at improving railroad safety—explained in depth by the local news outlet—mirrors the company’s triumphant campaign to weaken federal regulations.

Before dozens of its train cars careened off the tracks and burst into flames in East Palestine on February 3—leading to the discharge of vinyl chloride and other carcinogenic chemicals—Norfolk Southern “helped kill a federal safety rule aimed at upgrading the rail industry’s Civil War-era braking systems,” The Lever reported earlier this month.

U.S. Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg, who has been criticized by progressive advocacy groups and lawmakers for his lackluster response to the crisis in East Palestine, sent a letter to Norfolk Southern CEO Alan Shaw on Sunday stating that the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) is investigating the cause of the derailment and that the Federal Railroad Administration is examining whether safety violations occurred and intends to hold Norfolk Southern accountable if they did.

Buttigieg insisted that the company “demonstrate unequivocal support” for the poor rural town’s roughly 4,700 residents as well as the populations of surrounding areas potentially affected by air and groundwater contamination.

“Norfolk Southern must live up to its commitment to make residents whole—and must also live up to its obligation to do whatever it takes to stop putting communities such as East Palestine at risk,” the transportation secretary wrote. “This is the right time for Norfolk Southern to take a leadership position within the rail industry, shifting to a posture that focuses on supporting, not thwarting, efforts to raise the standard of U.S. rail safety regulation.”

As The Associated Press reported Monday:

Buttigieg also said that Norfolk Southern and other rail companies “spent millions of dollars in the courts and lobbying members of Congress to oppose commonsense safety regulations, stopping some entirely and reducing the scope of others.” He said the effort undermined rules on brake requirements and delayed the phase-in for more durable rail cars to transport hazardous material to 2029, instead of the “originally envisioned date of 2025.”

The transportation secretary said the results of the investigation are not yet known, but “we do know that these steps that Norfolk Southern and its peers lobbied against were intended to improve rail safety and to help keep Americans safe.”

Nevertheless, as The Lever reported earlier this month, Buttigieg is actively considering an industry-backed proposal to further erode federal oversight of train braking systems.

The outlet has published an open letter urging Buttigieg “to rectify the multiple regulatory failures that preceded this horrific situation,” including by exercising his authority to reinstate the rail safety rules rescinded by the Trump administration at the behest of industry lobbyists.

The full environmental and public health consequences of the ongoing East Palestine disaster are still coming into view, as residents question the validity of initial water testing paid for by Norfolk Southern.

Despite state officials’ claims that air and water in the area remain safe, thousands of fish have died in polluted local waterways and people in the vicinity of the derailment have reported headaches, eye irritation, and other symptoms.

Just days after his company skipped a town hall meeting, Shaw visited East Palestine on Saturday and said that “we are here and will stay here for as long as it takes to ensure your safety.”

Norfolk Southern, which reported record-breaking operating revenues of $12.7 billion in 2022, originally offered to donate just $25,000 to help affected residents—an amount equivalent to about $5 per person—but recently announced the creation of a $1 million charitable fund instead.

Lawmakers in Ohio “are now scrambling to make sure the railroad is held accountable,” WSYX reported. “The House Homeland Security Committee is scheduled to hear ‘informal testimony’ Wednesday from Karen Huey, assistant director of the Ohio Department of Public Safety, and John Esterly, chairman of the Ohio State Legislative Board with the Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers.”

In Washington, U.S. Senate Commerce Committee Chair Maria Cantwell (D-Wash.) on Friday requested information regarding the handling of hazardous materials from the CEOs of several large rail corporations, including Norfolk Southern.

“Over the past five years, the Class I railroads have cut their workforce by nearly one-third, shuttered railyards where railcars are traditionally inspected, and are running longer and heavier trains,” Cantwell wrote. “Thousands of trains carrying hazardous materials, like the one that derailed in Ohio, travel through communities throughout the nation each day.”

Notably, Norfolk Southern announced a $10 billion stock buyback program last March. The company has routinely raised its dividend, rewarding shareholders while refusing to invest in safety upgrades or basic benefits such as paid sick leave.

Just days after he sent co-authored letters raising safety and health concerns to the NTSB and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, U.S. Sen. Sherrod Brown (D-Ohio) said during a Sunday appearance on CNN‘s “State of the Union” that Norfolk Southern is responsible for the East Palestine disaster, which he characterized as another chapter in “the same old story.”

“Corporations do stock buybacks, they do big dividend checks, they lay off workers,” said Brown. “Thousands of workers have been laid off from Norfolk Southern. Then they don’t invest in safety rules and safety regulation, and this kind of thing happens. That’s why people in East Palestine are so upset.”

“They know that corporate lobbyists have had far too much influence in our government and they see this as the result,” Brown continued. “These things are happening because these railroads are simply not investing the way they should in car safety and in the rail lines themselves.”

“Something’s wrong with corporate America and something’s wrong with Congress and administrations listening too much to corporate lobbyists,” he added. “And that’s got to change.”

Another Norfolk Southern train carrying hazardous materials crashed last week near Detroit, Michigan. Like Brown, union leaders and U.S. Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) have attributed the recent derailments to Wall Street-backed policies that prioritize profits over safety.

As David Sirota, Rebecca Burns, Julia Rock, and Matthew Cunningham-Cook of The Lever pointed out in a recent New York Times opinion piece, the U.S. is home to more than 1,000 train derailments per year and has seen a 36% increase in hazardous materials violations committed by rail carriers in the past five years.

The rail industry “tolerates too many preventable derailments and fights too many safety regulations,” the journalists wrote. “The federal government must move quickly to improve rail safety overall.”

An inter-union alliance of U.S. rail workers, meanwhile, has called on organized labor to back the nationalization of the country’s railroad system, arguing that “our nation can no longer afford private ownership of the railroads; the general welfare demands that they be brought under public ownership.”

From Common Dreams: Our work is licensed under Creative Commons (CC BY-NC-ND 3.0). Feel free to republish and share widely.

*

Note to readers: Please click the share buttons above. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

Kenny Stancil is a staff writer for Common Dreams.

Featured image: A derailed freight train is seen in East Palestine, Ohio. (Photo: NTSB/Handout via Xinhua)

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Investigation Shows Rail Giant Donated to Ohio Governor a Month Before Toxic Crash

All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the Translate Website button below the author’s name (desktop version)

To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.

Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

***

President Bashar Al-Assad on Thursday gave a speech on Syria TV about the repercussions of the earthquake that struck the country;

Following is the full text of the speech.

*

Brothers and sisters,

A homeland is a home, and its protection is a duty, regardless of the type and magnitude of the challenge, and regardless of the capabilities. This was the case since the first moments of the earthquake. This deep and overwhelming sense towards the homeland, our home, Syria, was felt by the one family inhabiting it, individuals and institutions. And there was this massive surge on the part of everyone to protect, save and help their brothers and sisters affected by the earthquake in Aleppo, Lattakia and Hama. This national patriotic and humanitarian scene is not surprising for any of us; for we have felt it at different turns of the war on Syria. But now, it is clearer and more comprehensive. More importantly, it is more expressive, for it comes after twelve years of war and embargo, with the accompanying death, sabotage and lack of resources on the national level.

However, despite the cruelty of all this, it has not changed the essence of our feeling and our thinking towards each other and towards the homeland, whether it is the land or the people inhabiting it, towards its concepts, customs and traditions.

If this war has exhausted and drained a lot of the national resources, and weakened the capabilities to face more crises, the war itself gave the Syrian society the expertise and the ability to act quickly and effectively in the early hours of the earthquake. The magnitude of the disaster and the tasks that we should all shoulder are much larger than the available capabilities. However, what our society, its individuals and institutions, was capable of doing was also much larger than the available capabilities. This was not only because of the war and the sanctions, but also because Syria has not been an earthquake area for about two and a half centuries. Neither the buildings nor the institutions nor the equipment were prepared for different types of natural disasters. This made it the first challenge of its kind, and the largest of its kind. Nothing compensated for those weaknesses except the quick and highly effective response of the government, civil-society organizations and individuals who volunteered in the rescue work, those who made in kind or financial donations, residents and expatriates. They have tried every possible way to break the embargo in order to provide every possible assistance to their disaster-affected brothers and sisters. This is in addition to the emergency aid sent by sisterly and friendly countries, which constituted a significant support for the national efforts to alleviate the impact of the earthquake and save many of the injured.

However, from the experiences of other countries in this area, earthquakes have immediate and long-term effects. What we shall face for months and years, in terms of economic, social and services challenges is no less important than what we faced during the first days. And it needs a lot of thinking, dialogue, solidarity and organization on the part of all national sectors. It is important not to look at the repercussions as a separate case related exclusively to the earthquake; for it is a cumulative case of war, terrorist sabotage, the embargo and its effects and of the earthquake recently. Added to this are faults that have accumulated in different sectors for decades before the war.

The scene might look complicated, and it might be difficult to categorize the reasons leading to each problem separately. But it might give us an opportunity to solve those accumulated problems in an interrelated manner. This means moving from addressing the negative aspects of the emergency conditions into the positive aspects of comprehensive treatment. And it means moving forward instead of standing fixed in facing crises. This cannot happen all at once, but in a prioritized manner depending on the available capabilities, and in stages. But what is important is having the vision based on a national consensus and a broad dialogue.

But even then, we need to continue dealing with the repercussions of the earthquake step by step. After completing the rescue stage, providing emergency shelters and the basic requirement in terms of food, clothes and medicine, which have been done so far. The relevant government institutions have started to provide temporary housing, until permanent housing is provided at a later stage.

Creating a fund for supporting the affected people is under study. The fund aims at supporting them until they become capable of restoring the different aspects of their life capabilities. This will happen after the damage is assessed, and criteria are drawn for the identification of those covered and the support provided. All this should be done in parallel with curbing economic decline which usually hits affected areas and impacts the national economy in general. The necessary legislation will be passed and measures taken in order to alleviate the economic burdens on their population and accelerate the economic cycle there. These have been started to be examined before being presented for discussion and taking the appropriate decisions in the next few days. There are also some other ideas which have been proposed recently and will be announced by the relevant institutions, after being properly examined, discussed and their feasibility ensured.

Brothers and sisters,

When societies suffer different kinds of earthquakes, geological, political, military, cultural, social or other kinds of violent tremors, they are bound to lose part of their stability, because their institutional and social controls are shaken. This includes laws, regulations, concepts, traditions and morals. This, in turn, gives rise to negative aspects already there, but have been latent or limited as a result of those controls.

Enthusiasm and vigor in treating these manifestations which appear on the surface are necessary in crises, provided they are based on wisdom and awareness, on facts not exaggeration and illusions. So, let’s look for the truth instead of promoting rumours which have eclipsed scenes of heroism, sacrifice, devotion, solidarity and the unlimited enthusiasm we have seen during the hours and days which followed the earthquake. For they will send messages of frustration to all those who have made that amazing and extraordinary patriotic scene, and promote instead an image at odds with the pure and honourable image we have drawn in the minds of others.

Is there an event, small or large, that can obscure the images of heroism projected by our national civil and military institutions, civil society, and individual volunteers involved in rescue work like a beehive, day and night? They are credited with all that has been achieved. They have born the homeland, with all its hopes and pain, in unlimited enthusiasm and forbearance and great sacrifice. They have embodied the homeland in all its beautiful meanings and noble values.

Was it this spontaneous popular surge to support the disaster-affected with a flood of good that suspended their poverty and need? It was a surge of activity and feeling which equaled the well-off, who gave without being asked, and the needy, who cut some of their limited resources and daily sustenance in order to help a disaster affected person. They have been a real and live model of morals in their noblest manifestations, patriotism in its deepest meanings and humanity in its most sublime attributes.

Can we ever forget those who have mobilized in order to defend the real image of our society in the different mass and social media, not allowing the distorted image that some people have been trying to market to affect our reputation as a society, and preventing that image from affecting its morals, solidarity and altruism, which is the highest value on the individual and collective levels?

There are many other stories and endless details, individuals, heroes, courageous and valiant persons who stand as role models for the present and guiding lights for the future.

For all those, residents and expatriates, who alleviated this painful tragedy with what they could, materially and morally, with something or with a word, we don’t say thank you, because loving one’s homeland, serving and defending it is a duty that does not require thanks, but we say to them: we are proud of you, and your homeland is proud of you.

In the midst of our pain and sadness for the victims, our pride in our compatriots, we should not omit to thank all the countries which have stood with us from the first hours of the disaster, our Arab brothers and our friends whose in kind and field assistance have made the greatest impact in strengthening our capabilities to face the difficult circumstances in those critical hours.

I would like to thank in particular the rescue teams from different countries which took active part in rescue operations and continued to work until the last moments of hope of finding a live person under the rubble. They conducted their work with the same enthusiasm and devotion as their Syrian colleagues. They were real brothers. So, on behalf of every Syrian, we thank them and are grateful to them.

Brothers and sisters,

All of us in this homeland, Muslims and Christians, believe in God; and believing in God means believing in God’s will. For us, God’s will is a destiny which brings us things we like and things we dislike. If we are not in a position to comprehend God’s wisdom in the calamities and graces which befall us, and their reasons, we are certainly in a position to learn the lessons from them. The first and most important thing which we should learn from this tough experience, now that we have been able, together, with all parts of our spectrum and sectors, to overcome our circumstances and limited capabilities, is to believe in our own tremendous capabilities, and to believe that our solidarity enables us to do it and that our fragmentation stifles it.

So, let’s believe in God, believe in our homeland, in the will capable of making miracles when we possess it, in order for Syria to remain proud of its people, strong in its history, rich in its dignity, capable in its will.

May God grant His mercy to our missed ones and healing to our wounded. May God protect Syria and its people from all harm.

Thank you…

*

Note to readers: Please click the share buttons above. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

Featured image is from SANA

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on President al-Assad’s Speech on the Repercussions of the Earthquake That Hit Syria
  • Tags: ,

Selected Articles: How Do You Know When COVID-19 Is Over?

February 22nd, 2023 by Global Research News

How Do You Know When COVID-19 Is Over?

By Emanuel Pastreich, February 21, 2023

Mainstream newspapers, the television news, and the alternative news blogs that we are forced to rely on for information have decayed into unstable and shifting palimpsests on which scraps of science, ideology and rhetoric are projected so as to confuse and to mislead us.

Energy Wars: Outing the Nord Stream Saboteurs

By Dr. Binoy Kampmark, February 22, 2023

When news first emerged over explosions endured by the Nord Stream pipelines, known collectively as Nord Stream 1 and Nord Stream 2, an army of guessers was mobilised.  The accusation that Russia had done it seemed counterintuitive, given that the Russian state company Gazprom is a majority shareholder of Nord Stream 1 and sole owner of Nord Stream 2.

Who’s Winning and Losing the Economic War Over Ukraine?

By Medea Benjamin and Nicolas J. S. Davies, February 22, 2023

With the Ukraine war now reaching its one-year mark on February 24, the Russians have not achieved a military victory but neither has the West achieved its goals on the economic front. When Russia invaded Ukraine, the United States and its European allies vowed to impose crippling sanctions that would bring Russia to its knees and force it to withdraw. 

African American Resistance in the Rural South from the Sharecroppers Union to the New Farmers of America

By Abayomi Azikiwe, February 22, 2023

Several years prior to the formation of the Southern Tenant Farmers Union (STFU) in 1934, a series of events in the state of Alabama would give rise to the formation of the Sharecroppers Union (SCU). This organization was founded with the assistance of African American leaders within the Communist Party in Alabama largely centered in the steel industry in Birmingham.

To Those Still Wearing Masks: Throw Them Away. They Don’t Work

By Michael J. Talmo, February 21, 2023

Last month, the Biden administration announced that on May 11, 2023, COVID-19 national and public health emergency declarations that were put in place under former President Donald Trump in early 2020 will end. Could the reason for this be that the lies and propaganda that permeate the COVID narrative have become so blatantly obvious?

The Global Disinformation Index (GDI): Government-Funded Group Targets “Riskiest Online News Outlets”

By Jonathan Turley, February 21, 2023

Goodbye Disinformation Board, Hello Disinformation Index.  Less than a year after many celebrated the disbanding of the Biden’s Administration Disinformation Board, it appears that the Administration has been funding a British group to rank sites to warn people about high-risk disinformation sites.

America the Feckless. Lies and Hypocrisy Are at the Heart of the Biden Foreign Policy

By Philip Giraldi, February 21, 2023

One would think that the United States military staging an unprovoked “plausibly deniable” covert attack on a nation with which it is not at war would be at least considered newsworthy. That the attack did grave damage to a country with which the US is closely allied would seem to make the aggression even more unthinkable.

“Turbo Cancer” Post COVID-19 Vaccination? 21-Year Old Evan Fishel Died of Leukemia Only Four Days After Diagnosis.

By Dr. William Makis, February 21, 2023

As an Oncologist, I diagnosed 10,000s of Canadian cancer patients and treated 100s with Targeted Radionuclide Therapy. I have seen many horrific things during my career. But I have never seen a rapid progression like this.

Biden’s Visit to Kiev: Distract Public Opinion From “Disadvantageous Developments”. Tough Days Ahead for US-NATO?

By Andrew Korybko, February 21, 2023

The whole reason why the mainstream media and allied accounts on social media are overdosing on this cheap “copium” is because they know very well that tougher days are ahead for their side considering NATO’s military-industrial crisis, the sanctions’ failure, and Russia’s likely capture of Artyomovsk/“Bakhmut”.

Solution to the World’s Carbon Problems: Compel Children to Eat Unhealthy Processed Vegetarian Alternatives to Wholesome Grass-fed Meats or Fresh Local Foods

By John Klar, February 21, 2023

Touting a supposed “new study,” mainstream media is unquestioningly advocating globalist prescriptions for climate change that would utilize existing public school lunch programs to compel children to eat unhealthy processed vegetarian alternatives to wholesome grass-fed meats or fresh local foods. The audacity and misinformation of these proposals reflect elitist disconnect from basic nutrition and soil health.

  • Posted in NO READ MORE LINK
  • Comments Off on Selected Articles: How Do You Know When COVID-19 Is Over?

Energy Wars: Outing the Nord Stream Saboteurs

February 22nd, 2023 by Dr. Binoy Kampmark

All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the Translate Website button below the author’s name (desktop version)

To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.

Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

***

When news first emerged over explosions endured by the Nord Stream pipelines, known collectively as Nord Stream 1 and Nord Stream 2, an army of guessers was mobilised.  The accusation that Russia had done it seemed counterintuitive, given that the Russian state company Gazprom is a majority shareholder of Nord Stream 1 and sole owner of Nord Stream 2.  But this less than convenient fact did not discourage those from the Moscow-is-behind everything School of Thinking.  “It’s pretty predictable and predictably stupid to express such versions,” snarled Kremlin spokesperson Dmitry Peskov.

The first reports noted three leaks in both the Nord Stream 1 and Nord Stream 2 pipeline systems.  A fourth was subsequently revealed.  Then came news that the first explosion had taken place in a Russian built section of the pipeline.  Der Spiegel summed up the various questions.  Was Moscow behind it?  Or the United States, which had always been implacably opposed to the project?  And what of Ukraine or perhaps “rogue” agents?  For those wishing for a more savoury sauce, there was babbling that Mossad might have been behind it.

Statements were issued in number, some more equivocal than others in attributing blame.  The Council of the European Union, in promising a “robust and united response” to the incidents, declared that “all available information indicates those leaks are the result of a deliberate act.”

Gerhard Schindler, former chief of the German Federal Intelligence Service, insisted that the damage, inflicted at depths of 80 metres in the Baltic Sea, required “sophisticated technical and organisational capabilities that clearly point to a state actor.”  Russia, he continued, was the only power that could be seriously considered “especially since it stands to gain most from this act of sabotage.”

In the black and white world of most Ukrainian officials, the damage had to have been inflicted by Moscow. An advisor to the Ukrainian president, Mykhailo Polodyak, called the incident “a terrorist attack planned by Russia and an act of aggression towards [the EU].”

In this bluster and bombast, it was striking to note the absence of any alternatives.  Over the course of last summer, Washington had issued a pointed warning to several of its European allies that the Nord Stream 1 and 2 gas pipelines would be the subject of threat, even potential attack.  The nature of such warnings, based on US intelligence assessments, was vague.  The hostility of the Biden administration was not.

In the scheme of things, the outing of the US role in this affair by the establishment’s tolerated contrarian is unsurprising and far from stunning.  According to Seymour Hersh, the culprits were well trained deep-water divers who had gone through the US Navy’s Diving and Salvage Center.  Under the cover of a NATO exercise named BALTOPS 22, the divers planted devices that would be remotely triggered three months later.

The claims made in the article were cooly dismissed by various officials. White House spokesperson Adrienne Watson responded with a swat.  “This is false and complete fiction.”  Ditto the waspish spokesperson for the Central Intelligence Agency, Tammy Thorp: “This claim is completely and utterly false.”  For his part, Biden accused Russia for “pumping out disinformation and lies”.

But as Hersh writes, the decision to sabotage the pipelines had few opponents in Washington’s national security community.  Weaning Europe off its dependence on Russian energy supplies has been a goal near and dear to US policy makers.  The issue lay in how best to execute the action without clear attribution.

To keep the cloak of secrecy firmly fastened, resort was made to US Navy divers rather than units from the Special Operations Command.  In the case of the latter, covert operations must be reported to Congress.  The Gang of Eight, comprising the US Senate and House leadership, must also be briefed.  No such protocols exist in the context of the Navy.

Even now the denials continue.  On February 19, National Security Council spokesperson John Kirby flatly rejected the suggestion that the United States was behind the explosions.  “It’s a completely false story.  There is no truth to it, Shannon,” he told the host Shannon Bream on Fox News Sunday.  “Not a shred of it.  It is not true.  The United States, and no proxies of the United States, had anything to do with that, nothing.”

When pressed by Bream on whether there was an obligation to inform Congress of such an operation, Kirby replied that “we keep Congress informed appropriately of things both classified and unclassified.  But I can tell you now, regardless of the notification process, there was no US involvement in this.”

The European Commission’s Press Officer Andrea Masini has opted for the line that revelations from an investigative reporter are less trustworthy than official investigations.

“We do not comment on speculations about the perpetrators of sabotage against the Nord Stream pipelines.  The only basis for any possible response can be the outcome of an official investigation.  Such investigations are the responsibility of the competent authorities of the Member States concerned.”

Hersh’s revelations, drawn from a source with intimate knowledge of the sabotage operations, and the brimming hostility Washington has shown towards cheap Russian natural gas and its nexus with the European energy market, seem far from speculative.  The plotters have been outed, and what an inglorious bunch they look.

*

Note to readers: Please click the share buttons above. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

Dr. Binoy Kampmark was a Commonwealth Scholar at Selwyn College, Cambridge.  He currently lectures at RMIT University. He is a regular contributor to Global Research and Asia-Pacific Research. Email: [email protected]

Featured image is from Freenations

All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the Translate Website button below the author’s name (desktop version)

To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.

Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

***

German media reported that Foreign Minister and Greens leader Annalena Baerbock would challenge Olaf Scholz from the Social Democrats for the Chancellorship since they lost voters because of the government’s handling of the war in Ukraine. This would mean the inevitable collapse of the ruling three-party coalition. Due to this risk, Scholz has hardened his position on the Ukraine conflict to preserve his political power, even if it means more damage to the struggling German economy.

The three-party coalition is led by Social Democratic Party (SPD) Chancellor Olaf Scholz. According to a poll released by Wahlen on February 19, the coalition would likely lose its majority if a Bundestag vote were to be conducted. French weekly Journal du Dimanche, citing a diplomatic source, reported that Baerbock would run as a candidate if the Bundestag was dissolved.

Scholz and Baerbock have major differences on how to approach the war in Ukraine – the most glaring being that Scholz dismissed the possibility of a direct armed confrontation between NATO and Russia while Baerbock said that Europe was already at war.

According to the Wahlen survey, if a general election were immediately held, the opposition conservatives would garner 30% of the vote, making them the strongest party. The survey found that the Greens would maintain 19% support, while the SPD would finish second with 20%. Liberal FDP, the coalition’s minority partner, would hold 5% of the vote.

Indicative of the failure of this three-way-coalition is the fact that German Defence Minister Boris Pistorius received the highest personal approval rating of only 1%. This was followed by Green Party Economy Minister Robert Habeck at 0.9%, Scholz at 0.7%, and Baerbock at 0.6%.

None-the-less, even if such a scenario does occur where Baerbock can present herself as a candidate, she has little chance of becoming the Chancellor. For this reason, there is scepticism, despite a lot of local media reports, that the Greens will break the current coalition to hold early elections as they would most likely lose more power.

Yet again, this would be the logical conclusion to make, something that Baerbock certainly is not.  It is recalled that she expressed her belief that Russian President Vladimir Putin can turn around 360 degrees, without noticing the irony, “and make the whole world happy”.

“He [Putin] can decide that he changes his course by 360 degrees tomorrow.  The whole world would be happy again,” she added, without realizing that to do a 360 means to end up in the same place that one started.

Given the fracturing of the German coalition, it is noticeable that Scholz has hardened his position against Russia. He said on February 17 that Western countries should deliver battle tanks to Ukraine, falsely claiming:

“We will continue to strike a balance between providing support for Ukraine and avoiding an unintended escalation.”

By providing weapons to Ukraine, Germany is already escalating the conflict. Rather, it is Moscow’s decision on if, when and how it chooses to respond to Germany’s unprovoked aggression.

Berlin’s decision to harden its stance against Russia comes as the Ukraine war is anticipated by the end of the year to cost the German economy, in lost value creation, around 160 billion euros, or some 4% of its gross domestic output.

Given this grim economic reality, Scholz boasted at the Munich Security Conference that:

“We can now say that Germany is the biggest supplier of weapons to Ukraine in continental Europe, and we will continue to be that. It is wise to be prepared for a long war and it is wise to give Putin the message that we are ready to stay with Ukraine.”

In addition, Scholz also committed to increasing German defence spending towards the current NATO target of 2% GDP. For his part, German Defence Minister Boris Pistorius said that he was in favour of raising NATO’s military spending target.

Although it is estimated that the war in Ukraine will drain 160 billion euros from the German economy by the end of the year, according to Marcel Fratzscher, the head of the German Institute for Economic Research, “The Ukraine war and the exploded energy prices cost Germany around €100 billion ($106.8 billion) or 2.5 percent of the economic output in 2022.”

Yet, despite these harrowing figures, Germany plans to prolong the war in Ukraine by providing more weapons. This will mean that any economic recovery will be much slower and painful. Ultimately, this is a decision that Scholz is cynically willing to make to preserve his political power.

*

Note to readers: Please click the share buttons above. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

Ahmed Adel is a Cairo-based geopolitics and political economy researcher.

Featured image is from InfoBrics

Who’s Winning and Losing the Economic War Over Ukraine?

February 22nd, 2023 by Medea Benjamin

All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the Translate Website button below the author’s name (desktop version)

To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.

Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

***

With the Ukraine war now reaching its one-year mark on February 24, the Russians have not achieved a military victory but neither has the West achieved its goals on the economic front. When Russia invaded Ukraine, the United States and its European allies vowed to impose crippling sanctions that would bring Russia to its knees and force it to withdraw. 

Western sanctions would erect a new Iron Curtain, hundreds of miles to the east of the old one, separating an isolated, defeated, bankrupt Russia from a reunited, triumphant and prosperous West. Not only has Russia withstood the economic assault, but the sanctions have boomeranged–hitting the very countries that imposed them. 

Western sanctions on Russia reduced the global supply of oil and natural gas, but also pushed up prices. So Russia profited from the higher prices, even as its export volume decreased. The International Monetary Fund (IMF) reports that Russia’s economy only contracted by 2.2% in 2022, compared with the 8.5% contraction it had forecast, and it predicts that the Russian economy will actually grow by 0.3% in 2023.

On the other hand, Ukraine’s economy has shrunk by 35% or more, despite $46 billion in economic aid from generous U.S. taxpayers, on top of $67 billion in military aid.

European economies are also taking a hit. After growing by 3.5% in 2022, the Euro area economy is expected to stagnate and grow only 0.7% in 2023, while the British economy is projected to actually contract by 0.6%. Germany was more dependent on imported Russian energy than other large European countries so, after growing a meager 1.9% in 2022, it is predicted to have negligible 0.1% growth in 2023. German industry is set to pay about 40% more for energy in 2023 than it did in 2021.

The United States is less directly impacted than Europe, but its growth shrank from 5.9% in 2021 to 2% in 2022, and is projected to keep shrinking, to 1.4% in 2023 and 1% in 2024. Meanwhile India, which has remained neutral while buying oil from Russia at a discounted price, is projected to maintain its 2022 growth rate of over 6% per year all through 2023 and 2024. China has also benefited from buying discounted Russian oil and from an overall trade increase with Russia of 30% in 2022. China’s economy is expected to grow at 5% this year.

Other oil and gas producers reaped windfall profits from the effects of the sanctions. Saudi Arabia’s GDP grew by 8.7%, the fastest of all large economies, while Western oil companies laughed all the way to the bank to deposit $200 billion in profits: ExxonMobil made $56 billion, an all-time record for an oil company, while Shell made $40 billion and Chevron and Total gained $36 billion each. BP made “only” $28 billion, as it closed down its operations in Russia, but it still doubled its 2021 profits.

As for natural gas, U.S. LNG (liquefied natural gas) suppliers like Cheniere and companies like Total that distribute the gas in Europe are replacing Europe’s supply of Russian natural gas with fracked gas from the United States, at about four times the prices U.S. customers pay, and with the dreadful climate impacts of fracking. A mild winter in Europe and a whopping $850 billion in European government subsidies to households and companies brought retail energy prices back down to 2021 levels, but only after they spiked five times higher over the summer of 2022.

While the war restored Europe’s subservience to U.S. hegemony in the short term, these real-world impacts of the war could have quite different results in the long term. French President Emmanuel Macron remarked,

“In today’s geopolitical context, among countries that support Ukraine, there are two categories being created in the gas market: those who are paying dearly and those who are selling at very high prices… The United States is a producer of cheap gas that they are selling at a high price… I don’t think that’s friendly.”

An even more unfriendly act was the sabotage of the Nord Stream undersea gas pipelines that brought Russian gas to Germany. Seymour Hersh reported that the pipelines were blown up by the United States, with the help of Norway—the two countries that have displaced Russia as Europe’s two largest natural gas suppliers. Coupled with the high price of U.S. fracked gas, this has fueled anger among the European public. In the long term, European leaders may well conclude that the region’s future lies in political and economic independence from countries that launch military attacks on it, and that would include the United States as well as Russia.

The other big winners of the war in Ukraine will of course be the weapons makers, dominated globally by the U.S. “big five”: Lockheed Martin, Boeing, Northrop Grumman, Raytheon and General Dynamics. Most of the weapons so far sent to Ukraine have come from existing stockpiles in the United States and NATO countries. Authorization to build even bigger new stockpiles flew through Congress in December, but the resulting contracts have not yet shown up in the arms firms’ sales figures or profit statements.

The Reed-Inhofe substitute amendment to the FY2023 National Defense Authorization Act authorized “wartime” multi-year, no-bid contracts to “replenish” stocks of weapons sent to Ukraine, but the quantities of weapons to be procured outstrip the amounts shipped to Ukraine by up to 500 to one. Former senior OMB official Marc Cancian commented, “This isn’t replacing what we’ve given [Ukraine]. It’s building stockpiles for a major ground war [with Russia] in the future.”

Since weapons have only just started rolling off production lines to build these stockpiles, the scale of war profits anticipated by the arms industry is best reflected, for now, in the 2022 increases in their stock prices: Lockheed Martin, up 37%; Northrop Grumman, up 41%; Raytheon, up 17%; and General Dynamics, up 19%.

While a few countries and companies have profited from the war, countries far from the scene of the conflict have been reeling from the economic fallout. Russia and Ukraine have been critical suppliers of wheat, corn, cooking oil and fertilizers to much of the world. The war and sanctions have caused shortages in all these commodities, as well as fuel to transport them, pushing global food prices to all-time highs.

So the other big losers in this war are people in the Global South who depend on imports of food and fertilizers from Russia and Ukraine simply to feed their families. Egypt and Turkey are the largest importers of Russian and Ukrainian wheat, while a dozen other highly vulnerable countries depend almost entirely on Russia and Ukraine for their wheat supply, from Bangladesh, Pakistan and Laos to Benin, Rwanda and Somalia. Fifteen African countries imported more than half their supply of wheat from Russia and Ukraine in 2020.

The Black Sea Grain Initiative brokered by the UN and Turkey has eased the food crisis for some countries, but the agreement remains precarious. It must be renewed by the UN Security Council before it expires on March 18, 2023, but Western sanctions are still blocking Russian fertilizer exports, which are supposed to be exempt from sanctions under the grain initiative. UN humanitarian chief Martin Griffiths told Agence France-Presse on February 15 that freeing up Russian fertilizer exports is “of the highest priority.”

After a year of slaughter and destruction in Ukraine, we can declare that the economic winners of this war are: Saudi Arabia; ExxonMobil and its fellow oil giants; Lockheed Martin; and Northrop Grumman.

The losers are, first and foremost, the sacrificed people of Ukraine, on both sides of the front lines, all the soldiers who have lost their lives and families who have lost their loved ones. But also in the losing column are working and poor people everywhere, especially in the countries in the Global South that are most dependent on imported food and energy. Last but not least is the Earth, its atmosphere and its climate—all sacrificed to the God of War.

That is why, as the war enters its second year, there is a mounting global outcry for the parties to the conflict to find solutions. The words of Brazil’s President Lula reflect that growing sentiment. When pressured by President Biden to send weapons to Ukraine, he said, “I don’t want to join this war, I want to end it.”

*

Note to readers: Please click the share buttons above. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

Medea Benjamin is the cofounder of CODEPINK for Peace, and the author of several books, including Inside Iran: The Real History and Politics of the Islamic Republic of Iran.

Nicolas J. S. Davies is an independent journalist, a researcher with CODEPINK and the author of Blood on Our Hands: The American Invasion and Destruction of Iraq.

Medea Benjamin and Nicolas J. S. Davies are the authors of War in Ukraine: Making Sense of a Senseless Conflict, available from OR Books in November 2022. They are regular contributors to Global Research.

Featured image: Half a million tons of methane rise from the sabotaged Nord Stream pipeline. Photo: Swedish Coast Guard

All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the Translate Website button below the author’s name (desktop version)

To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.

Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

***

Several years prior to the formation of the Southern Tenant Farmers Union (STFU) in 1934, a series of events in the state of Alabama would give rise to the formation of the Sharecroppers Union (SCU).

This organization was founded with the assistance of African American leaders within the Communist Party in Alabama largely centered in the steel industry in Birmingham.

After the collapse on Wall Street in October 1929 and the inability of the United States government to enact effective programs to assist people living in rural areas, African American sharecroppers, tenant farmers and agricultural laborers were eager to seek assistance and redress for their burgeoning social problems. The SCU, also known as the Alabama Sharecroppers Union (ASU), arose during a period of efforts by the Communist Party (CP) to organize among the African American people in both the rural and urban areas.

As early as 1925, the CP had established the American Negro Labor Congress (ANLC) utilizing a small cadre of African Americans from the U.S. and the Caribbean who had joined the organization during the post-World War I years. This attempt gained modest results during the mid-to-late 1920s.

Nonetheless, the Great Depression intensified the levels of exploitation and oppression directed against the African American people in the rural South. On March 25, 1931, nine African American youth jumped onto a freight train in Chattanooga, Tennessee headed for Alabama. They were later falsely accused of raping two white women and faced the death penalty in the state of Alabama.

These youth became known internationally as the Scottsboro Nine. They were Haywood Patterson, Olen Montgomery, Clarence Norris, Willie Roberson, Andy Wright, Ozzie Powell, Eugene Williams, Charley Weems, and Roy Wright. In a sham trial, eight of the nine were convicted and sentenced to death by an all-white jury. In response to national and worldwide protests, their case went to the Supreme Court where their convictions were overturned in Powell v. State of Alabama (1932).

The State of Alabama would retry the defendants resulting in additional convictions. Appeals and other legal actions continued through the late 1940s until the final defendant released and granted parole fled to the state of Michigan.

A year before the Scottsboro Nine travesty of justice, the CP organized the League of Struggle for Negro Rights (LSNR) in 1930 as its continuation of the ANLC project. The LSNR played an important role in building support for the International Labor Defense campaign to free the nine African American youth.

It was within this context that the SCU was established in the summer of 1931. Once the landowners, law-enforcement officers and white racist vigilantes discovered the SCU activities, the organization was met with severe repression resulting in the deaths of several African American farmers and agricultural workers and the framing of others on bogus criminal charges.

Sharecroppers Union and the Right to Self-Determination

After the 1928 Sixth Congress of the Communist International in Moscow, major shifts were carried out in the overall general line and strategy of its affiliates in the U.S. Seeking to combat white chauvinism and taking the lead from African American communists such as Harry Haywood, the party accepted the notion that the Black masses in the South were an oppressed people with the right to self-determination. This position can also be traced back to the Second Congress of the Communist International in 1920 where Lenin acknowledged the plight of the African American people in the U.S. See this.

According to the Encyclopedia of Alabama:

“By 1932, the ASU had attracted nearly 600 members. One such member was Ned Cobb of Tallapoosa County. A successful cotton farmer, he gained greater renown late in his life when his recollections of sharecropping and union activism on behalf of Black farmers were retold in All God’s Dangers: The Life of Nate Shaw, which was published in 1974. Two native Tallapoosa sharecroppers, brothers Ralph and Tommy Gray, were the first to attract a sizable following. They initially arranged for Coad and other organizers to hold a meeting at a local church in Tallapoosa County, but they met heavy resistance from local authorities. On July 15, in a clash between the local sheriff and a number of ASU members, Ralph Gray was killed. The following day, ASU members were arrested and four were lynched for their involvement in the meeting.”

The SCU (or ASU) continued to gain ground in Alabama and some other states in the South. By 1935, the organization claimed 10,000 members which were overwhelmingly African American.

Nonetheless, the degree of violent repression and racism throughout Alabama and other areas where the SCU had opened branches, had forced the organizing efforts underground since 1931 when several organizers were lynched. Despite its successful membership drives and underground activities, the CP after 1934-35 moved towards its “Popular Front” strategy seeking to coalesce its organizational efforts with non-communist groupings such as the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP), the all-Black Brotherhood of Sleeping Car Porters and Maids headed by African American socialist, journalist and trade unionist, A. Phillip Randolph, among others.

In 1935, a decision was made to convene a National Negro Congress (NNC) which met in February 1936 in Chicago with 800 delegates. A. Phillip Randolph was elected as president along with journalist John P. Davis as vice-president.

These developments resulted in the withdrawal of support for the SCU after 1936 by the Communist Party leadership. The fact that the SCU had operated on a clandestine basis with semi-autonomous branches throughout Alabama and other areas, they were able to continue as independent units well into the 1940s.

New Deal Agricultural Policy and the New Farmers of America

Independent organizing on the part of African Americans outside the influence of the Republican and Democratic Parties was by no means contingent upon the efforts of the CP and its mass groupings. The existence of numerous organizations such as the National Colored Farmers Alliance of the late 19th century and the Progressive Farmers and Household Union in Arkansas after World War I, was reflective of the self-organizing traditions which emerged during the period of enslavement and Reconstruction in the U.S.

The Southern Tenant Farmers Union (STFU) formed in 1934 composed of a majority African American base existing among farmers and agricultural workers, did enjoy the administrative support of some leading figures within the Socialist Party. However, if there had not been the mass enthusiasm on the part of the African American people in the South, particularly within the churches, the efforts of the STFU would not have gained significant political traction.

Image: New Farmers of America was an all-African American youth organization during the 1930s to the 1960s

The New Farmers of America (NFA) is one such example among African Americans which emerged during the late 1920s and early 1930s. By the time of the second administration of President Franklin D. Roosevelt, farm policy had shifted after the Supreme Court decision which declared the Agricultural Adjustment Act (AAA) as unconstitutional in 1936. (See this)

By 1937, resettlement and assistance programs for impoverished, exploited and dislocated farmers and agricultural workers were established. The Bankhead-Jones Farm Tenant Act was passed and provided the legal authority of the federal government to acquire damaged and unproductive land for rehabilitation and redistribution to destitute sharecroppers.

Although the NFA was more associated with the Department of Education and operated through the segregated school systems in the South, a source on the organization reported that:

“The NFA started as a localized movement in Virginia around 1927.  H.O. Sargent, Federal Agent for Agricultural Education for Negroes, and G.W. Owens, Teacher-Trainer at Virginia State College, were two of the earliest proponents of an organization for African American farm youth.  While Owens wrote the constitution for the New Farmers of Virginia and helped lay the foundation for what would become a national organization, Sargent lobbied within the Department of Education to officially create an organization in segregated schools.   As the idea grew in popularity, chapters formed sporadically throughout the southern states and region.  In reaction to the emergence of chapters, the states organized into state and sectional associations based on proximity. These sections held conferences and contests unifying the state associations until a national organization was officially created on August 4, 1935.”

The NFA provided educational resources to improve production and efficiency among African American farmers. The organization continued from 1935 to 1965, when in response to the Civil Rights Movement and the passage of the Civil and Voting Rights Acts of 1965, merged with the white-dominated Future Farmers of America (FFA).

Black Land Loss and the Great Migration

During World War II and its aftermath, there were additional incentives for African Americans and whites to leave the rural South. Racial terror continued after 1945 when over one million African American men and women soldiers returned to their communities with a renewed determination to end Jim Crow and its economic underpinnings.

Several high-profile lynchings and the advent of the Cold War during 1946-1949, stiffened the ruling class resistance to the demands for civil rights and universal suffrage. Land accumulated by African Americans after the Civil War and Reconstruction rapidly declined as the system of segregation and economic exploitation forced millions more off their farms.

Nonetheless, the struggle would continue with the emergence of the Montgomery Bus Boycott of 1955-56, the founding of the Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee (SNCC) in 1960 and the growing militancy of African Americans in the South. In future articles we will examine the nexus between organizing in the rural areas and the advent of the mass Civil Rights Movement during the 1950s and 1960s.

*

Note to readers: Please click the share buttons above or below. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

Abayomi Azikiwe is the editor of the Pan-African News Wire. He is a regular contributor to Global Research.

Featured image: Scottsboro case demonstration in Washington, D.C. during 1933 (Source: Abayomi Azikiwe)

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on African American Resistance in the Rural South from the Sharecroppers Union to the New Farmers of America
  • Tags:

Video: The Worldwide Corona Crisis. Michel Chossudovsky

February 21st, 2023 by Prof Michel Chossudovsky

All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the Translate Website button below the author’s name (desktop version)

To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.

Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

.

Excerpt from the Preface 

“Hell is empty, and all the demons are here.” — William Shakespeare, Tempest, 1610

***

The COVID-19 crisis is destroying people’s lives. My responsibility as an author is to reveal the truth, break the tide of media disinformation and reach out worldwide to as many people as possible.

We are dealing with an exceedingly complex process. In the course of the last two and a half years, I have analyzed almost on a daily basis the timeline and evolution of the COVID-19 crisis.

From the very outset in January 2020, people worldwide were led to believe and accept the existence of a rapidly progressing and dangerous epidemic. Media disinformation was instrumental in sustaining the COVID-19 narrative.

At the time of writing, protest movements have erupted in numerous countries. The entire planet is in state of economic and social chaos. A worldwide crisis in food and agriculture is unfolding with famines erupting in all major regions of the world (see Chapter IV).

From the very outset in January 2020, scientific lies and falsehoods have been used to sustain the legitimacy of the COVID-19 policy mandates including lockdowns, the imposition of the face mask, social distancing and the suppression of fundamental human rights.

Get a free copy of Michel Chossudovsky’s Book in pdf format  

Video Interview: Michel Chossudovsky with Caroline Mailloux

 


The Worldwide Corona Crisis, Global Coup d’Etat Against Humanity

by Michel Chossudovsky

Michel Chossudovsky reviews in detail how this insidious project “destroys people’s lives”. He provides a comprehensive analysis of everything you need to know about the “pandemic” — from the medical dimensions to the economic and social repercussions, political underpinnings, and mental and psychological impacts.

“My objective as an author is to inform people worldwide and refute the official narrative which has been used as a justification to destabilize the economic and social fabric of entire countries, followed by the imposition of the “deadly” COVID-19 “vaccine”. This crisis affects humanity in its entirety: almost 8 billion people. We stand in solidarity with our fellow human beings and our children worldwide. Truth is a powerful instrument.”

ISBN: 978-0-9879389-3-0,  Year: 2022,  PDF Ebook,  Pages: 164, 15 Chapters

Price: $11.50 Get yours for FREE! Click here to download.

We encourage you to support the eBook project by making a donation through Global Research’s DonorBox “Worldwide Corona Crisis” Campaign Page

All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the Translate Website button below the author’s name (desktop version)

To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.

Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

***

 

 

For the past almost three years, I have written several comprehensive scientific articles demonstrating that wearing face masks won’t prevent viral diseases. In spite of the obvious facts presented by myself and other journalists, as well as numerous doctors and scientists, government officials and corporate media pundits continued to drone on about how great masks are.

Last month, the Biden administration announced that on May 11, 2023, COVID-19 national and public health emergency declarations that were put in place under former President Donald Trump in early 2020 will end. Could the reason for this be that the lies and propaganda that permeate the COVID narrative have become so blatantly obvious? It would seem so because former die-hard supporters of COVID restrictions like masks and so-called COVID vaccines have started to change their tune. They are starting to question what’s really going on. And the mainstream press is reporting it.

Example: Washington Post columnist Leana Wen MD, who is also a medical news analyst for CNN and a graduate of the World Economic Forum’s Young Global Leaders programme, was a staunch advocate of mandating masks. In February 2022, National Review reported that Wen advocated that people wear triple-ply masks even when outdoors. And that kids in school wear them. She then did a 180 and now advocates that wearing masks should be up to the individual. She also stated that “masking has harmed our son’s language development” as reported in this video and in this article.

Example: Last January, Fox News reported that in her Washington Post column, Wen “admitted…that the medical community is overcounting the amount of COVID deaths and hospitalizations.” Actually, that’s an understatement: the deaths are grossly inflated. Since 2020, the CDC (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention) has reported on its website (see comorbidities and other conditions) that only over 5% of all COVID-19 deaths were due to it alone. The other 95% of COVID deaths had multiple comorbidities. In other words, they died of something else. COVID apologists try to explain away this fact by claiming that critics are misinterpreting and misrepresenting the data. But at a press conference in 2020, Dr. Ngozi Ezike, director of Illinois’ Department of Public Health succinctly states:

“I just want to be clear in terms of the definition of people dying of COVID: technically, even if you died of a clear alternate cause, but you had COVID at the same time, it’s still listed as a COVID death. Everyone who is listed as a COVID death, doesn’t mean that was the cause of the death, but they had COVID at the time of death.”

Example: On his show, Jimmy Dore presented a compilation of newscasters and government officials on TV and, in their own words, falsely claiming that the COVID shots would prevent people from getting COVID-19 and infecting others, but that Biden, Fauci and other notables all got COVID anyway. Former White House Coronavirus Response Coordinator under Donald Trump, Deborah Birx MD, best known for wearing a variety of brightly colored scarves, also admitted this when she testified before Congress back in December 2020 and in a 2022 Fox News interview said, “I knew these vaccines were not going to protect against infection. And I think we overplayed the vaccines.”

And they overplayed the masks. Reason Magazine and the New York Post, along with other mainstream publications, reported on an exhaustive January 2023 review (not to be confused with a systematic review) published by the Cochrane Library, which “found essentially no relationship between mask wearing and disease rates.” The articles, which can be read here, and here, stated in their title that “the CDC Grossly Exaggerated” the effectiveness of “mask mandates.” Both articles went on to say that the CDC “cannot be trusted as a source of public health information.”

The Cochrane review is difficult to read, but it’s not always the fault of the authors. In a February 2023 interview, lead author Dr. Tom Jefferson, MD, explained that in his original 2020 mask review (the 2023 review is an update), his research team was “forced” to “insert unnecessary text phrases in the review” in order to get published. This and other kinds of censorship have become a common problem in scientific journals as explained in this 2020 article in Scientific American.

Dr. Jefferson also explained that Cochrane published an editorial to accompany his original 2020 review, in his view, “to undermine our work.” He described the editorial as a call to action,“you’ve got to do something, you can’t wait for good evidence,” which is “a complete subversion of the precautionary principle,” (the precept that an action should not be taken if the consequences are uncertain and potentially dangerous). Dr Jefferson went on to say:

“…when academics and politicians started jumping up and down about masks. We call them ‘strident campaigners.” They are activists, not scientists.” Nevertheless, “…the evidence really didn’t change from 2020 to 2023. There is still no evidence that masks are effective during a pandemic.”

Levels of evidence

As explained in my previous articles, there are three kinds of scientific research: observational, experimental, and modeling (usually computational, “using computers to study something”). Observational studies, in the case of masks, are mainly epidemiological or statistical. Experimental research determines the effectiveness of masks via controlled experiments. Computer modeling is used to predict the effect that masks will have on case numbers and deaths based on their filtering capacity combined with mandates. However, only observational and experimental research count as scientific evidence. Computer modeling is highly inaccurate and does not count as scientific evidence, as illustrated by this hierarchy of scientific evidence.

Source: Islon Woolf MD

As shown in the above image, the gold standard in medical science is randomized controlled trials with verified outcomes (RCTs) combined with meta-analysis and systematic reviews, because they eliminate bias and speculation. All observational/epidemiological studies do is establish a correlation between mask wearing and COVID-19 case numbers and deaths as shown in this study. But as stated in this 2021 Harvard University article, “Observational studies can’t prove causation.”

This 2020 article in JAMA (Journal of the American Medical Association) warns that relying on weak observational studies “will hinder the goal of finding effective treatments for COVID-19—and a great many other diseases.” This is why the only studies that matter are RCTs, because they test the masks directly to see if they actually work. And every properly conducted RCT done over the past 80 years shows that masks, regardless of what kind, don’t prevent viral diseases.

Example: Canadian Family Physician. July 2020 study. 11 systematic reviews, 18 RCTs. 26,444 participants. Synthesis: “Overall, the use of masks in the community did not reduce the risk of influenza, confirmed viral respiratory infection, influenzalike illness or any clinical respiratory infection.”

Example: Emerging Infectious Diseases, peer reviewed journal published by the CDC. May 2020 study. Systematic review of 10 RCTs on the effectiveness of face masks from 1946-2018 (see Face Masks): “In pooled analysis, we found no significant reduction in influenza transmission with the use of face masks.”

Example: Annals of Internal Medicine. 2020 study conducted in Denmark. First RCT to determine if masks are effective against SARS-CoV-2, the COVID-19 virus. JAMA, the Lancet, and the New England Journal of Medicine wouldn’t publish it. The RCT involved over 6,000 Danes and found what all other RCTs found:

Discussion: “Our results suggest that the recommendation to wear a surgical mask when outside the home among others did not reduce, at conventional levels of statistical significance, the incidence of SARS-CoV-2 infection in mask wearers in a setting where social distancing and other public health measures were in effect.”

Another problem with masks is that they can severely damage the physical and mental health of adults and children. A massive comprehensive review of the many studies conducted on the health and well-being of people wearing masks was published in the International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health in April 2021. It clearly demonstrates that mask wearing is in no way shape or form a small thing to ask of people.

Obstructing the nose and mouth with a mask causes oxygen deprivation, which increases CO2 levels in the blood, causing hypoxia, hypercapnia, headaches, confusion, physical and mental exhaustion, which the authors call MIES (Mask-induced Exhaustion Syndrome), cancer due to lower oxygen levels along with toxic substances in the masks, facial lesions, damage to teeth and gums, heart attacks, strokes, and psychological deterioration. Masks are also a breeding ground for all sorts of pathogenic microbes that “can cause clinically relevant fungal, bacterial or viral infections.” The authors emphatically state that “…mask-induced adverse changes are relatively minor at first glance, but repeated exposure over longer periods…have measurably harmful effects not only on healthy people, but also on sick people…”

A fly in the ointment?

In 2021, the peer-reviewed journal Science published a huge mask study conducted in Bangladesh that supposedly involved some 340,000 people. This randomized trial only evaluated cloth and surgical masks. N95 masks, also known as respirators, were not included. The study found no benefit in wearing cloth masks, but found an 11% decrease in symptoms associated with COVID-19 in the groups that wore surgical masks. However, the study was deeply flawed as pointed out in a 2021 paper by Dr. Denis Rancourt, PhD, a 2022 review published in ResearchGate, and in the Cochran Review led by Dr. Tom Jefferson mentioned previously.

Most importantly, the Bangladesh study was not an RCT of 340,000 people as hyped in the media. It was a “cluster randomized trial” of 300 treatment villages where there was a mask wearing intervention campaign and of 300 villages where there wasn’t. 340,000 is the total population of all the villages combined, not of how many people individually participated in the study or of how properly and consistently anyone wore masks, which there would be no way to know. Also, cluster randomized trials are “more prone to biases,” which individual RCTs are designed to eliminate, and can give a different result than individual RCTs. For example, a 2005 Cochrane review of hip protectors. “The cluster trials showed large positive effect whereas individually ran

Flawed logic

In July 2020, Professor Denis Rancourt, who has written scientific papers demonstrating that masks are ineffective against viral pathogens, debated Professor David Kyle Johnson who wrote scathing critiques of Rancourt’s work. While both are PhDs, Rancourt’s is in physics. He’s an actual scientist who has been published numerous times in the scientific literature. Johnson’s PhD is in philosophy. He specializes in and teaches logic and supposedly specializes in debunking pseudoscience. But judging from the debate, Johnson certainly doesn’t practice logic as far as I’m concerned. He acted like an angry, petulant, spoiled child and even threw a temper tantrum.

Johnson labeled Rancourt a conspiracy theorist and a pseudoscientist, which is the ad hominem fallacy, invalidating what is being said by attacking someone’s character or reputation. Johnson also misrepresented Rancourt’s position on COVID-19 and accused him of saying things that he didn’t say, an example of the straw man fallacy, creating “a dishonest, distorted, or otherwise inaccurate version of a person’s original argument.”

Johnson’s whole schtick was that masks can reduce the amount of infectious viral particles contained in droplets and aerosols in the air, which will reduce COVID-19 infection. He compared the filtration efficiency of masks with traffic laws against speeding, reducing accidents. This is a false equivalence fallacy, claiming two entirely different things are the same because they share similar characteristics.

Johnson’s arguments were based on inferior observational studies, computer modeling, which isn’t scientific evidence, and on mechanistic studies, which determine filtration efficiency. As explained in this EPA report and demonstrated in this 2008 HSA study in the U.K., these, and all other filtration efficiency studies show that huge amounts of infectious viral particles will always go around and through any kind of mask.

Johnson acknowledges that forcing people to wear masks won’t eliminate all infectious particles that are in the air and that they can go through masks. That’s why his arguments are fallacious. The scientific literature clearly shows that most respiratory infections are caused by “small particle aerosols,” rather than large droplets and can remain in the air indefinitely as reported in the Lancet. And as estimated by Cambridge University press, 100 COVID-19 virus particles would be enough to make a human sick. But as reported in Science Daily, even “One Virus Particle Is Enough To Cause Infectious Disease.” In reality, you will be breathing in thousands of infectious virus particles in buildings regardless of what you have on your face.

Johnson also incorrectly asserted that most large droplets existing in the mouth of an infected person wearing a mask won’t have a chance to evaporate or aerosolize into smaller microscopic particles that could possibly escape from the mask. But as reported in the International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health review cited earlier, mask wearers exhale more fine microscopic aerosol particles than non-mask wearers, which increases the risk of infection for everyone.

Bottom line: it doesn’t matter how many droplets and aerosol particles masks filter out because MASKS DON’T WORK. It doesn’t matter what kind of mask you’re wearing because MASKS DON’T WORK. It doesn’t matter whether or not you wear your mask properly because MASKS DON’T WORK. It doesn’t matter how many comply or don’t comply with mask rules because MASKS DON’T WORK. None of these things matter because MASKS DON’T WORK.

Closing thoughts

People who buy into the mask lie think they are following the science when they are really following authoritarian orders. A consensus is defined as: “An opinion or position reached by a group as a whole.” But before we trust a scientific consensus on something like COVID-19, we need to ask the following: Is it an informed consensus? Or is it an ignorant, captured, corrupt consensus? Massive corruption in medical science is a reality as explained here and here. So, if a majority of doctors, scientists, and politicians have not studied a topic like masks, or if they have sold their souls to the highest bidder in exchange for wealth, power, and status instead of valuing truth and making the world a better place, we need not listen to them.

Everything comes with a price tag. There is no free lunch. There are positives and negatives, pros and cons, to whatever path we choose to follow. In a free society, that price will be a small class of criminals who operate outside the law. But it’s far lower than the price we are paying for a criminal government that operates within the law. So, don’t blindly believe what corrupt corporate stooges in medicine, government, and the media are telling you. Don’t allow yourselves to be bossed around by a bunch of idiots who don’t know their butt hole from a gopher hole. Doubt and question everything. A mind is a terrible thing to waste and freedom is too precious a gift to throw away.

*

Note to readers: Please click the share buttons above. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

Michael J. Talmo has been a professional writer for over 40 years and is strongly committed to the protection of civil liberties. He also has a website: https://gettingtherealfacts.com/ and did three music videos on COVID-19.The Masker Mash, COVID Vaccine Man, and The Corona Globalists. He can be reached at [email protected].

He is a regular contributor to Global Research.

Featured image source


The Worldwide Corona Crisis, Global Coup d’Etat Against Humanity

by Michel Chossudovsky

Michel Chossudovsky reviews in detail how this insidious project “destroys people’s lives”. He provides a comprehensive analysis of everything you need to know about the “pandemic” — from the medical dimensions to the economic and social repercussions, political underpinnings, and mental and psychological impacts.

“My objective as an author is to inform people worldwide and refute the official narrative which has been used as a justification to destabilize the economic and social fabric of entire countries, followed by the imposition of the “deadly” COVID-19 “vaccine”. This crisis affects humanity in its entirety: almost 8 billion people. We stand in solidarity with our fellow human beings and our children worldwide. Truth is a powerful instrument.”

ISBN: 978-0-9879389-3-0,  Year: 2022,  PDF Ebook,  Pages: 164, 15 Chapters

Price: $11.50 Get yours for FREE! Click here to download.

We encourage you to support the eBook project by making a donation through Global Research’s DonorBox “Worldwide Corona Crisis” Campaign Page

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on To Those Still Wearing Masks: Throw Them Away. They Don’t Work
  • Tags: ,

All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the Translate Website button below the author’s name (desktop version)

To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.

Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

***

“It is obvious that American business can become the locomotive that will once again push forward global economic growth,” Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky said in a late January address to the Boca Raton Chamber of Commerce, boasting that BlackRock, JP Morgan, and Goldman Sachs, and others “have already become part of our Ukrainian way.”

Zelensky did not elaborate on what the “Ukrainian way” is. Maybe the “Ukrainian way” is one of rampant corruption—two of the presidents before Zelensky have either been charged with or convicted of high treason and numerous government officials have been fired or forced to resign for improper use of wartime funds. Whatever it may be, JP Morgan wants more of it.

On Monday, news broke that JP Morgan and Zelensky had signed a memorandum of understanding stipulating that JP Morgan would assist Ukraine in its reconstruction. A release of the meeting posted on the President of Ukraine’s website said,

“The parties discussed the creation of a platform for attracting private capital to rebuild Ukraine and promising directions of large investment projects in Ukraine, in particular in the sectors of green energy, IT, and agricultural technologies.”

JP Morgan executives spent a few days in Ukraine last week. They met with Zelensky and other government ministers and officials in Ukraine, and visited a number of Ukrainian cities to assess the damage sustained by the Ukrainian economy. After making some initial assessments, JP Morgan executives discussed at a meeting with Zelensky the creation of a fund endowed with between $20 billion to $30 billion of private capital to help fund Ukraine’s reconstruction, according to Fox Business. Other ideas reportedly floated in the meeting was establishing a bank run by Wall Street giants to make investments in various kinds of vital infrastructure, such as roads, bridges, and oil refineries.

During the meeting, Zelensky told the JP Morgan executives,

“I understand very well that doing business and investing cannot be beneficial to only one party. We want you to invest in Ukraine and earn money.”

To which JP Morgan Chase’s chairman and CEO, Jamie Dimon, replied,

“We are proud of our long-standing support of Ukraine and committed to doing our part to lift up the country and its people. The full resources of JPMorgan Chase are available to Ukraine as it charts its post-conflict path to growth.”

Towards the end of the JP Morgan executives’ time in Ukraine, they gifted Zelensky with a New England Patriots jersey with the number 91 on it for the year Ukraine gained its independence from the collapse of the Soviet Union.

Dimon has called the current war in Ukraine “an inflection point for the Western world for a hundred years.”

“Do we get our act together to help win this war, help the Ukrainians, help rebuild Ukraine?” Dimon said previously.

While JP Morgan may see itself as one of Ukraine’s chief financial advisors alongside other U.S.-based companies such as BlackRock, which has also entered into a memorandum of agreement with the Ukrainian government on marshaling reconstruction funding, JP Morgan also has current market positions that suggest the finance giant is set to profit off of the war’s continuation. For example, JPMorgan Investment Management held more than $2.5 billion in Raytheon stock, and over $1.3 billion worth of both Northrop Grumman and General Dynamics stock as of February 15.

This doesn’t mean that JP Morgan is necessarily doing anything illegal by working with the Ukrainian government while having large holdings in U.S. defense contractors. Rather, it serves as an indictment of the incentive structures at play in our over-financialized economy. JP Morgan, BlackRock, and other financial giants can profit from prolonging the war via continued transfer of weapons and equipment to Ukraine by taking out large positions in defense contractors. At the very same time, these same corporations are free to swoop in and compound their profits by investing in the reconstruction of Ukraine, a project that only seems to become larger and potentially more profitable thanks to the conflict’s protraction.

As Saint Thomas Aquinas reminds us, the goal of political life is peace. But why would Ukraine ever be open to negotiating a peace with Russia when the Biden administration—though its doctrinaire support of Ukraine for “as long as it takes”—and powerful Wall Street players are so heavily invested in a Ukrainian victory that they pretend it is a fait accompli?

JP Morgan may consider itself Ukraine’s angel investor. Maybe it’s the angel of death.

*

Note to readers: Please click the share buttons above. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

Bradley Devlin is a Staff Reporter for The American Conservative. Previously, he was an Analysis Reporter for the Daily Caller, and has been published in the Daily Wire and the Daily Signal, among other publications that don’t include the word “Daily.” He graduated from the University of California, Berkeley with a degree in Political Economy. You can follow Bradley on Twitter @bradleydevlin.

Featured image is from The American Conservative

All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the Translate Website button below the author’s name (desktop version)

To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.

Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

***

Goodbye Disinformation Board, Hello Disinformation Index.  Less than a year after many celebrated the disbanding of the Biden’s Administration Disinformation Board, it appears that the Administration has been funding a British group to rank sites to warn people about high-risk disinformation sites.

The Global Disinformation Index (GDI) has released its index and every one of the high-risk sites turn out to be . . .  wait for it . . .  conservative or libertarian sites.  HuffPost or Mother Jones (which were also analyzed), but HuffPost made the top list of most trustworthy for potential advertisers. It turns out that the “riskiest online news outlets” just happen to be some of the most popular sites for conservatives, libertarians, and independents.

The GDI is designed to steer advertisers and subscribers away from certain sites, potentially draining sites of revenue needed to operate. The organization issues the index to “advertisers and the ad tech industry in assessing the reputational and brand risk when advertising with online media outlets and to help them avoid financially supporting disinformation online.” The State Department is partially funding the effort. The Biden Administration gave $330 million to The National Endowment for Democracy, which partially supports the GDI’s budget.

GDI warned advertisers that these sites could damage their reputations and brands: New York Post, Reason, Real Clear Politics, The Daily Wire, The Blaze, One America News Network, The Federalist, Newsmax, The American Spectator, and The American Conservative.

The inclusion of the New York Post is particularly notable. It is ranked in the top ten newspapers in the country and the top ten digital news sites. (For full disclosure, I have written for the newspaper as well as many of those on the trusted side of the GDI ledger). The New York Post was suspended by social media companies over the Hunter Biden story before the 2020 election by companies relying on false stories appearing in many of the most trustworthy sites listed by GDI.

The allegedly dangerous sites also included Reason, a website associated with UCLA Law Professor Eugene Volokh, who was clearly gobsmacked by the warning. Reason regularly posts insightful and substantive analysis from conservative and libertarian scholars. With the diminishing number of such academics on faculties, the site is a relative rarity in offering a different take on cases and legal issues. The inclusion of Reason in the listing is absurd and shows an utter lack of objective and reliable criteria. For example, GDI says that the site offers “no information regarding authorship attribution, pre-publication fact-checking or post-publication corrections processes, or policies to prevent disinformation in its comments section.” That is obviously untrue as any cursory review of the site would confirm. The Reason articles contain clear indications of authorship.

Moreover, there is a reason why Reason does not have policies posted on the removal of disinformation: it opposes content moderation policies of groups like GDI on free speech grounds. Reason like my own blog Res Ipsa (www.jonathanturley.org) opposes disinformation “processes” used to limit free speech. As Volokh noted, “Reason does not specifically police disinformation in the comments section; that is perhaps an area where Reason‘s philosophy—free minds and free markets—clashes with GDI’s.”

The GDI reviewed sites on the far left like Mother Jones that routinely run unsupported attacks on the right and debunked theories on Russian collusion or other claims. For example, many of the sites ranked as most reliable only recently admitted that the Hunter Biden laptop was not Russian disinformation. For two years, these sites spread this false story with little or no opposing viewpoints despite early refutation by American intelligence.

Even in 2021, NPR still claimed that “The laptop story was discredited by U.S. intelligence and independent investigations by news organizations.” After a chorus of objections to the clearly false story, it corrected the story but still stated falsely that “numerous news organizations cast doubt on the credibility of the laptop story.”  It never explained the continuing “doubt”?  Media organizations that effectively imposed a blackout on the story had already confirmed that the laptop was authentic.

Likewise, sites like NPR continued to make the false claim that former Attorney General Bill Barr cleared Lafayette Park for a photo op long after the claim was proven to be categorically untrue. The government-supported news outlet also has been routinely challenged for making biased or false claims about conservatives, including Supreme Court justices.

Nevertheless, the New York Post and Reason are listed as dangerous sites while sites like HuffPostare actually listed at the top of the least risky disinformation sites. HuffPost is regularly challenged on false or misleading attacks on conservatives.

None of that means that I would put NPR or Mother Jones or HuffPost on a do-not-advertise disinformation list. These are sites with a well-known liberal bent just as other sites have a conservative bent. I am not here to denounce those sites any more than I am here to defend the other sites for their content. Rather the concern is that GDI is applying skewed measures to target disfavored sites. It is concerning that the sites at either extreme of GDI’s spectrum of disinformation largely reflect the political spectrum. (One exception is the Wall Street Journal, which is in the most trustworthy grouping).

GDI accuses sites like Reason of lacking transparency on issues like authorship but the group is fairly opaque on its own conclusions and standards. The explanations for tagging these sites are riddled with subjective and ambiguous terms. For example, GDI includes RealClearPolitics due to what GDI considers “biased and sensational language.” Did the reviewers actually visit the sites of Mother Jones and HuffPost in evaluating comparative levels of bias? Were those sites paragons of neutrality and circumspection?

GDI further says that RealClearPolitics “lacked clear and diverse sources.” Many of the sites ranked as most reliable (and thus worthy of advertising revenue) are routinely criticized for excluding conservative or libertarian perspectives. HuffPost and Mother Jones have a range of diversity that runs from the left to the far left.

The New York Times has led efforts to exclude opposing voices from the right. In 2020, the the Times issued a cringing apology for running a column by Sen. Tom Cotton. The Times forced out editor James Bennet and apologized for publishing Cotton’s column calling for the use of the troops to restore order in Washington after days of rioting around the White House. (Bennet recently denounced his former newspaper for abandoning journalistic standards of balance).

The GDI disinformation index shows the very favoritism that it attributes to others. For example, in discouraging advertisers from supporting the New York Post, the group declares that “content sampled from the Post frequently displayed bias, sensationalism and clickbait, which carries the risk of misleading the site’s reader.” The line reflects the utter lack of self-awareness of self-appointed monitors of disinformation. There is no effort to explain what constitutes “clickbait” or “sensationalism” in comparison to more favored sites like HuffPost.

The fact that GDI reflects such bias is not particularly surprising. Disinformation efforts have long displayed pronounced political influences and agendas. Indeed, we have seen recent disclosures of how members of Congress like Rep. Adam Schiff (D., Cal.) secretly sought to use disinformation claims to ban critics, including a columnist, from social media.

What is more troubling is the funding of the United States government for a group seeking to target conservative sites and deter advertisers from supporting them. I recently testified on the disclosures of the Twitter Files and the confirmation of coordination by the FBI and other federal agencies with social media companies in censoring citizens. I noted that the Administration played the public for chumps. After yielding to an outcry over the creation of the Disinformation Governance Board, the Administration disbanded it. It never mentioned that a far larger censorship effort was being carried out with an estimated 80 federal employees in targeting citizens and others. While the GDI effort is smaller in comparison and effect, it is an additional facet of this effort. It is not known if the Administration has other programs of this kind and the Democrats continue to vehemently oppose any investigation into these free speech concerns.

In other words, the Board was just a shiny object that distracted from a far more comprehensive effort to censor and control speech on social media. I still would not call it disinformation but one might call it deceitful.

*

Note to readers: Please click the share buttons above. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

Featured image is from Jonathan Turley

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on The Global Disinformation Index (GDI): Government-Funded Group Targets “Riskiest Online News Outlets”
  • Tags:

All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the Translate Website button below the author’s name (desktop version)

To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.

Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

***

Attorneys with the Fluoride Action Network and the U.S. government have agreed to the release of a censored report on the toxicity of fluoride, the latest development in the ongoing Fluoride lawsuit.

After numerous delays, and intervention by Assistant Health Secretary Rachel Levine, the U.S. National Toxicology Program’s review of Fluoride’s toxicity will soon be released to the public. The move is the latest development in the nearly decade-long legal battle between the Fluoride Action Network, Food and Water Watch, Organic Consumers Association, and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

Attorneys with the Fluoride Action Network and the National Institute for Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS), parent agency for the National Toxicology Program, have agreed to the release of the long-delayed NTP review on fluoride’s toxicity. The release of the documents will play a major role in the next phase of the ongoing lawsuit against the EPA.

The decision to release the documents was made at a February 3rd meeting between counsel for the Fluoride Action Network and the NIEHS following a subpoena requesting comments from the agency, the NTP’s responses, and additional documents relevant to the decision not published in the NTP’s completed fluoride monograph in May 2022.

The NIEHS agreed to publicly post the NTP monograph to the NTP website, as well as comments provided by a little known bureaucracy known as the Board of Scientific Counselors, and the NTP’s subsequent responses. In addition to the NTP monograph they will also publish a related meta-analysis that has been a subject of debate in recent hearings.

In a hearing on January 10th, Michael Connett, representing the Fluoride Action Network and other plaintiffs, expressed interest in obtaining comments from officials within the Department of Health and Human Services. In a declaration to the court, Dr. Richard Woychik, Director of the NIEHS, claimed it is these comments from unknown officials at the HHS which lead to the monograph being put on hold.

The EPA told Judge Edward Chen these comments should be privileged and not allowed as evidence in court or made public. Ultimately, Judge Chen ordered the two parties to meet and come to an agreement about which documents would be made public.

The NIEHS agreed to post the documents on or before March 15th, before the next scheduled court hearing on April 11th.

Judge Chen has previously said he is likely to set a new trial date at the April hearing. The release of the NTP monograph, a related meta-analysis and interagency comments are likely to play a major role in the second trial phase of the nearly decade-long legal battle.

The Fluoride Emails Reveal Corruption of Science

The discussion around the comments related to the NTP’s unreleased monograph stem from revelations contained within internal CDC emails which were obtained via Freedom of Information Act requests by Connett. The emailsindicate the NTP report was not made public due to interference from Assistant Health Secretary Rachel Levine and National Institute of Health Director Lawrence A. Tabak. One email from the CDC dated June 3, 2022, specifically stated, “ASH Levine has put the report on hold until further notice.”

Connett outlined the findings of the emails in several exhibits submitted to Judge Chen.

“These emails confirm that the NTP considered the May 2022 monograph to be the NTP’s final report,” Connett writes. “They also confirm that the CDC was opposed to the NTP releasing the report, and that leadership at the top levels of the Department of Health Human Services intervened to stop the report from being released.”

As Connett notes, on April 28, 2022, Dr. Mary Wolfe, the Director of NTP’s Office of Policy, Review and Outreach, emailed Casey Hannan, the Director of CDC’s Division of Oral Health, and stated that the NTP’s “analysis and conclusions are set”. Dr. Wolfe also let Hannan know that the NTP had reviewed the CDC’s submitted comments, but still planned to release the review “mid/late May” 2022.

In a May 11, 2022 email, Wolfe again notifies Hannan and the CDC that the NTP has “set May 18, 2022 for publication of the monograph. The monograph will be posted to the NTP website, and we will email a notice of the posting to NTP listserv subscribers.”

However, later that day and the following day, Dr. Karen Hacker, the Director of CDC’s National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion (NCCDPHP), tells Dr. Wolfe that there is concern within the CDC about publishing the NTP review without an additional review by “NIH leadership”. Hacker also asked about the potential of a “interagency review” by the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS).

Dr. Wolfe subsequently told the CDC that “we (the NTP) believe the current findings, as stated in the monograph, reflect the scope of our evaluation and the available scientific literature and no revision is needed”.

Meanwhile, another study on the toxicity of fluoride has been published by scientists from Toronto’s York University in the journal Science of the Total Environment. The study, Fluoride Exposure And Hypothyroidism In A Canadian Pregnancy Cohort, linked fluoride exposure with an increased risk of hypothyroidism in pregnant women.

“The findings are concerning because hypothyroidism is a known cause of brain-based disorders in children,” stated Christine Till, PhD, clinical neuropsychologist and one of the study’s authors.

*

Note to readers: Please click the share buttons above. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

Featured image is from TLAV

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on #FluorideLawsuit: Censored Review on Fluoride’s Toxicity Will Soon be Made Public
  • Tags:

All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the Translate Website button below the author’s name (desktop version)

To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.

Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

***

One would think that the United States military staging an unprovoked “plausibly deniable” covert attack on a nation with which it is not at war would be at least considered newsworthy. That the attack did grave damage to a country with which the US is closely allied would seem to make the aggression even more unthinkable. And, perhaps worst of all, that the attack was set up by the nation’s chief executive using a political bypass that avoided congressional oversight and adherence to the war powers act which might be most reprehensible of all as it cuts to the heart of the nation’s constitutional balance of powers. It is clearly an impeachable offense. And “Yes,” for those who are still wondering, Joe Biden and his team of terrorist emulators have done all that and more, and have capped their performance with a series of flat out lies and evasions to make it appear that they had done nothing wrong.

And the mainstream America media, in its worst performance since the invasion of Iraq, has served as an echo chamber for everything the White House chooses to leak to it. Given all of that, it was perhaps completely predictable that the government-subservient press and TV news would almost completely ignore the devastating report released by top investigative journalist Seymour Hersh on February 8th. Hersh’s article was entitled “How America Took Out the Nord Stream Pipeline” with a secondary headline reading “The New York Times called it a ‘mystery,’ but the United States executed a covert sea operation that was kept secret—until now.

The article, which Hersh self-published on the internet, describes in considerable detail the preparations and execution by the US Navy Diving and Salvage Center and Central Intelligence Agency’s (CIA) Maritime Branch, coordinated and directed by the White House, to sabotage and destroy Russia’s four Baltic Sea Nord Stream gas pipelines, a war crime and terroristic action that moves the United States much closer to direct armed conflict with Russia.

Given its potential political blowback, the Hersh story might very well be the most important expose to appear since fighting began in Ukraine over a year ago, but it is being ignored by the White House, which is denying the report, with a spokesman only commenting that “This is false and complete fiction.”

The CIA’s spokesman Tammy Thorp likewise replied to Hersh that “This claim is completely and utterly false.”

The US Navy was also asked for comments but did not respond. The media, clearly evident by its inaction, has religiously adhered to that government line, possibly due to some mistaken notion that our national security forces have to be supported when they are going “toe to toe with the Russkies” over Ukraine. On the contrary, it is precisely when the government is behaving recklessly not to mention criminally to bring about an unnecessary war that the press should be in hot pursuit of the story and what it means. That is particularly so as the Ukraine conflict is now escalating and threatening to go nuclear as both sides dig in to incompatible positions.

I have known Sy Hersh for a number of years and spent time together with him and other former CIA colleagues helping to confirm details of some of his earlier exposes on US government abuses and outright lies in its somewhat not completely credible role as “guardian” of national security. Hersh is a meticulous investigator who never, in my experience, accepted uncorroborated claims in support of his narratives.

I have some understanding of who his sources in the intelligence agencies and Department of Defense might be in this case and it should be accepted that what he has written is completely verifiable and derived from individuals who were actual participants in the activities described. That is not to say that there will not be failures to recall accurately certainly details including aspects of the possible Norwegian involvement, something critics are already pointing to, but the main thrust of “whodunit” and “how” is pretty definitively demonstrated.

The report is long and includes a great deal of information on both the planning and the political decision-making that went into the willingness to destroy the pipeline, which I will briefly describe.

Sy claims the following: It has not exactly been a secret that many in the United States government have long regarded the Nord Stream pipelines to be a security threat as the supply of relatively cheap natural gas to Germany as a gateway into Europe by Russia would enable Moscow to create a dependency on it for energy which could be manipulated to produce political and strategic advantage.

As the crisis over Ukraine deepened in 2021, the Biden White House set up a secret task force that worked on possible scenarios that focused on using military and intelligence resources to physically destroy the pipelines with some measure of plausible denial of the US hand in the process in order to avoid political blowback from America’s European allies or escalation of the conflict. The secrecy was needed to protect Biden from charges of hypocrisy since he had repeatedly pledged that the US would not be directly involved in any armed conflict with Russia over Ukraine.

National Security Adviser Jake Sullivan headed the interagency task force, which convened throughout late 2021 and included key players from the Agency’s Maritime Branch and the Navy’s Diving and Salvage Center, both located in Panama City Florida, as well as the State Department, Treasury and the Joint Chiefs of Staff. The operation was originally treated as a covert action that would have required congressional oversight, but that fig leaf was abandoned and it became a “highly classified intelligence operation” when Biden and others in the administration stated publicly and clearly their intentions to stop the pipeline, making what eventually took place an openly declared policy, perhaps intended to send a warning to the Russians. A number of options to destroy the pipelines were discussed. According to Hersh, the participants in the meeting, many of whom were hawks who had cut their teeth under the Obama Administration, clearly understood that they were proposing an “act of war” that was being considered in spite of potential blowback because the president had ordered it.

There was plenty of warning of what might be coming.

In early February 2022, shortly before the Russian invasion of Ukraine, President Biden publicly pledged during a joint news conference accompanied by a silent and frowning German chancellor Olaf Scholz that “If Russia invades … there will no longer be a Nord Stream 2” and, when pressed on how he would carry that out, he responded, “We will — I promise you — we will be able to do it.”

Later, after the destruction of the pipeline, Secretary of State Blinken stated that) the sabotage offered a “tremendous opportunity to once and for all remove the dependence on Russian energy… That’s very significant and that offers tremendous strategic opportunity for the years to come.”

Not that any more confirmation was needed, but on January 22nd 2023 Under Secretary of State Victoria Nuland gloated while testifying to a US Senate committee that “the administration is very gratified to know that Nord Stream 2 is now … a hunk of metal at the bottom of the sea.”

The Biden Administration, in its arrogance has more-or-less been admitting that it was behind the sabotage, which it certainly had the motive and means to carry out, though it was carefully avoiding leaving any actual evidence behind that it had carried out the destruction. As observed above, it has also been deliberately avoiding any congressional involvement, presumably to avoid any discussion of war powers or even due to concerns over possible media leaks.

The mechanics of the placing explosives followed by the actual destruction of the pipelines was reportedly as follows:

Under cover of a NATO Baltic Sea exercise called BALTOPS-22 in June 2022 US Navy and possibly also CIA Special Activities and Norwegian deep sea divers descended 260 feet to a spot off the Danish Island of Bornholm, which was considered to be a location where the pipelines converged in relatively shallow tide-free water and were particularly vulnerable. They attached C-4 explosives both to Nord Stream 1, which was operational, and Nord Stream 2, which was completed but was waiting for German safety and security regulators’ approval to become active. The explosives were designed to be remotely detonatable.

The explosives were on a timer that created an escape window for those initiating the detonation and were reported to be activated by a secure signal sent by a sonar buoy that was dropped onto the prepared site by a Norwegian navy helicopter. The Norwegians were essential in that role due to their own military presence close to the targeted part of the Baltic as well as their considerable experience in deep-sea cold-water operations. A Norwegian Navy helicopter in the area would presumably arouse no particular concern, even from the ever-watchful Russians.

Under orders to “Go!” from Washington, on September 26, 2022 the Norwegians dropped the sonar buoy and a few hours later the C-4 explosives were detonated, immediately knocking out three of the four pipelines. In the immediate aftermath of the bombing, the US and its allies in the media made every effort to blame the Russians who were repeatedly cited as a likely culprit. Leaks from the White House and from the British government never established a clear explanation of why Moscow would be into self-sabotage of a lucrative business arrangement.

A few months later, when it was revealed that Russian authorities had been quietly getting estimates for the cost to repair the Nord Streams, in the neighborhood of $10 billion, the New York Times seemingly cluelessly described the development as “complicating theories about who was behind” the sabotage.

Indeed, it was never clear why Russia would seek to destroy its own valuable pipeline which was intended to be a major income source for many years to come, a proposition that former British diplomat Craig Murray describes as “deranged.” But a more telling rationale for the President’s action came from Secretary of State Blinken. Asked at a press conference in September about the consequences of the worsening global energy crisis, most felt in Western Europe, a delusional Blinken described the development in positive terms, enthusing how the destruction would “take away from Vladimir Putin the weaponization of energy as a means of advancing his imperial designs.”

The tale told by Sy Hersh is yet another great betrayal by the country’s so-called leadership, an egregious example of the United States government aided by its lap-dog media again lying to its own citizens and the world to cover-up a criminal act that in no way made Americans safer or more prosperous. In the US, the gadfly Tucker Carlson, among prominent journalists, has up to this point dared to present the investigative account developed by Hersh in a five-minute segment of his program. Newsweek has also run a piece examining the issues raised featuring Constitutional lawyer John Yoo. More interesting perhaps, a half hour interview of Hersh by Amy Goodman on PBS television’s Democracy Now! aired last week but then was partially blocked because YouTube considered it to be “inappropriate or offensive.”

The full availability of the Seymour Hersh interview video has since that time been restored with the Democracy Now! channel providing the following explanatory message:

“UPDATE: We have blurred some imagery about 30 seconds into the video in response to a content warning from YouTube that severely limited the reach of this interview. What you see now is an edited version. For the uncensored version of this interview that aired on our show, visit democracynow.org.”

Beyond that exposure, there remain, nevertheless, a lot of questions about the destruction of Nord Stream, which was unambiguously an act of war or even terrorism, that continue to be unanswered.

Consider, for example, how NATO countries, the US and Norway, de facto attacked fellow NATO country Germany, which was both the intended recipient and an economic partner in the pipelines. Though some British involvement in the operation, also detected by Russian intelligence, was quickly revealed publicly by then-British Prime Minister Elizabeth Truss’s “It’s done” text to Secretary of State Antony Blinken sixty seconds after the detonation.

Berlin apparently was not trusted enough to have a voice in the planning and execution of the bombing even though it was gravely damaged by it. Also, Article 5 of the NATO charter says an attack on one nation requires all other alliance members to aid the country that was targeted and it is intriguing to consider whether the rest of NATO ought to go to war with the United States and Norway. Alternatively, can “friends” in the defensive alliance attack each other without consequences or ought the US and Norway now be considered rogue nations? Will the alliance itself be able to stay together if several member states take steps unilaterally that can severely damage the economy of another member? And how are the Germans actually responding to their sinking economy and standards of living, with closing factories and cold houses as a consequence of the US/Norwegian action?

Americans, for their part, should also be thinking deeply about the government we have and the lack of restraint with which it behaves. The framers of the Constitution gave only to Congress the power to declare war, perhaps imagining that at some future date the president might stoop to using the military and naval forces of the United States globally to punish and coerce other nations, seize their territory, and kill their people. And it is all justified by something called “exceptionalism” empowering a massive sustained deception that waging continuous war is actually keeping the peace in a “rules based international order.”

But the final, and biggest, question remains: How will Russia retaliate to Nord Stream? Will it be one step closer to possible nuclear war initiated by Joe Biden’s reckless move or will the Kremlin persist with its request to have the United Nations Security Council investigate the incident? Moscow will certainly be careful to pick the right time and place, but the last act in this play surely remains to be written.

*

Note to readers: Please click the share buttons above. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

This article was originally published on The Unz Review.

Philip M. Giraldi, Ph.D., is Executive Director of the Council for the National Interest, a 501(c)3 tax deductible educational foundation (Federal ID Number #52-1739023) that seeks a more interests-based U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East. Website is councilforthenationalinterest.org, address is P.O. Box 2157, Purcellville VA 20134 and its email is [email protected].

He is a regular contributor to Global Research.

Featured image is from TUR

All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the Translate Website button below the author’s name (desktop version)

To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.

Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

***

Victoria Nuland, the undersecretary of state for political affairs, said last week that the US is “supporting” Ukrainian attacks on Crimea and called Russian military installations on the peninsula “legitimate targets.”

Nuland made the comments when asked about a report from The New York Times that was published in January and said the Biden administration was “warming” to the idea of helping Ukraine attack Russia despite the risk of escalation.

“Russia has turned Crimea into a massive military installation … those are legitimate targets, Ukraine is hitting them, and we are supporting that,” Nuland told the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, a Washington DC-based think tank.

Nuland also expressed support for the “demilitarization” of Crimea.

“No matter what the Ukrainians decide about Crimea in terms of where they choose to fight, etcetera, Ukraine is not going to be safe unless Crimea is at a minimum — at a minimum — demilitarized,” she said.

Russian Foreign Ministry Spokeswoman Maria Zakharova slammed Nuland’s comments, saying she was inciting an escalation of the war.

“Now the American warmongers have gone even further: they are inciting the Kiev regime to further escalate, to bring the war to the territory of our country. Just like that, with direct strikes,” Zakharova said.

Nuland’s comments came a day after Secretary of State Antony Blinken acknowledged that a Ukrainian attempt at retaking Crimea would be a “red line” for Russian President Vladimir Putin and would risk a major response from Moscow. US support for such operations would increase the risk of provoking Moscow and heighten the chances of a direct clash between NATO and Russia.

Putin has shown that he will significantly escalate the war over attacks on Crimea. Russia did not start large-scale missile strikes on Ukraine’s energy infrastructure until after the truck bombing of the Kerch Bridge, which connects Crimea to the Russian mainland.

While Ukraine hasn’t been in a position where it can launch an offensive against Crimea, the Biden administration has made clear throughout the conflict that it wouldn’t discourage Kyiv from attacking the peninsula.

Back in the summer of 2022, when the US first provided the HIMARS rocket systems to Ukraine, the administration sought assurances that the weapons wouldn’t be used to target Russian territory. When asked by Antiwar.com if that restriction applied to Crimea, a State Department spokesperson replied, “Crimea is Ukraine.”

Russia has controlled Crimea since 2014, but neither the US nor Kyiv recognize the peninsula as Russian territory. The people of Crimea voted to join Russia following a US-backed coup in Kyiv, which Nuland played an instrumental role in, and polling since 2014 has shown that they are still happy with the change.

*

Note to readers: Please click the share buttons above. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

Dave DeCamp is the news editor of Antiwar.com, follow him on Twitter @decampdave.

Featured image is from The Unz Review

How Much Is U.S. Aid to Ukraine Costing You?

February 21st, 2023 by David Henderson

All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the Translate Website button below the author’s name (desktop version)

To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.

Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

***

In 2022, the U.S. government approved expenditures of $113 billion on aid to Ukraine. The Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget writes:

In total, CBO estimated that $6.6 billion of the $113 billion would be spent in FY 2022 and another $37.7 billion in FY 2023. Furthermore, CBO estimated more than half of the approved funds would be spent by the end of FY 2024 and more than three-fourths by the end of FY 2026.

How much will that cost the average household? There are approximately 131.2 million households in the United States. So the average cost per household is $113 billion divided by 131.2 million, which is $861.

Of course, averages are often under-informative. That’s true of this one. In 2018, according to the Brookings Institute, high-income households, those in the top 20% of the income distribution, paid about 68 percent of all the tax revenue that the federal government collected. To be in the top quintile that year, you needed to have an income of $153,301 or more.

Assume for simplicity that these numbers, adjusted for inflation, are about the same today. Also, I’ll assume, even though I know it’s false, that this $113 billion will be paid entirely out of taxes rather than new debt. It’s not as bad an assumption as it looks. To the extent it’s paid out of new debt and to the extent future taxes pay off that debt, based on a progressive tax structure such as the one we have now, it would be a pretty good assumption.

So the top quintile would pay 68% of $113 billion, which is $76.8 billion. There are approximately 26 million households in the top quintile. So the cost per top-quintile household is $76.8 billion divided by 26 million, which is $2,956.

That’s a lot to fight someone else’s war.

Consider my wife’s and my case. In 2018, our income put us in the top quintile, probably just below the top 10 percent. So because we aren’t socked by high income tax rates to the same extent as the top 10 percent, our cost is probably closer to $2,000 than to $2,956. Let’s say it’s about $2,200.

Put it in perspective this way. In the first month of the war, my wife and I wanted to “do something” to help Ukrainians. A friend recommended giving money to a local restaurant owner who has relatives in Ukraine. She trusts him and we trust her. So we gave him $100. I know that that’s not much, but the $2,200 number above gives an idea of just how “not much.” We’ll pay in federal tax revenues about 22 times the amount we contributed voluntarily.

*

Note to readers: Please click the share buttons above. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

Featured image is from The Unz Review

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on How Much Is U.S. Aid to Ukraine Costing You?

How Do You Know When COVID-19 Is Over?

February 21st, 2023 by Emanuel Pastreich

All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the Translate Website button below the author’s name (desktop version)

To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.

Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

***

Mainstream newspapers, the television news, and the alternative news blogs that we are forced to rely on for information have decayed into unstable and shifting palimpsests on which scraps of science, ideology and rhetoric are projected so as to confuse and to mislead us.

Although the alternative media is screaming at us that Denmark, the Netherlands and Sweden have ended COVID19 restrictions, our experience with such “breakthroughs” so far is that the assault on humanity will continue on in another format in another country. Those countries are but a tiny part of the population of the globe.

The powerful float fraudulent signs of an impending end to COVID19 in an effort to give us hope that the current corrupt system is capable of solving the crisis on its own. That scenario, however, is entirely impossible.

The criteria that the media offers us for the end to COVID19 are so useless that we must list here for the public the true indicators that “this epidemic is inconvertibly over”

1. The assets of all the pharmaceutical companies that developed these “vaccines,” of all the multinational media corporations that promoted the COVID19 hoax, of all the investment banks and private equity funds like BlackRock, Goldman Sachs and Bank of America that invested in the companies that promoted the hoax, and the assets of all the super-rich, starting with Bill Gates and Jeff Bezos, who funded the project secretly (or openly) are confiscated and those assets are employed to cover the reparations for those who have been injured by the vaccines, by the PCR tests, by the illegal lockdowns and by social distancing measures that were intended to destroy the lives of ordinary citizens.  Other related criminal actions by corporations, governments, hospitals, research institutes, and other organizations controlled by these forces will also be confiscated.

2. The major figures at the Gates Foundation (including Bill and Melinda Gates), at the World Economic Forum (including Klaus Schwab), at DARPA (Defense Advance Research Projects Agency), at The Wellcome Trust, and at the major multinational corporations like Pfizer and Moderna who were responsible for the development of, and the promotion of, these deadly “vaccines” are arrested and tried for their crimes.

All documents related to the COVID19 operation in the United States, Israel, France, Great Britain, Germany, Russia, China, Japan, South Korea and elsewhere are fully declassified so that the trials can be conducted in a meaningful manner and the corrupt relationship between corporations, billionaires, governments and institutions of global governance made clear to the world. 

3. The politicians and government officials who promoted the COVID19 hoax, who followed the orders from lobbyists and corporate representatives to enact COVID19 directives, and who obeyed the directions from the lackeys of the super-rich, are removed from office, and, in many cases, jailed.

4. The development of long-term treatment for the symptoms of those injected with modified RNA is made a critical subject for medical research and substantial funding, derived from the assets seized from those responsible, is committed to that research.

Similar research on the long-term treatment of the ill effects on the body of nano-sensors, nano-robots, graphene oxide, and the other toxic substances contained in these vaccines, and in other vaccines, is launched with the intention of developing new therapies.

Policies are put in place to assure that all future vaccines, and other medications, are subject to rigorous scientific evaluation by experts who derive no financial benefit from corporations and that the contents of vaccines are fully disclosed to the world.

5. New healthcare policies are adopted in the United States (and elsewhere) that take the profit out of drugs and out of medical treatment, and the pharmaceutical lobby is shut down, and its leaders jailed, for the distribution of fraudulent materials to promote dangerous and addictive medications, and for the false testimony they gave before Congress and before other government institutions.

The privatization of research, and of medical treatment in the United States, that led to the COVID19 fraud is ended and medicine for the people, by the people and of the people is put into effect.

6. The true and complete story of how this COVID19 hoax was hatched, and implemented on a global scale, is described in detail for the public in carefully researched articles, accessible books, and those materials are made an essential part in history books employed in schools and universities.

All information related to the COVID19 hoax is declassified and all corporate records are made public.

If the six criteria listed above have been met, you can be confident that the COVID19 pandemic is nearing its end. If not, you should not be distracted by screaming headlines about the end of mask or vaccine mandates.

*

Note to readers: Please click the share buttons above. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

This article was originally published on Fear No Evil.

Emanuel Pastreich served as the president of the Asia Institute, a think tank with offices in Washington DC, Seoul, Tokyo and Hanoi. Pastreich also serves as director general of the Institute for Future Urban Environments. Pastreich declared his candidacy for president of the United States as an independent in February, 2020.

He is a regular contributor to Global Research.

Featured image is from Children’s Health Defense


The Worldwide Corona Crisis, Global Coup d’Etat Against Humanity

by Michel Chossudovsky

Michel Chossudovsky reviews in detail how this insidious project “destroys people’s lives”. He provides a comprehensive analysis of everything you need to know about the “pandemic” — from the medical dimensions to the economic and social repercussions, political underpinnings, and mental and psychological impacts.

“My objective as an author is to inform people worldwide and refute the official narrative which has been used as a justification to destabilize the economic and social fabric of entire countries, followed by the imposition of the “deadly” COVID-19 “vaccine”. This crisis affects humanity in its entirety: almost 8 billion people. We stand in solidarity with our fellow human beings and our children worldwide. Truth is a powerful instrument.”

ISBN: 978-0-9879389-3-0,  Year: 2022,  PDF Ebook,  Pages: 164, 15 Chapters

Price: $11.50 Get yours for FREE! Click here to download.

We encourage you to support the eBook project by making a donation through Global Research’s DonorBox “Worldwide Corona Crisis” Campaign Page

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on How Do You Know When COVID-19 Is Over?

All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the Translate Website button below the author’s name (desktop version)

To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.

Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

***

As an Oncologist, I diagnosed 10,000s of Canadian cancer patients and treated 100s with Targeted Radionuclide Therapy. I have seen many horrific things during my career. But I have never seen a rapid progression like this.

From Diagnosis to death in 4 days 

21 year old California University student Evan Fishel was graduating from Cal Maritime Academy and was accepted to Berkeley Law School. He died on Feb.10, 2023, 4 days after being diagnosed with Leukemia (click here).

His University, Cal Maritime Academy had a COVID-19 vaccine mandate and to this day, recommends COVID-19 booster shots based on CDC guidelines (click here).

“Turbo cancer” post COVID-19 Vaccination

I never liked the term “turbo cancer”. It doesn’t sound very scientific. However, it is a term that has caught on and is now recognized as a frightening phenomenon following COVID-19 vaccination.

In November 2021, a small paper was published by Goldman et al: “Rapid Progression of Angioimmunoblastic T Cell Lymphoma Following Pfizer mRNA vaccine booster shot” (click here).

This image will be familiar to many:

I performed thousands of PET/CT scans like this in Edmonton, Alberta with radio-labeled glucose, to diagnose cancer patients. Other than the normal brain, heart and radioactive urine in the bladder, the rest of the black dots are cancer-filled lymph nodes in the neck, axillae and iliac regions.

This was a 66 yo man who had 2 Pfizer COVID-19 mRNA vaccines and developed an aggressive lymphoma 6 months later (left image). In preparation for chemotherapy, doctors gave him a Pfizer COVID-19 mRNA booster shot (!!!). Within a few days, the patient reported “considerable swelling of neck lymph nodes”. Fortunately, his doctors wanted another PET/CT scan to have a more precise baseline scan before his chemotherapy, so they did one 8 days after the COVID-19 booster shot.

In the image on the right, the cancer effectively exploded all over the body, growing and spreading to new groups of lymph nodes in new locations. The authors themselves noted just how abnormal this was:

“First, the dramatic speed and magnitude of the progression manifested on two 18F-FDG PET-CT performed 22 days apart. Such a rapid evolution would be highly unexpected in the natural course in the disease.”

“this is the first observation suggesting that administration of a SARS-CoV-2 vaccine might induce AITL (lymphoma) progression”

This was the first time that “turbo cancer” following COVID-19 vaccination was caught on a PET/CT scan, and it was purely by chance.

There was another small study by Zamfir et al. reporting two cases of aggressive lymphoma that developed within a week following Pfizer COVID-19 mRNAvaccination (click here). This study includes some gruesome pictures of these rapidly progressing cancers.

No one has been able to properly explain these cases. One US surgical oncologist wrote a long article in Dec.2022 claiming that “turbo cancer” doesn’t exist (click here). In his article, he also doesn’t provide any explanation for these shocking cases, and his entire argument rests on a series of faulty assumptions on what the spike protein mRNA can or cannot do.

How can COVID-19 vaccines induce “turbo cancer”? 

The effects of COVID-19 vaccines on the immune system are extremely complex and not fully understood. However, based on several studies I can best summarize it like this:

COVID-19 vaccines “reprogram” the immune system (click here). This reprogramming alters the normal communication between immune system cells (production of certain cytokines), and it also alters the function and activity of certain immune cells.

As the authors of another study noted (click here):

“…revealed dramatic alterations in gene expression of almost all immune cells after vaccination

MIT scientist Stephanie Seneff and Texas Cardiologist Dr.Peter McCullough wrote an article titled “Innate Immune Suppression by SARS-CoV-2 mRNA vaccinations” (click here) which describes complex mechanisms by which mRNA vaccines impair immune system signaling, leading to innate immune suppression:

There is also a study that suggests that SARS-CoV-2 spike protein strongly interacts with tumor suppressor proteins p53 and BRCA-1/2, potentially turning them off (click here):

“p53 and BRCA are the well-known tumor suppressor proteins, that regulate downstream genes in response to numerous cellular stress and are frequently mutated in human cancer”

In some people, this immune system “reprogramming” or innate immune system suppression leads to a complete loss of protection against cancer cells arising and spreading rapidly.

Recently, on the “Ask Dr. Drew” show, US pathologist Dr. Ryan Cole showed evidence of the extensive presence of spike protein in lymphoma tumors (view here).

Needless to say, COVID-19 mRNA vaccine spike protein should not be found in malignant tumours.

Anecdotal reports on twitter…

There are many anecdotal reports on twitter from people who describe “turbo cancers” suffered by their family members following COVID-19 vaccination. Most of these seem honest enough to take seriously, but it is clear that doctors are not taking these cases seriously enough.

My take…

Many obituaries now talk about a “brief but courageous battle with cancer”. We need more autopsies with immunohistochemical staining for the spike protein in cases of rapidly progressing cancer, but we will not be getting them anytime soon. Certainly not in Canada.

So far, doctors are not taking this issue seriously, and by the time they do, it will be far too late for many, and we may have a full blown healthcare catastrophe on our hands.

*

Note to readers: Please click the share buttons above. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

Featured image is from UKColumn


The Worldwide Corona Crisis, Global Coup d’Etat Against Humanity

by Michel Chossudovsky

Michel Chossudovsky reviews in detail how this insidious project “destroys people’s lives”. He provides a comprehensive analysis of everything you need to know about the “pandemic” — from the medical dimensions to the economic and social repercussions, political underpinnings, and mental and psychological impacts.

“My objective as an author is to inform people worldwide and refute the official narrative which has been used as a justification to destabilize the economic and social fabric of entire countries, followed by the imposition of the “deadly” COVID-19 “vaccine”. This crisis affects humanity in its entirety: almost 8 billion people. We stand in solidarity with our fellow human beings and our children worldwide. Truth is a powerful instrument.”

ISBN: 978-0-9879389-3-0,  Year: 2022,  PDF Ebook,  Pages: 164, 15 Chapters

Price: $11.50 Get yours for FREE! Click here to download.

We encourage you to support the eBook project by making a donation through Global Research’s DonorBox “Worldwide Corona Crisis” Campaign Page

Ohio Disaster: When Hedge Funds Manage Rail Traffic

February 21st, 2023 by Free West Media

All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the Translate Website button below the author’s name (desktop version)

To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.

Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

***

After the derailment of a freight train loaded with highly toxic chemicals in the US state of Ohio, a devastating environmental catastrophe may now be imminent. The wagons burned for days, and a “controlled” explosion by the authorities released dangerous gases into the environment.

*

A dark cloud of smoke could be seen from afar. The residents who were brought to safety are now allowed to return to their homes. But they all reported skin and respiratory irritation and numerous dead animals.

About 50 wagons of the freight train, some of which were loaded with the carcinogenic vinyl chloride and other chemicals, derailed on February 3 in East Palestine, Ohio. Several of the tankers caught fire. To prevent an explosion, local authorities decided to release the vinyl chloride. Now there are fears of a large-scale environmental disaster, which could affect the region’s drinking water supply in particular.

Environmental disaster

The US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) said state and local agencies are taking samples throughout the Ohio River “to ensure drinking water abstraction points are not affected.” At the same time, they tried to reassure the population that there was no acute danger to life. However, environmentalists warn that burning vinyl chloride releases hydrogen chloride and phosgene. The latter served as a chemical warfare agent during World War I. In Ohio, it is feared that these substances have settled in groundwater and soil.

There has also been strong criticism of the safety precautions that are apparently too lax. The accident train is said not to have been equipped with electronic pneumatic brakes. Worse still, according to Ohio Governor Mike DeWine, the train was not marked as dangerous goods.

Biden administration also responsible for gross neglect

US commentators also point to a possible link between the train disaster and the ongoing conflict between US railroad workers’ unions and the Biden administration.

The unions have been on strike for months, one of the main reasons being rationalization measures associated with the acronym PSR: Precision Scheduled Railroading. According to railroad workers, PSR results in fewer staff, less maintenance, fewer vacation days, longer trains and questionable business practices, with railroad companies being forced to keep their trains moving as much as possible for profit reasons.

Hedge funds implicated

Many of the larger US railroads are managed by large hedge funds and financial investors such as Vanguard, JP Morgan and BlackRock, as is the Norfolk Southern Railway, one of the major railroad companies east of the Mississippi River.

According to some sources, Norfolk Southern has since been trying to pay affected residents $1000 “inconvenience” fees because they have been exposed to dangerous, toxic carcinogens. BlackRock and Vanguard will try to use it as a waiver of all future claims, they say.

The disaster train, traveling from Illinois to the Conway station on February 3, ran over a sensor that detects heat on the train’s wheels and axles and reported that the wheels were on fire. What is now known is that instead of stopping to inspect and repair the damage, the train crew was instructed by the dispatcher to proceed towards Conway, allowing the train to travel 20 miles at a speed of 30 kilometers per hour to East Palestine Station.

Meanwhile, the wheels overheated. Videos from surveillance cameras have now surfaced online showing sparks flying from some of the overheated wagon axles. Some of the cars derailed, causing a fire.

Most farms in Idaho are family owned

Federal data released in January 2022 by USDA’s National Agricultural Statistics Service, showed that ninety-six percent of the 25 000 farms in Idaho are family owned, adding to concerns about the the future of their livelihoods as the Ohio basin provides water to 5 million residents.

The data was gathered from the 2017 Census of Agriculture. “For consumers, that means most of the food products they buy were produced by families just like theirs,” said Idaho Farm Bureau Federation President Bryan Searle.

“We farm potatoes, sugar beets, wheat and children, but not in that order; the children come first,” one farmer explained. “It’s a very family-oriented operation. When it comes time for planting or harvesting, we’re all involved. We all climb in different trucks and tractors, all the wives and kids. We’re all involved in it.”

Highlights from the NASS report

Small family farms (with gross cash farm income, or GCFI, of less than $350 000 per year) account for 45 percent of all direct sales to consumers, compared to 17 percent for mid-size family farms (GCFI between $350 000 and $999 999) and 23 percent for large-scale family farms (GCFI of $1 million or more).

The majority of small family farms specialize in cattle (34 percent) or “other crops” (23 percent). More than half (53 percent) of mid-size farms specialize in grains and oilseeds. Large-scale family farms vary more in product specialization, although they are more likely than other family farms to specialize in dairy production or specialty crops.

*

Note to readers: Please click the share buttons above. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

Featured image: Contractors removing the burnt wagons, East Palestine, Ohio. (Facebook via Free West Media)

All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the Translate Website button below the author’s name (desktop version)

To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.

Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

***

The whole reason why the mainstream media and allied accounts on social media are overdosing on this cheap “copium” is because they know very well that tougher days are ahead for their side considering NATO’s military-industrial crisis, the sanctions’ failure, and Russia’s likely capture of Artyomovsk/“Bakhmut”. Kiev’s supporters urgently need a proverbial shot in the arm to keep their morale alive amidst the series of impending setbacks that are poised to afflict the Golden Billion’s proxies in the coming future.

The term “copium” refers to an artificially manufactured narrative aimed at distracting a targeted audience from a disadvantageous development by convincing them that “everything is going according to plan”, which is why it’s a fitting description of the purpose behind Biden’s surprise visit to Kiev. His trip occurred against the context of the NATO chief finally admitting his bloc’s military-industrial crisis that risks depriving its Ukrainian vassals of the armed support they need to continue this proxy war.

Just the day before Biden arrived, Zelensky disclosed in an interview with Italian media that his forces might abandon Artyomovsk/“Bakhmut” if their casualties continue to climb, which represents a decisive reversal of the “official narrative” hitherto claiming that they’ll cling to it no matter the cost. On the topic of decisive narrative shifts, American and Polish officials spent the past month informing everyone that Kiev’s victory is no longer “inevitable”, which was meant to prepare them for impending setbacks.

Between the initiation of that newfound narrative trend and Biden’s trip, the New York Times reported that the West’s anti-Russian sanctions failed, after which Bloomberg proved that India had been working as the middleman for indirectly facilitating Russia’s oil exports to the West. Russian Foreign Minister Lavrov’s two practically back-to-back trips to Africa in recent weeks also confirmed that his country is far from isolated since it enjoys that geostrategic continent’s support.

The sequence of events that began at the start of this year were obviously disadvantageous for the US-led West’s Golden Billion since they discredited everything that this de facto New Cold War bloc’s perception managers had claimed up until that point. Russia continues gradually gaining ground in Donbass, neither its economy nor military collapsed under sanctions, and the global systemic transition to multipolarity has only accelerated since the start of its special operation a year ago.

It therefore makes perfect sense why the US was so desperate for a distraction, hence Biden’s visit to Kiev, which is being spun by the Mainstream Media (MSM) as supposedly representing one of the most symbolic moments since Russia was forced to initiate the latest phase of the Ukrainian Conflict. Nothing of tangible significance was achieved during his trip, though, and the comparatively miniscule armed aid that he announced on Monday obviously didn’t require him to be there in person.

The whole reason why the MSM and allied accounts on social media are overdosing on this cheap “copium” is because they know very well that tougher days are ahead for their side considering NATO’s military-industrial crisis, the sanctions’ failure, and Russia’s likely capture of Artyomovsk/“Bakhmut”. Kiev’s supporters urgently need a proverbial shot in the arm to keep their morale alive amidst the series of impending setbacks that are poised to afflict the Golden Billion’s proxies in the coming future.

The last thing that this de facto New Cold War bloc’s liberal-globalist elite needs is the masses losing hope in this post-modern crusade lest public pressure build to the point of complicating some NATO countries’ further dispatch of armed assistance to Kiev at the expense of their minimum security needs. The chain reaction of disadvantageous developments that was described in the present analysis and everything else that might thus follow if that unfolds could end up being a game-changer in this conflict.

The military-strategic dynamics are trending in Russia’s favor at this pivotal moment in the conflict, and even the economic ones too after the New York Times reported that the West’s sanctions failed, so there’s never been a more urgent time for a “copium” binge than now. Biden’s visit to Kiev won’t change the aforesaid, but it might very well succeed in temporarily distracting the Western masses from all this long enough for their elites to weaponize a new set of infowar narratives against them.

*

Note to readers: Please click the share buttons above or below. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

This article was originally published on Andrew Korybko’s Newsletter.

Andrew Korybko is an American Moscow-based political analyst specializing in the relationship between the US strategy in Afro-Eurasia, China’s One Belt One Road global vision of New Silk Road connectivity, and Hybrid Warfare. He is a frequent contributor to Global Research.

He is a regular contributor to Global Research.

Featured image is from the author

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Biden’s Visit to Kiev: Distract Public Opinion From “Disadvantageous Developments”. Tough Days Ahead for US-NATO?

Your Smartphone Has a Human Cost

February 21st, 2023 by Prof. Siddharth Kara

All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the Translate Website button below the author’s name (desktop version)

To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.

Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

***

We are all aware of just how much today’s world depends on fossil fuels. Oil, coal, and natural gas are extracted in every corner of the globe, beneath oceans, deserts, mountains, and land. Imagine for a moment if almost three-fourths of all fossil fuel beneath the earth’s surface was instead extracted from a single patch of earth roughly four hundred by one hundred kilometers in size. Imagine that within this patch of earth, approximately half the oil was located in and around a single city and that the deposits were shallow enough for anyone to access with a shovel. This would surely be the most indispensable city in the world. Massive drilling companies would flock to it to stake their claims on the riches. So too would the local population from miles around. Violence would erupt to secure control of valuable territory. Preservation of the environment would become an afterthought. Regional governance would be marred by corruption. Profits would be asymmetrically distributed, with powerful stakeholders at the top of the chain accruing the most benefit while the local inhabitants languished. This is the exact situation taking place today with a crucial mineral that will be as important to our future as fossil fuels have been to our past. The mineral is cobalt, and the city is Kolwezi.

Kolwezi is tucked in the hazy hills of the southeastern corner of the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC). Although most people have never heard of Kolwezi, billions of people could not conduct their daily lives without this city. The batteries in almost every smartphone, tablet, laptop, and electric vehicle made today cannot recharge without Kolwezi. The cobalt found in the dirt here provides maximum stability and energy density to rechargeable batteries, allowing them to hold more charge and operate safely for longer periods. Remove cobalt from the battery, and you will have to plug in your smartphone or electric vehicle much more often, and before long, the batteries may very well catch on fire. There is no known deposit of cobalt-containing ore anywhere in the world that is larger, more accessible, and higher grade than the cobalt under Kolwezi.

Cobalt is typically found in nature bound to copper, and the copper-cobalt deposits in the Congo stretch in varying degrees of density and grade along a four-hundred-kilometer crescent from Kolwezi to northern Zambia, forming an area called the Central African Copper Belt. The Copper Belt is a metallogenic wonder that contains vast mineral riches, including 10 percent of the world’s copper and about half the world’s cobalt reserves. In 2021, a total of 111,750 tons of cobalt representing 72 percent of the global supply was mined in the DRC, a contribution that is expected to increase as demand from consumer-facing technology companies and electric vehicle manufacturers grows each year.1 One might reasonably expect Kolwezi to be a boom town in which fortunes are made by intrepid prospectors. Nothing could be further from the truth. Kolwezi, like the rest of the Congolese Copper Belt, is a land scarred by the mad scramble to feed cobalt up the chain into the hands of consumers across the globe. The scale of destruction is enormous, and the magnitude of suffering is incalculable. Kolwezi is the new heart of darkness, a tormented heir to those Congolese atrocities that came before— colonization, wars, and generations of slavery.

The first European to cross the heart of the African continent in a single trip from east to west, British lieutenant Verney Lovett Cameron, ominously wrote this about the Congo in The Times on January 71876:

The interior is mostly a magnificent and healthy country of unspeakable richness. I have a small specimen of good coal; other minerals such as gold, copper, iron and silver are abundant, and I am confident that with a wise and liberal (not lavish) expenditure of capital, one of the greatest systems of inland navigation in the world might be utilized, and from 30 months to 36 months begin to repay any enterprising capitalist that might take the matter in hand.

Within a decade of Cameron’s missive, ​enterprising capitalists” began pillaging the ​unspeakable richness” of the Congo. The great Congo River and its capillary-like tributaries provided a built-in system of navigation for Europeans making their way into the heart of Africa, as well as a means by which to transport valuable resources from the interior back to the Atlantic coast. No one knew at the outset that the Congo would prove to be home to some of the largest supplies of almost every resource the world desired, often at the time of new inventions or industrial developments — ivory for piano keys, crucifixes, false teeth, and carvings (1880s), rubber for car and bicycle tires (1890s), palm oil for soap (1900s+), copper, tin, zinc, silver, and nickel for industrialization (1910+), diamonds and gold for riches (always), uranium for nuclear bombs (1945), tantalum and tungsten for microprocessors (2000s+), and cobalt for rechargeable batteries (2012+). The developments that sparked demand for each resource attracted a new wave of treasure seekers. At no point in their history have the Congolese people benefited in any meaningful way from the monetization of their country’s resources. Rather, they have often served as a slave labor force for the extraction of those resources at minimum cost and maximum suffering.

The rapacious appetite for cobalt is a direct result of today’s device-driven economy combined with the global transition from fossil fuels to renewable sources of energy. Automakers are rapidly increasing production of electric vehicles in tandem with governmental efforts to reduce carbon emissions emerging from the Paris Agreement on climate change in 2015. These commitments were amplified during the COP26 meetings in 2021. The battery packs in electric vehicles require up to ten kilograms of refined cobalt each, more than one thousand times the amount required for a smartphone battery. As a result, demand for cobalt is expected to grow by almost 500 percent from 2018 to 2050 and there is no known place on earth to find that amount of cobalt other than the DRC.

Cobalt mining in towns like Kolwezi takes place at the bottom of complex supply chains that unfurl like a kraken into some of the richest and most powerful companies in the world. Apple, Samsung, Google, Microsoft, Dell, LTC, Huawei, Tesla, Ford, General Motors, BMW, and Daimler-Chrysler are just some of the companies that buy some, most, or all their cobalt from the DRC, by way of battery manufacturers and cobalt refiners based in China, Japan, South Korea, Finland, and Belgium. None of these companies claims to tolerate the hostile conditions under which cobalt is mined in the Congo, but neither they nor anyone else are undertaking sufficient efforts to ameliorate these conditions. In fact, no one seems to accept responsibility at all for the negative consequences of cobalt mining in the Congo — not the Congolese government, not foreign mining companies, not battery manufacturers, and certainly not mega-cap tech and car companies. Accountability vanishes like morning mist in the Katangan hills as it travels through the opaque supply chains that connect stone to phone and car.

The flow of minerals and money is further obscured by a web of shady connections between foreign mining companies and Congolese political leaders, some of whom have become scandalously rich auctioning the country’s mining concessions while tens of millions of Congolese people suffer extreme poverty, food insecurity, and civil strife. There was not a single peaceful transfer of power in the Congo from 1960, when Patrice Lumumba was elected to be the nation’s first prime minister, until 2019, when Félix Tshisekedi was elected. In the interim, the country was subjected to one violent coup after another, first with Joseph Mobutu, who ruled the Congo from 1965 to 1997, followed by Laurent-Désiré Kabila’s reign from 1997 to 2001, followed by his son Joseph Kabila from 2001 to 2019. I use the words rule and reign because Mobutu and the Kabilas ran the country like despots, enriching themselves on the nation’s mineral resources while leaving their people to languish.

As of 2022, there is no such thing as a clean supply chain of cobalt from the Congo. All cobalt sourced from the DRC is tainted by various degrees of abuse, including slavery, child labor, forced labor, debt bondage, human trafficking, hazardous and toxic working conditions, pathetic wages, injury and death, and incalculable environmental harm. Although there are bad actors at every link in the chain, the chain would not exist were it not for the substantial demand for cobalt created by the companies at the top. It is there, and only there, where solutions must begin. Those solutions will only have meaning if the fictions promulgated by corporate stakeholders about the conditions under which cobalt is mined in the Congo are replaced by the realities experienced by the miners themselves.

Today’s tech barons will tell you that they uphold international human rights norms and that their particular supply chains are clean. They will assure you that conditions are not as bad as they seem and that they are bringing commerce, wages, education, and development to the poorest people of Africa (“saving” them). They will also assure you that they have implemented changes to remedy the problems on the ground, at least at the mines from which they say they buy cobalt. After all, who is going to go all the way to the Congo and prove otherwise, and even if they did, who would believe them?

*

Note to readers: Please click the share buttons above. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

Excerpted from Cobalt Red: How the Blood of the Congo Powers Our Lives by Siddharth Kara.

Siddharth Kara is Associate Professor of Human Trafficking and Modern Slavery at Nottingham University and the author of Cobalt Red: How the Blood of the Congo Powers Our Lives (St Martin’s Press, January 2023).

Featured image: Pure (99.9 %) cobalt chips, electrolytically refined, as well as a high purity (99.8 % = 2N8) 1 cm3 cobalt cube for comparison. (Licensed under FAL)

Canada’s Role in the War in Syria

February 21st, 2023 by Steven Sahiounie

All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the Translate Website button below the author’s name (desktop version)

To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.

Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

***

Part one of two parts. Canada has blood on its hands in Syria. Canadian intelligence would have provided its government with the facts concerning the Syrian uprising in Deraa in March 2011.

That information would have allowed the Canadian government to determine whether to support the US-NATO attack on Syria for regime change or to stand on its own two feet and stay out of nation-building in the Middle East. 

Instead, the Canadian government knowingly hung on to the apron strings of their southern neighbor and followed the leader into destroying a nation, and deliberately preventing its recovery when the conflict was over.

The conflict in Syria has been described as a popular uprising that was crushed, or as a civil war. The Syrian conflict is neither. It was a CIA-engineered plan for regime change directed by US President Obama. Later, the EU and Canada supported the US-NATO attack on Syria because the EU and Canada usually follow the lead of the US unquestioningly.

The US plan failed because of overestimating the influence of the Muslim Brotherhood’s support in Syria. The majority of the Syrian population are Sunni Muslims, but they are overwhelmingly secular in terms of governance. Had the population supported the Free Syrian Army, which was the foot soldiers of Obama, the regime change might have been successful.  But, most Syrians rejected the notion of chopping off the heads of their neighbors to effect a change in government. The majority of Syrians reject Radical Islam, which is a political ideology hiding behind a religion.  They prefer a secular government that protects religious rights for all, given the fact, there are 18 different sects in Syria.

The conflict in Syria has ended with the country having been split into 3 sections. The main section covers 75% of the territory in the hands of the central government in Damascus, while the northeast corner is under the occupation of the US military partnership with the Kurds, and the last remaining terrorist-controlled area is in the tiny enclave of Idlib.

The Kurdish section was not involved in the recent earthquake, and they support themselves by selling stolen oil from the oil wells guarded by the US military which President Trump ordered, and President Biden has ordered to remain occupied. When the US troops leave Syria, the Kurds will reunite with the central government. The US occupation is the only thing keeping them separate.

The country has been prevented from recovery due to the US-EU sanctions which prevent any materials from being shipped to Syria. Canadian companies, and individuals, have not sent machines, materials, or other recovery supplies for fear of being penalized by the US Treasury Department.  Humanitarian supplies are supposed to be exempt, except there is a time-consuming and costly procedure to get an exemption approved, and most firms and individuals are not willing to seek approval.

On February 9 the US Treasury Department issued General License 23 which waives the sanctions for humanitarian supplies only for 180 days in the wake of the 7.8 earthquakes.  Canadian companies and individuals could send supplies to Damascus, but they must be sent through an NGO and not the Syrian government.

Humanitarian aid was sent to Idlib from the UN, crossing the Turkish border at Bab al Hawa. International aid agencies and charities have arrived in Idlib from Turkey. When the Canadian government states they are supporting humanitarian efforts inside Syria, they are referring strictly to the one small province of Idlib, under the command of Al Qaeda terrorists who call themselves Hayat Tahrir al-Sham.

Canada has taken in over 25,000 Syrian refugees. While this has been seen as a humanitarian act, it is also a political tool.  From the outset of the conflict in 2011, refugee camps were established on the border of Turkey, Jordan, and Lebanon. Refugees sleeping in tents in bad weather demonstrate on western media that Syria was not safe to live in, and not politically correct. Some of the refugees left Syria because they were politically opposed to the government in Damascus. Those refugees mainly numbered among the followers of the Muslim Brotherhood, which is a global terrorist organization, whose goal is to establish an Islamic government everywhere.  However, most of the refugees were escaping violence caused by the conflict. Houses were destroyed by both the terrorists and the Syrian Arab Army (SAA).  In many cases, it was the terrorists who attacked homes and civilians. In response to the terrorists’ attacks, the SAA responded likewise attacking terrorist positions which were located in civilian homes.

Both Turkey and Jordan were allied with the US foreign policy under Obama and were playing supporting roles to the CIA program Timber Sycamore which supported Radical Islamic terrorists fighting the government in Damascus. Both Turkey and Jordan had offices that supplied weapons, cash, and training to the terrorists fighting in Syria. The refugee camps in both countries served as a haven for the families of the terrorists fighting in Syria, in which the UN and other international aid agencies would be feeding and caring for the basic needs of the refugees in the camps.

By 2016, Canada had spent over $1 billion in humanitarian, development, and security assistance in the Syria crisis. Prime Minister Justin Trudeau announced 2016 Canada’s new strategy for the Syrian crisis. His new strategy was to keep following the Americans, and he tried to reframe his government’s involvement as humanitarian.

Over the years, Canada has been accused of being a lap dog for the US. While most Canadians would prefer to think of themselves as free of constraint from US foreign policy, still history will show that most often Canada’s foreign policy is a mirror image of the US. Many would say that is because the US policy is in the best interest of Canada, and not a dictated position. US President Obama used the Israeli paper “A Clean Break” as the road map for regime change in Libya, Egypt, Tunisia, and Syria. He was trying to create a ‘New Middle East’. His plan failed in each country, but succeeded in destroying much of each country, and killing thousands. Obama used the Muslim Brotherhood as his partner on the ground in each of the countries. Egypt, Tunisia, and Syria resisted the Muslim Brotherhood and fought back to remain secular governments even though the full weight of US-EU-NATO resources was thrown at the project.

By April 2017, Trudeau was still hanging on to the Obama regime change project in Syria.  However, by then President Trump had been elected to office, and he shut the CIA operation in Syria down. Trudeau attended a G7 meeting and was talking up Syria with UK Prime Minister May and French President Hollande. They were anticipating directions from US Secretary of State Rex Tillerson concerning the future of the US regime change program in Syria.

They would later find that Trump was not in favor of the Obama plan, and it was his wish to leave Syria, but in 2019 he was prevented from a troop withdrawal from Syria by the US State Department headed by Mike Pompeo, who said the US troops needed to remain to prevent the Syrian government from access to their oil. This is why Syrian homes have 30 minutes of electricity 3 times per day now.

According to the US government, and their Canadian followers, if you keep the Syrian people without electricity, without gasoline, and without heating fuel in winter, they will rise and complete the Obama regime change plan. That strategy is both immoral and unethical.  It is also illegal under international law to steal a nation’s resources.

The Muslim Brotherhood is very well established in Canada and had connections at the highest levels in the Canadian government.  In February 2015, the standing senate committee on national security and defense met in Ottawa to study and report on security threats facing Canada.

In the meeting of senators, an excerpt from the memorandum of the Muslim Brotherhood was shown as evidence.

“The Ikhwan (Muslim Brotherhood) must understand that their work in America is a kind of grand Jihad in eliminating and destroying the Western civilization from within and “sabotaging” its miserable house by their hands and the hands of the believers.”

The Muslim Brotherhood had successfully entered into the Obama administration and key US official positions.  The group had done the same in Canada.

In the Ottawa meeting, it was stated that in June 2012, a delegation of Islamist leaders linked to the Muslim Brotherhood operating in Canada had met with Minister of Public Safety, Vic Toews. The delegation was led by Hussein Hamdani, an adviser to the Department of Public Safety, as a member of the Cross-Cultural Roundtable on Security.

Hamdani was in a conflict-of-interest position in his role as an adviser on national security matters since he has been associated with organizations whose charitable status has been revoked by the Canada Revenue Agency due to their involvement in the financing of international terrorism.

Senator Beyak spoke at the meeting and said, “They declare themselves the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria and the Muslim Brotherhood, and as Senator Lang pointed out, their plans are very clear.”

This demonstrates the deep understanding of the Canadian government of the deadly nature of the Muslim Brotherhood, its involvement in Canada, its government, and its link to the conflict in Syria, which was part of the Obama plan.

Read part two of this expose for the rest of the story.

*

Note to readers: Please click the share buttons above. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

This article was originally published on Mideast Discourse.

Steven Sahiounie is a two-time award-winning journalist. He is a regular contributor to Global Research.

Featured image is from MD


Order Mark Taliano’s Book “Voices from Syria” directly from Global Research.

**Voices from Syria**

Author: Mark Taliano

ISBN Number: 978-0-9737147-9-1

Year: 2017

Product Type: PDF File

List Price: $6.50

Special Offer: $5.00 

Click to order.

20 Years Ago, the World Said No to War

February 21st, 2023 by Phyllis Bennis

All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the Translate Website button below the author’s name (desktop version)

To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.

Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

***

Twenty years ago — on February 15, 2003 — the world said no to war. People rose up in almost 800 cities around the world in an unprecedented movement for peace.

The world stood on the precipice of war. U.S. and U.K. warplanes and warships — filled with soldiers and sailors and armed with the most powerful weapons ever used in conventional warfare — were streaming towards the Middle East, aimed at Iraq.

Anti-war mobilizations had been underway for more than a year as the threat of war against Iraq took hold in Washington, even as the war in Afghanistan had barely begun.

Opposition to the war in Afghanistan was difficult following the 9/11 terrorist attacks. Even though none of the hijackers were Afghans and none lived in Afghanistan, most Americans saw the war as a legitimate response — a view that would change over the next two decades, with the vast majority saying the war wasn’t worth fighting when American troops were withdrawn in 2021.

But Iraq was different from the beginning. There was always opposition. And as the activist movement grew, its grounding in a sympathetic public expanded too. By the time February 15, 2003 came around — a year and five months after the 9/11 attacks — condemnation of the looming war was broad and fierce.

Plans for February 15 had been international from the beginning, starting with a call to mobilize against the war issued at the European Social Forum in Florence in November 2002. With just a few weeks of organizing, the first internet-based global protest erupted.

On that day, beginning early in the morning, demonstrators filled the streets of capital cities and tiny villages around the world. The protests followed the sun, from Australia and New Zealand and the small Pacific islands, through the snowy steppes of North Asia and down across Southeast Asia and the South Asian peninsula, across Europe and down to the southern tip of Africa, then jumping the pond first to Latin America and then finally, last of all, to the United States.

Across the globe, the call came in scores of languages: “The world says no to war!” and “Not in our name!” echoed from millions of voices. The Guinness Book of World Records said between 12 and 14 million people came out that day — the largest protest in the history of the world. The great British labor and peace activist, former MP Tony Benn, described it to the million Londoners in the streets that day as “the first global demonstration, and its first cause is to prevent a war against Iraq.”

What a concept — a global protest against a war that had not yet begun, with the goal to stop it.

Standing against the scourge of war

Researchers in Antarctica make a peace sign in the snow to protest the coming war in Iraq.

The February 15 mobilization was so broad that even it reached researchers in Antarctica. (Still from Amir Amirani’s “We Are Many”)

It was an amazing moment — a movement that pushed governments around the world to do the unthinkable: They resisted pressure from the United States and the United Kingdom and said no to endorsing Bush’s war.

The governmental opposition included the “Uncommitted Six” members of the UN Security Council. Under ordinary circumstances, U.S.-dependent and relatively weak countries like Angola, Cameroon, Chile, Guinea, Mexico, and Pakistan could never have stood up to Washington alone. But these were not ordinary circumstances.

With diplomatic support from “Old Europe,” including Germany and France who for their own reasons opposed the war, the thousands filling the streets of their capitals allowed the Six to resist fierce pressure from Washington.

The U.S. threatened to kill a free-trade agreement seven years in the making with Chile. (The trade agreement was quite terrible, but the Chilean government was committed to it.) Washington threatened to cancel U.S. aid, granted under the African Growth & Opportunity Act, to Guinea and Cameroon. Mexico faced the potential end of negotiations over immigration and the border. And yet all stood firm.

The day before the protests, February 14, the Security Council was called into session once again, this time at the foreign minister level, to hear the final reports of the two UN weapons inspectors for Iraq.

Many had anticipated that their reports would somehow wiggle around the truth — that they would say something Bush and Blair would grab to try to legitimize their spurious claims of Iraq’s alleged weapons of mass destruction. Or at least they might appear ambivalent enough for the U.S. to use their reports to justify war.

But the inspectors refused to bend the truth, stating unequivocally that no such weapons had been found.

Following their reports, French Foreign Minister Dominique de Villepin responded with an extraordinary call, reminding the world that “the United Nations must remain an instrument of peace, and not a tool for war.” In that usually staid, formal, rule-bound chamber, his call was answered with a roaring ovation beginning with Council staff and quickly embracing the diplomats and foreign ministers themselves.

Enough governments said no that the United Nations was able to do what its Charter requires, but what political pressure too often makes impossible: stand against the scourge of war.

A new internationalism

On the morning of February 15, just hours before the massive New York rally began outside the United Nations, the great actor-activist Harry Belafonte and I accompanied South African Archbishop Desmond Tutu to meet with then-Secretary-General Kofi Annan on behalf of the protesters. We had to be escorted by police to cross what the NYPD had designated its “frozen zone” — not in reference to the bitter 18 degree temperature or the biting wind whipping in from the East River, but the forcibly deserted streets directly in front of UN headquarters.

In the secretary-general’s office on the 38th floor, Bishop Tutu opened the meeting. He looked at Kofi across the table and said, “We are here today on behalf of those people marching in cities all around the world. And we are here to tell you, that those people marching in all those cities around the world, we claim the United Nations as our own. We claim it in the name of our global mobilization for peace.”

It was an incredible moment. And while we weren’t able to prevent the Iraq war, the global mobilization pulled governments and the United Nations into a trajectory of resistance shaped and led by global movements. We created what the New York Times the next day called “the second superpower.” It was a new kind of internationalism.

Midway through the marathon New York rally, a brief Associated Press story came over the wires: “Rattled by an outpouring of international anti-war sentiment, the United States and Britain began reworking a draft resolution…. Diplomats, speaking on condition of anonymity, said the final product may be a softer text that does not explicitly call for war.” Faced with a global challenge to their desperate struggle for UN and global legitimacy, Bush and Blair threw in the towel.

Someone called in the text to those of us backstage. A quick debate: Should we announce it? What if it wasn’t true? What did it mean? A quick decision: Yes, the people have the right to know. Someone pushed me back out onto the stage to read the text.

Half a million people or more, shivering in the cold, roared their approval.

We didn’t stop the war. But we changed history.

Our movement changed history, but we didn’t prevent the Iraq war. While the AP story was true, it reflected the U.S.-U.K. decision to ignore international law and the UN Charter and go to war in violation of them both.

Still, the protests proved the war’s clear illegality and demonstrated the isolation of the Bush administration’s policies — and later helped prevent war in Iran in 2007 and the bombing of Syria in 2013. And they inspired a generation of activists.

February 15 set the terms for what “global mobilizations” could accomplish. Eight years later some Cairo activists, embarrassed at the relatively small size of their protest on February 15, would go on to help lead Egypt’s Arab Spring as it overthrew a U.S.-backed dictator. Occupy protesters would be inspired by February 15 and its internationalism. Spain’s indignados and others protesting austerity and inequality would see February 15 as a model of moving from national to global protest.

In New York City on that singular afternoon, some of the speakers had particular resonance for those shivering in the monumental crowd.

Harry Belafonte, veteran of so many of the progressive struggles of the last three-quarters of a century, called out to the rising U.S. mobilization against war and empire, reminding us that our movement could change the world, and that the world was counting on us to do so.

“The world has sat with tremendous anxiety, in great fear that we did not exist,” he said. “But America is a vast and diverse country, and we are part of the greater truth that makes our nation. We stand for peace, for the truth of what is at the heart of the American people. We will make a difference — that is the message that we send out to the world today.”

Belafonte was followed by his close friend and fellow activist-actor Danny Glover, who spoke of earlier heroes, of Sojourner Truth and Harriet Tubman, and of the great Paul Robeson on whose shoulders we still stand. And then he shouted: “We stand here today because our right to dissent, and our right to participate in a real democracy, has been hijacked by those who call for war. We stand here at this threshold of history, and we say to the world, ‘Not in Our Name’! ‘Not in Our Name!’”

The huge crowd, shivering in the icy wind, took up the cry, and “Not in our Name!” echoed through the New York streets.

Our movement’s obligation as “the second superpower” remains. February 15 inspired a generation. Now what we need is a strategy to rebuild the breadth and intensity of that moment, to build broadly enough to engage with power and to challenge once again the wars and militarism, the poverty and inequality, the racism and xenophobia and so much more oppression that still faces people around the world.

We have a lot of work to do.

*

Note to readers: Please click the share buttons above. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

Featured image: Antiwar demonstrators protest against the looming Iraq War in New York, February 15, 2003. (Still from Amir Amirani’s “We Are Many”)

Vladimir Putin Blames West for Starting War in Ukraine

February 21st, 2023 by Olive Enokido-Lineham

All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the Translate Website button below the author’s name (desktop version)

To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.

Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

***

Vladimir Putin has blamed the West for starting the war in Ukraine and claimed Russia responded with force “in order to stop it”.

In a speech describing his aims as the first anniversary of the conflict nears, the Russian president said Ukraine was in talks with the West about weapons before Russia invaded its neighbour on 24 February last year.

Putin admits ‘very difficult time for Russia’ – Ukraine war latest

Mr Putin also announced that Russia was suspending its participation in a key nuclear treaty with the US which limits the two sides’ strategic nuclear arsenals.

“I would like to repeat, they started the war and we used force in order to stop it,” he said in his state of the nation address on Tuesday.

The Russian leader said Kyiv held talks with the West about weapons supplies before the “special military operation”, as Moscow calls it, began.

‘Playing a dirty game’

“I would like to emphasise when Russia tried to find a peaceful solution they were playing with the lives of people and they were playing a dirty game,” he said.

Mr Putin said Russia decided to “protect its people and history” by conducting a “special military operation step-by-step” – as he warned that Moscow will “continue to resolve the objectives that are before us”.

His speech came a day after US President Joe Biden made his first visit to Ukraine since the Russian invasion, as Washington pledged $500m worth of military aid to Kyiv.

Mr Putin announced that Russia was suspending its participation in the New START treaty with the US, which caps the number of strategic nuclear warheads that the US and Russia can deploy.

Russia has the largest stockpile of nuclear weapons in the world, with close to 6,000 warheads, according to experts.

Mr Putin said Russia was not fully withdrawing from the treaty and said Moscow must stand ready to resume nuclear weapons tests if the US does so.

West ‘released genie from the bottle’

The Russian president took aim at the West and said they “released the genie from the bottle” in the 10 years prior to the war, by starting others.

He claimed Western countries were painting Russia as an enemy of the state to divert attention from the corruption and socio-economic problems in their own countries.

On weapons, Mr Putin also claimed the West was “in negotiations” over the “supply of heavy military equipment and planes and anti-aircraft missile systems” before the operation began.

While Russian forces have suffered three major battlefield reversals since the war began, it still controls around one-fifth of Ukraine.

In his wide-ranging speech, the Russian president also claimed millions of people in the West are being “led to a real spiritual catastrophe”, as he criticised the “Anglican Church’s plan to consider the idea of a gender-neutral God”.

West ‘punishment themselves with sanctions’

The Russian president accused the West of collapsing its own energy sectors by sanctioning Russian-linked companies and individuals.

“All sanctions are just a means, but the objective is to force our citizens to suffer – this is their humanistic approach,” he said.

He added that they have “not been successful” and that the government has spent 3bn roubles on measures to stabilise the Russian economy.

On Monday, Mr Biden added that alongside additional military aid for Ukraine, the US would announce additional sanctions against Russian elites.

Mr Biden said the Russian president was “dead wrong” to think the West’s support for Ukraine would not last as Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy described the talks as “fruitful”.

*

Note to readers: Please click the share buttons above. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

Featured image is from The Cradle

All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the Translate Website button below the author’s name (desktop version)

To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.

Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

***

Without any formal declaration of war or even a fireside chat with the American people, pretend President Joe Biden in his surprise visit to Kiev, continues to pledge US military support until the cows come home.  As well as providing an additional $500 M in American taxpayer assistance amid undisclosed discussions regarding the availability of F16’s, Biden’s adamant confirmation “that the United States will stand with Ukraine as long as it takes” was alarming in view of Russia’s impending Spring/Winter Offensive. 

According to National Security Advisor Jake Sullivan, the intent of Biden’s visit was to acknowledge the “US clear, unmistakable message of enduring American support for Ukraine” and that the Russians were notified of Biden’s impending visit with no further information as to their response.  This current visit is in direct contradiction to an earlier ‘negotiation balloon’ that Secretary of State Antony Blinken floated with the Russians per a favorite Washington Post reporter.

As the US, the UK and NATO are the war’s major aggressors, threatening Russia with the biggest and the most lethal weaponry, the quiet truth is that all are sitting on a declining stockpile of artillery, ammunition and air defenses weaponry with limited capability to support a long war.

Understandably,  the obtuse Biden Administration was, therefore,  quietly contemplating an escape hatch from the bloody carnage in Ukraine that they themselves initiated via NATO siccing the equally obtuse Secretary Blinken onto the Washington Post’s favorite messenger to introduce the foreign concept of diplomacy.  Reporter David Ignatius was charged with conducting an interview with Blinken featured in “Blinken Ponders the Post Ukraine War Order.”

Hardly an objective source on Russia or any other foreign policy fiasco, Ignatius reports

“He (Blinken) also underlined President’s determination to avoid direct military conflict with Russia, “even as US weapons helped pulverize Putin’s invasion force” and that “Biden has always been emphatic that one of his requirements in Ukraine is that there be no World War III.”

Ignatius continues “Crimea is a particular point of discussion.  There is a widespread view in Washington and Kyiv that regaining Crimea by military force may be impossible.”

There is the verification that the American Empire and NATO have been highly covetous of Russia’s state-of- the-art nuclear naval facility in Sevastopol along the coast of the Black Sea.   While  the majority of Crimean residents are ethnic Russians, they voted overwhelmingly in 2014 to secede from Ukraine in annexation to their Russian homeland.  Putin has confirmed it will fight to the death to preserve Crimea’s devout connection as a center for spiritual unity which began in the 10th Century as the basis for what became the Russian nation.

Catherine the Great returned Crimea to its rightful owner in 1783.  At that time, Russia began construction of its critically important Black Sea Fleet into what became its only warm water port.

It is unclear exactly how Blinken ‘ponders’ that which he has insignificant influence to affect, yet per his instructions, he publicly introduced alternatives as if the Administration’s neo con globalists are in a position to dictate ‘concessions’ to Russia.   Ignatius’ report is stunning in its revelation of a world where perception is shaped by a lack of moral standards and where exposure to truth does not matter.  Blinken’s inability to grasp the paradox of  “offering terms of territorial concessions to Russia’s security objectives’ including  a demilitarized zone which identifies ‘historical territories’ already acknowledged as belonging to Russia while, at the same time, daring to suggest that weaponry like the HIMARS, the Leopard and Abrams tanks would be geographically limited so they might ‘maneuvre as a deterrent against future Russian attacks.”

While the Biden globalists, on one hand,  were seeking a convenient, comfortable exit strategy, Biden’s latest articulation of US military aid to Ukraine includes longer range missiles  with an operational range of up to 93 miles.  Able to reach deep within Russia’s heartland, the ground-based missiles are seen by Russia as a deliberate provocation.  To date, US authorized arms transfers to Ukraine have been valued at $30 Billion.

At this stage in the conflict, given the recent revelation that the 2015 Minsk Agreement was little more than a stall for time so that NATO and the US could train the Ukraine Army, there is little to no chance that Putin and the Russian Federation’s Security Council have any level of trust to enter into a negotiated treaty with the same evil doers who deceived them on the true purpose of Minsk.

Therefore, with the potential of over 500,000 Russian troops on the border awaiting the green light from Putin to launch its much awaited offensive, a reasonable question is what exactly will be the role of the 101’s Airborne Division, Second Brigade Combat Team’s approximately 4,700 members which have been training Ukraine’s army since May, 2019?

As an integral part of the famed 101st, will the elite Brigade be moved onto the Ukraine border to go eyeball-to-eyeball with the Russians or will the Biden Administration and Congress decide that no Americans will directly participate in what promises to be a massive slaughter of America’s finest.  I don’t know the answer to that question but I do not choose to remain silent prior to such a potentially horrific demise of sitting ducks that will totally outrage the American public.

Once the offensive begins, there is no question that the Russians will not stop to ask for identification; they will continue to roll over everything in their path.

The first contingent of the historic 101st Airborne arrived in support of NATO’s response to the war in Ukraine as part of the Multi Joint Training Group (MJTG) which is tasked with training and equipping Ukraine forces as the dominant provider of defense assistance to Ukraine.  The Brigade was deployed to the International Center for Peacekeeping and Security in Lviv Oblast in western Ukraine and may currently be stationed along the Romanian border.

Established as an airborne unit one minute after midnight on August 16 1942, the 101st Airborne paratroopers are well known as the “Screaming Eagles” who were promised they would soon have a “rendezvous with destiny.” As a division, the 101st has never failed that prophecy as it participated in the landing at Normandy on D Day, followed by the liberation of the Netherlands and the Battle of the Bulge in France against the German Nazis.  If called to combat, today’s 101st will be fighting on the same side as Ukrainian Nazis.

To digress, it may come as no surprise to those who have been paying attention that all the bravado that NATO, the EU, the UK  and the United States have been spouting for the last year; predicting the defeat of Russia militarily, anticipating its economic collapse and the imminent ouster of Vladimir Putin as President of Russia have all failed to materialize.

Since those faded days of western hubris with NATO’s unilateral expansion on Russia’s border seen as an existential threat to its sovereignty, the Biden Administration led its EU allies into an ill-considered overreach of multiple sanctions meant to terminate all things Russian.  Those sanctions reverberated almost immediately to bite all its Atlantacist purveyors in their collective ass with a vengeance.

While sputtering frantic demands to provide Ukraine with sophisticated weaponry as quickly as possible as well as massive unconditional financial largesse failed to improve Ukraine’s battlefield performance or its willingness to negotiate, the full extent of Russia’s military dominance and its economic sustainability has only recently come to the attention of Ukraine allies as an unwelcome reality.

*

Note to readers: Please click the share buttons above. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

Renee Parsons served on the ACLU’s Florida State Board of Directors and as president of the ACLU Treasure Coast Chapter. She has been an elected public official in Colorado, staff in the Office of the Colorado State Public Defender, an environmental lobbyist for Friends of the Earth and a staff member of the US House of Representatives in Washington DC. She is a regular contributor to Global Research.

Featured image: Army soldiers assigned to the 101st Airborne Division arrive in Mihail Kogalniceanu, Romania, June 28, 2022. Units from the 101st will support the Army’s V Corps’ mission to reinforce NATO’s eastern flank and engage in multinational exercises with partners across Europe to reassure allies and deter further Russian aggression. (Photo by Army Capt. Angelo Mejia)

Blinken Gets Bibi to Bend on Ukraine

February 21st, 2023 by M. K. Bhadrakumar

All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the Translate Website button below the author’s name (desktop version)

To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.

Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

***

The United States and Israel make quite a pair. They tango, they align, they scratch each other’s back, they can be bitchy toward each other, and have a Faustian deal but are also lone rangers — and Israel lets the Big Brother feel he’s the one taking all major decisions.

Which of the above templates is currently at work is a moot question, as the US Secretary of State Antony Blinken called the Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas on Saturday to persuade the latter not to press ahead with the UN Security Council resolution demanding an immediate halt to Israeli settlement activity in the West Bank. 

The proposed resolution, drafted by the UAE is in response to the announcement by the government of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu last Sunday that it would be “legalising” nine outposts and advancing future plans for creating around 10,000 new settlement homes in the West Bank. It demands that Israel “immediately and completely cease all settlement activities in the occupied Palestinian territory.”

Consistent with the US doublespeak on the Palestinian problem, the Biden Administration spoke on record against Jerusalem’s plans but is also pushing back against the Palestinian effort to bring the resolution to a vote. If push comes shove, US won’t hesitate to veto the resolution but its optics will be very damaging at a time when Biden is holding high the banner of democracy, human rights, UN Charter, rules-based order, etc. 

Blinken later also called Netanyahu to update him on his conversation with Abbas. There is nothing new in this pattern. But an interesting coincidence merits attention — Blinken’s activism came just two days after the visit by Israeli foreign minister Eli Cohen to Kiev and his meeting with President Vladimir Zelensky on Thursday. 

This is the first visit by a Israeli foreign minister to Ukraine since the Russian special operations began and during this period, some chill had descended on the Ukraine-Israel relations as Tel Aviv stood neutral on the conflict in Ukraine and refused to criticise Russia or supply Ukraine with military hardware, the US entreaties notwithstanding. 

Blinken must be pleased about the development. He can take credit for it, since a subtle shift in the Israeli stance on Ukraine began appearing following his visit to Israel on January 30 and his meeting with Netanyahu. 

At the joint press conference of with Blinken, Netanyahu made a cryptic remark about how Iran has begun “export[ing] aggression beyond its border and beyond the Middle East.” And Blinken completed with alacrity the ellipsis in Netanyahu’s articulation:

“Just as Iran has long supported terrorists that attack Israelis and others, the regime is now providing drones that Russia is using to kill innocent Ukrainian civilians. In turn, Russia is providing sophisticated weaponries to Iran. It’s a two-way street.”

Blinken went on to disclose that

“Russia’s ongoing atrocities only underscore the importance of providing support for all of Ukraine’s needs — humanitarian, economic, and security — as it bravely defends its people and its very right to exist, a topic that we also discussed today. One of the most effective ways to make Israel more secure is to continue to build bridges in the region and even well beyond the region.”

Ukraine issue and the Iran question have become intertwined in the US-Israeli talking points. But this is not so much because Iranian drones are being used by Russia to attack Ukrainian targets, but the alchemy of Russia-Iran relations has dramatically changed since the drone deal. A strategic axis is taking shape between the two countries with a robust military and economic content to it, which has the potential to radically change the balance of forces in Israel’s security environment. 

Netanyahu appreciates that the Biden Administration is determined to use all options on the table to contain Iran and that includes regime change. No American president has gone thus far. This was also the impression created by the White House National Security Advisor Jake Sullivan when he met Netanyahu on January 19 (ahead of Blinken’s visit) — albeit Sullivan’s visit was packaged as consultations over the new Israeli government’s judicial overhaul plan and Biden’s concerns over “the effect it might have on Israel’s democratic institutions.” 

Israel’s dependence on US to contain Iran is more critical than ever before. Tensions are spiralling since the drone attack on the Iranian assets in Isfahan on January 28. Two Israeli officers have since been killed; an Israeli tanker attacked. On Saturday, there was a missile attack on the US base near Al-Omar oil field in Deir Ezzor (Syria), and early Sunday, central Damascus came under Israeli missile attack. Meanwhile, the US has begun a renewed attempt to incite anti-government protests in Iran.  

In sum, the US and Israel realise that Iran has gained huge strategic depth during the past year in the geopolitical realignment triggered by the Ukraine conflict. Thus, During the state visit of President Ebrahim Raisi to China last week, President Xi Jinping voiced strong support for Iran against US interference in its internal affairs and for Iran’s nuclear brief. 

In a highly significant statement, the Chinese Communist Party daily Global Times wrote that “Iran’s ‘Look to the East’ policy meant the transition from its policy of negative balancing and non-alignment to building alliances with non-western world powers that have similar political structures to Iran, such as Russia and China.” 

Since his return to Tehran, Raisi disclosed that Xi has supported Iran’s BRICS membership. Iran recently became a member of Shanghai Cooperation Organisation, too. 

Now, what form the Israeli shift on Ukraine conflict will take remains to be seen. Israel participates in the Pentagon’s Ukraine Defence Contact Group. But Cohen gave few details after his meting with Zelensky other than that they agreed to step up cooperation in a shared struggle against Iran. He was evasive: “We spoke about deepening cooperation with Ukraine against the Iranian threat in the international arena.” 

Cohen said Israel would provide $200 million in loan guarantees to build hospitals in Ukraine and reiterated an Israeli pledge to give Ukraine a sophisticated air-defence warning system. But he was not specific when that system might be delivered; nor did he make any mention of Russia or how Israel would respond to Ukrainian appeals for Israeli arms.

Cohen said, “Israel, as stated in the past, stands firmly in solidarity with the people of Ukraine and remains committed to the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Ukraine.” He refused to answer questions on intelligence cooperation.

The big question is whether Israel will continue to walk a tightrope between assisting Ukraine and avoiding friction with Russia with which it has strategic regional interests. But Ukraine conflict has shown the potential to reshape global alliances and Russia has warned Israel against supplying weapons to Ukraine. 

The Russian ambassador in Tel Aviv told Jerusalem Post on Friday that Moscow has taken “serious note” of Israel’s “diplomatic and balanced position” and would hope that “this position … will remain unchanged and there will be no weapons components provided by the Israeli authorities to Ukraine.” 

Israel’s understanding with Russia is far from limited to Syria. It is a multifaceted relationship where “Russia holds many important cards,” as a commentary in Middle East Monitor took note even as Cohen was travelling to Kiev. 

Netanyahu would have to convince himself first about the wisdom of jettisoning Israel’s neutrality, as he’d know that with all his ingenuity, it will be difficult to characterise any Israeli move to supply weaponry to fight Russian forces in Ukraine as an act directed against Iran.

*

Note to readers: Please click the share buttons above. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

Featured image: Ukraine’s President Volodymr Zelensky (L} with Israeli Foreign Minister Eli Cohen, Kiev, Feb. 16, 2023 (Source: IP)

What About the Unprovoked U.S. Aggression Against Iraq?

February 21st, 2023 by Jacob G. Hornberger

All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the Translate Website button below the author’s name (desktop version)

To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.

Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

***

Referring to Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, an editorial in Saturday’s Washington Post exclaims that Ukraine’s “struggle is also a crucible for Europe and an assault against the most basic precept on which the Western system rests: the impermissibility of unprovoked wars of aggression.” 

In a follow-up editorial today, the Post calls for an international tribunal to try Vladimir Putin and his “henchmen” for waging a “war of aggression” against Ukraine. The Post quotes the Nuremberg tribunal:

“To initiate a war of aggression … is not only an international crime; it is the supreme international crime differing only from other war crimes in that it contains within itself the accumulated evil of the whole.”

What befuddles me, however, is why the Post doesn’t also condemn President George W. Bush and his “henchmen” for their unprovoked invasion of Iraq and, further, why the Post doesn’t call for a Nuremberg-type tribunal for Bush and his “henchman.” After all, there is no statute of limitations on war crimes of this nature. Is it only Russia, Germany, and other nations that are to be condemned and put on trial for unprovoked wars of aggression? Why should U.S. officials be exempt from the Nuremberg principle?

It is an undisputed fact that Iraq never attacked the United States. The United States was the aggressor in this conflict from the start. Bush and his henchmen were upset that his father, President George H.W. Bush, had not ousted Saddam Hussein from power in the Persian Gulf War. They were intent on correcting what they considered was a grave mistake on the part of the elder Bush.

To justify their unprovoked invasion of Iraq, Bush and his henchman made up a lie about Saddam’s supposed weapons of mass destruction. After all, when their lie was made manifest by the non-discovery of those WMDs, it is undisputed that Bush did not apologize for his “mistake” and immediately order a withdrawal of U.S. forces from Iraq. Instead, Bush ordered his army to remain in Iraq and to kill whomever objected to the new regime that he and his henchmen had installed into power. 

But even if Bush’s WMD claim had not been a lie, the fact that a nation-state has weapons of mass destruction does not legally or morally justify a war of aggression against that nation-state. Moreover, only the United Nations, not the U.S. government, has the authority to enforce its own WMD resolutions, and it is undisputed that the UN chose not to authorize an invasion and war of aggression against Iraq. 

It’s not just Bush the son who was upset over the failure of Bush the father to effect regime change in the Persian Gulf War. Throughout his term in office during the 1990s, President Bill Clinton waged war against the Iraqi people by enforcing one of the most brutal systems of sanctions in history, which contributed to the deaths of hundreds of thousands of innocent Iraqi children. 

Indeed, in 1996 Clinton’s ambassador to the UN, Madeleine Albright, declared that the deaths of half-a-million Iraqi children from the sanctions were “worth it.” By “it” she was referring to regime change, by which Iraq’s dictator, Saddam Hussein, would be ousted from power and replaced by another U.S.-approved dictator. 

The idea was that the deaths of all those Iraqi children would cause Saddam to have a crisis of conscience that would cause him to relinquish power. The deadly scheme didn’t work. Saddam remained in power and the deadly sanctions continued killing innocent Iraqi children for another five years, including after Bush the son was elected.

Why shouldn’t Clinton, George W. Bush, and their henchmen be brought up on criminal charges for contributing to the unprovoked murder of all those Iraqi children? Why should a “war of aggression” apply only to bombs, bullets, missiles, soldiers, tanks, drones, and planes and not economic sanctions that knowingly, intentionally, and deliberately kill innocent people?

One irony in all this is that Saddam Hussein, whom U.S. officials were calling the “new Hitler,” had been a partner and ally of U.S. officials in the 1980s, when he was waging an unprovoked war of aggression against Iran. U.S. officials were supporting Saddam in his war of aggression because they loved the fact that his army was killing Iranians. The reason they loved those killings was that they had still not forgiven the Iranian people for ousting the brutal dictator who the CIA had installed into power (the Shah of Iran) in CIA’s 1953 regime-change operation against Iran.

Today, at least Russia can point to the U.S. threat to use NATO to place military bases, tanks, soldiers, and missiles in Ukraine as the reason for its “unprovoked” invasion of Ukraine. All that the United States can point to to justify its unprovoked invasion of Iraq is its own lie about non-existent WMDs.

In conclusion, permit me to repeat a critically important point: Iraq never attacked the United States. It was the United States that attacked Iraq. Throughout the conflict, the United States was the aggressor and Iraq was the defender. 

Why doesn’t the Washington Post recognize and acknowledge this fundamentally important point? Why does it apply the Nuremberg principle to Russia and not the United States?

*

Note to readers: Please click the share buttons above. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

Jacob G. Hornberger is founder and president of The Future of Freedom Foundation. He was born and raised in Laredo, Texas, and received his B.A. in economics from Virginia Military Institute and his law degree from the University of Texas. He was a trial attorney for twelve years in Texas. He also was an adjunct professor at the University of Dallas, where he taught law and economics. In 1987, Mr. Hornberger left the practice of law to become director of programs at the Foundation for Economic Education. He has advanced freedom and free markets on talk-radio stations all across the country as well as on Fox News’ Neil Cavuto and Greta van Susteren shows and he appeared as a regular commentator on Judge Andrew Napolitano’s show Freedom Watch. View these interviews at LewRockwell.com and from Full Context. Send him email.

Featured image is licensed under Creative Commons

All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the Translate Website button below the author’s name (desktop version)

To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.

Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

***

Touting a supposed “new study,” mainstream media is unquestioningly advocating globalist prescriptions for climate change that would utilize existing public school lunch programs to compel children to eat unhealthy processed vegetarian alternatives to wholesome grass-fed meats or fresh local foods. The audacity and misinformation of these proposals reflect elitist disconnect from basic nutrition and soil health.

This supposedly salvific solution to the world’s carbon problems is less a “study” and more of a globalist New World Order propaganda plug. The proposal is that school lunches “may be the key to changing our food systems worldwide.” How is this to be achieved? – by sourcing artificial meats manufactured profitably by the new would-be food purveyors from chemical-saturated, environmentally-destructive agricultural production of soy and other GMO plants, to thereby wean children from having a palate for meats.

As MSN,com proclaimed:

“Offering more plant-based protein such as vegan burgers and nuggets, and also beans and soy products like tofu could help to “shift social norms around meat consumption,” reads the report. ….The shift would help to reduce heat-trapping gases and pollution generated by factory farms which produce most of the meat on the planet. Livestock farming accounts for 8% of these gases, the report notes.”

The sins of factory farms are here employed to throw the cows out with the formaldehyde hoof-bath. Shifting farm critters back to rotational grazing would sequester more carbon than all the EV cars, solar panels, and soy-burgers combined. As Joel Salatin explains in The Sheer Ecstasy of Being a Lunatic Farmer:

“If every farmer in America practiced this prehistoric system, in fewer than ten years we would sequester all the carbon that’s been admitted since the beginning of the industrial age. ….One of the most environmentally-enhancing things that you can do is to eat grass-finished beef. That sequesters more carbon than soybeans or corn or any other annual.” (p. 28).

The so-called “study,” created by a biased ally of the World Economic Forum, claims this beneficent shift in diet to vat-hatched meats would avoid compulsion by simply altering what kids desire:

“According to Mark Meldrum from Systemiq and co-author of the report, none of the recommended shifts are about banning the old ways.

“They are about supporting and lifting the new, to help them be as competitive and attractive as possible,” he says. “So we get to a place where we don’t need a ban, because everyone wants the new thing anyway.” ”

How un-scientific can a con-job get? Using public funds to process soy into fake-burger allocates profits to patent holders like Bill Gates, while soaking kids’ guts with microbiome-killing glyphosate. Soy farming depends not just on GMOs (and thus glyphosate) but upon synthetic fertilizers and massive amounts of fossil fuels. Allowing cows to roam grasslands is organic, and uses far less energy. And grass-fed meats are healthy for children.

The January 19, 2023 “study” carries the cutesy think-tank title “The Breakthrough Effect”:

“The three super-leverage points are: mandates for the sale of electric vehicles, mandates requiring “green ammonia” to be used in the manufacturing of agricultural fertilisers, and public procurement of plant-based proteins. These changes could trigger a cascade of tipping points, leading to cheaper batteries to help solar and wind scale-up in the electricity sector, cheaper hydrogen opening up decarbonisation for the shipping and steel industries, and reduced pressure for deforestation.”

“Systemiq” is a “partner” of the WEF, together with hundreds of bad corporate actors determined to profit from food at the expense of human and ecological health. Bayer, Syngenta, Dow and Cargill all boast their involvement.

The proposed “New World Food Order” is in plain-if-shameless sight: “Reducing emissions to net-zero by 2050 is possible if the right technologies are brought to commercial scale within the next decade.” These “right technologies” can’t compete without government compulsion. Never mind that the majority of the world’s food is provided by local peasant agriculture – more chemicals and magical (patented) technologies of the would-be corporate food-masters are proposed as the only way to save humanity.

The WEF’s Orwellian, earth-saving moniker is the “First Movers Coalition”: corporations offering to be the saviors from their own pollution:

“The First Movers Coalition’s unique approach assembles ambitious corporate purchasing pledges across the heavy industry and long-distance transport sectors responsible for a third of global emissions. For these sectors to decarbonize at the speed needed to keep the planet on a 1.5-degree pathway, they require low-carbon technologies that are not yet competitive with current carbon-intensive solutions but must reach commercial scale by 2030 to achieve net-zero emissions globally by 2050.”

A better plan would be to reduce “heavy industry and long-distance transport sectors” by sourcing food locally and regeneratively. A better plan would employ cows to rebuild soils, sequester carbon, avoid synthetic fertilizers and chemicals, disperse profits equitably to local producers, and feed children food that doesn’t cause cancer, obesity, diabetes, and endocrine disruption.

Instead, the proposal is to increase dependency on corporate food provision using government compulsion and citizen tax dollars. The name coined to summarize this Shwabian malarkey is “agritech”:

““Agritech” is a natural evolution of precision agriculture, realized through the automated analysis of data collected from the field via equipment sensors and other sources. An emerging set of smart technologies, coupled with new digital skills and enhanced data control, can help foster more forward-looking decision making and positively shape the future direction of the value chains connecting farmers to consumers. This new paradigm calls for a comprehensive evolution from traditional to digital systems, in order to reduce costs, increase efficient production, and inject greater environmental and social sustainability into agricultural activity.”

Ah, the utopian promises of those who don’t read their own Kool-aid recipes! Technomystical faith in Big Ag to “feed the world” is the folly that has created the agricultural and health quagmire in which humanity is embroiled: now the same failed systems are paraded as cure. This will surely compound corporate hegemony, food insecurity, soil erosion, water depletion, and declining human health – all in the name of “data control,” “digital skills,” “automated analysis,” and “social sustainability.”

This is labeled a “new paradigm,” but it is just old glyphosate in shiny new globalist vessels, “evolving” in a forward-profit-looking fraud that will negatively shape humanity’s future. This is the expected product of “the views of a wide range of experts from the World Economic Forum’s Expert Network and is curated in partnership with the Smart AgriFood Observatory.”

Readers are told that this corrupt path will save the planet, and that it has been fashioned by philanthropic stakeholders who only seek the public good for meat-loving youngsters:

““Cooperation in a fragmented world” was chosen as the theme of the gathering of the great and the good at Davos this year. ….EU policies should not simply be aimed at securing access, but also at minimising critical raw material needs. They must examine ways to decrease the use of all materials, improve resilience and minimise the negative environmental, health and social impacts associated with the extraction, use and end of life of these resources.”

What would most minimize critical raw material needs would be to nurture local regenerative agricultural production, not increase scale, corporate domination, and long-distance transport. Minimizing glyphosate, synthetic fertilizers, and confinement feed operations would decrease toxic raw material use. Nothing would do that more than by restoring cows and other animals to rotational grazing. (And then there is the “end of life” of solar panels and EV cars….)

Janez Potocnik, partner at Systemiq, ironically observes:

“….too few policymakers take the time to examine the root causes of a problem and to address the drivers and pressures behind it. They fail too often to see how our current system does not incentivise sustainable resource use, but encourages quite the opposite.”

Ain’t that the truth! How about the world stops subsidizing destructive monocultures like soy and corn production; stops feeding children high fructose corn syrup and hydrogenated fats; and stops calling such barbaric and demonstrably harmful practices enlightened and world-saving?

Instead, these miscreants advise children to gobble more chemicals at school lunch tables. This is the “key to changing our food systems worldwide” …for the worse.

*

Note to readers: Please click the share buttons above. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

John Klar is an attorney, author, grass-fed beef and lamb farmer, and grandfather. John advocates for greater conservative leadership in conservationism and environmental policy through policy supports for regenerative, local agriculture. He is a regular contributor to American Thinker, and pens a column for Vermont’s conservative True North Reports.

Featured image is from Pinterest/NaturalNews

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Solution to the World’s Carbon Problems: Compel Children to Eat Unhealthy Processed Vegetarian Alternatives to Wholesome Grass-fed Meats or Fresh Local Foods
  • Tags: , ,